Lord Dannatt (CB)

I oppose Clause 48 standing part of the Bill. There are two issues here. One relates to the wrecks that contain military remains; the other relates to diving activities related to those wrecks, which the Bill will describe as protected places. My contention is that insufficient detail has been provided in relation to the nature and definition of the wrecks themselves, and that there has been a lack of consultation with the diving community, whose hitherto legitimate activities could be constrained or rendered illegal by Clause 48 as it stands. With regard to the wrecks themselves, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, spoke about at length, there can be no issue with the principle that warships that contain the human remains of service men and women who lost their lives carrying out their naval duties should remain undisturbed, as is the case with aircraft or bodies recovered from battlefields. However, there is an issue about which wrecks qualify to be covered by Clause 48. The Minister will be aware, from correspondence that he has received and which I have seen, that many believe there is considerable ambiguity on what is proposed to be covered under Clause 48 and what is not. Many believe the definition of “military service” is too vague. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, has proposed one alternative. There are many other alternatives, one such being, “A commissioned military vessel or vessel under direct Admiralty command at the time of loss”. My point is that there are several definitions that could apply and that the “military service” definition is too vague. Fortunately, time precludes a detailed scrutiny of the concerns raised, but my request on this aspect is that further consideration is given to the ships to be covered by this clause and that clarification is provided, ideally by Report—or, indeed, that this clause does not stand part of the Bill pending further consideration and fresh legislation proposed on another occasion. With regard to diving activities in and around designated wrecks, I declare an interest as chair of the Gloucester 1682 Trust, although I am not a diver myself. The Minister knows, as do the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as former Ministers, that I have been raising the issue of the wreck of the “Gloucester”, lost off Norfolk on 6 May 1682, for several years. I will not detain the Committee now with the otherwise fascinating story of the “Gloucester”—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to it and its history is now a matter of interesting public record—but it has drawn me into an understanding of diving and the problems that Clause 48, as drafted, creates for the hobby diving community, which has tens of thousands of participants in this country. I touched on some of those issues at Second Reading. I will try to be brief. The diving community has a number of concerns. Among the issues is that the prohibition on the use of grapnels, anchors or shots should be removed, as their use is essential on health and safety grounds to protect scuba divers, particularly in the uncertain waters of the North Sea. The grounds for rejection of this objection pose a situation which, in practice, does not really exist. The damage that could be caused by such grapnels and anchors is absolutely minimal and not going to be of a major nature as the Bill rather suggests.