Introduction

2. Over three hundred copies of the document were distributed to MP's, individuals, groups and organisations that expressed an interest in the subject. Seventy-eight replies were received. The breakdown is as follows:

• 29 representing diving interests
• 14 representing survivor associations/relatives
• 10 representing archaeological interests
• 10 from members of the public
• 9 representing commercial and fishing interests
• 4 from MPs
• 2 from Academic/Law interests

In many cases comments were received from organisations on behalf of their membership. See Annex C.

3. Generally the Consultation Paper was well received and its aims supported although interpretation of the intention of the consultation paper differed greatly. Some sought to draft new legislation whereas others recommended amendments to existing legislation. The majority of those who responded supported the need for the protection of military wrecks and maritime graves. Comments varied significantly however, on the appropriate measures to achieve this goal.

4. A minority of those consulted advocated a blanket ban on all activities in the vicinity of wrecks. Fishing interests were unanimously against any restrictions on their commercial or sporting activities. Recreational divers, whilst fully supporting existing educational initiatives and self regulation expressed the pragmatic view that some restrictions were inevitable in the aftermath of strong public opposition of their past activities.

5. Unsurprisingly given the diversity of views no one single solution was identified from contributors that would satisfy all interests.

Current Legislation relating to wreck protection

6. The Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 (PoWA) provides for the pro-active protection of vessels of historical significance over 100 years. The trend within the historical lobby is to seek protection for military vessels outside this period where they are thought to be significant for technological reasons or their association to military endeavours. Unlike PoWA, the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 (PMRA) provides no powers for a preservation regime. Protection of historical vessels under PMRA would provide only passive measures of protection.

Summary

7. Given the polarised views prior to the consultation process unsurprisingly, no one single solution was identified from the replies that would completely satisfy the expectations of the diverse interest groups who contributed. Some contributors advocated a complete ban on all diving activities around wrecks; others supported no restrictions but promoted self-regulation such as the current "Respect our Wrecks" educational campaign; the majority favoured a compromise position.

8. There was general agreement that the provisions of PMRA should be applied to some if not all wrecked military vessels. Some opinion favoured designation as "Controlled Sites". But there was lack of agreement on the number of vessels to be designated. Others supported designation as "Protected Places".

Recommendation

9. a. that a limited number of high profile vessels (16), which are representative of all others lost, be designated as Controlled Sites (list at Annex B)

b. that five (5) vessels that lie in international waters be designated now as Protected Places and that a rolling programme of identification and assessment against the criteria be established to designate all other vessels, in military service when lost, as Protected Places.