A proposed new regime to regulate Bermuda's underwater heritage was passed Friday by the House of Assembly after the Opposition United Bermuda Party failed to secure an amendment intended to protect casual collectors of artefacts from unknowingly getting into trouble with the law.

The bill - the Historic Wrecks Act 2001 - was introduced by Environment Minister Dennis Lister as an "innovative piece of legislation that builds on the experience of overseas jurisdictions and on consultation with Bermudian stakeholders".

He said it conformed with UNESCO's Convention on underwater cultural heritage which was adopted November 2 and is expected to be ratified soon.

The bill establishes a Historic Wrecks Authority and a Custodian of Public Wrecks as the licensing authority and makes it a criminal offence, leading to heavy fines, to recover wrecks and underwater artefacts 50 years or older without a license.

The Minister also explained the bill allows for a six-month amnesty period for people to report artefacts already in their private collections, but which were collected without a licence.

He stressed that the purpose was to allow the authority to digitally photograph and catalogue the items for a planned national collection.

And he said the bill does not propose to prohibit snorkellers from recovering old bottles. "Under this bill the general public will be allowed to collect old bottles from the inshore waters," he said.

"The bill protects historic artefacts from shipwrecks and marine heritage sites and it forbids the disturbance of a site or the removal of artefacts from a site without a license - but it will not impact on activities outside these protected areas."

The Minister explained the bill had been previously tabled but withdrawn for "further consultation" with the stakeholders.

Changes made to the original bill included redefining a historic wreck as being of at least 50 years old rather than 25 and removing provisions for financially compensating divers who recover wrecks.

An elaborate compensation schedule was now replaced by a "discretionary, good faith honorarium provision to strengthen the protection afforded to our underwater cultural heritage".

The minister took the opportunity to criticise the former Government for not having the "fortitude" to bring the laws up to date, despite the bill having been around in various incarnations since 1989.

Shadow environment minister Kim Young said that the UBP had been "sensitive" to the issues represented by the different interests of divers and conservationists.

The fact that the bill had been withdrawn by the Progressive Labour Party Government proved that it had "struggled with the same issues that we struggled with when we were working on it," she said.

"We on this side on the House don't think these issues have been solved in this bill."

The Opposition spokesperson criticised the removal of compensation provisions saying it also removes incentives to make further recoveries.

"There are a large number of wrecks in the deep water outside the breaker line that have never been found - huge cultural heritage lies out there but with the high cost of exploration - without any potential return, no one will explore these valuable resources."

She said conservationists and divers each had "valid concerns". "Conservationists feel that some valuable information is being lost due to unprofessional salvage and don't feel there should be compensation and the private divers have valid concerns regarding reasonable and fair compensation for their efforts."

Making reference to the fact that a number of her male family members are divers, Mrs. Young said that most divers are "responsible" and environmentally conscious.

"They are not the pirates of yesterday who pillaged and plundered strictly for financial gain. But they do support financial compensation for their finds and they do not fell their perspective has been listened to."

While stressing that the UBP supported the goal of conservation, she argued that the absence of a compensation schedule would lead to a black market in the artefacts and create a situation where only institutions could recover artefacts.

Mrs. Young also claimed that the bill did not conform completely to the UNESCO Convention because because it provides for compensation and because the Convention defines a historical artefact as being at least 100 years old.

Mrs. Young was also concerned about people having items in their possession without knowing how old they are, not reporting them during the amnesty period and being criminalised as a result.

But her proposed amendment protecting such "unsuspecting" people from prosecution was defeated 17-13 in a House vote at the committee stage.

UBP backbencher Trevor Moniz, a trustee of the Maritime Museum, voiced his support for the bill, however. He told the House that it was incorrect to suggest that the claims of divers and conservationists were equal. Besides, said Mr. Moniz, divers had long ago recognised a "sea change" in the approach to conservation.

And, comparing the legislation to the fish pot ban, he refuted the argument that not paying compensation would encourage people to break the law.

While people still violated that ban, the law had allowed the fish population to recover somewhat he said.

"Guess what, there's always been a huge black market. You can go on the Internet and find Bermuda artefacts..."

He also took contention with Mrs. Young's argument that the UNESCO Convention has a provision for compensation.

The Convention clause in question dealt with situations in which modern day salvage laws apply in respect to historic wrecks - such as where the owner of a wreck is still in existence.

He said compensation would create a "catch-22" situation if Government was not in a position to pay its portion of the value.

Shadow Education Minister Tim Smith said he believed the new proposed legislation was "a bit lopsided, a bit unfair, and counterproductive."

And Mr. Smith said it was apparent that there should be more togetherness in the diving industry in order to make the legislation more cohesive.

He said the Opposition understood and respected the need to preserve Bermuda's historical artefacts, but said he was a bit confused about how the new legislation was going to do that.

He said when something was taken away from a group of people, compensation or a gratuity should be paid, as the fishermen were paid when the fishpot ban was introduced.

The divers who find artefacts on wrecks off Bermuda's coast, likewise, should be compensated, claimed Mr. Smith.

Government backbencher Arthur Hodgson said it was a problematic issue because both sides had valid arguments.

And he said the trick was in finding a balance to please both sides.

But Mr. Hodgson said Bermuda was not dealing with any new issue here, it could be compared with the 60-40 rule on business ownership, the fishpot ban, and lobster fishing rules, which have all been put in place to protect Bermuda and her people.

He added: "In the case of lobster fishing, I believe we found the right balance. I think the conservationists are happy and the fishermen are happy.

"If we both appreciate the arguments, we have got to be able to reach a solution, as we did with the lobsters.

"But let me talk about what has been forgotten in this argument and that is the community."

Mr. Hodgson said the community, in many aspects, including education and the family, was alientated. And he said we no longer saw as important the fundamental issues, such as reading to children at night or a Bermudian-centred curriculum, but instead concentrated on building blocks and other material things.

Former Opposition leader Pam Gordon said Government would be introducing laws that it could not possibly police and enforce, as like the recent crackdown on telecommunications companies offering a service in Bermuda without a licence.

And she said she doubted whether Bermuda had a right to lay claim to wrecks in its waters, and all their possessions, if the ships had merely been passing by the Island on their way from Europe to the US, for example.

Ms Gordon said many artefacts being pulled from Bermuda's seas by divers will continue to end up on the black market because there was no compensation or incentive to entice divers to turn over their finds.

Ms Gordon also said people were under the misapprehension that many of these buried treasures in the ocean were on plain view and easily accessible - but not so.

She said it took time and skill to locate items and therefore divers should be compensated.

She added: "People can come here from other jurisdictions, in to our jurisdiction, and take (things) from our waters and the difficulty we have is in policing what is happening."

Ms. Gordon said she did not believe compensation could be raised and paid through additional taxes.

PLP backbencher Wayne Perinchief said all of the unofficial diving at the wrecks must cease at this juncture.

And he said there would no longer be a recovery and salvage of goods for personal gain as Bermuda looked to preserve the valuables it had.

He said the ocean was now being used as another tool in Bermuda's tourism product, and preventing the sea from being plundered by divers would go a long towards that, he said.

Fellow Government backbencher Delaey Robinson said he could not believe some of the things he had heard from the Opposition.

He said: "I think it takes several giant leaps of faith to believe some of the statements made this afternoon on this subject. It is a terrible pity.

"The days of the cowboys and the Indians are over. This legislation is very much forward-thinking.

"People will know that the legislation its replacing was designed in the days of the 40 thieves. Obviously, that legislation was made for those people, and if you look at the licensees under that legislation, I can reliably say there was at most a dozen Bermudians all told who were told they could explore our archaeological heritage. It would be fair to say that not one of those people was black for sure, and not one of them was a woman.

"It's true to say that it was a very restricted stranglehold held by a few families.

"This is not the way to go. It's not something that we can look to and say `this is the legacy of those half a dozen or a dozen families who discovered this artefacts of Bermuda. That is not so. They have left us no legacy."

Mr. Robinson said the argument that ship wrecks off Bermuda did not necessarily belong to the Island was the most "absurd" thing he had heard all afternoon.

Shadow Telecom Minister Allan Marshall questioned how the community could benefit from the new legislation if Bermuda's marine cultural heritage remained at the bottom of the sea.

He added: "What we need is a policy that, in essence, makes a partnership between these three constituencies (divers, conservationists and the community).

Mrs. Young wanted a number of issues clarifying, and asked for a number of things to be taken into consideration.

She asked whether the new act would also bring with it new members on the authority, of whether the current members of the authority would just transfer over.

Minister Lister, said marine explorations were to be treated as archaeological digs, so would require an expert.

He said the post of Custodian would be held by a civil servant and would be advertised. The new authority will have new members and the minister said new clauses may be added to the legislation at a later date.