BSAC

Meeting with representatives of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
and Chair of the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites about the Heritage Protection Review.

On Wednesday 22nd March 2006 Marcus Allen, Jane Maddocks and Mike Rowley from BSAC, together with Stuart Bryan of SAA, Suzanne Pleydell from PADI and Grahame Knott from the PBA met Lizzie West from DCMS and Tom Hassall, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites (ACHWS).

As a result of the meeting we would like to update you on the Review of the Marine Historic Environment.

In 2005 BSAC responded to an extensive consultation exercise, and met with DCMS to discuss the place of recreational divers in the enjoyment and protection of our underwater cultural heritage (UCH). Although UCH also covers submerged land surfaces from the Mesolithic, old fish traps and anything else humans made that is now underwater, it is natural for most divers to associate heritage protection solely with wrecks.

Following the receipt and first analysis of the consultation responses two working groups were set up: one on salvage and reporting, the other reviewing designations and definitions of underwater cultural heritage. The remit of the two groups was to review the responses to the consultation documents, and to recommend possible future changes to the way the marine historic environment is protected. These groups are only part of the consultation process. They are not the final stage. There will be a further opportunity to comment on these recommendations, a process in which we will be involved. Like all working groups there are various points of view being expressed. The two groups have not yet reported back. There were no official representatives specifically from the diving organisations, and that omission caused some anger. DCMS had looked to groups such as the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee of which the three diving organizations are members to speak for the sector. The fact that the diving organizations did not feel that was the case only became apparent late in the process. Now we are addressing this issue, and are in the process of nominating a representative for future occasions. However we have been assured that the interests of recreational divers are very much to the fore, and we are in no danger of being overlooked. We have been promised that we will be 'fully engaged in further stages'.

We were given further detail about the two working groups. The salvage and reporting group were discussing what should be reported, and how it should be reported. Again it is worth stating that wrecks are only a part of the UCH. The responses about salvage and the status of the salvor, about which we will be consulted, will be made. The same is true of the group looking at the designation of UCH. There is a debate about what UCH is and how it can be defined in the light of the responses to the consultation document in 2005. Again it was emphasized to us that the groups are working groups and are not preparing draft legislation. We were also told that many of the possible reforms included in the consultation document would need primary legislation in order to be implemented. We were assured that no legislation would be introduced, irrespective of the mechanism, without full consultation of all stakeholder groups, including the diving organisations.

Among the questions the working groups were asked to consider were the following:

• Do we need to change? What evidence is there for that need? How is evidence collected?
• Should we institute obligatory reporting?
• Should the law of salvage be applicable to Maritime Archaeology?
• Could we have a system like Portable Antiquities and the Treasure Act?
• Should we get rid of the concept of salvor-in-possession?

These questions were in the consultation document.

Finally the group went through an information leaflet produced by the Association of Historic Wreck Divers and the Protected Wreck Sites Association in which a number of statements were made, and a call made for all divers to contact their MPs.

The first point made was that the working groups were starting from an analysis of the responses to a consultation paper, and recommending possible future changes. They are not preparing draft legislation. Perhaps it would be more accurate to suggest that they were working on a document that was part of the way along a road to possible legislation, or potential changes in legislation.

The leaflet says that the proposals are;

1. All wrecks over 50 years old are made Historic Wreck Sites.

This is incorrect. What is correct is that historic assets are beyond wreck, and the discussion is about what is 50 years old or older that might need management. There is a way in which land sites are assessed that involves historic potential. Marine sites may also have historic potential(be recognized as an historic asset), for example remains of slipways from the D-Day landings, far from wreck, but in need of protection as they get fewer in number. There is not and never has been any suggestion that all wrecks over 50 years old would be made historic wreck sites that would need licenses before we could dive them.

2. Divers must report anything they see underwater.

This has been discussed as an option. (However as we all know we see so much that this will need careful management, and a substantial input in public money from the Government just to handle our responses, because we are a law-abiding group of people.) We have to remember that we would not just be reporting wreck, but all forms of UCH. The discussion is continuing.

3. There is a move to do away with salvage awards.

In the consultation document the place of the salvage award was questioned. However the salvage working group had licensees represented. Part of the discussion centred on questions such as 'what is reward?' There was recognition that many divers are more concerned about involvement in the future of the site and recognition for their input, than in monetary gain. Very often licensees and salvors in possession, doing a good job of helping us to understand our UCH, can feel isolated, under-funded and unrecognized for the good job they do.

Finally we were asked to advise you not to continue to write to your MP about our non-representation on the working groups. The working groups are not meeting any more, and the diving organisations are currently fairly high profile, and we will certainly be consulted in the future.

This was a very productive meeting. It is important that we continue to build on the links we have made with DCMS. It is right that we are vigilant, the lorry does not notice when it runs over an ant, or as some would say: we should be aware of the law of unintended consequences. We have a way forward now, and we can be very confident that we are recognized as important stakeholders in the maritime environment.


It would also be helpful to channel your concerns through Jane Maddocks at uwheritage@bsac.com , so that issues can be dealt with as they arise.


JANE MADDOCKS
BSAC UNDERWATER HERITAGE ADVISOR
Email - uwheritage@bsac.com