Memorandum submitted by The Joint Nautical
Archaeology Policy Committee
1. The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy
Committee (JNAPC) welcomes the opportunity to provide written
evidence to the Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in respect
of their inquiry into the Draft Heritage Protection Bill.
2. The JNAPC was formed in 1988 from individuals
and representatives of institutions who wished to raise awareness
of the United Kingdom's underwater cultural heritage and to persuade
government that underwater sites of historic importance should
receive no less protection than those on land. Some information
on the JNAPC and its membership is attached in Appendices 1 and
2.
3. The JNAPC would like to make the following
comments on the marine heritage aspects. References to paragraph
numbers in the draft Bill are shown in brackets.
4. We welcome the inclusion of marine assets
and marine heritage assets in the draft Bill, and that registered
marine heritage assets will be included in the same heritage register
as their terrestrial counterparts. We hope that this will ensure
a more seamless approach to the protection of our underwater cultural
heritage in relation to heritage structures on land.
5. We seek confirmation that the definition
of Marine Assets (46) and Heritage Structures (2(2)) will include
important palaeo-environmental sites such as Bouldnor Cliff in
the Solent. We also seek clarification that Marine Heritage Sites
may include wider areas of archaeological interest (similar to
heritage open spaces (3) on land), rather than just point locations.
Two examples of such areas would be (i) part of the Goodwin Sands
where there are known to be a large number of historic wrecks
and (ii) important areas of submerged prehistoric land surfaces
in the Solent.
6. There is an inconsistency in the draft
Bill whereby the heritage authority responsible for registering
a site on land in England is English Heritage but for marine heritage
assets it is the Secretary of State (49(3)). We see no reason
why the marine registration authority should not also be English
Heritage for underwater sites, in line with the proposed seamless
approach. This inconsistency continues into the proposals for
the granting of licences (188(2), 192, 194(1)). These inconsistencies
need to be explained and justified.
7. We welcome the proposals for provisional
registration.
8. In the section on the "grant or
refusal of licence", the use of the word "salvage"
in 196(5) is inappropriate for a marine heritage asset and should
be replaced. We suggest "archaeological excavation in accordance
with the Annex of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of
the Underwater Cultural Heritage". Clause 197(1) should also
include a requirement for conservation and publication.
9. In the section on "designation of
site as suitable for unintrusive diving activities" reference
to "salvor in possession" in 198(5) reveals the major
weakness of the draft Bill in that it has not addressed the reform
of Salvage Law in relation to marine assets (see paragraph 13
below). We believe that the reference to "salvor in possession"
should be removed as it is inconsistent with the proper treatment
of marine assets under the Annex to the UNESCO Convention.
10. We welcome the proposed duty on local
planning authorities to create, and keep up to date, a historic
environment record for registered marine heritage sites (210(3)(c)).
Not only should this extend to the limit of territorial waters,
but it should also go to the limit of the UK's jurisdiction. We
have concerns as to who will provide the resources and expertise
for this activity and how it will relate to the Maritime Record
in the National Monuments Record.
11. Whilst we welcome the proposal that
the Receiver of Wreck should inform heritage agencies of marine
assets reported to her under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, we
have a major concern about the wording of paragraph 280 which
states that "the Receiver of Wreck will be under a duty to
pass on any information she considers relevant in relation to
the protection of marine assets and possible registration of marine
historic assets to the relevant heritage agencies". JNAPC
recommends that there should be an unambiguous statutory requirement
for the Receiver of Wreck to report all finds of marine assets
to heritage agencies. This would overcome the recognised problem
of information on important finds being withheld by the Receiver
on the basis of "commercial in confidence". This happened
recently in the case of the Dutch East Indiaman Rooswijk whose
cargo of silver coins and ingots was salvaged and sold before
it could be protected by designation under the existing legislation,
the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. The site has subsequently been
designated indicating that it should have been a candidate for
protection as soon as it was discovered.
12. It would be appropriate to include Heritage
Partnership Agreements in the marine environment, further adding
to the seamlessness of the legislation.
13. The most serious omission from the draft
Bill is that no attempt has been made to address the reform of
salvage law in relation to marine assets. Marine assets will continue
to be regulated by commercial salvage law which encourages the
sale and dispersal of artefacts, completely in contravention to
the Annex of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the Underwater
Cultural Heritage, which the Government has endorsed. Also there
will be no statutory requirement to report the recovery of artefacts
from submerged prehistoric land surfaces, the new category of
marine assets included in the draft Bill. The JNAPC took part
in the DCMS working group on "salvage" as part of the
consultation process and the group made three important recommendations
to DCMS ministers but these recommendations have not been included
in the draft legislation. They were:
(i) marine assets should be removed from
the salvage regime governed by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995
(MSA 95);
(ii) the concept of `salvor in possession'
should be abolished for marine assets as this can still prevent
the protection and proper management of registered marine heritage
assets; and
(iii) both the discovery and the disturbance
of all marine assets should be reported to heritage agencies in
line with the Valletta Convention, which DCMS has ratified. Under
MSA 95 recovery of "wreck" must be reported to the Receiver
but this does include finds such as artefacts from submerged prehistoric
land surfaces because they are not technically "wreck".
This is a major missed opportunity by Government
and we suggest that the Committee should address these points
urgently and enquire why DCMS has not included them in the draft
Bill.
14. At the consultation stage there was
considerable interaction between DCMS and Defra so that the marine
historic environment and the natural marine environment might
share certain features such as Marine Protected Areas, Policing,
Enforcement and a Marine Management Organisation. With shared
stakeholders and joined-up government this was an obvious objective.
However there is little sign of this laudable objective being
achieved in either the draft Heritage Protection Bill or the draft
Marine Bill. We suggest that the committee should revisit these
proposals.
APPENDIX 1
THE JNAPC—PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
The JNAPC was formed in 1988 from individuals
and representatives of institutions who wished to raise awareness
of Britain's underwater cultural heritage and to persuade government
that underwater sites of historic importance should receive no
less protection than those on land.
The JNAPC launched Heritage at Sea in
May 1989, which put forward proposals for the better protection
of archaeological sites underwater. Recommendations covered improved
legislation and better reporting of finds, a proposed inventory
of underwater sites, the waiving of fees by the Receiver of Wreck,
the encouragement of seabed operators to undertake pre-disturbance
surveys, greater responsibility by the Ministry of Defence and
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for their historic wrecks,
proper management by government agencies of underwater sites,
and the education and the training of sports divers to respect
and conserve the underwater historic environment.
Government responded to Heritage at Sea
in its White Paper This Common Inheritance in December
1990 in which it was announced that the Receiver's fees would
be waived, the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of
England would be funded to prepare a Maritime Record of sites,
and funding would be made available for the Nautical Archaeology
Society to employ a full time training officer to develop its
training programmes. Most importantly the responsibility for the
administration of the 1973 Protection of Wrecks Act was also transferred
from the Department of Transport, where it sat rather uncomfortably,
to the then heritage ministry, the Department of the Environment.
Subsequently responsibility passed to the Department of National
Heritage, which has since become the Department for Culture Media
and Sport.
The aim of the JNAPC has been to raise the profile
of nautical archaeology in both government and diving circles
and to present a consensus upon which government and other organisations
can act. Heritage at Sea was followed up by Still at
Sea in May 1993 which drew attention to outstanding issues,
the Code of Practice for Seabed Developers was launched
in January 1995, and an archaeological leaflet for divers, Underwater
Finds—What to Do, was published in January 1998 in collaboration
with the Sports Diving Associations BSAC, PADI and SAA. The more
detailed explanatory brochure, Underwater Finds—Guidance
for Divers, followed in May 2000 and Wreck Diving—Don't
Get Scuttled, an educational brochure for divers, was published
in October 2000.
The JNAPC continues its campaign for the education
of all sea users about the importance of our nautical heritage.
The JNAPC will be seeking better funding for nautical archaeology
and improved legislation, a subject on which it has published
initial proposals for change in Heritage Law at Sea in
June 2000 and An Interim Report on The Valletta Convention
& Heritage Law at Sea in 2003. The latter made detailed
recommendations for legal and administrative changes to improve
protection of the UK's underwater cultural heritage.
The JNAPC has played a major role in English
Heritage's review of marine archaeological legislation and in
DCMS's consultation exercise Protecting our Marine Historic
Environment: Making the System Work Better, and was represented
on the DCMS Salvage Working Group reviewing potential requirements
for new legislation. The JNAPC has also been working towards the
ratification of the UNESCO Convention with the preparation of
the Burlington House Declaration, which was presented to
Government in 2006.
APPENDIX 2
MEMBERS
| Chairman | Robert Yorke
|
| Organisations | |
| Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers
| Paul Gilman |
| British Sub Aqua Club | Jane Maddocks
|
| Council for British Archaeology | Gill Chitty
|
| Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology Institute of Conservation
| Garry Momber |
| Institute of Field Archaeologists, Maritime Affairs Group
| Julie Satchell |
| ICOMOS | Chris Dobbs |
| National Maritime Museum | Gillian Hutchinson
|
| National Museums & Galleries of Wales |
Mark Redknap |
| National Trust | David Thackray
|
| Nautical Archaeology Society | George Lambrick
|
| Professional Association of Diving Instructors
| Suzanne Pleydell |
| Shipwreck Heritage Centre | Peter Marsden
|
| Society for Nautical Research | Ray Sutcliffe
|
| Sub Aqua Association | Stuart Bryan
|
| United Kingdom Maritime Collections Strategy
| Chris Dobbs |
| Wessex Archaeology | Antony Firth
|
| Wildlife and Countryside Link | Joanna Butler
|
| Individual representation | Affiliation
|
| Sarah Dromgoole | University of Nottingham
|
| Michael Williams | Wolverhampton University
|
| Observers | |
| Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites |
Tom Hassall |
| Cadw | Sian Rees |
| Department for Culture, Media and Sport |
Annabel Houghton |
| The Crown Estate | Carolyn Heeps
|
| English Heritage | Ian Oxley
|
| Environment Service, Northern Ireland |
Rhonda Robinson |
| Foreign and Commonwealth Office | Andrew Tate
|
| Historic Scotland | Philip Robertson
|
| Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Receiver of Wreck
| Alison Kentuck |
| Ministry of Defence | Peter MacDonald
|
| Ministry of Defence | Bob Stewart
|
| Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland
| Robert Mowat |
June 2008
|
|
| 
