Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships · 2005. 3. 17. · 4 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 4....

HC 296 Published on 17 March 2005

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

House of Commons

Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships

Fourth Report of Session 2004–05

Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 8 March 2005

£14.00

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies.

Current membership

Sir Gerald Kaufman MP (Labour, Manchester Gorton) (Chairman) Mr Chris Bryant MP (Labour, Rhondda) Mr Frank Doran MP (Labour, Aberdeen Central) Michael Fabricant MP (Conservative, Lichfield) Mr Adrian Flook MP (Conservative, Taunton) Mr Nick Hawkins MP (Conservative, Surrey Heath) Alan Keen MP (Labour, Feltham and Heston) Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) Ms Debra Shipley MP (Labour, Stourbridge) John Thurso MP (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) Derek Wyatt MP (Labour, Sittingbourne and Sheppey)

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/culture__media_and_sport.cfm

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Fergus Reid (Clerk), Ian Cameron (Second Clerk), Grahame Danby (Inquiry Manager), Anita Fuki (Committee Assistant) and Louise Thomas (Secretary), with support from Jonathan Coe (Office Support) and Luke Robinson (Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6188; fax 020 7219 2031; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 1

Contents

Report Page

1 Introduction 3

2 Background and context 4

3 Government policy 6

4 The National Historic Ships Unit 8

5 Funding 10

6 Tourism and Regeneration 12

7 Skills 13

Conclusions and recommendations 14

Formal Minutes 17

Witnesses 18

List of written evidence 19

Reports from the Committee since 2001 20


1 Introduction 1. Great Britain owes a great deal to its naval history. Mariners, cartographers, sailors, shipbuilders, naval architects and tacticians all helped shape the nation’s political, military and economic fortunes which, in turn, helped forge the country’s national identity. The innovations of the British shipbuilding industry, through Chatham to Liverpool, Newcastle and Glasgow—alongside the invention of reliable navigational techniques—made trade possible with the West Indies, America, Africa, Australasia and India. This played a significant role in establishing Britain as a world power. Renowned explorers have navigated the oceans pushing back the boundaries of knowledge and preserving treasures and artefacts that might otherwise have been lost. Many crucial conflicts, too, were fought and won on the high seas; from the battles of the Nile and Trafalgar to the combined efforts of the Royal and Merchant navies in maintaining the flow of vital convoys during both World Wars. In short the nation’s maritime heritage matters.

2. We agreed to establish a sub-committee, on 21 December 2004, to inquire into the nation’s maritime heritage and historic vessels. This work followed an inquiry, in 1998, by our predecessor Committee into the preservation of historic ships and, in particular, the case for saving HMS Cavalier.1 A second Report, in 1999, followed up on developments since the initial inquiry.2 The key point coming out of this earlier body of work was that, while the intervention of a select committee was instrumental in saving an important ship, this approach was no substitute for an effective strategy with identifiable priorities and appropriate funding commensurate with the importance that the Government claimed to attach to the nation’s historic ships.

3. The impetus behind this Report is that the nation’s maritime heritage has not received the same attention—or proportionate resources—from official agencies as buildings, monuments or other structures that make up Britain’s heritage on land. In its submission, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) stated that: “there are probably between 2,000 and 4,000 historic ships and boats in the UK…They testify to the huge importance of the sea, and of seagoing activity, in the nation’s history, and to the importance of trade on our rivers and canals over many centuries and particularly during the period of industrialisation. Apart from their historical importance, many ships and boats are artefacts of great beauty and superb craftsmanship. The fact that ships and boats occupy a special place in the cultural consciousness of the UK is demonstrated by the extent of the public interest in them, and by the numbers of vessels preserved by private effort and made accessible to the public.3 The National Historic Ships Committee—a privately-run organisation whose aim is to preserve historic ships—stated that: “historic ships are a vital part of the UK’s historic environment. They have a unique place in this environment and have a pivotal role in the interpretation and presentation of the UK’s maritime history.”4 We agree with these sentiments.

1 Culture, Media and Sport Committee Third Report Session 1997-98 HC 561

2 Culture, Media and Sport Committee Second Report Session 1998-99 HC 196

3 Ev 23

4 Ev 13

4 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships

4. This inquiry coincides with SeaBritain 2005: a year-long festival of events aimed at exploring every aspect of the UK’s rich maritime heritage.5 The SeaBritain 2005 team is based in the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, and is primarily funded by the museum and VisitBritain – the tourism authority for Britain.6 In addition, this year marks the bicentenary of the Battle of Trafalgar and the death of Admiral Lord Nelson. There seemed no more apposite a time than this to review the protection of Britain’s maritime heritage, in the form of the surviving historic fleet.

5. The inquiry’s remit was to: “examine the strategy, administration and resources aimed at implementing the Government’s stated policy of preserving the best of maritime heritage.” In particular, we have concentrated our inquiries on above-water, historic vessels and consideration of them as museums and/or exhibits rather than as archaeological sites. We were grateful for all the contributions we received, from national maritime organisations to individual experts and ships campaigners. The written memoranda we received are published in an accompanying volume to this Report.

6. We held one oral evidence session on Wednesday 2 February 2005 taking evidence from: Mr Sid Anning, ship campaigner and representative of the Maritime Steam Restoration Trust; Rear Admiral John Hervey CB OBE, President of HMS Cavalier Association; Mr Richard Doughty, Chief Executive of the Cutty Sark Trust; Ms Carole Souter, Director of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF); Captain John Woodman and Mr John Paton of the National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC); Mr Tim Parr, a member of the board of NHSC and a member of the Ships Committee of the Maritime Trust; Rt Hon Lord McIntosh of Haringey, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS); and Mr Richard Hartman, Head of Museums Sponsor Unit, DCMS.

7. That same afternoon, the Sub-committee visited Cutty Sark in Greenwich. We were grateful for the hospitality extended to us and for all the efforts made by Mr Doughty in facilitating our visit.

2 Background and context 8. DCMS conceded in its written submission that the plight of maritime heritage and ship preservation has been an issue for a number of years.7 Historic vessels have rarely been funded directly by Government and, in 1989, the English Tourist Board withdrew support.8 In 1992, English Heritage withdrew from grant-aid for the sector following a review of its strategies and priorities.9 In summary, the historic fleet has been without specific official support for well over 10 years. This appears to have created a legacy of neglect that it will be hard to counter.

5 www.seabritain2005.com and Ev 26

6 Ibid

7 Ev 23

8 Ibid

9 Ibid


9. Under current arrangements, the principal source of public funding for the preservation of historic ships is the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)10 whose aim is: “to conserve and enhance the UK’s diverse heritage; to encourage more people to be involved in and make decisions about their heritage; and to ensure that everyone can learn about, have access to, and enjoy their heritage.”11 In its evidence HLF stated, in the context of maritime heritage, that: “since 1994, HLF has awarded £38.6 million to 68 projects relating to 44 individual vessels.”12

10. The Government’s funding for historic ships is only channelled indirectly via grant-in-aid to museums that have historically significant vessels within their collections.13 Other significant sources of funding include private owners, private trusts and charitable trusts.14 The Government paid tribute to the hard work, enthusiasm and dedication of private individuals and organisations in the sector.15

11. There is no system for the statutory listing and protection of historic vessels, as there is for buildings.16 Identification and classification of the historic fleet has come about through the National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC).17 This body originated at a seminar held in 1987 at the National Maritime Museum to discuss the problems of the preservation of historic ships and craft.18 The NHSC, an entirely voluntary forum, was launched in 1992 with the aim of securing the preservation, in the long term, of a sample of ships representing important aspects of maritime history.19

12. The NHSC was responsible for commissioning a key research project in 1995, funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, carried out by the Scottish Institute for Maritime Studies at the University of St Andrews.20 The outcome of the project was a computerised inventory of surviving historic vessels, known as the United Kingdom National Register of Historic Vessels. The Register contains 936 vessels and is currently maintained by the National Maritime Museum.21 It identifies a “Core Collection” of 58 historic vessels judged to comprise vessels of “pre-eminent national importance;” and a “Designated Vessel” list comprising vessels of “substantial heritage merit but of greater local or regional significance.”22

10 Ev 24 and Ev 10

11 Ev 10

12 Ibid. Beneficiaries of the awards include SS Great Britain, Mary Rose and Dover Boat.

13 Ev 24. Examples include HMS Belfast at the Imperial War Museum and over 200 small craft in the National Maritime Museum’s collections.

14 Ibid

15 Ev 24

16 Ibid. An exception to this is, for example, Cutty Sark which, as a permanent land based fixture, is a Grade 1 listed structure.

17 Ibid

18 www.nhsc.org.uk

19 Ibid

20 Ibid

21 Ibid

22 Ev 24


13. We welcome and greatly commend this effort to establish the National Register of Historic Vessels, funded by Lottery money, but inspired by voluntary and private enthusiasm for the subject. The Register is the first vital step towards a strategy containing priorities and imperatives for preserving Britain’s maritime heritage. We only regret that it has taken so long for such an initiative to be established and that it had to be accomplished without substantial assistance from the Department with policy responsibility in this area. Of itself, the National Register will not change the fortunes of any individual ship, but without a clear picture of the extent of our maritime heritage, it is impossible to adopt a proper strategy to protect it.

3 Government policy 14. Our predecessor Committee made a number of recommendations in its two reports of 1998 and 1999. While many related solely to HMS Cavalier and the preservation of that vessel, others related to government policy more generally. The Report’s principal recommendation called on the Government to make a policy statement about “the extent of its commitment in principle to the funding of historic ships.”23 Other conclusions were that: “Select Committee intervention is no substitute for a coherent public policy on ship preservation”24 and that: “the delivery of a coherent policy framework is finally a responsibility of the Government rather than the Heritage Lottery Fund.”25

15. The Government responded to these recommendations by issuing a statement about the funding of historic ships which effectively placed responsibility onto the Heritage Lottery Fund.26 It also set out its basic policy for the sector in its response to our predecessor Committee’s second Report: “to preserve the best of the industrial and maritime heritage.”27

16. In April 2002, the Government submitted a memorandum to this Committee in which it set out, in more detail, some basic principles for its national policy on historic ships. These principles were re-iterated in DCMS’s submission to us for this inquiry:

a) “the policy framework should establish the priorities for funding and the criteria against which funding decisions should be taken;

b) the policy should be sustainable, affordable and practicable;

c) the policy priorities should take full account of the National Register of Historic Vessels;

d) no project should be funded unless the ongoing maintenance costs have been assessed properly and arrangements can be made to meet them;

23 Third Report, paragraph 39

24 Second Report, paragraph 9

25 Second Report, paragraph 10

26 Second Report, Appendix 4

27 Culture, Media and Sport Committee Fifth Special Report Session 1998-99 HC 387, paragraph (v)


e) there would be advantages in a sole body with a general oversight of historic vessels whatever the local management arrangements;

f) the policy should have regard to support for the creative industries;

g) DCMS will not itself provide ongoing funding for the preservation and maintenance of historic ships other than those that form part of the collection of its sponsored museums.”28

17. DCMS also confirmed that: “the Government sees no prospect of its being able to devote substantial resources to the repair or maintenance of historic vessels, and believes that the scale of preservation undertaken will have to be related realistically to the resources likely to be available from existing sources of funding. This remains the Government’s basic position.”29 DCMS added that: “its main role should lie in the creation of a mechanism which will facilitate the clear identification of priorities; will ensure that sound guidance on preservation and recording strategies is widely available; and will promote public interest in ships, and their use for educational purposes.”30

18. In August 2003, the Government issued a consultation document, Ships for the Nation, which proposed the establishment of a National Historic Ships Unit which would:

a) advise the Secretary of State on policy and priorities for the sector as a whole;

b) co-ordinate work within the sector to assist those directly engaged in preservation; and

c) promote public interest in historic ships as a key component of the maritime heritage.”31

19. The Government received over 100 responses, the majority of which favoured the creation of a new Ships Unit.32 Following the 2004 Spending Review, DCMS has now secured funding for the Ships Unit and, at the oral evidence session, Lord McIntosh formally announced the creation of the Ships Unit: “I am able to announce the establishment of a National Historic Ships Unit to advise the Government on policy and funding priorities for historic ships, to co-ordinate work within the sector, to help those directly engaged in preservation and to maintain an up to date register of the historic fleet, including the National Register of Historic Ships and the “at risk’ register. The Unit will encourage a better understanding of the costs of renovating and maintaining historic vessels, advise the Heritage Lottery Fund on ship preservation priorities and bids for funding and promote historic ships to a wider audience.”33

20. We were dismayed by the time the DCMS’s process for consultation has taken to reach what is a relatively timid conclusion: that the existing and commendable efforts of the National Historic Ships Committee were properly the responsibility of the

28 Ev 25

29 Ibid

30 Ibid

31 Ibid

32 Ev 26

33 Ev 37


DCMS and that the NHSC’s achievements merited formal support, structure and resources. We would be extremely disappointed if the Government’s solution for what it has described, rightly, as the “plight” of historic ships preservation, was effectively, with a very small actual investment, to adopt and re-brand the NHSC as the advisory body for a tiny executive “Unit” which may or may not be able to add value to existing provision.

4 The National Historic Ships Unit 21. £100,000 of funding is being made available to establish the Ships Unit on an interim basis in 2005-06, increasing to £170,000 in 2006-07 and an additional £80,000 is to be provided for a specific challenge fund to: “support research, publications, training, recording and similar activities relating to the preservation of historic vessels.”34 The Unit will be based in Greenwich at the National Maritime Museum.35

22. Many submissions we received endorsed the setting up of the Ships Unit, albeit some support came with reservations. The Royal Naval Museum was wholly supportive: “the National Historic Ships Unit will be ideally placed to act as a source of disinterested leadership, centre of advocacy and strategic vision for the ship preservation movement as a whole…by encouraging the application of best practice and the sharing of information and expertise across the sector, and indeed with the wider heritage community, it could also become a beacon of excellence for the whole enterprise.”36

23. Other responses, however, were qualified. For example, NHSC itself said: “the setting up of a new Historic Ship Unit is a welcome, if long overdue, step. However, it should be noted by the Sub-committee that time is running out. Too little, too late will not save the historic fleet.”37 HLF stated: “we welcomed the creation of a new unit and look forward to working closely with it. However, we also said that we must continue to consider each project on its merits against our published priorities and available resources.”38 Mr Tim Parr, board member of NHSC and member of the ships committee of the Maritime Trust, wrote: “while I totally approved the principle of a National Historic Ship Unit, I have several serious concerns over the details of the proposals:…the scope of activities of the proposed Unit would not cover all the requirements…; I do not believe that the Unit could be manned by five full-time experts, as no five experts could cover the whole field in sufficient depth, and if they could their costs would not be economic; it should not be located at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.”39

24. We welcome the Government’s commitment to establish the new Ships Unit, which is a step in the right direction, but we lament the time it has taken to set this up. We support the general aims of the Unit, as described by DCMS, and we hope it will indeed 34 Ev 37-38

35 Ev 38

36 Ev 60

37 Ev 14

38 Ev 12

39 Ev 15


become the country’s historic ships’ champion; the national centre for excellence, advice and co-ordination; and disseminator of best practice for the sector. However, we are not persuaded that the funding, announced by Lord McIntosh, is adequate to meet these objectives. Its budget is paltry and staffing, however expert, minimal.

25. Aside from its rather narrowly drawn objectives, we believe that the Ships Unit’s pre-eminent goal must be to save more of the nation’s key historic vessels in such a way as to preserve the story of Britain’s maritime history and achievements. Unfortunately, we are not convinced that the Unit can prove effective in this respect. While it may be able, in the long term, to offer constructive advice on efficient preservation methods and cost–effective renovation programmes, without being able to offer funding grants we are concerned that the Unit will be powerless to make a significant impact in preserving more of the historic fleet.

26. We recommend that the Unit takes into account the views of the whole maritime sector. The established museums and those with responsibility for the more well-known ships must not exercise influence over the Unit at the expense of others. Work to preserve the historic fleet is carried out mostly by private individuals, charities and trusts and it is imperative that their views are fully considered. Whether that can be effected through appointments to the staff of the new Unit, or its advisory board, by effective consultation or by other means must be a matter of careful consideration by DCMS.

27. The National Register of Historic Ships was described by HLF as: “a valuable peer-reviewed indication of the heritage merit of a vessel.”40 We agree that the Register is important and it must, therefore, be reviewed continually by the Ships Unit. Flexibility must be a paramount concern: vessels must be allowed to be added to, removed from, and moved between, the Core Collection and the Designated Vessel lists, depending on changing circumstances. The criteria for placing a ship on the Register must also be kept under constant review. Appearance in the Register must never, alone, be reason enough for a ship to attract funding; non-appearance, too, must never sound a ship’s death-knell.

28. It should not be left to this Committee to identify ships which could be placed on the Register nor those that are in need of restoration or financial support. However, a case in point is HMS Stalker which, as an example of a “landing ship, tank” vessel of the type used in the D-Day landings and as the last survivor of her type and class in UK waters, has a prima facie case for inclusion.41 We recommend that the new Ships Unit, as soon as it is established, considers carefully the case for HMS Stalker being included in the Register. We also recommend that HLF pays due attention to HMS Stalker and her like in deciding to whom grants should be made.

29. Finally, we are concerned that the case-by-case approach of the HLF may not marry well with the initiative to establish a strategic overview of the historic fleet and the priorities and imperatives of, for example, “core” and “at risk” vessels. It does seem to us inequitable, and possibly ineffective, that 90% of vessels outside the Core Collection have never

40 Ev 11

41 www.maritimebritain.org.uk


received any grants42 and 87% of funding from the HLF for the sector has gone to just nine historic ships.43

5 Funding 30. As we have noted, the Heritage Lottery Fund bears the brunt of the public’s support for the nation’s historic fleet and many submissions to us acknowledged the Fund’s support over the years.44 However, many witnesses argued that HLF alone cannot cope with the scale of the problem facing the maritime heritage sector. HLF itself stated “we have given considerable support to maritime heritage and remain fully committed to it as part of our broad range of projects.”45 However, it added: “HLF cannot fund all the needs of historic vessels or of maritime heritage.”46 We applaud the Heritage Lottery Fund for its sponsorship of the sector despite the many demands on its resources.

31. Claims of a rapidly decaying fleet and calls for additional funding to remedy this were commonplace. NHSC, for example, stated that it “has ample evidence that the condition of the historic fleet continues to deteriorate” and that “they [historic ships] remain the poor relations of both historic dockyards and wrecks…historic ships remain badly under-resourced and poorly supported.”47 In oral evidence, Captain Woodman of NHSC added that: “the maritime sector is hugely neglected and needs a high profile before we lose a great deal of it. In a sense, in 2005 we have a feeling it is the last chance saloon.”48 Mr Sid Anning stated that: “historic ships are just as important to our heritage as buildings and yet somehow fail to get the same recognition, the same protection or indeed the same level of funding.”49 He added: “over the past ten years HLF have given just £38 million in grant to historic ships, out of a possible £15.8 billion that has been given to good causes since the Lottery began.”50 The Old Gaffers Association described maritime heritage as “undoubtedly the forgotten sector of our heritage”51 and said: “government funding, or at the very least an initial acknowledgement of funding need, would be of valuable assistance.”52

32. As we have seen above, DCMS has made it clear that no significant funding will be available from the Government. English Heritage, despite being established by the National Heritage Act 1983 to “help protect the historic environment of England and promote

42 Ev 6, Q10

43 Ev 3

44 For example see Ev 3; Ev 13 and Ev 54

45 Ev 11

46 Ibid

47 Ev 13

48 Ev 18, Q 30

49 Ev 2

50 Ev 3

51 Ev 61

52 Ev 62


awareness, understanding and enjoyment of it,”53 seems to accept responsibility only for “terrestrial maritime heritage.”54 In evidence, it claimed that: “there is no likelihood of English Heritage being in a position to offer any new assistance for the preservation of historic ships.”55

33. We accept the overwhelming evidence of a shortage of funds for the historic ships sector. While we applaud the vast number of volunteers, charities and organisations around the country who work tirelessly to preserve important individual examples of this country’s national maritime heritage, they cannot succeed without help from the public purse. The Government pays lip service to the value of historic vessels as part of the UK’s cultural heritage and yet is unable to produce what the sector desperately needs above all else—adequate funding.

34. We recommend that a further allocation of grant-in-aid be provided to the Ships Unit to enable them, in turn, to give small grants to less well known, but by no means less deserving, ships. We also recommend the Government reconsiders its position and looks seriously at direct public funding of some of the ships in the Core Collection; we see no reason why, simply because a vessel is not located within a funded museum, it should not be considered worthy of government resources. This would take the pressure off bodies like HLF who could then concentrate on a greater variety and number of ships rather than the few who, up to now, have swallowed the lion’s share of the sector’s HLF grants.

35. In evidence, the Minister for Media and Heritage, Lord McIntosh, made it very clear that the Government does not want to interfere in the way English Heritage determines its grants policy.56 He commented that: “clearly they [English Heritage] will listen to what you say and they will listen to what witnesses before you say, but these grants are on an arm’s length basis and the Government does not determine them individually and I think it would be wrong if we did.”57 We therefore recommend directly to English Heritage that it reconsiders its abandonment of historic ships. We believe its raison d’être—helping to protect the historic environment—encompasses, by definition, the protection of the historic fleet.

36. We recommend that the Ships Unit, working alongside DCMS, issues guidelines which set out effective fundraising strategies; suggest innovative funding methods; and advises on proven efficiency savings for the sector.

37. In oral evidence, Mr Richard Doughty, Chief Executive of the Cutty Sark Trust stated that: “projects such as the Cutty Sark are now having to pay VAT, so on a £22 net million project we have now got to raise over £3 million to pay Customs and Excise, which is another extraordinary burden that is being placed on to voluntary organisations.”58 The

53 Ev 43

54 Defined as maritime heritage which is either built on land, for example, port buildings and docks or which has finished up on land, for example, silted up river channels. Ibid

55 Ev 46

56 Ev 39, Q 79

57 Ibid

58 Ev 6, Q 10


situation arises due a change in Customs policy in June 2004 following a judgement by the European Court of Justice.59 The effect of the change is that the Cutty Sark Trust may not charge VAT on admissions and, as they make no other taxable supplies, the Trust cannot be registered for VAT. Accordingly, it can no longer recover its input tax and on capital projects, such as the vessel’s proposed refurbishment, it needs to raise additional finance to meet the VAT costs.

38. While not central to this inquiry, and while the change doubtless impinges on many other voluntary sectors, we wrote to the Paymaster-General on 4 February 2005 to ask for clarification on the issue and to see if there were any ways in which maritime heritage organisations could be helped. As we have not yet received a response, we recommend that DCMS urgently discusses this problem with HM Treasury and reports back to this Committee with its findings.

6 Tourism and Regeneration 39. In oral evidence to us Lord McIntosh said that: “I think tourist boards should be playing a more active role in exploiting the tourist potential of historic ships.”60 In response, VisitBritain – the tourism authority - pointed to its plans and funding for SeaBritain 2005, referred to in the introduction to this report, as evidence of its contribution in this area.61 We recommend that VisitBritain and regional tourist boards use 2005 as a platform to build on their involvement with historic ships and ensure that the sector continues to receive the recognition it deserves.

40. HLF referred, in its written submission, to examples of where its funding for a ship has served as a catalyst for regeneration. For example, “HLF has supported the restoration and interpretation of the ship [HMS Trincomalee] in Hartlepool where the South Docks are being transformed into a major visitor destination and commercial area. The project is an example of a conserved vessel leading a regeneration scheme and has won a number of awards.”62 HLF also cited the example of Chatham Dockyard which has received 18 awards totalling £12.8 million: “the project has benefited the vessels but has also brought wider regeneration benefits. The dockyard is helping to support the wider leisure and retails economy. Research by the Southern Tourist board concluded that the dockyard is worth £20 million per annum to the local economy.”63 We note the beneficial effect that maritime heritage projects can have on a local economy and we therefore recommend that regional development agencies and local authorities look to play a greater role in supporting historic ships for their wider regeneration potential. DCMS and the new Ships Unit should investigate the possibility of developing regeneration partnerships around maritime projects.

59 Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zoological Society of London Case C-267/00, 21 March 2002

60 Ev 39, Q 82

61 Ev 63

62 Ev 10

63 Ev 11


7 Skills 41. Concern was expressed to us in evidence that the expertise needed to protect the nation’s ships was disappearing. The NHSC stated that: “the skills, knowledge and facilities needed to maintain a healthy historic fleet are slowly diminishing. Unless a careful watch is kept on this, the UK will become unable to preserve and maintain all the ships it wishes to save. There are, for example, very few incentives for small traditional boat yards to develop the next generation of shipwrights.”64 Mr Sid Anning commented that: “there are still a lot of skills available but once these latest generations have gone you will not be able to practise those skills. That is one of the problems we have got with historic ships at the moment, there are not enough shipwrights and riveters and caulkers, people like that, the old trades, to keep these things going.”65

42. We recommend that the Ships Unit considers the issue of disappearing skills with a view to providing practical recommendations to alleviate the problem. Consideration could, for example, be given to the establishment of a permanent department of further education, at Greenwich or elsewhere, which focuses on maritime heritage as well as NVQs in the relevant areas.

43. We have highlighted a number of key issues which we recommend should be the responsibility of the new Ships Unit. The scope and breadth of these recommendations demonstrates the need for a properly resourced Ships Unit.

64 Ev 13

65 Ev 5, Q7


Conclusions and recommendations

1. We welcome and greatly commend this effort to establish the National Register of Historic Vessels, funded by Lottery money, but inspired by voluntary and private enthusiasm for the subject. The Register is the first vital step towards a strategy containing priorities and imperatives for preserving Britain’s maritime heritage. We only regret that it has taken so long for such an initiative to be established and that it had to be accomplished without substantial assistance from the Department with policy responsibility in this area. Of itself, the National Register will not change the fortunes of any individual ship, but without a clear picture of the extent of our maritime heritage, it is impossible to adopt a proper strategy to protect it. (Paragraph 13)

2. We were dismayed by the time the DCMS’s process for consultation has taken to reach what is a relatively timid conclusion: that the existing and commendable efforts of the National Historic Ships Committee were properly the responsibility of the DCMS and that the NHSC’s achievements merited formal support, structure and resources. We would be extremely disappointed if the Government’s solution for what it has described, rightly, as the “plight” of historic ships preservation, was effectively, with a very small actual investment, to adopt and re-brand the NHSC as the advisory body for a tiny executive “Unit” which may or may not be able to add value to existing provision. (Paragraph 20)

3. We welcome the Government’s commitment to establish the new Ships Unit, which is a step in the right direction, but we lament the time it has taken to set this up. We support the general aims of the Unit, as described by DCMS, and we hope it will indeed become the country’s historic ships’ champion; the national centre for excellence, advice and co-ordination; and disseminator of best practice for the sector. However, we are not persuaded that the funding, announced by Lord McIntosh, is adequate to meet these objectives. Its budget is paltry and staffing, however expert, minimal. (Paragraph 24)

4. Aside from its rather narrowly drawn objectives, we believe that the Ships Unit’s pre-eminent goal must be to save more of the nation’s key historic vessels in such a way as to preserve the story of Britain’s maritime history and achievements. Unfortunately, we are not convinced that the Unit can prove effective in this respect. (Paragraph 25)

5. We recommend that the Unit takes into account the views of the whole maritime sector. The established museums and those with responsibility for the more well-known ships must not exercise influence over the Unit at the expense of others (Paragraph 26)

6. The criteria for placing a ship on the Register must also be kept under constant review. Appearance in the Register must never, alone, be reason enough for a ship to attract funding; non-appearance, too, must never sound a ship’s death-knell. (Paragraph 27)


7. It should not be left to this Committee to identify ships which could be placed on the Register nor those that are in need of restoration or financial support. However, a case in point is HMS Stalker which, as an example of a “landing ship, tank” vessel of the type used in the D-Day landings and as the last survivor of her type and class in UK waters, has a prima facie case for inclusion. We recommend that the new Ships Unit, as soon as it is established, considers carefully the case for HMS Stalker being included in the Register. We also recommend that HLF pays due attention to HMS Stalker and her like in deciding to whom grants should be made. (Paragraph 28)

8. We applaud the Heritage Lottery Fund for its sponsorship of the sector despite the many demands on its resources. (Paragraph 30)

9. The Government pays lip service to the value of historic vessels as part of the UK’s cultural heritage and yet is unable to produce what the sector desperately needs above all else—adequate funding. (Paragraph 33)

10. We recommend that a further allocation of grant-in-aid be provided to the Ships Unit to enable them, in turn, to give small grants to less well known, but by no means less deserving, ships. We also recommend the Government reconsiders its position and looks seriously at direct public funding of some of the ships in the Core Collection; we see no reason why, simply because a vessel is not located within a funded museum, it should not be considered worthy of government resources. This would take the pressure off bodies like HLF who could then concentrate on a greater variety and number of ships rather than the few who, up to now, have swallowed the lion’s share of the sector’s HLF grants. (Paragraph 34)

11. We therefore recommend directly to English Heritage that it reconsiders its abandonment of historic ships. We believe its raison d’être—helping to protect the historic environment—encompasses, by definition, the protection of the historic fleet. (Paragraph 35)

12. We recommend that the Ships Unit, working alongside DCMS, issues guidelines which set out effective fundraising strategies; suggest innovative funding methods; and advises on proven efficiency savings for the sector. (Paragraph 36)

13. We recommend that DCMS urgently discusses this problem of VAT payable by voluntary organisations with HM Treasury and reports back to this Committee with its findings. (Paragraph 38)

14. We recommend that VisitBritain and regional tourist boards use 2005 as a platform to build on their involvement with historic ships and ensure that the sector continues to receive the recognition it deserves. (Paragraph 39)

15. We note the beneficial effect that maritime heritage projects can have on a local economy and we therefore recommend that regional development agencies and local authorities look to play a greater role in supporting historic ships for their wider regeneration potential. DCMS and the new Ships Unit should investigate the possibility of developing regeneration partnerships around maritime projects. (Paragraph 40)


16. We recommend that the Ships Unit considers the issue of disappearing skills with a view to providing practical recommendations to alleviate the problem. Consideration could, for example, be given to the establishment of a permanent department of further education, at Greenwich or elsewhere, which focuses on maritime heritage as well as NVQs in the relevant areas. (Paragraph 42)

17. We have highlighted a number of key issues which we recommend should be the responsibility of the new Ships Unit. The scope and breadth of these recommendations demonstrates the need for a properly resourced Ships Unit. (Paragraph 43)


Formal Minutes

Tuesday 8 March 2005

Members present:

Sir Gerald Kaufman, in the Chair

Mr Chris Bryant Derek Wyatt

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report (Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 43 read and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select Committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.

Several papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.

Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House.

[Adjourned till Tuesday 15 March at 10.30 am


Witnesses

Wednesday 2 February 2005

Mr Richard Doughty, Chief Executive, The Cutty Sark Trust; Rear Admiral John Hervey CB OBE, President, HMS Cavalier Association; and Mr Sid Anning, HMS Stalker/Maritime Steam Restoration Trust. Ev 4

Ms Carole Souter, Director, Heritage Lottery Fund; Captain Richard Woodman, Chairman, National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC) and Commander John Paton, Secretary to NHSC and Director of the English Heritage National Museum Partnership Project; and Mr Tim Parr, a member of the NHSC board and of the Ships Committee of the Maritime Trust. Ev 18

Rt Hon Lord McIntosh of Haringey, a member of the House of Lords, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and Mr Richard Hartman, Head of Museums Sponsor Unit, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Ev 36


List of written evidence

1 The Cutty Sark Trust Ev 1

2 Mr Sid Anning Ev 1

3 Heritage Lottery Fund Ev 10

4 National Historic Ships Committee Ev 12

5 M.R.C Parr Ev 14

6 DCMS Ev 23

7 Mr Wyn Davies Ev 39

8 English Heritage Ev 43

9 40+ Fishing Boat Association Ev 46

10 Heritage Afloat Ev 47

11 Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee Ev 49

12 Maritime Steam Restoration Trust Ev 52

13 The Medusa Trust Ev 52

14 National Maritime Museum Cornwall Ev 55

15 The Royal Naval Museum Ev 57

16 The Old Gaffers Association Ev 61

17 VisitBritain Ev 63


Reports from the Committee since 2001

Session 2004–05

First Report A public BBC HC 82

Second Report Work of the Committee in 2004 HC 253

Third Report Public Libraries HC 81

Session 2003–04

First Report Cultural Objects: developments since 2000 HC 59

First Special Report Privacy and media intrusion, replies to the Committee’s Fifth Report, 2002–03

HC 213

Second Report DCMS Annual Report: work of the Department in 2002–03

HC 74

Third Report Broadcasting in transition HC 380

Fourth Report Work of the Committee in 2003 HC 404

Fifth Report Reform of the National Lottery HC 196

Second Special Report Broadcasting in transition: replies to the Committee’s Third Report, 2003–04

HC 585

Sixth Report Arts development: dance HC 587

Seventh Report Drugs and role models in sport: making and setting examples

HC 499

Session 2002–03

First Report National Museums and Galleries: funding and free admission

HC 85

Second Report The work of the Committee in 2002 HC 148

Third Report A London Olympic bid for 2012 HC 268

Fourth Report The structure and strategy for supporting tourism HC 65

Fifth Report Privacy and media intrusion HC 458

Sixth Report The British film industry HC 667

Session 2001–02

First Report Unpicking the Lock: the World Athletics Championships in the UK

HC 264

Second Report Testing the waters: the sport of swimming HC 418

Third Report Arts development HC 489

Fourth Report Communications HC 539

Fifth Report Revisiting the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games

HC 842

Sixth Report Wembley National Stadium Project: Into Injury time HC 843

Seventh Report The Government’s proposals for gambling: nothing to lose?

HC 827

994723PAG1 Page Type [SO] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee(Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships Sub-Committee)

on Wednesday 2 February 2005

Members present:

Derek Wyatt, in the Chair

Chris Bryant Mr Nick Hawkins

Memorandum submitted by The Cutty Sark Trust

As you may be aware, the Cutty Sark Trust has applied to the Heritage Lottery Fund for £11.75 millionto support a £25 million conservation project for the ship. The fabric of the ship is severely corroded andunless this is addressed urgently, we are advised by our structural surveyors, she will close as a visitorattraction in 2007. The ship is the onlymajor attraction within theMaritimeGreenwichWorldHeritage sitewithout a public subsidy, and is neither able to fund this conservation programme itself, nor re-present theship for 21st century audiences. Nevertheless, the ship attracts more than 160,000 paying visitors a year,which makes her one of the country’s leading independent visitor attractions. She is of course enjoyed bymillions more who visit Greenwich, and she is undoubtedly one of the most famous ships in the world.

Our plans, set out in 1,400 pages of documentation supporting our bid, are both to ensure that the shiprequires no substantial conservation work for the next half century and to ensure that she is enjoyed by thewidest possible audiences.

Unfortunately, in the intense competition for HLF grants, we face a quadruple whammy:

1. HLF oYcials have already indicated their view that Greenwich has already received substantialLottery funding, and I am therefore concerned that geographical locationmay have a greater swayin the decision process than heritage merit.

2. We were advised by HLF not to submit a bid in excess of £10 million, which leaves us with a verysubstantial fundraising target.

3. The same advice does not seem to have been given to the Royal Festival Hall, which has bid for£24 million, and which, if successful, will take the bulk of the available pot. The maritime heritagesector, though popular just does not have the political clout of the arts lobby.

4. Changes in VAT regulations, although designed to benefit charities, will actually take away theTrust’s entitlement to reclaim the bulk of VAT on the project, adding almost £4 million to the costof the project.

We have largely exhausted our reserves in bringing forward this bid (which is indeed our second attempt—a bid in 1999 having been referred). Although HLF gave us a project planning grant last year of £50,000, ithas cost the Trust in excess of £600,000 to bring this bid forward.

Therefore am writing to ask whether, given the status of Cutty Sark as the country’s premier historicmerchant ship, youwould consider a one session enquiry to look into ways in which the committee can assistand support the application to the Heritage Lottery Fund to ensure the survival of this national monument.

30 September 2004

Memorandum submitted by Mr Sid Anning

Thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to submit my views to add to the discussions that areunderway regarding Historic Ships.

1. Introduction

(a) I write as a former Royal Naval Seaman Petty OYcer, Historic Ship campaigner and enthusiast.

(b) In 1989 one formed the HMS Cavalier Association, and became it’s Chairman until 1999. Duringwhich time I helped to save the last of the WW2 Destroyers, HMS Cavalier.

(c) I am currently assisting the Maritime Steam Restoration Trust (MSRT) in helping to save the laststeam driven Landing Ship Tank (LS1) which currently faces the threat of being scrapped.

9947231002 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 2 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

2. Saving Historic Ships

(a) The problems which I faced over five years ago with HMS Cavalier, are still very much prevalenttoday, despite the fact of the CMS Committee making some excellent recommendations with the“Presentation of Historic Ships: The case for HMSCavalier”. There is still no mechanism, guidance, or helpof any sort, to those wishing to save an Historic Ship most of which are left mainly to their own devices.This is indeed a totally undesirable situation.

(b) It’s all very well the establishment saying “that individuals embark on ship restorations withoutadequate resources, cost eVective projections and the like, and that most projects are seen to fail because oflack of maritime experience in the management”.

(c) Many of the Historic Ships that are a national asset today, owe their very existence to the stauncheVorts of enthusiasts, campaigners, and volunteers, and until there is a proper organised procedures andmechanisms on, “how to go about saving an Historic Ship”, one should not knock the eVorts of those whoare at least willing to give it a try until such times as there is a proper system installed.

(d) To me, Historic Ships are just as important to our Heritage as Buildings, and yet somehow, fail toget the same recognition, the same protection, or indeed the same level of funding as buildings which oftensurround Historic Ships, barring the few “icons” which DCMS are of the opinion are the only ships worthsaving. Why is our Maritime Heritage held in such low esteem?

If that were not enough, we have the ludicrous situation whereby the only way an Historic Ship can gainprotection from the state is by “sinking it”. This is sheer utter madness.

3. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

(a) One of the recommendations by the Committee was that the OTI should be more vigilant over theissuing of export licences after the case of HMS Cavalier. Despite the fact that the MSRT had expressed aninterest in HMS Stalker, Pounds of Portsmouth (Ship Breakers) were still issued with an export licence, Ifthe same applied to a work of art or sculpture there would be uproar.

(b) The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural AVairs Committee has reported that RoyalNavy Ships should not be sent abroad for scrapping because of environmental issues. In my view, this couldbe taken a step further, whereby ships over a given age—say 50 years or over, should not be exported untilsuch time as its heritage value to our nation has been properly evaluated and accessed.

4. National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC)

(a) It would be wrong for me not to recognise the time, and eVort, that the Committee puts in on ourbehalf. But unfortunately, they are unselected, and unaccountable body of people, who have set themselvesup to be judge and jury over the futures of Historic Ships, without a mandate or the proper authority todo so.

(b) The Committee purport to say that they have the support of the Historic ShipOwners—but have theybeen asked? Only recently because of the ill health of Sir Julian Oswald, the NMM at Greenwich have“elected” a newChairman. If anyone has doubts about the existence of the proposed NHSUnit being basedat NMM, then their worries and concerns have been substantiated by the news of NMMmaking these kindof arbitrary and unilateral decisions over the selection of the Committee’s Chairman.

(c) I believe there is a case for Members of the Main and Technical Committees of the NHSC beingelected by Regional Committees of Ship/Boat Owners, and to serve for five years before seeking re-election.

For the Committee, or indeed its Chairman to be appointed simply as another Government sponsoredQuango will be treated with suspicion by most within the industry, and would not boost confidence andtrust.

(d) One of the deepest concerns about the NHSC, is that many of the Committee represent the majorMaritime Museums throughout Britain, whilst the other 90% of Ship/Boat owners in Private and Trustshands have no voice or representative upon the NHSC at all.

It’s diYcult for people like me to believe that the NHSC can be objective and unbiased in theirdeliberations, and at the same time, represent their own interests.

(e) Twice now, once with HMS Cavalier, and secondly with HMS Stalker, the NHSC has sat upon thefence being evasive, and indecisive. Much of this comes down to the NRHV which I believe the Committeeand DCMS have overstated their importance and significance to Historic Ships. It’s debatable as to therebeing an advantage by being upon the Registers other than for HLF funding.

Indeed, Rear Admiral Harvey—President of HMS Cavalier Association—was scornful of the lists whenhe stated: “the proof of the pudding will be whether or not theNRHV actually saves another Historic Ship”.

9947231002 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1


(e) Because the NHSC has altered the original criteria to allow ships such as Trincomalee, Mary Rose,Peggy, and Zetland that do not qualify for entry onto the NRHV, (for example, not being built in GreatBritain or its hull is not fully intact) then, the NHSC would have great diYculty in denying other ships thatequal right—HMS Stalker being one because she was built in Canada.

(f) Another reason for HMS Stalker being denied entry onto the registers by NHSC’s TechnicalCommittee was because of project sustainability. The MSRT have only recently applied for a ProjectPlanning Grant (PPG) from HLF, and until the feasibility study has been completed by Frazer Nash ofBristol, it is curious to see how the Technical Committee can make a confident decision on Stalker’s projectsustainability without that information being made available.

5. Historic Ship Funding

(a) Historic ship campaigners are constantly being reminded by DCMS, and English Heritage, thatHistoric Ships—and in particular the larger ships—are enormously expensive to repair and conserve. Butalso, so are the Dome, The Royal Opera House, Stately Homes, The Arts, and others which most inWhitehall turn a blind eye to and never mention.

Recently, the Secretary of the NHSC remarked:

“Four years of banging on Government doors has made me realise that changing the Whitehallmindset that readily supports fine art or opera at the expense of solid steam driven ships . . .”

(b) We are also told by DCMS “that there is a tendency for discussions of ship preservations to focus onthe great national icons—Victory, Gt Britain, Cutty Sark and the rest”. One would have to agree to theirsaviour—but not at ANY cost, and certainly not when it’s to the detriment of the rest of the Historic Ships.

(c) Let me if I may, put matters into perspective a little. The “Icons” are already subsidised by grant-in-aid from themajormuseums, and over the past 10 yearsHLFhave given just £38million in grants toHistoricShips, out of a possible £15.8 billion that has been given to good causes since the Lottery began.

Eighty-seven per cent of the said £38 million have gone to just NINE historic ships, in single or multiplegrants, whilst the rest of Historic Ships outside of the Museums get virtually nothing at all. It would appearto me, and to the contrary, it’s not Historic Ships that are expensive.

(d) The following are an example of some of the net recipients who divide the £1.2 billion up that is givenin grant-in-aid annually: The Arts Council—£365.4 million; British Library—£90.8 million; BTA—398.4million; and English Heritage—£126.4 million to name just a few. Whilst Historic Ships get nothing. Irepeat, it’s not Historic Ships that are expensive.

(e) Although we are grateful to HLF for the funding that has already been provided, we must not becomplacent, and I abhor the huge grants being handed out to just a few ships such as Cutty Sark, SS GreatBritain, much of it on mad cap schemes, which are openly encouraged by HLF. In some cases, there is adistinct advantage to building replicas which could in fact help to earn its keep with film and tourism.

(f) We must try to remember that, one ship’s wholly imaginative and over expensive interpretations totry and somehow guarantee its future, often means it’s another ship’s undoing and demise to the scrap heap.It’s essential that what little money is available is not wasted, and believe HLF have a duty to see that doesnot happen.

Sometimes a fraction of themoney being spent onMaryRose for example, which never fails to get a grant(seven to date if you include the grant from the arts), could mean a great deal to the Medway Queen andHMS Stalker who are fighting for their very existence, whereby a little bit of money could make quite adiVerence.

(g) I acknowledge that without Heritage Lottery Funding, our Historic Ships would hardly be worthkeeping. But, in my view, HLF are not particularly “qualified” (even though they do have paid adviserswhose views are often ignored for political expedience), to say whenever a grant is applied for, which Shipsstays afloat (as that is what grants comes down to at the end of the day) and which ships should sink, orindeed, care enough about our Maritime History to be objective in their deliberations and decisionmaking process.

(h) Unfortunately, and at times HLF can be ignorant and indiVerent to the needs of Historic ships. Oneof its senior case oYcers twice turned down HMS Cavalier for heritage lottery funding, and referred to theDunkirk little ships simply as a collection of “little boats”.

(i) The English Tourist Board withdrew support (section 4 grants) for Historic Ships in 1989, and in 1992English Heritage withdrew grant aiding Historic Ships following a review of its strategy and priorities—which literally cut Historic Ships adrift with no proper governing body or aiding in place.

Why is it that those who the public think would be the best people to look after our Maritime Heritage,English Heritage for instance, have in fact deserted it?



(j) I do not profess to be an expert in Historic Ships matters, but simply as a layman who first of all wasin the right position at the wrong time with HMS Cavalier, and now with HMS Stalker with whom I havea very strong interest in because only recently we held services to the memory of those who lost their livesduring the D-Day Landings 60 years ago, where Landing Crafts of all descriptions went down with the lossof many lives. I feel it’s essential, as indeed I did with HMS Cavalier, that we preserve the last of its kind.

I do hope that my work, and my views in this memorandum, are of some use to the Committee, and tothose who strive to see that fairness, and equality prevail for Historic Ships.

I write as an individual, and on behalf of the Maritime Steam Restoration Trust—HMS Stalker,

January 2005

Witnesses: Mr Richard Doughty, Chief Executive, The Cutty Sark Trust; Rear Admiral John Hervey,President, HMS Cavalier Association; and Mr Sid Anning, HMS Stalker/Maritime Steam RestorationTrust, examined.

Q1 Chairman: Good morning, gentlemen. Can I cannot progress on to one thing until you have donesomething else. It is this sort of situation all the timewelcome you to this Sub-Committee of the Selectand it is very, very diYcult.Committee for Culture, Media and Sport looking at

maritime heritage and historic ships. Although weannounced this inquiry before Christmas, we largely Q3 Chairman: Where are the hiccoughs then? Whatdid it because we had a letter certainly from the would you recommend? Everyone wants moreCutty Sark to say would we investigate the future of money but there is always a finite amount of money.the Cutty Sark. Before we have even sat it seems as Mr Anning: I think I said in my memo that thethough we have managed to persuade the Heritage Government make money available for all otherLottery Fund to help theCutty Sark.We understand sections of our heritage, such as libraries, museums,

churches and football, et cetera, et cetera, and wethat the Arts Minister, Lord McIntosh, is going towonder why this is anti-historic ships. That is themake an announcement today about the Nationalimpression that we are getting. Our maritimeHistoric Ships Unit. We wondered whether weheritage is very important to this country and yet itshould actually continue the investigation becauseseems to be the poor relation to every other thing. Ithe two things we wanted have actually been done.think that is the feeling most people in historic shipsNevertheless, you are very welcome here. We arehave got. If we can get some sort of money, even if itvery informal, we are not going to have a list ofis only to help the National Historic Ships Unit andquestions, Members will just ask questions directlyperhaps some of the core collection, that would goto you. If I might just start by thanking Reara great way and relieve a lot of the pressure on theAdmiral John Hervey for the book that has beenHeritage Lottery Fund for them to look at things ongiven to the Chairman which we will put in ourthe DV list, or perhaps regional boards.library. I wonder since we did the HMS Cavalier

inquiry whether you think between you all thatQ4 Chairman: Mr Doughty, you have got somethings have got better or worse in this particularmoney coming in but not as much as you want. Is itarea? I am not looking at anyone in particular. Wedependent on you raising the other bits of moneydid that in 1998.before you get the Heritage Lottery money for theRear Admiral Hervey: If I can say something. As farCutty Sark?as Cavalier is concerned, the situation has certainlyMr Doughty: Yes, Chairman. We have to be able togot a lot better. Reading all the memos thatraise partnership funding to be able to draw downeverybody has put in I get the feeling that thethe Heritage Lottery Fund grants that the Trust hasDepartment has not really altered its basic position.been awarded. Clearly this sector is very heavilyIt is giving a little bit more money to the newdependent on the Heritage Lottery Fund and I thinkorganisation but it is miniscule compared to what isit is ludicrous that an organisation like Englishneeded to tackle the problem. I do not think it hasHeritage is prepared to put resources into helpingaltered all that much. There are still only very fewrecord or excavate wrecks but there is nomoney thatships that are being helped and the chances of savingcomes from that particular department to supportsomething new do not seem to be significantly betterthe maritime heritage sector.for Mr Anning, who is now working on a project,

than they were when he was dealing with theQ5 Chairman: It seems to me that we have listedCavalier and I was helping him.buildings and they are graded and you cannot get ridof them, you must preserve them, although there areissues about whether we have got enough money to

Q2 Chairman: Is that a view shared by the other preserve everything that has a Grade A or a Grademembers? B listing. Is that how boats and ships should be? YouMr Anning: I am working with the Maritime Steam have got 900 or so on the list, have you not?Restoration Trust at the moment and I am finding Mr Anning: We all appreciate that you cannot savethe same problems exist now trying to save the every historic ship in this country and nobody wouldlanding craft as we had with Admiral Hervey with even say that you have to. If you look at the situation

in Chatham, for example, you have got many listedCavalier. It is a chicken and egg situation: you



2 February 2005 Mr Richard Doughty, Rear Admiral John Hervey and Mr Sid Anning

buildings around the historic ships and the listed these days and what better role model than childrenof their own age who gave their lives for theirbuildings are protected but not the ships that arecountry, as quite a few did.there. The only ships that are protected are the onesMr Anning: I think another problem that we shouldthat are sunk, the wrecks, and this was brought intake into consideration is there are still a lot of skillslast year by Baroness Anelay of St Johns.We cannotavailable but once these latest generations have gonesee any parity there. They were saying that someyou will not be able to practise those skills. That isships like theCutty Sark are listed buildings in actualone of the problems we have got with historic shipsfact, so would it be right for them to go underat themoment, there are not enough shipwrights andEnglish Heritage if they are buildings as such?riveters and caulkers, people like that, the old trades,to keep these things going. If you keep historic ships

Q6 Chairman: If they are listed there is then a local going those trades will still continue and can then beauthority requirement and that is the issue, is it not, passed on to future generations.with housing, although they never have enough Rear Admiral Hervey: It is one of the interestingmoney to actually preserve those houses. things about the Friends’ organisation that aboutRear Admiral Hervey: I think it was very eight, nine or ten of them come every Wednesday tounfortunate that English Heritage should have work on the ship and the Chairman of the Friends isshrugged their shoulders in 1992 and said they were a very experienced ex-naval shipwright. He has gotno longer interesting themselves in historic ships, it one of the 40/60 Bofors guns oV and into thesent a very bad message to the whole business. In workshop alongside the ship and he has re-plated thefact, I am rather amazed that they were asked for deck. Normally that would cost umpteen thousandtheir opinion this time since they seem to be so pounds if you can get somebody to come in and douninterested in our business. Perhaps you would like that as a contractor. It is quite an economical thing

and he is helping with the skills we need.to record that.Chairman: It is recorded.

Q8 Chris Bryant: I can see that especially becauseBritain is an island nation our naval heritage is anQ7 Chris Bryant:Let me just challenge you a bit.Myintegral part, whether you are talking about peoplegrandfather was a naval architect and my great-living in the islands of Scotland through fromuncle designed most of the destroyer class as a navalcoracle building to modern techniques or whetherarchitect at Clydeside, so my flat is full ofyou are talking about our military heritage, but Imemorabilia from that period of shipbuilding inwonder whether the balance is right between ourClydeside. Why do ships matter because there arenaval military heritage and our merchant ships?hundreds of them? Why does it really matter toRear Admiral Hervey: I think you have to take aBritain?look at the work done by Dr Prescott in drawing upRear Admiral Hervey: If one is talking aboutthe list. There were 14 warships that were put intowarships, in Cavalier’s case there were two reasonsthe core collection, so by any means it was not allreally. One was that it was an extremely interestingslanted that way. Providing you are prepared toartefact in its own right, the epitome of the middleaccept as time goes on that you can move from theof the last century’s warships. It was also, of course,designated list to the core collection, and that is onerepresentative of 143 destroyers of ours that did notof the things that this new committee ought to havecome back from the Second World War, plus aboutin mind, that there should be some flexibility in re-another 10 or 11 of our ships manned by alliedlisting, if people do a really good job of looking afternavies. By the end of this year there will be a suitable the ship it becomes more interesting and morememorial alongside the ship on the jetty. The important and perhaps deserves a higher place. I was

arrangements for that are going very well now. They upset thatCavalierwas not in the core collection butwill all be listed on the back of a large bronze bas- I was so pleased that we had saved her anyway I didrelief which depicts destroyers rescuing people from not make a lot of fuss about it at the time. I have itthe sea, which they did a great deal of. I think the in mind that my next battle will be to get the shipother reason why it is important is because it has an upgraded if they look after it properly at Chatham,enormous educational value. Since the three ships which at the moment they are doing, thankhave been in Chatham, over the last two years we goodness.have had 22,000 children through the dockyard. Mr Doughty: I think we are better as a nation withBefore the ships were there hardly any children came respect to looking after our naval heritage than weinto the place at all. They have all had a proper are our merchant navy heritage. One thinks ofstructured day, at the end ofwhich one boy, who had Glenlee in Scotland andCutty Sark now in England,never put anything constructive down on paper in but they are the principal vessels. To answer yourhis life before, wrote a page and a half about his visit. original question, what is their merit? The DCMSSadly, the following week all the boys who were response to the Ships for the Nation consultationsupposed to come did not turn up because they were acknowledges some of the benefits, and one of theall up in front of the beak again, but at least they ones that I would particularly highlight is the impacthave made a start with changing the attitude. I think our maritime heritage can have on regeneration.the educational side down there is extremely Certainly in the case of Cutty Sark in Greenwich, Iimportant. We need better role models for our am sure one of the arguments that helped persuade

theHeritage Lottery Fund to give us a grantwas thatchildren anyway than the ones they seem to have




Cutty Sark is a public amenity inmuch the same way Mr Doughty: Yes. The Heritage Lottery Fund haveawarded us a £1.2 million development grant andas the AlbertMemorial is. You do not have to board

theCutty Sark to be able to enjoy and appreciate the that will allow us over the next year to prepare oursecond stage application. The grant that has beenbeauty of the ship. While I make much of saying 16

million people have paid to go on boardCutty Sark, allocated, £11.75million, is ring-fenced only until wesubmit that stage two application. If we fail to makethere are countless millions more who are benefiting

every year and appreciating the ship in her setting in that submission or, indeed, if our submission is notof a good enough standard then that oVer will beGreenwich.withdrawn. If I may just make another point here.Wewere given a strong steer not to ask formore than

Q9 Chris Bryant: Tell me, have you ever visited the £10 million in our grant application, which is whatVassa in Stockholm which was a 16th Century ship we have done but I have said that they have given usthat went down days after setting sail? They have £11.75million. Another issue I would like to draw todragged it up, it is a wonderful thing to go around, your attention is the fact that projects such as thestunningly beautiful and in almost perfect condition, Cutty Sark are now having to pay VAT, so on aexcept that in the 15 years since it has been in the £22 net million project we have now got to raise overmuseum it has now started to deteriorate fairly £3 million to pay Customs and Excise, which israpidly and they are finding terrible diYculties in another extraordinary burden that is being placedmaintaining it now.How expensive and howdiYcult on to voluntary organisations.is it in particular to bring things up from the sea and Mr Anning: I support the Cutty Sark in every way,to maintain, even if they are very important? but the worry that I have is because of the limitedMr Doughty: I think that is a very interesting amount of resources that are available one ship canexample for you to have taken because I believe the suck out so much of the lifeblood of historic shipsVassa is a project that was almost entirely subsidised generally because 90% of the ships outside the coreby the government in Stockholm. Interestingly, their collection, outside the museums, do not get anyconservation teamare now coming to theCutty Sark grants at all. I would like to see the sights lowered aTrust for advice as to how they should tackle their bit so there is a fairer distribution of Heritageown project. Indeed, they are looking at the Lottery wealth. I just feel that sometimes these largeinnovative system that we are developing for grants tend to shoot one in the foot because it givessupporting Cutty Sark in our vision for the future. the impression that historic ships are expensive—Clearly, conservation treatments need time to be they are expensive, we know that—but we have gotconsidered and for their long-term eVects to be to lower our sights otherwise people are never goingassessed. In the case of the Vassa it turns out that a to take on historic ships if we keep charging so muchvery serious mistake was made: they overlooked the money, as in the case of Cutty Sark.impact of people going into a building. They thoughtputting the ship into a buildingwould protect it from Q11 Chairman: How much does Stalker need?the elements but, in fact, that has worked against Mr Anning: Stalker, to purchase her is aboutthem. The breath of people going into the building £150,000.has created problems that they now have to address.The bottom line with any historic ship is you are

Q12 Chairman: How much have you raised?going to have to raise considerable sums of moneyMr Anning: I am not the Chairman, I am onlyperiodically, perhaps every 25 years or so, becausesupporting them. It is only a very small amount atyou know you are going to have a major refit to takethe moment. We are in a chicken and egg situation.into consideration. I think the point is that theWe have put in for a project planning grant and wemajority of historic ships are quite good at runningare waiting for the result of that, which we shouldtheir day-to-day business but what they do not haveknow this week. People are not coming forward tothe ability to do, and what the Cutty Sark does nothelp you unless you go through certain stages, thathave the ability to do at the moment, is to build theis the problem that we have got.reserves that are required to ensure that there is aRear Admiral Hervey: If you recall, when we came inresource available to tackle those long-termfront of the Committee in 1998 it was verymaintenance problems.interesting that as soon as the Committee meetingRear Admiral Hervey: Of course, you are notwas over two organisations who before had beenallowed to carry forward the grant-in-aid from onepussyfooting around both came to see Sid andyear to the next if you are lucky enough to get it inmyself saying “Please come to Birkenhead” orthe first place, so it is very diYcult to build up a fund“Please come to Chatham”. The way the Committeeto tackle that. Every time HMS Belfast has to havehad been handled that day by Gerald Kaufman anda docking she has to be taken all the way round towhat he said made it quite clear that he was going toPortsmouth to have it. Mercifully, Cavalier sits overput a bit of pressure from the CMS Committee onthe top of the blocks and all you have to do is pumpboth the Minister and the Heritage Lottery Fund toout the dock.cough up, and indeed they did. For the first time theMinister came to have a look at the ship. He had

Q10 Chairman: Does that mean on the Cutty Sark been told by the Chairman not to say another wordmoney that there is a finite time you have that sitting on the subject until he had visited the ship. I will notthere, your 10 million or 11 million that you have say what he said to the Director of the Heritage

Lottery Fund because it was not recorded in thegot?




report, but he made it pretty plain that he expected be a pretty helpful thing to have. At least you wouldher to take amore positive attitude to it and produce then know that the finance was going to be availablesome fast track procedures and get some money for and you were not constantly having to rely on thethe feasibility study. As soon as that had been said council budget being got at by central governmentin Committee Room 15 people started looking at it and then having to change theirminds about helpingmore positively. There was plenty of goodwill before you or not. These are the sorts of things that governthat but it was not focused until this organisation everything at the moment.that you are part of had given a lead. It was a very, Mr Anning:When you see that £15.8 billion has gonevery significant step that day. to good causes since the Lottery began, £38 millionMr Doughty: I think it has to be said, Chairman, as for historic ships is not a lot. I wonder if historicI already have, that the burden is falling on the ships are actually getting their fair share of the pot?Heritage Lottery Fund and I think that is somewhat Quite frankly, I do not think they are.unfair. The Heritage Lottery Fund has not been set Mr Doughty: If I may, one of the benefits of the newup to resource the maritime heritage sector. Their Unit that has been identified is that it can give thepaper that has been submitted to this council is a help that smaller organisations need to be able to putvery good one and it makes it quite clear that each in a bid of the suYcient quality that is required. Webid is assessed on its individual merits. The trouble all hope that 2005, the Year of the Sea, is going tois, it is a very diYcult process to go through. In my shine a spotlight on maritime heritage, but I am notcase it has taken me three years and over half a going to be able to raise the £10 million matchingmillion pounds to actually bring this application to funds I need to find through that sort of publicthe Heritage Lottery Fund. The point really is not to subscription. Sure, it is going tomake a contributioncriticise the Heritage Lottery Fund, it is to be aware but not a significant one. What I have foundthat historic ships and themaritime sector are under- frustrating is that there is joined-up government andresourced and under-appreciated. They need better it is joined-up against the maritime sector. If I go tosupport and I would suggest there need to be ways English Heritage, and it has already been pointedin which the Government can support the most out thatCutty Sark is aGrade 1 listed structure, theyimportant parts of our maritime heritage. do not recognise her as a building although they

have now put Cutty Sark on the Grade 1 ListedBuildings At Risk Register, they turn round to meQ13 Mr Hawkins: Rather like Chris, I come to thisand say, “You are an historic ship, we do not fundinquiry with a bias in that my father was a navalhistoric ships”. If I go to DCMS and say, “I am notoYcer in submarines during and after World War IIplaying on an even playing field in Greenwich. It isand I was a Royal Navy Cadet and I have an interestvery price sensitive. We have got the Nationalin transport history. That is just so that you knowMaritime Museum with grant-aid support, and wewhere I am coming from. One of the things that I amhave got the old Royal Naval College. Moreoverpleased to hear you say is that this Committee playedthere are other museums, such as the GeVryea positive role in the past and I hope that our sessionMuseum, for example, that are taking down grantstoday and our inquiry will have a similarly positiveto support them as museums because it is deemedrole. I did want to ask you whether you agree withthat they are disadvantaged by museums that areme that the fact that we are in 2005, which is a veryable to oVer free access”, and if I ask whether thissignificant anniversary in Britain’s Maritimemight apply to Cutty Sark because we are now ahistory, SeaBritain 2005, is something that is goingregisteredmuseum they say, “No, you are an historicto enable us to concentrate the minds of the publicship, you are not a museum”. It is very diYcult.and may increase the fund raising eVort from otherMr Anning: It is catch-22 all the time.sources, from members of the public being more

interested because of the tourism campaign forSeaBritain 2005. Is that something that you are

Q14 Mr Hawkins: Really one of the things that youhoping will help concentrate minds, as well as ourwould like this Committee to address in our reportwork as a Committee?is that feeling that you all have that the way in whichRear Admiral Hervey: Yes. This year is a good yearthe funding works is joined-up against you and youto be putting some emphasis on the maritime scene.would really be inviting us to ask some toughThere could not be a better way to get in amongst it.questions of bodies like English Heritage to seeI agree withMr Doughty that I do not think it is fairwhether they could reverse the stance they took atto put all the onus on the Heritage Lottery Fund forthe beginning of the 1990s. That is one of the thingsmaking these make or break decisions on individualyou are saying to us, is it not?ships. Somemoney needs to be set aside out of whichMr Anning: If you take the recent award to theyou can generate some income and use it for theseMacclesfield Psalter, it was given £860,000 from thepurposes. When we were in front of you in 1998 weNational Heritage Memorial Fund but, as Isuggested that it should be built up gradually overunderstand it, the National Heritage Memorialthe years. One was looking at a figure of about 30Fund is to fund heritage throughout the UK inmillion and, in fact, we gave the example that if whatmemory of those who gave their lives for the UK. Iwas being asked for by theMary Rose, which was 29am sorry but I really do not understand how themillion at that time, had been put into an upkeepMacclesfield Psalter can get £860,000 from a fundendowment fund it would have been able to endow

10 ships at 200,000 a year in perpetuity. That would like that.




Q15 Mr Hawkins: One of the issues which is raised transport projects which fall on them. Perhaps whatin the evidence to us is about what the Department you are really saying to us is that there ought to beis doing and from the results of their consultation other Exchequer funded sources of income perhapsexercise they talk about the positive feedback they which could be available because of the importancehad about the creation of a Small Grants Fund. ofmaritime heritage toBritain as a nation to educateClearly you have made the point about the large the next generation of children about the importancesums that many of the maritime projects need, and I of our maritime heritage.think we all understand that, but are you also Mr Anning: You mentioned earlier the ship upkeepsupportive of the idea of creating a Small Grants allowance. If a sinking fund was put in that couldFund to enable seed cornmoney to come in for some help the core collection quite considerably perhaps.of the smaller projects and perhaps help to attractbusiness sponsorship to projects in the future?

Q19 Chairman: You said that you had a £3 millionMr Anning: All of us who were here last time wereVAT bill, or you expect to have at the end of yourvery grateful to the Select Committee for theproject. Just explain why you have got to do VAT?recommendations they made, we thought they wereAre you not a registered charity?spot-on, but unfortunately nothing was done about

them. It is nice that we have got another opportunity Mr Doughty: We are a registered charity. Thenow and we are hoping that we can perhaps pick it change of legislation in June meant that because weup this time where it was not last time. One of the charge an admission for going on to the ship we canproblems with historic ships is there is not enough no longer be VAT registered. It is actually Europeancommunication with everybody around the legislation which I imagine was brought in to benefitcountryside and people feeding in ideas, collecting organisations like ourselves. In the ordinary coursethese ideas and bringing them forward. This is of events we would probably be something in thesomething where I thought perhaps Regional Area order of £30,000 a year better oV because the greaterCommittees of Historic Ships could help to generate part of our expenditure is in staV costs, so therea local interest and then feed it through to the would be a saving, but when a capital project comesnational interest. along, as they invariably do, then you lose out. Yes,

it is a disaster, that is exactly what it is. We haveQ16 Mr Hawkins: I wanted to ask you about that. spent a lot of time and energy taking advice andDo you feel that all of the diVerent maritime talking to Customs and Excise to explore whethervoluntary organisations around the UK, and I go to there is any loophole that will allow us to take thequite a lot of events where I see fund raising going on project forward without having to pay the VATfor the Medway Queen, for example, work well burden. That has gone right up to the Minister andenough together or is there sometimes a bit of an we have been told quite firmly that is not possible.atmosphere of rivalry that some organisations think“If they are getting it, that is doing us down?”

Q20 Chairman: In the Treasury who is the Minister?Mr Anning:As you know, theMedwayQueen is onlyMr Doughty: I am afraid I cannot remember thea stone’s throw from the ChathamDockyard. I havename.heard that Chatham Dockyard pulled the plug on

the electric one day becauseMedway Queen had notpaid its Bill. There is the John H Amos which is

Q21 Chris Bryant: I think it is the Paymastercurrent

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships · 2005. 3. 17. · 4 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 4....

Documents

Transcript of Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships · 2005. 3. 17. · 4 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 4....