Mr. Terry Allen:

We are not operating under the 2004 Act in this case; we are operating under the 1987 Act, but the principles are broadly the same in that an underwater heritage order has largely the same bearing on a wreck as would a preservation order on a national monument on land. From his letter, it appears to me that the director of the National Museum of Ireland was especially concerned that the absence of an archaeologist had resulted in the artefact being lost. It was explained to him that this did not happen. In his letter the director also asked to be reassured that this turn of events could be understood as exceptional and that it was not representative of a major change of policy regarding the protection of underwater archaeological heritage in Irish waters. The museum had been consulted about this licence. The licence had been issued. One condition was taken out of the licence subsequently, which is the one we are talking about. The museum had been consulted about it so it was entirely au faitwith what was happening. The museum had, I presume, come back to us. We consult the museum as a matter of routine regarding every underwater archaeological licence. In many cases the museum does not come back to us at all and we hear nothing back. If we do not hear anything back within ten days we assume there is no objection.