Written question asked by Lord Freyberg (Crossbench), in the House of Lords. It was due for an answer on Tuesday, 23 July 2002. It was answered by Lord McIntosh of Haringey (Labour) on Tuesday, 23 July 2002.

---

McIntosh of Haringey, Lord

Question

Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 10 June (636 c5WA), by what criteria the Treasury determined that the threshold above which "not to sell items ... with the greatest historical and heritage significance" should be £1 million; and whether these criteria are those followed by all government departments; and Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 10 June (636 c5WA), why there is such a discrepancy between the Treasury's threshold of £1 million and the open general export licence limit of £39,600 for antique silver, when the purpose of the OGEL system is to prevent the dispersal of the national heritage; and Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 11 April (633 c115WA), by what criteria the Treasury determined that these 15 items of silver should be classified as a single group under their policy "not to sell items valued at over £1 million with the greatest historical and heritage significance; and Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 11 April (633 c115WA), why the lots of Privy Council silver that were withdrawn from auction on 29 October 2001 were not classified in the same group as the 12 candlesticks and inkstands, and therefore protected by the decision "not to sell items valued at over £1 million with the greatest historical and heritage significance". [HL 5218] [HL5219] [HL 5221] [HL 5222].

---

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

HL 5218; 638 c41-2WA

Session

2001-02

Subjects

Assets Cultural heritage Antiques Auctions Export controls Privy Council Sales Valuation Treasury