I agree it seems pretty straightforward, but in UK the strength of opposition to legal regulation and the reluctance of the govt. to spend parliamentary time on it meant we didn't go down the same path as IreIand or indeed the rest of the world, even though UK archaeos all wanted to.

The voluntary recording system and the setting up of PAS were our attempt to compensate – and to comply, sort of, with the Valletta Convention which requires all States to protect their buried archaeology. There was a big fanfare and noble words but it turns out most detectorists take “voluntary” to mean “don't have to” so we're left with 30% compliance and 70% chaos. That in itself would be recognisable but quangos always look to their own survival so in PAS we have a state-funded pro-metal detecting organisation, the only one in the world, dedicated to emphasising the positive of Mding and virtually covering up the negative. It has even adopted the detectorists' mantra that regulation of the activity is impossible because it will lead to an explosion of nighthawking. As you'll know, that hasn't been the experience in either the Republic where it's banned or Ulster where it's licensed. PAS's wish to survive has also led it to do anything it can to avoid offending detectorists in many other ways. Over the years I've kept a log of the occasions when the latter have threatened to go on “recording strike” if PAS doesn't do various things that they want. I'm up to 16.

I could go on a bit ;) but the irrationality of Britain's unique position can be neatly illustrated thus:

It is illegal and punishable to remove an archaeological object from any of the 33,000 scheduled archaeological sites by the use of a metal detector but the Government employs 45 full-time archaeologists to say it is legal and praiseworthy to remove an archaeological object from any of the other 1 million archaeological sites by the use of a metal detector.