Mr. Terry Allen:

There has been no significant change in practice in respect of underwater archaeology or the licensing of same. In this case, there was a departure from what would have happened previously. We have issued a significant a number of licences over the years to the owner of the wreck and to people acting with his consent to carry out investigations for recreational dives and so on. In the normal course, the requirement would have been for a methodology. The issue arising in respect of the last dive was the fact that there was no requirement for an archaeologist to be present when the recovery of the telegraph was being made.

We have a memorandum of understanding with the owner. We have a long-standing relationship of a business nature with the owner. In the past, he has complied with the requirements set out. He made an approach to the Department explaining that an exercise was going to be undertaken in bad weather. He had an envelope or a chronological window of opportunity to do it. The weather was bad. He sought our agreement to carry out the dive without the necessity of having an archaeologist present. Representatives from our underwater archaeology unit in the Department proposed to go down there. In the end, the officials decided not to go. The licence condition was adjusted in order that he was able to carry out the dive without the necessity of having an archaeologist present.

Particular factors arose in the case that lay behind this decision, some of which I referenced at the outset. I will repeat them. For starters, the diver who was to carry out the recovery had unique and extensive knowledge of the wreck site because he has been down there innumerable times working for the owner of the wreck under a licence granted by the Minister. Second, the question of the arduousness of the dive and the hazard to human life arose. This is relevant in the context of making someone go down or getting someone to go down who did not necessarily need to go down. The fact that the nature, composition and location of the artefact concerned were known was relevant. We knew where it was and what it was. It was not something delicate. It was a metal object. The artefact has previously been filmed on the sea bed. We had film of it and we knew where it was. We knew its disposition and so on. Finally, the intention of the owner was to place it on display in a local museum. Having considered all these factors, we agreed, on this occasion and because of the particular circumstances and the particular artefact and the fact that there was no particular risk to the artefact concerned, to allow him to proceed without the need for the presence of an archaeologist.

As the Chairman said, he was taking up a telegraph and pedestal. They were in two separate pieces. If the committee wishes, I can read out an extract from the report of the dive that we received. The report explained what actually happened. I am keen to read out the report to illustrate that the fact that no archaeologist was present had no impact or bearing on what happened in this case.