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

HC 296 Published on 17 March 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £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

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 3

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

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 5

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

6 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships

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)

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 7

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

8 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships

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

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 9

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

10 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships

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

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 11

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

12 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships

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

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 13

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

14 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships

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)

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 15

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 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships

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)

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 17

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

18 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships

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

Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships 19

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

20 Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships

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 HC 213 Committee’s Fifth Report, 2002–03 Second Report DCMS Annual Report: work of the Department in HC 74 2002–03 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 HC 585 Third Report, 2003–04 Sixth Report Arts development: dance HC 587 Seventh Report Drugs and role models in sport: making and setting HC 499 examples

Session 2002–03 First Report National Museums and Galleries: funding and free HC 85 admission 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 HC 264 Championships in the UK 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 HC 842 Games Sixth Report Wembley National Stadium Project: Into Injury time HC 843 Seventh Report The Government’s proposals for gambling: nothing HC 827 to lose?

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 million to support a £25 million conservation project for the ship. The fabric of the ship is severely corroded and unless this is addressed urgently, we are advised by our structural surveyors, she will close as a visitor attraction in 2007. The ship is the only major attraction within the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage site without a public subsidy, and is neither able to fund this conservation programme itself, nor re-present the ship for 21st century audiences. Nevertheless, the ship attracts more than 160,000 payingvisitors a year, which makes her one of the country’s leadingindependent visitor attracti ons. She is of course enjoyed by millions 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 ship requires no substantial conservation work for the next half century and to ensure that she is enjoyed by the widest 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 substantial Lottery funding, and I am therefore concerned that geographical location may have a greater sway in 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 very substantial fundraisingtarget. 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 heritage sector, 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 the Trust’s entitlement to reclaim the bulk of VAT on the project, addingalmos t £4 million to the cost of 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, it has cost the Trust in excess of £600,000 to bringthis bid forward. Therefore am writingto ask whether, giventhe status of Cutty Sark as the co untry’s premier historic merchant ship, you would consider a one session enquiry to look into ways in which the committee can assist and 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 allowingme to submit my views to add to the discussions that are underway 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. During which time I helped to save the last of the WW2 Destroyers, HMS Cavalier. (c) I am currently assistingthe Maritime Steam Restoration Trust (MSRT) i n helpingto save the last steam driven LandingShip Tank (LS1) which currently faces the threat of be ingscrapped. 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 prevalent today, despite the fact of the CMS Committee makingsome excellent recomme ndations with the “Presentation of Historic Ships: The case for HMS Cavalier”. There is still no mechanism, guidance, or help of any sort, to those wishingto save an Historic Ship most of which are left m ainly to their own devices. This is indeed a totally undesirable situation. (b) It’s all very well the establishment saying“that individuals embark o n ship restorations without adequate resources, cost eVective projections and the like, and that most projects are seen to fail because of lack of maritime experience in the management”. (c) Many of the Historic Ships that are a national asset today, owe their very existence to the staunch eVorts of enthusiasts, campaigners, and volunteers, and until there is a proper organised procedures and mechanisms on, “how to go about saving an Historic Ship”, one should not knock the eVorts of those who are at least willingto giveit a try until such times as there is a proper syst em installed. (d) To me, 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 fundingas buildingswhich often surround Historic Ships, barringthe few “icons” which DCMS are of the opin ion are the only ships worth saving. 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 gain protection 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 the issuingof export licences after the case of HMS Cavalier. Despite the fact that the MSRT had expressed an interest in HMS Stalker, Pounds of Portsmouth (Ship Breakers) were still issued with an export licence, If the 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 Royal Navy Ships should not be sent abroad for scrappingbecause of environmenta l issues. In my view, this could be taken a step further, whereby ships over a given age—say 50 years or over, should not be exported until such time as its heritage value to our nation has been properly evaluated and accessed.

4. National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC) (a) It would be wrongfor me not to recognisethe time, and e Vort, that the Committee puts in on our behalf. But unfortunately, they are unselected, and unaccountable body of people, who have set themselves up to be judge and jury over the futures of Historic Ships, without a mandate or the proper authority to do so. (b) The Committee purport to say that they have the support of the Historic Ship Owners—but have they been asked? Only recently because of the ill health of Sir Julian Oswald, the NMM at Greenwich have “elected” a new Chairman. If anyone has doubts about the existence of the proposed NHS Unit beingbased at NMM, then their worries and concerns have been substantiated by the news of NMM makingthese kind of 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 being elected by Regional Committees of Ship/Boat Owners, and to serve for five years before seekingre-election. For the Committee, or indeed its Chairman to be appointed simply as another Government sponsored Quango will be treated with suspicion by most within the industry, and would not boost confidence and trust. (d) One of the deepest concerns about the NHSC, is that many of the Committee represent the major Maritime Museums throughout Britain, whilst the other 90% of Ship/Boat owners in Private and Trusts hands 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 their deliberations, 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 the fence beingevasive, and indecisive. Much of this comes down to the NRHV whi ch I believe the Committee and DCMS have overstated their importance and significance to Historic Ships. It’s debatable as to there being 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 when he stated: “the proof of the puddingwill be whether or not the NRHV actually saves another Historic Ship”. 9947231002 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 3

(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 beingbuilt in Great Britain or its hull is not fully intact) then, the NHSC would have great diYculty in denyingother ships that equal right—HMS Stalker being one because she was built in Canada. (f) Another reason for HMS Stalker beingdenied entry onto the registersby NHSC’s Technical Committee was because of project sustainability. The MSRT have only recently applied for a Project PlanningGrant (PPG) from HLF, and until the feasibility study has been com pleted by Frazer Nash of Bristol, it is curious to see how the Technical Committee can make a confident decision on Stalker’s project sustainability without that information beingmade available.

5. Historic Ship Funding (a) Historic ship campaigners are constantly being reminded by DCMS, and English Heritage, that Historic Ships—and in particular the larger ships—are enormously expensive to repair and conserve. But also, so are the Dome, The Royal Opera House, Stately Homes, The Arts, and others which most in Whitehall 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 changingthe Whitehall mindset 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 on the great national icons—Victory, Gt Britain, Cutty Sark and the rest”. One would have to agree to their saviour—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 the major museums, and over the past 10 years HLF have given just £38 million in grants to Historic Ships, 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 multiple grants, whilst the rest of Historic Ships outside of the Museums get virtually nothingat all. It would appear to me, and to the contrary, it’s not Historic Ships that are expensive. (d) The followingare an example of some of the net recipients who divide the £1.2 billion up that is given in grant-in-aid annually: The Arts Council—£365.4 million; British Library—£90.8 million; BTA—398.4 million; and English Heritage—£126.4 million to name just a few. Whilst Historic Ships get nothing. I repeat, 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 be complacent, and I abhor the huge grants being handed out to just a few ships such as Cutty Sark, SS Great Britain, much of it on mad cap schemes, which are openly encouraged by HLF. In some cases, there is a distinct 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 to try and somehow guarantee its future, often means it’s another ship’s undoingand 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 does not happen. Sometimes a fraction of the money beingspent on Mary Rose for example, whic h 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 and HMS Stalker who are fighting for their very existence, whereby a little bit of money could make quite a diVerence. (g) I acknowledge that without Heritage Lottery Funding, our Historic Ships would hardly be worth keeping. But, in my view, HLF are not particularly “qualified” (even though they do have paid advisers whose views are often ignored for political expedience), to say whenever a grant is applied for, which Ships stays afloat (as that is what grants comes down to at the end of the day) and which ships should sink, or indeed, care enough about our Maritime History to be objective in their deliberations and decision makingprocess. (h) Unfortunately, and at times HLF can be ignorant and indiVerent to the needs of Historic ships. One of its senior case oYcers twice turned down HMS Cavalier for heritage lottery funding, and referred to the Dunkirk 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 1992 English 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 aidingin 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? 9947231002 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 4 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

(j) I do not profess to be an expert in Historic Ships matters, but simply as a layman who first of all was in the right position at the wrong time with HMS Cavalier, and now with HMS Stalker with whom I have a very stronginterest in because only recently we held services to the memo ry of those who lost their lives during the D-Day Landings 60 years ago, where Landing Crafts of all descriptions went down with the loss of 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 to those 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 Restoration Trust, examined.

Q1 Chairman: Good morning, gentlemen. Can I cannot progress on to one thing until you have done welcome you to this Sub-Committee of the Select somethingelse. It is this sort of situation all the time Committee for Culture, Media and Sport lookingat and it is very, very diYcult. maritime heritage and historic ships. Although we announced this inquiry before Christmas, we largely Q3 Chairman: Where are the hiccoughs then? What did it because we had a letter certainly from the would you recommend? Everyone wants more Cutty 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 the though we have managed to persuade the Heritage Government make money available for all other Lottery Fund to help the Cutty Sark. We understand sections of our heritage, such as libraries, museums, that the Arts Minister, Lord McIntosh, is going to churches and football, et cetera, et cetera, and we make an announcement today about the National wonder why this is anti-historic ships. That is the Historic Ships Unit. We wondered whether we impression that we are getting. Our maritime should actually continue the investigation because heritage is very important to this country and yet it the two things we wanted have actually been done. seems to be the poor relation to every other thing. I Nevertheless, you are very welcome here. We are think that is the feelingmost people in historic ships very informal, we are not going to have a list of have got. If we can get some sort of money, even if it questions, Members will just ask questions directly is only to help the National Historic Ships Unit and to you. If I might just start by thanking Rear perhaps some of the core collection, that would go Admiral John Hervey for the book that has been a great way and relieve a lot of the pressure on the given to the Chairman which we will put in our Heritage Lottery Fund for them to look at things on library. I wonder since we did the HMS Cavalier the DV list, or perhaps regional boards. inquiry whether you think between you all that things have got better or worse in this particular Q4 Chairman: Mr Doughty, you have got some area? I am not lookingat anyone in particular. We money comingin but not as much as you want. Is it did that in 1998. dependent on you raisingthe other bits of money Rear Admiral Hervey: If I can say something. As far before you get the Heritage Lottery money for the as Cavalier is concerned, the situation has certainly Cutty Sark? got a lot better. Reading all the memos that Mr Doughty: Yes, Chairman. We have to be able to everybody has put in I get the feeling that the raise partnership fundingto be able to draw down Department has not really altered its basic position. the Heritage Lottery Fund grants that the Trust has It is giving a little bit more money to the new been awarded. Clearly this sector is very heavily organisation but it is miniscule compared to what is dependent on the Heritage Lottery Fund and I think needed to tackle the problem. I do not think it has it is ludicrous that an organisation like English altered all that much. There are still only very few Heritage is prepared to put resources into helping ships that are beinghelped and the chances of saving record or excavate wrecks but there is no money that somethingnew do not seem to be significantlybetter comes from that particular department to support for Mr Anning, who is now working on a project, the maritime heritage sector. than they were when he was dealingwith the Cavalier and I was helpinghim. Q5 Chairman: It seems to me that we have listed buildings and they are graded and you cannot get rid of them, you must preserve them, although there are issues about whether we have got enough money to Q2 Chairman: Is that a view shared by the other preserve everythingthat has a Grade A or a Grade members? B listing. Is that how boats and ships should be? You Mr Anning: I am workingwith 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 save the same problems exist now tryingto save the every historic ship in this country and nobody would landingcraft as we had with Admiral Hervey with even say that you have to. If you look at the situation Cavalier. It is a chicken and egg situation: you in Chatham, for example, you have got many listed 9947231003 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 5

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 children buildings are protected but not the ships that are of their own age who gave their lives for their there. The only ships that are protected are the ones country, as quite a few did. that are sunk, the wrecks, and this was brought in Mr Anning: I think another problem that we should last year by Baroness Anelay of St Johns. We cannot take into consideration is there are still a lot of skills see any parity there. They were sayingthat some available but once these latest generations have gone ships like the Cutty Sark are listed buildings in actual you will not be able to practise those skills. That is fact, so would it be right for them to go under one of the problems we have got with historic ships English Heritage if they are buildings as such? at the moment, there are not enough shipwrights and 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 be authority 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 interesting money to actually preserve those houses. things about the Friends’ organisation that about Rear Admiral Hervey: I think it was very eight, nine or ten of them come every Wednesday to unfortunate that English Heritage should have work on the ship and the Chairman of the Friends is shrugged their shoulders in 1992 and said they were a very experienced ex-naval shipwright. He has got no longer interesting themselves in historic ships, it one of the 40/60 Bofors guns oV and into the sent a very bad message to the whole business. In workshop alongside the ship and he has re-plated the fact, I am rather amazed that they were asked for deck. Normally that would cost umpteen thousand their opinion this time since they seem to be so pounds if you can get somebody to come in and do uninterested in our business. Perhaps you would like that as a contractor. It is quite an economical thing to record that. and he is helpingwith the skills we need. Chairman: It is recorded. Q8 Chris Bryant: I can see that especially because Q7 Chris Bryant: Let me just challenge you a bit. My Britain is an island nation our naval heritage is an grandfather was a naval architect and my great- integral part, whether you are talking about people uncle designed most of the destroyer class as a naval livingin the islands of Scotland throughfrom architect at Clydeside, so my flat is full of coracle buildingto modern techniques or whether memorabilia from that period of shipbuildingin you are talkingabout our military heritage,but I Clydeside. Why do ships matter because there are wonder whether the balance is right between our hundreds of them? Why does it really matter to naval military heritage and our merchant ships? Britain? Rear Admiral Hervey: I think you have to take a Rear Admiral Hervey: If one is talkingabout look at the work done by Dr Prescott in drawingup warships, in Cavalier’s case there were two reasons the list. There were 14 warships that were put into really. One was that it was an extremely interesting the core collection, so by any means it was not all artefact in its own right, the epitome of the middle slanted that way. Providingyou are prepared to of the last century’s warships. It was also, of course, accept as time goes on that you can move from the representative of 143 destroyers of ours that did not designated list to the core collection, and that is one come back from the Second World War, plus about of the things that this new committee ought to have in mind, that there should be some flexibility in re- another 10 or 11 of our ships manned by allied listing, if people do a really good job of looking after navies. By the end of this year there will be a suitable the ship it becomes more interestingand more memorial 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 that Cavalier was not in the core collection but will all be listed on the back of a large bronze bas- I was so pleased that we had saved her anyway I did relief which depicts destroyers rescuingpeople from not make a lot of fuss about it at the time. I have it the sea, which they did a great deal of. I think the in mind that my next battle will be to get the ship other 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, thank have 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 with Before the ships were there hardly any children came respect to lookingafter our naval heritagethan we into the place at all. They have all had a proper are our merchant navy heritage. One thinks of structured day, at the end of which one boy, who had Glenlee in Scotland and Cutty Sark now in England, never put anythingconstructive down on paper in but they are the principal vessels. To answer your his life before, wrote a page and a half about his visit. original question, what is their merit? The DCMS Sadly, the followingweek all the boys who were response to the Ships for the Nation consultation supposed to come did not turn up because they were acknowledges some of the benefits, and one of the all up in front of the beak again, but at least they ones that I would particularly highlight is the impact have 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, I important. We need better role models for our am sure one of the arguments that helped persuade children anyway than the ones they seem to have the Heritage Lottery Fund to give us a grant was that 9947231003 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 6 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

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

Cutty Sark is a public amenity in much the same way Mr Doughty: Yes. The Heritage Lottery Fund have as the Albert Memorial is. You do not have to board awarded us a £1.2 million development grant and the Cutty Sark to be able to enjoy and appreciate the that will allow us over the next year to prepare our beauty of the ship. While I make much of saying16 second stage application. The grant that has been million people have paid to go on board Cutty Sark, allocated, £11.75 million, is ring-fenced only until we there are countless millions more who are benefiting submit that stage two application. If we fail to make every year and appreciatingthe ship in her settingin that submission or, i ndeed, if our submission is not Greenwich. of a good enough standard then that oVer will be withdrawn. If I may just make another point here. We were given a strong steer not to ask for more than Q9 Chris Bryant: Tell me, have you ever visited the £10 million in our grant application, which is what Vassa in Stockholm which was a 16th Century ship we have done but I have said that they have given us that went down days after settingsail? They have £11.75 million. Another issue I would like to draw to dragged it up, it is a wonderful thing to go around, your attention is the fact that projects such as the stunningly beautiful and in almost perfect condition, Cutty Sark are now havingto pay VAT, so on a except that in the 15 years since it has been in the £22 net million project we have now got to raise over museum it has now started to deteriorate fairly £3 million to pay Customs and Excise, which is Y rapidly and they are findingterrible di culties in another extraordinary burden that is beingplaced Y maintainingit now. How expensive and how di cult on to voluntary organisations. is it in particular to bringthingsup 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 limited Mr Doughty: I think that is a very interesting amount of resources that are available one ship can example for you to have taken because I believe the suck out so much of the lifeblood of historic ships Vassa is a project that was almost entirely subsidised generally because 90% of the ships outside the core by the government in Stockholm. Interestingly, their collection, outside the museums, do not get any conservation team are now comingto the Cutty Sark grants at all. I would like to see the sights lowered a Trust for advice as to how they should tackle their bit so there is a fairer distribution of Heritage own project. Indeed, they are lookingat the Lottery wealth. I just feel that sometimes these large innovative system that we are developingfor grants tend to shoot one in the foot because it gives supporting 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 got considered and for their long-term eVects to be to lower our sights otherwise people are never going assessed. In the case of the Vassa it turns out that a to take on historic ships if we keep charging so much very serious mistake was made: they overlooked the money, as in the case of Cutty Sark. impact of people going into a building. They thought puttingthe 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 about them. 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 going to have to raise considerable sums of money Q12 Chairman: How much have you raised? periodically, perhaps every 25 years or so, because Mr Anning: I am not the Chairman, I am only you know you are going to have a major refit to take supportingthem. It is only a very small amount at into consideration. I think the point is that the the moment. We are in a chicken and egg situation. majority of historic ships are quite good at running We have put in for a project planninggrantand we their day-to-day business but what they do not have are waitingfor the result of that, which we should the ability to do, and what the Cutty Sark does not know this week. People are not comingforward to have the ability to do at the moment, is to build the help you unless you go through certain stages, that reserves that are required to ensure that there is a is the problem that we have got. resource available to tackle those long-term Rear Admiral Hervey: If you recall, when we came in maintenance problems. front of the Committee in 1998 it was very Rear Admiral Hervey: Of course, you are not interestingthat as soon as the Committee meeting allowed to carry forward the grant-in-aid from one was over two organisations who before had been year to the next if you are lucky enough to get it in pussyfootingaround both came to see Sid and the first place, so it is very diYcult to build up a fund myself saying“Please come to Birkenhead” or to tackle that. Every time HMS Belfast has to have “Please come to Chatham”. The way the Committee a dockingshe has to be taken all the way round to had been handled that day by Gerald Kaufman and Portsmouth to have it. Mercifully, Cavalier sits over what he said made it quite clear that he was going to the top of the blocks and all you have to do is pump put a bit of pressure from the CMS Committee on out the dock. both the Minister and the Heritage Lottery Fund to cough up, and indeed they did. For the first time the Minister 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 word money that there is a finite time you have that sitting on the subject until he had visited the ship. I will not there, your 10 million or 11 million that you have say what he said to the Director of the Heritage got? Lottery Fund because it was not recorded in the 9947231003 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 7

2 February 2005 Mr Richard Doughty, Rear Admiral John Hervey and Mr Sid Anning report, but he made it pretty plain that he expected be a pretty helpful thingto have. At least you would her to take a more positive attitude to it and produce then know that the finance was going to be available some fast track procedures and get some money for and you were not constantly havingto rely on the the feasibility study. As soon as that had been said council budget being got at by central government in Committee Room 15 people started lookingat it and then havingto changetheir minds about helping more positively. There was plenty of goodwill before you or not. These are the sorts of things that govern that but it was not focused until this organisation everythingat 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 gone very significant step that day. to good causes since the Lottery began, £38 million Mr Doughty: I think it has to be said, Chairman, as for historic ships is not a lot. I wonder if historic I already have, that the burden is fallingon 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 new up to resource the maritime heritage sector. Their Unit that has been identified is that it can give the paper that has been submitted to this council is a help that smaller organisations need to be able to put very good one and it makes it quite clear that each in a bid of the suYcient quality that is required. We bid is assessed on its individual merits. The trouble all hope that 2005, the Year of the Sea, is going to is, it is a very diYcult process to go through. In my shine a spotlight on maritime heritage, but I am not case it has taken me three years and over half a going to be able to raise the £10 million matching million pounds to actually bringthis application to funds I need to find through that sort of public the Heritage Lottery Fund. The point really is not to subscription. Sure, it is going to make a contribution criticise the Heritage Lottery Fund, it is to be aware but not a significant one. What I have found that historic ships and the maritime sector are under- frustratingis that there is joined-up governmentand resourced and under-appreciated. They need better it is joined-up against the maritime sector. If I go to support and I would suggest there need to be ways English Heritage, and it has already been pointed in which the Government can support the most out that Cutty Sark is a Grade 1 listed structure, they important parts of our maritime heritage. do not recognise her as a building although they have now put Cutty Sark on the Grade 1 Listed Q13 Mr Hawkins: Rather like Chris, I come to this Buildings At Risk Register, they turn round to me inquiry with a bias in that my father was a naval and say, “You are an historic ship, we do not fund oYcer in submarines duringand after World War II historic ships”. If I go to DCMS and say, “I am not and I was a Royal Navy Cadet and I have an interest playingon an even playingfield in Greenwich. It is in transport history. That is just so that you know very price sensitive. We have got the National where I am comingfrom. One of the thingsthat I am Maritime Museum with grant-aid support, and we pleased to hear you say is that this Committee played have got the old Royal Naval College. Moreover a positive role in the past and I hope that our session there are other museums, such as the GeVrye today and our inquiry will have a similarly positive Museum, for example, that are takingdown grants role. I did want to ask you whether you agree with to support them as museums because it is deemed me that the fact that we are in 2005, which is a very that they are disadvantaged by museums that are significant anniversary in Britain’s Maritime able to oVer free access”, and if I ask whether this history, SeaBritain 2005, is somethingthat is going might apply to Cutty Sark because we are now a to enable us to concentrate the minds of the public registered museum they say, “No, you are an historic and may increase the fund raisinge Vort from other ship, you are not a museum”. It is very diYcult. sources, from members of the public beingmore Mr Anning: It is catch-22 all the time. interested because of the tourism campaign for SeaBritain 2005. Is that somethingthat you are hopingwill help concentrate minds, as well as our Q14 Mr Hawkins: Really one of the things that you work as a Committee? would like this Committee to address in our report Rear Admiral Hervey: Yes. This year is a good year is that feelingthat you all have that the way in which to be puttingsome emphasis on the maritime scene. the fundingworks is joined-up againstyou and you There could not be a better way to get in amongst it. would really be invitingus to ask some tough I agree with Mr Doughty that I do not think it is fair questions of bodies like English Heritage to see to put all the onus on the Heritage Lottery Fund for whether they could reverse the stance they took at makingthese make or break decisions on individual the beginning of the 1990s. That is one of the things ships. Some money needs to be set aside out of which you are sayingto us, is it not? you can generate some income and use it for these Mr Anning: If you take the recent award to the purposes. When we were in front of you in 1998 we Macclesfield Psalter, it was given £860,000 from the suggested that it should be built up gradually over National Heritage Memorial Fund but, as I the years. One was lookingat a figureof about 30 understand it, the National Heritage Memorial million and, in fact, we gave the example that if what Fund is to fund heritage throughout the UK in was beingasked for by the Mary Rose, which was 29 memory of those who gave their lives for the UK. I million at that time, had been put into an upkeep am sorry but I really do not understand how the endowment fund it would have been able to endow Macclesfield Psalter can get £860,000 from a fund 10 ships at 200,000 a year in perpetuity. That would like that. 9947231003 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 8 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

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

Q15 Mr Hawkins: One of the issues which is raised transport projects which fall on them. Perhaps what in the evidence to us is about what the Department you are really sayingto us is that there oughtto be is doingand from the results of their consultation other Exchequer funded sources of income perhaps exercise they talk about the positive feedback they which could be available because of the importance had about the creation of a Small Grants Fund. of maritime heritage to Britain as a nation to educate Clearly you have made the point about the large the next generation of children about the importance sums 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 upkeep supportive of the idea of creatinga Small Grants allowance. If a sinkingfund was put in that could Fund to enable seed corn money to come in for some help the core collection quite considerably perhaps. of the smaller projects and perhaps help to attract business sponsorship to projects in the future? Mr Anning: All of us who were here last time were Q19 Chairman: You said that you had a £3 million very grateful to the Select Committee for the VAT bill, or you expect to have at the end of your recommendations they made, we thought they were project. Just explain why you have got to do VAT? spot-on, but unfortunately nothingwas done about Are you not a registered charity? them. It is nice that we have got another opportunity Mr Doughty: We are a registered charity. The now and we are hopingthat we can perhaps pick it change of legislation in June meant that because we up this time where it was not last time. One of the charge an admission for going on to the ship we can problems with historic ships is there is not enough no longer be VAT registered. It is actually European communication with everybody around the legislation which I imagine was brought in to benefit countryside and people feedingin ideas, collecting organisations like ourselves. In the ordinary course these ideas and bringing them forward. This is of events we would probably be somethingin the something where I thought perhaps Regional Area order of £30,000 a year better oV because the greater Committees of Historic Ships could help to generate part of our expenditure is in staV costs, so there a local interest and then feed it through to the would be a saving, but when a capital project comes national interest. along, as they invariably do, then you lose out. Yes, it is a disaster, that is exactly what it is. We have Q16 Mr Hawkins: I wanted to ask you about that. spent a lot of time and energy taking advice and Do you feel that all of the diVerent maritime talkingto Customs and Excise to explore whether voluntary organisations around the UK, and I go to there is any loophole that will allow us to take the quite a lot of events where I see fund raisinggoingon project forward without havingto pay the VAT for the Medway Queen, for example, work well burden. That has gone right up to the Minister and enough 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?” Mr Anning: As you know, the Medway Queen is only Q20 Chairman: In the Treasury who is the Minister? a stone’s throw from the Chatham Dockyard. I have Mr Doughty: I am afraid I cannot remember the heard that Chatham Dockyard pulled the plugon name. the electric one day because Medway Queen had not paid its Bill. There is the John H Amos which is currently just outside the Dockyard boundary, and Q21 Chris Bryant: I think it is the Paymaster there is movement to bringher inside the Dockyard. General, Dawn Primarolo. You have referred to I spoke to the Excelsior Trust once about funding English Heritage and I just wonder whether you and he said: “My whole workingday, my waking have had similar experiences in Scotland and in day, is made up of tryingto find money for the Wales? I do not know what it is called in Scotland Trust”. The trouble is people are lookingover their but in Wales it is CADW. Has that not entered into shoulders all the time at other people tryingto it at all? protect their little pot so they really have not got time Mr Anning: No. for other people and I think that is the danger. Mr Doughty: I do not have experience of that.

Q17 Mr Hawkins: You have made the point that you Q22 Chris Bryant: We might need to find that from think it is perhaps unfair that too much of the another source. burden falls on the Heritage Lottery Fund. Mr Anning: One of the good things that has come Mr Anning: Definitely. out of the Cavalier is the volunteers who have put a tremendous amount of time on board the ship. Q18 Mr Hawkins: There are all kinds of other Somethingthat needs to be thoughtabout is that pressures on the Heritage Lottery Fund for the those skills need to be passed down to the younger money that they do have to distribute. I think in the generation to keep those going. That saves a lot of figures that have been given to us they make the money through volunteers. point that as compared with somethingof the order of £32 million that they have provided in the past for historic ships, over the same period they have given Q23 Chairman: There is no NVQ, there is nothingat £3.5 million to railway preservation projects, for any level in further education that would retrain example. There are all kinds of other historic them, as it were? 9947231003 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 9

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

Mr Anning: That is right. Heritage Lottery Fund. I just wonder if you can give us some examples of what you regard as “madcap Q24 Chairman: That is the issue, is it not? schemes”? Rear Admiral Hervey: The Naval Historic Dockyard Mr Anning: I spoke to the Heritage Lottery Fund at Chatham looked at the question of whether they and I asked for a break down of Cutty Sark’s Lottery could introduce actual trainingfor people but the bid because I thought it was very high. I was met rules and regulations about running that sort of with a certain amount of prevarication. What I organisation that you have to meet are very, very asked for were costings for the fabric of the ship and restrictive and up to now they have frightened them costings for interpretation. I understand that some oV a bit. things are not quite clear-cut and cross over into each other. (The fabric of the Ship is sometimes part of the interpretation and vice versa). What I was told Q25 Chairman: We have a very energetic Learning was that there was loads and loads of paperwork— and Skills Council in Kent and Medway, have they this I understood, and said, “that I did not want all been approached? the paperwork”. I then said I wanted to make it as Rear Admiral Hervey: I honestly do not know. I clear as possible as to what money was beingspent think Sid is absolutely right about the question of on the Fabric of the Ship and what money was being volunteers. Every day that the volunteers put in is spent in interpretation, that was all I asked for. Then counted towards the matched funding, so it works in commercial confidentiality came in, which was more than one way. another red herring, and I said, “I am not asking for Mr Doughty: In our case, we are workingwith the Mr Bloggs’ name, all I am asking for is how much he Learningand Skills Council because we are relying is charging for his work”. In fact, I was referred back on beingable to train people up to work throughour to Mr Doughty for that and I asked him that project so that it becomes a centre of excellence for question myself. I just believe that the Heritage the maritime heritage. Can I just come back to a Lottery Fund should be a bit more transparent over point Mr Hawkins raised about whether there is these things. It is public money and I think we have rivalry because I am not aware of this rivalry that Mr a right to know what is being spent on what. That is Anningspeaks of, I am only aware of co-operation. somethingthat I think needs to be opened up quite One thinks of the Maritime Curators’ Group and the considerably. work that they are doingand all the other umbrella organisations that work well together. We are in a competitive environment in terms of drawingdown Q27 Mr Hawkins: In other words, what your resources but certainly if I think of the work that has evidence to us really referred to was the lack of been done through the Maritime Trust, for example, information about how public money is beingspent it has all been in the spirit of co-operation. The fact rather than beinga criticism of other individual that Cutty Sark has the challenge that it now has projects? today in terms of raisingthe capital it needs is a Mr Anning: My view is this: every pound saved on a reflection of the fact that the monies that it has raised scheme is a pound that goes to another ship. I am in the past it has put into other projects. The very pleased that the Cutty Sark has got this, believe Maritime Trust, the former owner of the Cutty Sark, me, they need it badly, but my concern is the has probably done more for maritime heritage than interpretation, the amount of money that is going on any other organisation other than the Heritage interpretation. I understand that a certain amount of Lottery Fund itself. It is not just historic ships that interpretation is needed to sell the ship, to make it have benefited all around the country, it is also attractive, we know that, but to raise a ship with museums. For example, the excellent fishing Kevlar and put glass around it to make it look like museum in Anstruther would not have been set up it is going through the water is a waste of money to without the core fundingthat came to Cutty Sark me, especially when, as the Chairman knows, just up nor the boat museum in Windermere. I think there the river is the Medway Queen which only a few is a spirit of support. I have to highlight and months earlier was turned down for funding. The commend the work that John Payton has done with Heritage Lottery Fund in here says that the Cutty the National Historic Ships Committee because for Sark should not put a bid in above £10 million. I do the last three years or more on a very limited budget not know why they said that because the way I look he has been doingexactly what this new Unit is being at that is they are saying, “You can have £10 million charged with undertaking. I know that John goes and no more”, and that is before they have even round and gives advice to organisations. Sometimes looked at it. I just want to see fair play. That is not those small organisations do not always listen to takinganythingaway from the Cutty Sark, I want to what they are beingtold. As I say, puttingin a grant see that ship brought back up to a good standard but application is a very, very complex procedure. We not to the detriment of everybody else. have only been able to do it because we have drawn Rear Admiral Hervey: I think that there is a parallel on the advice and expertise from a large number of with when we were tryingto save Cavalier. I know people. that Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust, who are operators and managers of the consortium, were Q26 Mr Hawkins: Can I explore that a little bit given a very clear steer that they should not ask for more. In his written evidence to us, Mr Anninghas more than two million or they would not get referred to some schemes as being“madcap anythingat all. The same answer was givento the schemes” which may have been encouraged by the director of the submarine museum because at the 9947231003 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 10 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

2 February 2005 Mr Richard Doughty, Rear Admiral John Hervey and Mr Sid Anning time politically it was seen as beingbad news to have Q28 Chairman: Are there any ships overseas that are a huge figure constantly publicised. Of course, the in danger that you know of? hope was that one could come back incrementally Mr Anning: There is one in the Egyptian Navy that and break down part of it that could be done for two enthusiasts are tryingto bringback. million and then come back for some more perhaps Rear Admiral Hervey: It is a Black Swan class to do another bit, which was virtually what they did frigate. I was talking in the Army and Navy Club last in the submarine museum. It gives the feeling all the night to Michael Gretton who is runningthe time that there is no trust between the two sides in business of tryingto save her and they have gotto the handlingof this sort of thing. the point where they are doingquite well at raising Mr Doughty: I have to say I think the point is it is the money and they are now waitingto getthe ludicrous for anyone to turn round and say that technical assessment by the team who are going out heritage is not worth more than £10 million of public there to have a look at her. Basically she is in quite money but, let us be clear, it is not the maritime good stead. They have never tried to adapt her to do heritage sector that is being singled out here, I am anythingelse so from the point of view of if you want sure that is advice that is being given by Heritage something from the Second World War she is in Lottery Fund oYcers to any potential applicant who quite good shape. comes forward. The point is that there is a diminishingresource that the HeritageLottery Fund Q29 Chairman: Gentlemen, can I thank you very has available to give to the very many good causes much. One thingI will do is I will ask the clerk to that it has to process. I understand why they bringin write to Dawn Primarol o so we can get a better the thresholds that they have to enforce, it is just very understandingof the VAT position and we will diYcult for all applicants because I have no doubt publish that. that the quality of bids is getting higher as the Mr Doughty: Thank you. resource is getting lower. Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.

Memorandum submitted by the Heritage Lottery Fund

1. The Role of the Heritage Lottery Fund and the National Heritage Memorial Fund Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is the body that distributes the share of fundingraised from the National Lottery to heritage projects. The Fund opened for business in January 1995 and since then has given around £3 billion in 15,000 awards to heritage projects. The aims of the Fund are: — 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. A further aim is to bringabout a more equitable spread of our grantsacross t he UK. The parent body for HLF is the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF), which was set up by the National Heritage Act, 1980 with wide powers to fund heritage throughout the UK in memory of people who have given their lives for the UK. The NHMF still operates as a separate fund. It administers the Heritage Lottery Fund. HLF currently distributes 16.66% of the money for good causes. At first, HLF concentrated on capital works, conservation and acquisitions. The National Heritage Act 1997 formally extended its remit in 1997 to encompass activities such as improvingaccess, learningopportunitie s, skills and helpingpeople enjoy heritage. In 1998, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport issued revised policy directions to the Trustees settingout the matters they should take into consideration when decidingon grants.These still apply. These require the Fund to consider carefully how to use grants to meet the needs of the national heritage, to promote access for people from all sections of society, to promote knowledge of and interest in the heritage by children and young people, to achieve sustainable development and to reduce economic and social deprivation. Projects also need to be time-limited, financially viable and deliver an element of partnership fundingand workingwith other organisations.HLF submitted evidence to the previous Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that inquired into the preservation of HMS Cavalier.

2. Funding for Historic Vessels and Maritime Heritage

2.1 Awards to historic vessels Since 1994, HLF has awarded £38.6 million to 68 projects relatingto 44 indi vidual vessels, including maritime vessels and excludingthose relatingto inland waterways. Our aw ards range from the conservation of the remains of the Mary Rose and the Dover Boat, to workingvessels such as the Waverley Paddle Steamer. We have funded larger vessels such as SS Great Britain as well as smaller vessels of local interest 9947231004 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 11

such as the MV Wincham or the Portwey lifeboat. That fundinghas covered a ra nge of activities, including the conservation and refittingof vessels, interpretation, the acquisiti on of objects and the refurbishment of facilities. HLF has also contributed towards the planningcosts of projec ts. NHMF has contributed an additional £1.5 million to five vessels. As an example of a larger project, HMS Trincomalee is the oldest ship afloat in the UK and the last survivingexample of a classic Royal Navy frigate.HLF has supported the re storation and interpretation of the ship in Hartlepool where the South Docks are beingtransformed into a major visitor destination and commercial area. The project is an example of a conserved vessel leadinga r egeneration scheme and has won a number of awards. Under Awards for All, the small grant scheme run jointly with other distributors, there have been 21 projects in England, seven in Scotland and two in Wales which include works to historic boats or their infrastructure.

2.2 Maritime heritage Many of these awards also include fundingfor related maritime heritagesu ch as facilities on the dockside. In addition we have funded a wide range of maritime heritage projects, includingmaritime museums and collections, and built heritage including piers, docks, harbours and other historic maritime features. For example, Chatham Dockyard has received 18 awards totalling£12.8 mill ion which include funding to vessels and to associated infrastructure. After its closure a Trust was established to preserve Europe’s most complete example of an 18th century dockyard. A museum was opened in April 2001 and HMS Gannet (1878), HMS Ocelot (1962) and HMS Cavalier (1944) have been brought together in an accessible environment that will ensure their longterm future. The project has benefi ted the vessels but has also brought wider regeneration benefits. The dockyard is helping to support the wider leisure and retail economy. Research by the Southern Tourist board concluded that the dockyard is worth £20 million per annum to the local economy. In Scotland, the repair and refurbishment of the former premises of the fishingboat builders Smith and Hutton has enabled the Scottish Fisheries Museum to provide covered accommodation for the conservation, display and maintenance of the museum’s collection of historic fishingboats, includingthe “Zulu” fishingvessel also supported by HLF. Visitors can also see conserva tion work beingcarried out by volunteers and museum staV.

3. Issues Relating to the Funding of Ships and Maritime Heritage

3.1 Availability of funding The earlier Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry noted that the Government has eVectively placed the onus for fundingships on HLF. We have givenconsiderable suppor t to maritime heritage and remain fully committed to it as part of our broad range of projects. However, with some exceptions, the Fund does not allocate fixed sums to specific categories of heritage and we do not envisage a discrete funding stream for historic vessels. Applications for HLF funds exceed the sums available and therefore diYcult choices have to be made. This situation may become more acute as a result of Clause 8 of the National Lottery Bill currently before Parliament and if London succeeds in winningthe bid to host the Olympics in 2012 (and the subsequent Olympic lottery draws money away from existinggo od causes, as predicted). In the longer term, the HLF share of Lottery funding is only guaranteed until 2009. If it were to be reduced in the future, competition would inevitably increase.

3.2 The needs of ships and maritime heritage HLF cannot fund all the needs of historic vessels or of maritime heritage. The National Register of Historic Vessels (NRHV) identifies over 1,500 larger vessels, of which 58 are in the Core Collection of pre- eminent national importance and 155 are designated as being of greater regional or local significance. The NHSC has told us that 20 of the 58 vessels in the Core Collection are at risk, eight seriously so. Twelve of the vessels we have funded are in the Core Collection and a further seven in the Designated list. Other awards have been to smaller vessels that do not qualify for inclusion on the register or to projects which demonstrate wide public benefits. Inclusion in the register provides a valuable peer-reviewed indication of the heritage merit of a vessel, but is only one of the criteria HLF takes into account in makinga decision. The Transport Trust has assessed the needs of smaller vessels not covered by the NHSC register such as canal and inland waterways commercial craft, lifeboats, classic motor boats, fishingand military boats, as well as museum collections. They estimated that there are around 11,000 such vessels of which 500 may be 9947231004 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 12 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

of considerable historic interest. The majority of conservation is voluntary and led by individuals, although museums do play a role. The Trust identified a need for support for private individuals, trainingin traditional skills, a focus of activity around boatyards, and safe storage for boats at risk pendingrestoration. Whilst some of these aspirations could be delivered through HLF projects, the Fund gives priority to not- for-profit organisations. It is also only able to oVer time-limited funding.

3.3 Conservation costs One of the most diYcult issues for HLF has been the relatively high cost of conserving some historic vessels. Such work also poses technical challenges. Waterlogged wood, once removed from anaerobic conditions which originally preserved it, can be costly to preserve and maintain indefinitely. Vessels preserved in dry dock, such as the SS Great Britain and the Cutty Sark are in eVect historic buildings, facing very diVerent conditions than those for which they were designed. The long term implications of many conservation techniques are unproven, and it can be diYcult to justify such costs in a competitive funding environment.

3.4 Maritime heritage and regeneration Our experience has shown that conserved vessels, such as RRS Discovery, HMS Trincomalee and SS Great Britain can play an important role in regeneration. The presence of a conserved historic vessel can add character and distinctiveness to a waterfront and successful projects can generate jobs and attract new investment. We would hope that Regional Development Agencies and planningauthorities would recognise, support and plan for maritime heritage as part of regeneration strategies. The benefits created by regeneration may be one way of oV-settingthe highcost of preservingvessels.

3.5 Sustainability We ask all applicants to demonstrate that their projects will be financially viable in the longterm. The costs of operatinga historic vessel may be di Ycult to recoup through admissions charges or paying passengers. Our grants are generally time limited and it is diYcult for us to support a long-term revenue deficit. In addition, many larger preserved vessels require associated dockside facilities such as toilets and interpretation space, if they are to operate as visitor attractions. The longterm preservation of a largervessel thus often raises important planningissues.

3.6 National Historic Ships Unit In our response to the recent government consultation, Ships for the Nation, we welcomed the creation of a new unit and look forward to workingclosely with it. However, we also sa id that we must continue to consider each project on its merits against our published priorities and available resources. It is not possible for us to pre-determine a number of vessels from the register as suitable for grant.

4. Conclusions Applications to preserve historic vessels can be challenging. Conservation costs may be high, techniques unproven and longterm financial sustainability di Ycult to establish. There may be a lack of shoreside facilities to provide education and access. At the same time, vessels have the potential to make an important contribution to regeneration and to public enjoyment of heritage. HLF has a strongtrack record of fundingfor maritime heritagebut we cannot meet all of the needs of the sector. We would look to the new unit to demonstrate policy leadership, particularly in helpingto build capacity in the sector, to help identify priorities and to seek new partnerships in preservingand sustaining maritime heritage for the future. 27 January 2005

Memorandum submitted by the National Historic Ships Committee

The National Historic Ships Committee After 13 years existence, the National Historic Ships Committee has a good grasp of the number, importance and state of historic ships in the UK. The majority of important ships are now on the National Register of Historic Vessels (NRHV), which the Committee has successfully managed over the last four years. The NRHV is based on the work of Dr Robert Prescott and incorporates a proven ship assessment 9947231005 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 13

system. The system enables fair and accurate information to be collated and compared on both the historical significance and the likely sustainability of any historic ship. Two extensive reviews of the ships on this register have been carried out over the last two years and the NHSC Secretary has conducted an extensive consultation programme round the country in a series of public forums to discuss relevant issues.

National Importance of Historic Ships The importance of the historic fleet continues to be under-estimated by everyone. 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.

The Condition of the Historic Fleet Continues to Deteriorate The NHSC has ample evidence that the condition of the historic fleet continues to deteriorate— comparisons between data recorded in 1996 and 2004 confirm this.

Disjointed,Ad hoc and Reactive Co-ordination Continues to Dominate the Overall Management of the Historic Fleet The historic ship heritage sector is a complex one. Museum, Trust and private individuals all compete for attention. There is a continuingdivide between the museum curator and the shipwright sailor. Nevertheless the key factors that help decide the best way forward for any historic ship remain size, ownership, purposefulness, context, presentation and sustainability. It is the consideration of all these factors, taken together, that generally determines whether a ship should remain fully operational and go to sea or become a static exhibition. At the very least, there needs to be properly articulated guiding principles, co-ordination on priorities and more information on all these factors available to both ship custodian and potential fundingbody.

Fragmented Support Structure There remains a very fragmented support infrastructure. Some historic vessels are owned and maintained by maritime museums and in the main are well cared for. The ships in this lucky position receive financial and other support in kind. The remainder of ships lie outside this support and depend entirely on private and trust initiative. The Heritage Lottery Fund helps and has been a lifeline to many ship projects. It has also led the way in identifyingsuitable, pragmaticand sustainable conse rvation strategies. English Heritage has been a useful partner to the NHSC but has for several years not given any support to historic ships. It is the independent Trusts and Associations, therefore—over 120 of them—together with private individuals that continue to be the mainstay of support. Keen enthusiasts and volunteers keep a large number of historic ships just above water. The NHSC does what it can but its resources are severely limited. The support therefore for historic ships remains at best uneven and at worst not suYcient.

Specific Weaknesses The bigger and more important vessels will always need financial subsidy. It is iniquitous that the best of them—already registered as museums and already undertaking important educational and community work—get little revenue support. Another 200 important vessels need help in kind, these vessels are also willingeducationalists and involved in community work. The help here sho uld cover information and guidance on conservation and business strategies—both of which would improve sustainability. Concessionary frameworks in operation, berthingand maintenance areas c ould also be used to encourage custodians of these ships to follow more eYcient and eVective conservation strategies. Historic ship management has become complicated. Invariably revenue and therefore sustainability depends on quite diVerent and disparate activities—visitor attraction, curatorship and community usefulness. All three areas need expertise to succeed and sound practice to draw sensible revenues. They also have to be planned and co-ordinated to a much higher degree than was once the case. This requires quite sophisticated business and conservation planning. Currently there is no oYcial guidance and very marginal advice levels available to historic ships in these areas. A national safety net resource is needed to look out for problems, correct them before they develop and to help ailingship managementteams. This resource could also be instrume ntal in developingmuch better coordination between museum resources, local authorities, Trusts and ship custodians. The skills, knowledge and facilities needed to maintain a healthy historic fleet are slowly diminishing. Unless a careful eye 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. 9947231005 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 14 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Key Challenges

There needs to be an agreed national policy endorsed by Central Government. Advice and guidance on priorities needs to be provided to both Government and HLF. The result of research and best practice needs to be made much more available to ship custodians. Regionalisation has complicated the whole scene and needs to be accommodated.

Whilst the NHSC is makinga di Verence, the current organisation needs more resources and status. Despite this, the present set up works well; there is a small part-time staV, an expert volunteer Advisory Board, a well-managed Register, website and discussion site, and technical support when required. The whole operation is overseen and managed by the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich but much more needs to be done.

The result of a recent consultation exercise carried out by DCMS suggests that settingup a National Historic Ships Unit could do more. The Unit would carry more status than the NHSC and as an NDPB would be given more resources.

Conclusion

The NHSC has achieved much in 13 years but more needs to be done to save the UK’s historic fleet. The fleet is now well defined by the Register, which is able to discern importance and decide priorities. Historic ships constitute an important part of the historic environment and have huge potential to inform, educate, revitalise communities. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that overall their condition continues to deteriorate and that they remain the poor relations of both historic dockyards and wrecks—a ludicrous situation. Historic ships remain badly under resourced and poorly supported.

Ship conservation is increasingly complex and needs sophisticated solutions to succeed—these solutions certainly need coordination and better knowledge sharing than exists at present. DiVerent ships will require diVerent solutions but increasingly a group of 15 large and important ships will need long-term grant-in-aid if they are to survive. A further group will need greater support and some concessionary frameworks to stay afloat. All will need more encouragement to business plan, conserve and promote themselves better.

All the complexities includingregionalisationneeds to be considered an d taken into account.

The NHSC and the Register are making a diVerence but much more needs to be done. The settingup of a new Historic Ship Unit is a welcome, if longoverdue step. However, it shou ld be noted by the Sub Committee that time is runningout. Too little, too late will not save the hi storic fleet. 25 January 2005

Memorandum submitted by M R C Parr

Further to our conversation, I wish to submit the followingobservations i n response to the above inquiry, based on my personal experiences, and not as a representative of any of the Organisations with whom I am connected:

Recommendations of the Select Committee

In the Fifth Special Report HC 387, The Preservation of HMS Cavalier: Government Response to the Second Report from the Culture Media and Sport Committee, Session 1998–99, the Government’s Conclusions and Recommendations include: (iv) Select Committee intervention is no substitute for a coherent public policy on ship preservation. It is arguable that left to their own arbitrary and tunnel vision criteria and judgements, of which this is not the only one, the Heritage Lottery Fund would have left the Cavalier to be turned into scrap (paragraph 9). 9947231006 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 15

(v) “The delivery of a coherent policy framework is finally a responsibility of the Government rather than the Heritage Lottery Fund (paragraph 10). It is the policy of the Government to preserve the best of the industrial and maritime heritage, and the Government seeks to pursue this policy with the various partners, including importantly, the Heritage Lottery Fund. The Trustees of the Heritage Lottery Fund have drawn up a Strategic Plan which seeks to address the needs of all sectors of the heritage, and to establish priorities which should be attached to each element of each sector according to relative merit. The Department for Culture Media and Sport is consulting with the Heritage Lottery fund with a view to ensuring that this Strategic Plan reflects the requirements of its policy directions. The project currently being undertaken by the National Historic Ships Committee will be completed soon and the results from this study will provide an overall view of the needs of historic vessel preservation. This will assist the Heritage Lottery Fund in the diYcult task of prioritising the needs of the industrial and maritime heritage sectors.”

Observations on the Recommendations 1. I am not aware of any “coherent policy framework”, which has been produced so far. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport are about to publish the results of their consultation paper “Ships for the Nation”, with their proposals for the formation of a “National Historic Ships Unit”, which may be the beginning of such a framework. 2. I gather that the Heritage Lottery Fund did produce a “Strategic Plan”, but it has been superseded. I have not seen it. 3. The project undertaken by the National Historic Ships Committee produced the National Register of Historic Ships, over 40 feet in length, with a system for quantifying the historic merit, and some other factors of each ship, and grouping them into three categories of importance. It has not provided an overall view of the needs of historic vessels, or recorded vessels under 40 feet length.

Requirements of Historic Ships From my experience of workingwith Historic Ships, I would define the requir ements of the industry as follows: 1. Establishingan overall National policy for Historic Ships, and boats, and representingthem at all levels of government, nationally, and internationally. 2. Providingstrategicassistance to owners, advisingon how vessels coul d be restored, conserved, and operated, and assistingin preparingConservation Plans, Surveys, Speci fications for work, and obtaining grants and other funding. 3. Establishingstandards of restoration, conservation, and operation, which would cover all types of vessels, in all areas. 4. Providingand maintainingdata base of techniques, which have been prov ed by practical application, for historic vessels, and provide guidance on which techniques could be used for the restoration, conservation, and operation of a vessel, and lists of possible consultants and contractors. There is also a need to encourage, and guide academic and practical research in areas, which would be advantageous for Historic Ships. 5. Assistingowners, who are unable to managea vessel, either to find altern ative applications, or if all else fails, to arrange for it to be properly recorded and dismantled. This would also include advice to organisations or people looking for Historic Ships. 6. Additional fundingshould be made available for the longterm support. N o Historic ship in UK has earned its longterm upkeep.

National Co-ordinating Body Historic Ships require a National coordinatingbody. Over the last three d ecades there have been several organisations providing diVerent services to them, none provided a complete service; some have suVered from changes in the environment, in which they have operated, but most of their services, and all their experience, and expertise, are still valid, and are required today, and will be in the future. None of them had national status at governmental level. The urgency to do something should not override getting the organisation right. The initial organisation should have the flexibility to enable it to evolve and change, as the industry develops. 9947231006 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 16 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Proposed National Historic Ships Unit

A. Structure While I have not had the opportunity to examine the new proposals, arisingf rom “Ships for The Nation” paper I would like to confirm that while I totally approved the principle of a National Historic Ship Unit, I have several serious concerns over the details of the proposals: 1. The scope of activities of the proposed Unit would not cover all the requirements, which I detail below from my experience in the field. 2. 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 suYcient depth, and if they could their costs would not be economic. 3. It should not be located at NMM, Greenwich. I believe that the proposed NHSU should have a central core of three or four people, includinga very diplomatic Secretary/Director, with practical experience of historic ship restoration, and successful operation, who has the confidence of the owners to coordinate the diVerent groups, and know who in the industry can best answer any particular question. It also requires an IT expert, to run the databases, with a secretary, with maritime experience. It could have separate Committees for each of its areas of responsibility, each responsible to the Main Board. The Unit would co-ordinate or encompass several existingbodies, which would have to be properly funded for the work which t hey do.

B. Responsibilities I would divide the responsibilities of the Unit in three sections, National, Strategic, and Tactical.

1. National This sector would cover item 1 of my “Requirements” above, includingthe wo rk currently covered by the NHSC, maintainingand evolvingthe existingRegister,but would also cove r liaison in the National and International Governmental, and HLF fields. Their responsibilities would include dealingwith regulating authorities, and negotiating exemptions from, or equivalents to potentially restrictive legislation. It would also help in obtainingmaterials, which are not available on the normal mar ket, such as longlengthsof Teak, and ensuringthat other shipbuildingtimbers are replanted, and reclassi fied as “from reproducible sources”. It should compile the Register for “vessels under 40 feet”. While the NHSC sub-contracted most of the preparation of “the over 40 feet Register” to St Andrews University, I believe that it would be more appropriate for this to be done by an organisation, with more practical experience of small boats, like that which is takingover the National Small Boat Collection from the National M aritime Museum, and who have already done work on this field.

2. Strategic This would cover item 2, and part of 3, of my “Requirements” above, and how to retain and restore Heritage, sources from where funding could be obtained, and how to get it. This would be provided by one or more panels of people with maritime, ship repair, and business management experience, drawn from, encompassing, or incorporating such groups as the Ship’s Committee of the Maritime Trust, the Mary Rose Trust, and the BigShips Forum, HeritageAfloat, the Inland Waterways Assoc iation, and others. The people giving this assistance should be paid, but the advice should not be charged for. This group would also encourage research into the economics of the operation, and manning of Historic Ships, which is another urgent requirement. This area would also include the clarifying, and standardising a range of Conservation, Maintenance, Business, and Education Plans, for diVerent sizes, and types, of vessels, and volunteer management. At present there are no standards of conservation for living, or operating ships or boats. Registered Museums who own boats have to apply Museum conservation standards, which were drawn up without consideration of their application in the live maritime field; they are intended for artefacts, like an Egyptian Mummy, or a Dead Sea Scroll. While these are undoubtedly appropriate for the “Mary Rose”, they are not appropriate for vessels such as the PS Waverley, or the SailingDrifter “Reaper”. If these rules were app lied to vessels like these, they would not be able to carry passengers, and earn the cost of their maintenance. They would lose the heritage of the operation of the vessels, and they would soon be scrapped like the John W Mackay. A set of practical standards for operational vessels, is now very urgently required. There should be an English equivalent of the American “Green Book”. A database should be established to give guidance on costings for work on Historic Ships, and lists of consultants, surveyors, contractors, and suppliers, who have worked to approved standards. 9947231006 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 17

3. Tactical This would cover part of item 3, and all item 4 of my “Requirements” above. The advice on restoration, conservation, and operation would be provided from a series of integrated “Centres of Excellence”, like the “Navigation De Savoir”, in the Mediterranean, and those which are being considered now in Europe by the EU, they would also be the regional centres of the whole Unit. They would establish, and promulgate agreed and proven standards of practice, combiningacademic research, with the practical skills, required to establish the value and limitations of techniques; also they would teach these skills. These practical standards would be approved by the Main Board on the advice of the appropriate committees. This area would also provide students with guidance on fields in which further research would help to cover the gaps in the database of methods of restoration, conservation, and operation. Some people are callingfor more conservators for historic ships, without realisingthat the actual skills involved are those exercised by a qualified Shipwright carrying out his normal “good housekeeping” practices. I have heard of someone who wished to write his thesis on the restoration of a boat, but could not do so as there was no one who could examine him on that subject; I believe that this indicates that the same problem exists in higher education.

C. Other factors to be considered I would divide the Heritage of an Historic vessel into three separate “parts”: the fabric, the entity, and the operation of the vessel as a vessel, combined with the operations involved with the vessel’s trade. It is very unlikely that all three could be preserved, but normally two can be kept, or regained, at the expense of the third. In the case of the “Cutty Sark”, some of the fabric, and all her “entity”, can be conserved, at the cost of her operating. In the case of the “Waverley”, her “entity”, and her “operation” have been conserved, at the price of some of the original fabric, which has had to be changed to keep her seaworthy, and enable the vessel to earn her keep, carrying passengers. Some of her lost heritage has been restored. The aim, for which ships are restored, must be “for the benefit of the nation” and part of that must be, to be experienced by as many people as possible. This has been done most successfully by takingboats like “Ellen”, built in 1882, to be shown at the Royal Agricultural Show at Stoneleigh, where she was probably seen by 40,000 people, or Lord St Levan’s Old Ceremonial Barge which was built in 1740, and which I have sailed, which was rowed in the Great River Race twice, as was Cutty Sark’s Captains Gig, and seen by many thousands. “Waverley” has carried 157,000 passengers in one year’s shortened season. Demonstrations like these would not be possible under the rules, which registered museums have to apply to all vessels, as well as their objects. None of these boats would, in a glass case, attract enough visitors to pay for their upkeep in an unsubsidised environment, and no one would have learnt how diYcult it was to sail the Old Ceremonial Barge with only two crew, how to handle a Paddle Steamer, or how to tack a “Dipping Lugger”. It is important that havingre-learnt these skills, they should be recorded. From my experience, I have found that many of the requirements of the latest safety standards can be incorporated without any loss of heritage, but others have had to involve compromises; in these cases the eVects can been kept to a minimum. In addition, in several areas heritage, which had been lost, has been regained.

Divisions Historic Ships, and Maritime Heritage, are divided into diVerent camps, by some very deep divisions. In particular, some of the larger ships, and a few smaller boats are owned by Museums funded by DCMS, while the remainder, amountingto about 90% of our Historic vessel are owned by sm aller Museums, Trusts, and private individuals, who have to earn, or raise the money required to maintain their vessels. Unfortunately the direction of the industry is mainly directed by representatives of the large Museums, and the private owners feel that they have very little say in what happens. I believe that this is responsible for some of the poor attendances at the NHSC road shows. Unless the NHSU is handingout money its power will depend solely on its abil ity to lead with advice, balancing enthusiasm, and pragmatism, which is seen and proved to be good, and provide old fashioned leadership. I am on the Main Board of the NHSC. I have retired after five years as a Trustee of the National Maritime Museum Cornwall, and I am now a member of its Advisory Counsel, and its Museum Committee. I am on the ships Committee of the Maritime Trust. I was technical Director of the Massey Shaw Trust and of the Cornish Maritime Trust. I have been involved in 11 of the projects listed by the HLF in the appendix to 9947231006 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 18 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

“Ships for the Nation”, and a number, which are not listed. I have also worked on vessels in the Falkland Islands, and on Lake Titicaca. I am qualified as a Naval Architect, and served an apprenticeship as a Shipwright and Marine Engineer, I drive my own classic speedboat. I hope that these comments may be of help, and I would be pleased answer any questions, on these or any other points to do with Historic Ships, and Maritime Heritage. 25 January 2005

Witnesses: Ms Carole Souter, Director, Heritage Lottery Fund; Captain Richard Woodman, Chairman, National Historic Ships Committee, Commander John Paton, Secretary to NHSC and Director of The English Heritage National Museum Partnership Project; and Mr Tim Parr, examined.

Q30 Chairman: Good morning. I suspect you have would have to work on the basis that we were driven heard some of the criticism, does anyone want to by practicality. The list of designated vessels, which come back on anythingthat you have heard from the you are aware of, amounts at the present time to 157. first witnesses? There is some provision in there for transfer of Captain Woodman: If I may, Chairman. I represent vessels should some of the core collection be lost the National Historic Ships Committee as its for one reason or another, deterioration or Chairman. I would like to pick up and really endorse mismanagement or whatever. There are some good a couple of points made earlier. We take an reserve list within that, as it were. overview, we are not partisan of any particular cause. We would agree that the maritime sector is Q31 Chairman: I am just aware you are getting into hugely neglected and needs a high profile before we a longstatement and we want to ask you lots of lose a great deal of it. In a sense, in 2005 we have a questions. feelingit is the last chance saloon. Ships matter Captain Woodman: I am sorry. Perhaps I will let it because they have made this country what it is, and rest there. I am not just talkingabout warships, I am talking about merchant vessels and service vessels. We feel Q32 Chairman: Does anyone else want to pick up that it is extremely important that this matter is anythingthat was said earlier? raised before you. The National Historic Ships Commander Paton: Could I just say that historic Committee has come in for a certain amount of ships are not just important because of the past, they opprobrium from some quarters. I would like to are important for the future as well. They are correct one impression made by Rear Admiral wonderful vehicles for education, inclusivity, Hervey who said that the core collection had been regeneration and all those sorts of things. Yes, they selected by Dr Prescott. Dr Prescott was are memorials to the past but they are also very, very commissioned to devise the method by which we important vehicles for the future. selected a core collection. It is done on the basis that Mr Parr: I would like to say that historic ships in we look for a number of vessels which reflect the some people’s opinion are almost bottomless pits whole spectrum of maritime achievement in this and the money goes oV anywhere. In fact, there are country, so we are lookingat selected examples of numbers of people who have benefited from them on ship types, connections with famous people, famous particular ships like the Waverley which has been events and also the vernacular and the mundane carrying150,000 passengersper year for the last where it is significant. We have taken a very broad three years ever since she has been refitted, Balmoral look at this. This does not fall in with everybody’s similarly, the steam tug Challenge, in the last year expectations. We know perfectly well that you since she has been refitted has had over 16,000 cannot list ships, and we would advise strongly visitors through the ship. She has done over 2,000 against it, in the same way as buildings because they miles in the last year and has been to Dordrecht, are vastly diVerent, not only are they diVerent in Liverpool, Brest, D-Day and two boat shows. I their method of construction but they are diVerent in think that is extremely good value for money. People their purpose. We have historic ships which are at do not realise what value for money we have had in sea operatingand, therefore, conform with things historic ships from grants from HLF. like SOLAS 95 and all the regulations that govern vessels and have to sacrifice bits of their original Q33 Chairman: On the 58 you have got, have you material to keep going on that basis. We have also done a costingas to how much you need just to keep got vessels which are static in museums in glass cases them in good nick? and we have them, like Victory, Cutty Sark and Captain Woodman: No, we have not. Discovery, which are out in the open air. The horrors of regulation by listing seem to be quite awful and we Q34 Chairman: So you have no idea really. Will you do not really want to contemplate that. The core do it or not? collection which amounts to 58 vessels was based on Commander Paton: That is very much a plan that we the premises that I have just outlined and it is want to do as soon as possible. important to say that the National Historic Ships Committee in arrivingat this figurewere mindful Q35 Chairman: You have the resource for that? constantly that the resources were going to be Commander Paton: We will not until we have got limited and that it was not a bottomless pit and we the Unit. 9947231007 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 19

2 February 2004 Ms Carole Souter, Captain Richard Woodman, Commander John Paton and Mr Tim Parr

Q36 Chairman: Cominglater, I am told. the Unit, when it is formed, continues those good Commander Paton: It will be a very careful analysis. relationships with those other agencies. I see no We also needed a greater status to be able to go to reason why that cannot happen. the 58 and say we would really like this business information so that we can present a full case. Q42 Chris Bryant: Not least in terms of conservation practices and so on, the more one spreads good Q37 Mr Hawkins: I really wanted to follow upon practice so that is not reinventingthe wheel all the that. One of the things that we are interested in is the time the better. way the system as it has operated up until now may Commander Paton: Also I think it is important to change once this new National Historic Ships Unit say that English Heritage has been helpful towards is established. Particularly for your committee, how us. They have funded some research work that we do you foresee now your role is going to change? have done over the last two years. One of the What is the interlinkinggoingto be between you and diYculties they had was they were English Heritage the new Unit, or is that yet to be determined? and they were afraid of our status as a national body. Captain Woodman: It is yet to be determined. I would very happily hangmy hat up if I was a Q43 Chris Bryant: Tell me about outreach in the volunteer and go and tend the garden if I knew it was sense that obviously one of the things about ships is going to be properly looked after and the that for the most part they are going to be on the stewardship would be adequately done. Certainly we coast whereas a lot of people in Britain do not live have a lot of things we would like the Unit to do and on the coast, although they may visit the coast, and I imagine probably a percentage of that is going to some educational appreciation of our maritime be a wish list at the moment. We were very interested heritage is important for children, whether they live in what you said this morning. in Birmingham, CardiV or wherever. How strongdo you think that business of enablingyoungstersto Q38 Chairman: Is there a university anywhere that have a greater understanding is? concentrates on this area? Is there a professor or Captain Woodman: Could I make a point here. This anyone who looks at historical ships? Do we have is a very important aspect, not just historically and any research anywhere in our universities? culturally. It is neglected and people are hugely Commander Paton: It was Dr Robert Prescott from ignorant, in fact they do not go near the coast St Andrews who led the original project. I think his although we are an island and they submit to all sorts department is in the process of closingdown, of misapprehensions. 95% of the goods in our shops through lack of funds I suspect. come by ships, it is not all British ships but it Captain Woodman: There is an International certainly comes by ship. One of the problems that we Maritime Unit at CardiV but that is more in terms of have in the maritime field at the moment is that studyingcurrent shipping. because of the marginalisation of ships, which is partly an economic thing—big ships need deep water Q39 Chairman: We are askingalmost out of which means we no longer have a port of London ignorance here. Would it be helpful if there was one and everythingis down at Felixstowe—the university that had this as part of its being? perception of ships is decliningin this country and it Commander Paton: Yes, very much so. does not set fire to the imagination of young people Chairman: Chatham has Greenwich, and I am not very much any more. We do need an infrastructure, sayingthat because it is close to me, there are a lot we need a throughput of professional sailors in both of places, I am just asking. the mercantile and naval field to provide us with the people we need as harbourmasters and pilots manningthe infrastructure. As you know, Mr Q40 Chris Bryant: CardiV already seems to have Prescott has launched all sorts of initiatives, tonnage some role. tax regimes and all the rest of it, and there is still a Commander Paton: There is some expertise there. bad shortfall in cadets in terms of the throughput of cadets and findingjobs for cadets and attracting Q41 Chris Bryant: I was going to ask whether you cadets. As Commander Paton says, this is not just knew the answer to the question about CADW and about ossifyingthe past, this is about our maritime whether there is a good relationship with Wales. future as well. There have been ships in Wales as well. Captain Woodman: You asked the question about Q44 Chris Bryant: We have got a splendid Sea Cadet Scotland as well. I think the answer is that it is a Unit in the Rhondda but they are a longway away pretty mixed bag. Because all of these projects are from the sea. individual they tend to do well if they are good Captain Woodman: Yes, very few of them will go visitor attractions. Discovery obviously makes quite to sea. a show in Dundee, but we had problems in Scotland settingthat up. Commander Paton: There have been very good Q45 Chris Bryant: Indeed. Obviously we need to do relationships with the Scottish Executive in terms of more about makingthat a possibility. talkingabout ships, for example. I think heritage Captain Woodman: It is to do with settingfire to the generally is being delegated down to the national or imagination. I know that is probably not what we regional authorities, so we do see it as important that are here to do this morning. 9947231007 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 20 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

2 February 2004 Ms Carole Souter, Captain Richard Woodman, Commander John Paton and Mr Tim Parr

Q46 Chris Bryant: Sometimes Parliament does that. Captain Woodman: Good idea! I was a bit troubled earlier on by the idea of a sinking Commander Paton: I do not think that is a terribly fund. Shipbuildingof itself, which is slightly good idea. There are sections of the community that diVerent from historic ships, has been an important can look after themselves. In some ways the classic industry in many parts of the country. I represent a yacht part is quite capable of lookingafter itself former miningconstituency and we have a mining because it is so attractive to so many people. museum. I do not know whether there are Another area might be river launches on the shipbuildingmuseums anywhere 1 and, if so, whether Thames. They are quite well supported and catered they should not be rather better supported, not least for. It is some of the other areas that are not quite so because if you look at some of the poorest well supported. There is a needs analysis that should constituencies in the land, after the former mining go across the whole spectrum and say, “Those over constituencies, often they are the former there are doing okay but these here are flagging a bit shipbuildingconstituencies. and we need to put some more resources into them.” Ms Souter: I think it is very important not to try to disassociate the ships from the museums. That is somethingwe are very keen to bringtogetherand to Q49 Mr Hawkins: In your evidence you have said to present as a whole. For example, the new Transport us that there are 15 large and important ships that Museum in Glasgow that the Trustees agreed to you say will need longterm grant-in-aidto survive. fund last week will be on the Clyde in sight of the last Can you tell us a little bit more about that? Can I operatingshipbuilders there and will have the couple that with askingCarole Souter about the fact Glenlee moored alongside it which is a ship that we that Heritage Lottery Fund evidence refers to 20 “At helped to fund. The Maritime Museum in Cornwall Risk” vessels in the core collection. I would be is on the waterfront there with the small boats interested if you could tell us whether the Heritage collection. There is a tremendous amount we can do Lottery Fund feel that priority should be attached to to take people out of the museum in terms of the saving those or whether that might be in danger of horizon to excite them about the ships themselves, beingat the expense of either vessels on the the stories and the histories. One of the things that designated list or not on either list at all? the Heritage Lottery Fund is able to do is to support Commander Paton: That view came from our people’s history, the oral history, knowledge of the research when we went round a core collection the way people worked and lived, and link that in with year before last. Although we were not getting the physical infrastructure of the ships and the accurate figures about exact costings, we got a buildings in the museums. That is something that we general view that it was an issue of size. The big ships are very keen to develop and I think SeaBritain will are expensive to run, which is fairly obvious, but be a tremendous opportunity for all sorts of even if they were the best visitor attraction in the communities to be reminded that perhaps their world, even if they were actually doingan awful lot community, non-coastal, may well have had a link of outreach for which they were getting funds back with shippingand ships in the past and may have from local authorities and the like, even if they were been built on trade, founded on trade. operatingvery well as a museum and were doing research work and were chasingup stories and ways Q47 Chris Bryant: Is there a ship that you wish we of interpretingtheir vessel and perhaps gettingsome still had? funds for that, there would still be a shortfall at the Commander Paton: No, I think we have got quite end of the day in balancing the books. We would enough at the moment. We have 1,200 vessels on hope that deeper research on that would be able to the list. produce figures to say that, at the end of the day, Mr Parr: We have been talkingabout universities these are the best visitor attractions in the country, and the academics but I also want to put a plea in for these are doing a huge amount of good outreach practical shipbuildingand ship restoration which work, these are the numbers of youngsters that are you raised. In the museum in Falmouth we do have going through them and that sort of thing. They are an open workshop where the public can actually see doingsome very goodresearch work into not only boats beingrestored and I think this is one of the interpretation of the actual vessels themselves but ways one is looking forward. In the bigger ship methods of preservingthem and thingslike that. restorations, such as the Waverley, I did insist that There is a small shortfall that needs to be found they riveted all the repairs and that is the sort of somewhere. thingwe would like to have on display to the public as part of the story. Q50 Mr Hawkins: Can you give a couple of examples of those 15? Q48 Chris Bryant: There is still a large industry Commander Paton: I think we could easily run around today creatingmillion pound yachts. I know the original yachts were Dutch fighting vessels, but through them. It is largely size, so we are talking of we have moved on from that since Charles II came ships like the Cutty Sark, the Victory, the Warrior, back on his yacht. I just wonder whether we should the Discovery, those sorts of vessels. not be taxingthem a bit more to fund somebody else. Mr Parr: Havingseen quite a few of the HLF applications and known some of the ones that were 1 Note by Witness, Mr Parr: There is a section at Chatham refused, sometimes it is the management of those Historic Dockyard on shipbuilding. vessels which wants a great deal of education. 9947231007 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 21

2 February 2004 Ms Carole Souter, Captain Richard Woodman, Commander John Paton and Mr Tim Parr

Ms Souter: That must be so in some cases. As you Q51 Chairman: Is there any district council, unitary know, we currently work on the basis of reactingto or county council that does not have a lottery oYcer? applications to us. We do not nominate those things Ms Souter: Yes, I believe there are a number. which we will fund in advance. That is certainly the view which trustees will continue to take until the Q52 Chairman: Where is that published? end of our current strategic plan, which is 2007. Ms Souter: I doubt if there is a formal survey, but I Later this year we will be launchingconsultation on will certainly find out. our new strategic plan and as we foresee a smaller amount of funds beingavailable in future years one Q53 Chairman: But your instinct is that there are of the key questions we will have to ask and trustees very few or lots? will need to address is whether we should continue Ms Souter: There are a number of authorities who solely to react to applications or whether we should do not. They may well not have a specific lottery ourselves say, “These are our priority areas”. We oYcer but they may have a public fundingo Ycer or would never make them up for ourselves, that would somethingof that kind. There are a number of be ridiculous. If we were to think about movingin authorities across the country that feel they do not that direction it would have to be on the basis of need to work through lottery oYcers. advice from the specialists in those areas. I would like to stress that at the moment that is not the line we take and it has given us a tremendous amount of Q54 Mr Hawkins: Presumably those representing flexibility to respond to projects that people come in the National Historic Ships Committee agree with with because quite often it is a smaller project for a our earlier witnesses that if English Heritage were to ship that is not necessarily high up the designated have their stance towards historic ships changed, so list, which means a tremendous amount to a local that they regarded historic ships in the same way as community, which gets people engaged, then you get historic buildings, that would help a lot in terms of the kids involved and you get the volunteers going takingsome of the pressure o V the Heritage Lottery out. There are a number of those projects where Fund in that you would still be able to apply but it there is tremendous dedication and an awful lot of would not be your sole source of biggrant? volunteer eVort. I think the challenge for us always Commander Paton: It is a very complex jigsaw these is to balance the published criteria against which we days. I am dealingwith a vessel called Kathleen & assess every application, which includes value for May down at Bideford, which is a privately owned money, the number of people who can be involved vessel, it was restored by a private person and the and so on, with what are often very large costs local authority is sort of interested, HLF have been indeed for some of these ship projects and that is a approached, the local county council is sort of real challenge for us in assessing and also for the interested, there are some local trusts, there are applicant very often comingforward. It is interesting volunteers and there are some friends. My that Mr Anningwas sayingthis morningthat experience is that you need somebody to go in there sometimes we should be lookingat the smaller and draw it together a bit and to set them on the right project perhaps first and seeinghow that goesand track and then it works together and everybody is how it can be supported. My standard plea to people playing their part and it is not just English Heritage, is to come and talk to us first because it is an it is not just HLF, it is a coordinated thing. expensive process to put in a bigapplication to us Captain Woodman: The National Historic Ships and we would always encourage people to come and Committee would like to make the point that we see talk to the teams locally about what they have in the new units as actingas an adviser to the HLF. We mind, what they are planningto do and we can then have been disappointed in many cases in the failure help and say to them, “This is the sort of thingthat of this bridge to be crossed over. There is always a we are able to support, we will not be able to support danger with projects where enthusiasts who, quite that,” so that people do not waste time and eVort. understandably, having given up a great deal of their That is the context in which we say to people that if time and often their money to work on a particular they come in for £25 million, of course we will put it project, become very focused on that project and to trustees and they will take the decision, they are they are not capable of seeingit in the greater less likely to be successful than if they come in for a context. One of the things we have staunchly smaller amount. maintained is our independence and our ability at Commander Paton: A museum has lots of resources least to give an opinion as to how these things in which to put applications together and it is function. One of the problems we have identified is particularly well versed in the idea of education and that inevitably in all applications enthusiasts will outreach. Small community projects do not talk up their project and overestimate their visitor necessarily understand that. The Heritage Lottery attraction and their visitor numbers and very often Fund has done a wonderful job in terms of raising that is a major plank in their business plan, it falls the profile of that sort of issue. There is a sort of short. Many of them, when you get into the realms educative process that has to go on with these small of the larger ships, are on display without you having groups in saying, “This is a lovely ship you’ve got to pay a penny to look at them, the Cutty Sark being here and it’s a very important ship, but it has got to a prime example. be able to sustain itself”, so we have got to talk about Commander Paton: This is where Heritage Lottery business plans and that sort of thing. We have also Fund project planning grants are so good, because got to talk about how it is going to be of use to the they can apply for a small grant from HLF to sort community. the business plan out and to get greater clarity on it. 9947231007 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 22 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

2 February 2004 Ms Carole Souter, Captain Richard Woodman, Commander John Paton and Mr Tim Parr

Q55 Chairman: Mr Doughty said it was £500,000. Q60 Chairman: Are the trustees allowed to go to the Captain Woodman: It was not a good example in City and say, “We have got £1 or £2 billion but what terms of business numbers. we would like is £3 billion and we’ll pay you the interest from what we have,” because that way you could fund much more? You are not legally allowed Q56 Chairman: If you are small and you are asked to to do that, are you? put £10,000 in, that £10,000 is the equivalent to Ms Souter: No, we are not able to do that. £500,000 for a bigproject. Why would you have to do that? Ms Souter: First of all, just to be clear, business Q61 Chairman: Would you like that resource? plans as such are not somethingwe would support Ms Souter: I am not sure I could speak for my through a project planning grant. We would trustees on that one. I suspect that they would prefer normally be lookingat that stageof an application not to have that resource in that we are a distributor when people are fairly clear about what they want to of lottery funds. Unlike a number of other do but they might need some help to develop their distributors, that is our sole purpose in life and audience development plan or their access plan. For getting into more complex funding arrangements is a small grant the volume and detail of material that not somethingthat I have heard my trustees express is needed in the application is not huge. Obviously if a desire to do. you are applyingfor a very largesum of money and you have a very technical project, as is the case with the Cutty Sark, then our advisers and experts who Q62 Chairman: We heard from our previous we ask to help us assess the project are going to need Y Y witnesses that it is still cumbersome and di cult and to have su cient information about the detail of the we hear that every time we do a lottery inquiry. I technical process and the way it is going to work, but thought the idea was it was going to be simplified that is expensive to do and that is somethingthat we and online and much easier. are well aware of and we are always lookingto make Ms Souter: It does depend what you are applyingfor sure that we are not askingfor too much at the wrongpoint. The way we work with our larger and, in particular, how much you are applyingfor. applications is that stage one, which is what the A number of projects, includingships, have been Cutty Sark has just had, is our highest hurdle. Then funded through the Awards for All programme, if you get a stage one approval only a handful of which is a small programme, up to £5,000, operated projects subsequently fail to proceed to the release of on behalf of a number of lottery distributors. That the main money. In terms of the small trusts, I think process is extremely straightforward and I think it is genuinely diYcult for them to have the expertise everyone who has been through that process would and to bringthe expertise togetherin the wider sense agree with that. Our smaller grants programmes we and that is why I would always say that it is best for try to operate with a lighter touch and we will get people to come and talk to us first, because we have decisions out without three months. A number of the got very good guidance on how to do audience plans, projects we have been talkingabout this morningare trainingplans, those sort of thingsand often it is a applyingfor very, very largesums of money and great shame when people come to us, having done a public money. Any funder is going to ask for some lot of work and maybe spent money they can ill certainty that what they are beingasked to support is aVord, without havingspoken to us first and asked viable and that requires a certain amount of detailed us what we need. information.

Q57 Chairman: How much money currently do you Q63 Chairman: Can you apply online? have in the bank on one day that is not spent? Ms Souter: You cannot yet apply literally online, we Ms Souter: None that is not committed. are workingto a situation where you will be able to do that, but all of our materials are available on our Q58 Chairman: So you have no reserves whatsoever? web. The site has been redesigned and is very Ms Souter: No. We have £900 million in the accessible. My own personal feelingis that I would National Lottery Distribution Fund committed to not like people, unless they were very, very expert projects. and knew exactly what they are doing, to just zap in an application online, even when we are able to do that technically, without havinghad some Q59 Chairman: But it is not drawn down, so you conversation about what it is that they are planning have got it as it were. to do and whether that fits with what our priorities Ms Souter: Yes. We have nearly £300 million on top are in that area. of that that we have committed to projects that we do not have cash in the National Lottery Distribution Fund for. What we have to do is model Q64 Chairman: I have only been here eight years. I when people ask us for money, but we work on the used to get 100 letters a day from my constituents basis that if we have said there will be money and I now get 300 emails. I hardly ever get a letter available for them we put that money to one side and nowadays. When you pingan email back they are so when people come back it is there and that is very grateful. Just to have that conversation means really important to projects. a great deal. 9947231007 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 23

2 February 2004 Ms Carole Souter, Captain Richard Woodman, Commander John Paton and Mr Tim Parr

Ms Souter: We certainly do that. Commander Paton: By no means. There are quite a few projects that go through that are not on the Q65 Chairman: Did you say you can do that? register. The register is just an attempt to show you Ms Souter: Yes. what there is in the land. It is an attempt to show which are the more important ones and which are Mr Parr: Havinghandled quite a few applications, the lesser important ones. It was never intended to be one certainly wants at least a conversation or even a vehicle for funding per se. an opportunity to go up and talk to the people Captain Woodman: There are no particular concerned and see the boats because so often what strictures against being on the register if you can you get on the application does not convey the prove some sort of historic status. whole picture. Mr Parr: The Heritage merit is only one of the seven Commander Paton: Some of it is very new territory parameters on which the application is judged. for them. The educational outreach area is quite a bigjump for many of them to make. I am not Q68 Chairman: And export licences, does that ever demeaningthem in any sort of way. All I am saying come up? is that it is a new subject that they have to articulate Commander Paton: It is a murky world to us. I think in particular ways. Mr Anningprobably knows more about it than we do. It is certainly handled by the DTI and there are Q66 Chairman: Presumably you could say to them, certain rules about the value of the artefact in “X from Gateshead had a similar project and we question, but there is not a lot of knowledge about gave them funding, why don’t you go and talk to in terms of export licences for historic ships. them”? Q69 Chairman: So what recommendation would Commander Paton: Absolutely. you give us? Commander Paton: That is somethingthe Unit Q67 Chairman: If you are not on the register, is that could investigate as a matter of priority and present the death knell for the boats that are not on? Is that the solutions. what is going to happen? Chairman: Thank you very much.

Memorandum submitted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport On 21 December 2004, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport announced that it had agreed to establish a sub-committee to examine the strategy, administration and resources aimed at implementing the Government’s stated policy of preserving “the best of the . . . maritime heritage” and called for submissions. This is the submission from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Introduction The plight of the maritime heritage and ship preservation has been an issue for a number of years. The English Tourist Board withdrew support (Section 4 grants) for historic ships in 1989, and in 1992 English Heritage withdrew from providing grant-in-aid for historic ships followinga review of its strategyand priorities. Successive public debates on well-known historic vessels thought to be at risk (eg Carrick (City of Adelaide), Cavalier, Challenge and Cutty Sark) have highlighted the need for a coherent policy steer for preservingthe country’s most important historic ships. This view was rei nforced by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s Third Report of 25 February 1998 Preservation of Historic Ships: The case of HMS Cavalier,1 and Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s Second Report of 4 February 1999 The Preservation of HMS Cavalier2 which concluded that the Government had eVectively placed the onus for fundingof historic ships on the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), and that the delivery of a coherent policy framework was the responsibility of Government rather than the HLF.

Current Position Dependingon the precise definition adopted, there are probably between 2, 000 and 4,000 historic ships and boats in the UK. They range from great national icons, like HMS Victory and SS Great Britain, to small fishingsmacks, workingbargesand inland waterways craft. 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 duringthe period of industrialisation. Apart from their historical importance, many ships and boats are artefacts of great beauty and superb craftsmanship. The fact that

1 Third Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Preservation of Historic Ships: The Case of HMS Cavalier, Minute of Evidence and Appendices, HC 561. 2 Second Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Preservation of HMS Cavalier, Report and Appendices, HC 196. 9947231008 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 24 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

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 eVort and made accessible to the public. The current ownership of historic craft is very varied. HMS Victory is still in commission in the Royal Navy; a small number of ships are cared for by national and regional museums (eg HMS Belfast in London, the pilot vessel Edmund Gardner at Liverpool); many are preserved by trusts set up specifically to preserve an individual vessel or class of boats; most, around 90%, are in private ownership. Many craft are still in use (egthe steam launches on Lake Windermere); others are still afloat but n ot in use (eg HMS Warrior); some are out of the water and preserved in dry dock (eg Cutty Sark) or in a museum (eg Turbinia at the Discovery Museum, Newcastle upon Tyne). Given the diVerent reasons for preservation and the methods adopted, there is inevitable duplication within the sector. Much valuable work is already done for the preservation of historic craft. Some are cared for by national and local museums, but many more are preserved through the eVorts of local trusts and individual owners. One of the most strikingfeatures of the sector is the enormous enthusiasm, expense and hard work which many owners and volunteers devote to the preservation and maintenance of historic craft. Organisations such as the Association of Dunkirk Little Ships, the SailingSmack Association, the Steam Boat Association of Great Britain and the Old GaVers Association exemplify the very active tradition of private ownership of hundreds of historic vessels. Of particular importance in recent years has been the work of Heritage Afloat (the Association for Ship and Boat Preservation Organisations), which represents its members’ concerns to Government, regulatory and local authorities, and in contexts where important local or national maritime preservation issues are at stake. The Government provides financial support for historic ships only through its grant-in-aid to those national museums which hold vessels of historic significance in their collection (such as HMS Belfast at the Imperial War Museum, and over 200 small craft in the National Maritime Museum’s collections), and through the PRISM fund administered by the Science Museum. The principal source of fundingfor the preservation of historic ships (in addition to private owners, private trusts and charitable trusts) is the HLF: in March 2002 the HLF told the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that grants totalling £25.7 million had been made to 33 historic vessels, includingawards to assist SS Great Britain, HMS Trincomalee, Cutty Sark and Mary Rose. This is compared with 32 awards to railway preservation projects to a value of £3.5 million. There is no system for the statutory listingand protection of historic cra ft, as there is for historic buildings. One or two ships are listed or scheduled where they are now permanent land-based fixtures, but these are very much the exception—for instance, Cutty Sark at Greenwich is a Grade 1 listed structure. However, great advances have been made over recent years in the identification and classification of the historic fleet. The National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC), which was set up by interested groups in 1992 to develop and co-ordinate policy for historic ships, has sponsored a major research exercise, the National Historic Ships Project,3 conducted by the Scottish Institute for Maritime Studies at St Andrews University. The exercise resulted in the compilation of a National Register of Historic Vessels, and the identification of a “Core Collection” of 58 vessels of “pre-eminent national importance” and a further 164 on the “Designated List” of vessels “of substantial heritage merit but of greater local or regional significance”. Within the parameters set for the study, historic craft are now better documented than ever before. Work is currently in hand, with financial support from English Heritage, to improve and update the information provided in the lists, particularly for those craft included in the Core Collection. Recent work suggests that a significant proportion of vessels in the Core Collection and on the Designated List continue to be at risk. Similar work has been carried out recently for inland waterways craft by the National Waterways Museum. The Trustees of the HLF have acknowledged the importance of the NHSC Register of Historic Vessels as a document that establishes significance for the historic vessels sector. In arrivingat its grantdecisions the HLF takes account of the relative importance attributed to individual craft in the lists published by the National Historic Ships Committee—the nationally designated Core Collection and the list of Designated Vessels for grant applications for vessels in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the English Regions. The HLF will continue to make decisions based on the merits of individual applications from organisations seeking to preserve and interpret historic vessels but will not predetermine a number of vessels from the Register suitable for grant, either from the Core Collection or from the Designated Vessels list. Some fundinghas also been made available by local authorities and from reg eneration budgets. However, the bulk of the fundingfor ship preservation has come from private individ uals and owners, includingsome hugely generous support for particular projects from individual donors. The Government is committed to deliveringa national policy on ship preser vation, recognising that there is a real opportunity to do somethingworthwhile for the maritime heritage of which the country is rightly proud, as well as fulfillingits obligationto the CMS Committee.

3 Towards a Policy on Historic Ships: Research Projects for the National Historic Ships Committee, Report by the Scottish Institute of Maritime Studies, University of St Andrews, 21 November 1996. 9947231008 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 25

Problems Despite the co-ordination so far achieved, the overall impression of the sector involved with historic vessels is one of fragmentation: massive enthusiasm on the part of many owners and volunteers, but no real central focus or coherent orderingof priorities. In these circumstances the risk is that exchange of information will be inadequate and endeavour squandered through duplication and lack of leadership. Failure to address the problems facinghistoric vessels in a strategicand co-ordinated way could result in the loss for ever of ships that are important to the nation. There is also evidence of a lack of realism about the costs of preservingand maintaininghistoric vessels coupled with an unrealistic expectation of state funding. Ships—particularly the larger ones—are extraordinarily expensive objects to repair and conserve, especially those exposed to the weather, as nearly all are. Yet ships are often of outstandinghistorical importance, have co mpellingassociations with historic events or achievements, and can also represent exceptional craftsmanship. People tend, out of a very understandable enthusiasm, to embark on preservation projects without full regard for the financial implications. The result can be great diYculty in completinga project or, perhaps even more commonly, great diYculty in raisingmaintenance costs on a long-termbasis. There appears to b e insuYcient use in the sector of properly costed conservation plans which take a long-term view of projects before they are embarked on. Nor is it clear that the merits of alternatives to full-scale preservation have always been considered—in particular, ship modellingand the detailed recordingof vessels. The lat est recordingtechniques can o Ver a means of preservingnot only technical data but also the character and “fee l” of a vessel for much less than the cost of full preservation. There needs to be a wider awareness of what can be achieved by recording. Ships and boats have such fascination for many people that they oVer an ideal means of raisinginterest in the past, promotingtourism and revitalisingparticular areas of our to wns and cities. While much valuable use of historic vessels has been made for education and for the regeneration of harbours and other waterside areas, the Government believes that this aspect of ship preservation ought to be looked at afresh. Historic ships can play a significant role in delivering the Government’s cultural objectives. Their tourism and regeneration potential could probably be taken further as part of the Government’s strategy for tourism as set out in the published report, Tomorrow’s Tourism: A Growth Industry for the New Millennium.4

2002 Memorandum In its memorandum of April 2002 to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Government set out the followingbasic principles for a national policy for historic s hips: — the policy framework should establish the priorities for fundingand the criteria against which fundingdecisions should be taken; — the policy should be sustainable, aVordable and practicable; — the policy priorities should take full account of the National Register of Historic Vessels; — no project should be funded unless the ongoing maintenance costs have been assessed properly and arrangements can be made to meet them; — there would be advantages in a sole body with a general oversight of historic vessels whatever the local management arrangements; — the policy should have regard to support for the creative industries; and — 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. The Government does not provide funds for major projects; rather they are funded through arm’s length bodies. The Government sees no prospect of its beingable to devote substan tial 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 existingsourc es of funding. This remains the Government’s basic position. In a written response5 on 11 July 2001 to questions raised in the House of Lords by the Baroness Anelay of St Johns, Lord McIntosh of Haringey replied: “there are no plans to provide statutory safeguards for those ships which are listed by the National Historic Ships Project as either core collection or designated status”. His answer went on to say, “While the Government recognise the importance of historic ships to our heritage, we are not convinced that the extension of statutory protection to them is either necessary or appropriate”. The Government believes 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 recordingstrategies is widely available; and will promote public interest in ships, and their use for educational purposes.

4 Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Tomorrows’ Tourism: A Growth Industry for the New Millennium 1999. 5 Hansard—House of Lords OYcial Report Volume 615 WA 25, 11 July 2005. 9947231008 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 26 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Consultation From 1 August–31 October 2003, the Government consulted on “Ships for the Nation”, a paper setting out a Government policy for the preservation of historic ships and proposingthe establishment of a National Historic Ships Unit, to: — advise the Secretary of State on policy and priorities for the sector as a whole; — co-ordinate work within the sector to assist those directly engaged in preservation; and — promote public interest in historic ships as a key component of the maritime heritage. The consultation covered England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and invited comments from individuals and organisations with an interest in the preservation of historic ships. The Government’s proposal was that a National Historic Ships Unit (NHSU) should be created within the National Maritime Museum (NMM). This Unit would not itself be directly responsible for any historic ships, but would have the job of advisingthe Secretary of State on policy an d priorities for the sector as a whole, would seek to co-ordinate work within the sector to assist those directly engaged in preservation, and would seek to promote public interest in historic ships as a key component of the maritime heritage. It was envisaged that the NHSU would be a small Unit staVed by experts in the field and overseen by a committee of leadingfiguresin the maritime and inland waterways worlds. T he Unit would be steered by a Chairman, appointed by the Secretary of State, who would have the personal responsibility of advisingthe Secretary of State (and the devolved administrations) on policy and priorities. The Unit would require fundingfor its own runningcosts from central Government via grant-in-ai d to the NMM.

Government Response to the Consultation Almost 100 responses to the consultation paper were received, over 70 from a wide range of interested organisations in the maritime sector and about 20 from individuals. The majority of respondents were in favour of the creation of a National Historic Ships Unit. However, as the consultation process also made clear, the availability of resources would be a key to determiningwhat cou ld be done and DCMS took the view that a formal response should not be made until it was known whether, and to what extent, resources would be available. Therefore, DCMS has been workingto secure fundingthroughthe 2004 Spendi ngReview to enable a response to be made to the consultation. Now that the SpendingReview is com plete, the fundinghas been secured and DCMS can confirm that it will establish and sponsor an independent National Historic Ships Unit. At Annex A is the draft document which has been prepared to publish the result of the consultation exercise and to announce the creation of the National Historic Ships Unit (NHSU). Our expectation is that the Unit will begin to operate on an interim basis during2005–06 and will be fully up and runningby 1 April 2006 when the new fundingfrom the SpendingReview c omes on stream. The Unit’s primary responsibilities will be to: — provide leadership and strategic vision across the historic ships community; — continue to maintain an authoritative and up-to-date register of the historic fleet, includingthe maintenance and updatingof the National Registerof Historic Ships and th e development and monitoringof an “At Risk” register; — provide the primary source of advice to Government on national ship preservation and funding priorities, monitoringpractice in other countries; — encourage a better understanding of the real life-costs of restoring and maintaininghistoric vessels; — advise the HLF on preservation priorities and on individual fundingbids for historic ships made to the HLF and advise other public fundingbodies; — develop and promote professional standards of good practice for the conservation and restoration of historic vessels, providingadvice to trusts and owners on goodpractic e and on fund-raising opportunities and promotingand makingavailable to the public research i nto ship preservation and conservation techniques; — provide guidance and advice to trusts and owners on business planning and interpretation to make ships become more self-sustainingand attractive to new audiences; — improve the availability and standard of ship and boat conservation skills and training, and sharingof experience and expertise across the sector; — advise on documentation and recordingtechniques in cases where vessels are beyond physical and economic preservation; — promote the case for historic ships to a wider audience, preparingpublic ity for historic ships, eg a national website and other published material; and — compile a register of firms and individuals capable of oVeringpotential conservation skills, and promote opportunities for people to develop and maintain traditional ship-buildingand ship repairingskills. 9947231009 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 27

The Unit’s work will be supplemented by a programme of small grants—most likely administered by DCMS—to promote DCMS objectives in the sector, the wider use of conservation plans and to sponsor research. We would encourage owners applying for HLF and other public grants to register first with the Unit. For purposes of administrative eYciency and to facilitate access to expert advice to the UK Maritime Collections Strategy and the Maritime Curators Group, the Unit will be lodged at the NMM. Co-location of the Unit at NMM was favoured by a majority of respondents who commented on location. However, in the advice that it gives, the Unit will be independent of the NMM. The Unit will be a sponsored body of DCMS overseen by an Advisory Board and Chair to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The Advisory Board will comprise experts and advisers drawn from across the historic ships, heritage management, commercial and industrial sectors. The Chair will report to the Secretary of State and will advise Government and the HLF on historic ships and raise public awareness of their significant contribution to our cultural and maritime heritage. During2005 we will be consultingon the Advisory Board. DCMS, assisted by the NMM, will be responsible for the establishment and fundingof the Unit as well as the creation of the Advisory Board. It will take time to create the Advisory Board (our target is April 2006) but in the interim the NMM will assist with the transition from the existingarrangements.With the fundingthat the Secretary of State has made available, this will enable th e Unit to begin work, on an interim basis, in 2005. Ultimately, the Chair of the Unit will be responsible for deliveringstrat egic and operational targets agreed with DCMS via a “FundingAgreement”.In the interim, these aspects will be a greed with the NMM. Respondents to the consultation were generally in favour of a UK-wide remit for the Unit but agreed that how it should relate to the devolved administrations would need further discussion. DCMS has since consulted the devolved administrations and has agreed with them that the Unit will advise on the historic ships fleet in Scotland and Wales, as well as in England. The Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service have advised that it is not necessary to extend the Unit’s brief to Northern Ireland, “as there are very few historic vessels in Northern Ireland” but have asked to receive copies of any general guidance produced by the Unit. The Unit’s services would be available to Northern Ireland at their request. We envisage that the Unit will take over the functions of the National Historic Ships Committee. Under the interim arrangements, responsibility for the National Register of Historic Vessels will be transferred to the new Head of Unit once appointed. Administrative support currently provided to the National Historic Ships Committee by the NMM will be sustained until the longer-term arrangements are in place. The Director and staV of the NMM will remain available to advise and support the Unit for a period tobe defined. Initially the Unit will have a core staV of three people—a Head of Unit, a Case OYcer and a Unit Administrator who will also be responsible for administration and maintenance of the Register of Historic Vessels. The Head of Unit will report to the Advisory Board and the Chairman will report to the Secretary of State. The Unit will be funded by DCMS through grant-in-aid. A sum of £100,000 has been made available to establish the interim Unit in 2005–06, recruit its executives and enable some preparatory work to be undertaken. In 2006–07 this sum increases to £170,000 plus a further £80,000 which will be held by DCMS to provide for small revenue grants towards publications, research, trainingand similar activities, including preliminary studies into methods and eVectiveness of conservation techniques. Respondents to the consultation were strongly in favour of the creation of a small grants fund. This further £80,000, which would be made available on a challenge basis, would benefit the historic ships community by helpingto make information available, improvingstandards and encouragingbest pr actice. The fundinghas been increased to meet inflation in 2007–08. However, it is not intended to support capital conservation projects. The new Unit will not take on responsibilities as a capital grant-giving body. Capital fundingfor historic ship projects will continue to be dealt with by the HLF and other public and private grant-giving bodies. However, the Unit will provide HLF with a valuable source of advice when consideringbids from ships in the historic fleet.

Statutory Listing of Historic Ships The majority of respondents who commented on the question of whether historic ships should be listed (61%) opposed the idea. They argued that listing would lead to excessive restrictions and costly requirements which are arguably unnecessary, in that major historic ships are for the most part already in the care of museums or trusts, that it would add little to the current National Register, and that the priority should be to update and complete the National Register of Historic Vessels rather than introduce a completely new system. We are not, therefore, planningto introduce the statutory listin gof Historic Ships. 9947231009 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 28 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Conclusion

We are pleased that, as a result of the allocation of resources, we can now proceed with the establishment of the National Historic Ships Unit. The Unit will provide a sharper focus on historic vessels, better access to trustees and owners for expertise and advice, valuable guidance to the HLF on applications for grants; and additional fundingwill be available to support research and assessme nt.

Annex A

Introduction

1. In Autumn 2003 we consulted on “Ships for the Nation”, a paper settingout a Government policy for the preservation of historic ships and proposingthe establishment of a Na tional Historic Ships Unit to: — advise the Secretary of State on policy and priorities for the sector as a whole — co-ordinate work within the sector to assist those directly engaged in preservation; and — promote public interest in historic ships as a key component of the maritime heritage. 2. We are grateful for the many valuable responses that we received from a wide range of contributors. 3. In response to this consultation we have decided that an independent National Historic Ships Unit will be established and, followingthe 2004 SpendingReview, fundingis now in p lace to support this. The Unit’s primary responsibilities will be to: — provide leadership and strategic vision across the historic ships community; — continue to maintain an authoritative and up-to-date register of the historic fleet, includingthe maintenance and updatingof the National Registerof Historic Ships and th e development and monitoringof an “At Risk” register; — provide the primary source of advice to Government on national ship preservation and funding priorities, monitoringpractice in other countries; — encourage a better understanding of the real life-costs of restoring and maintaininghistoric vessels; — advise Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) on preservation priorities and on individual fundingbids for historic ships made to HLF and advise other public fundingbodies; — develop and promote professional standards of good practice for the conservation and restoration of historic vessels, providingadvice to trusts and owners on goodpractic e and on fund-raising opportunities and promotingand makingavailable to the public research i nto ship preservation and conservation techniques; — provide guidance and advice to trusts and owners on business planning and interpretation to make ships become more self-sustainingand attractive to new audiences; — improve the availability and standard of ship and boat conservation skills and training, and sharingof experience and expertise across the sector; — advise on documentation and recordingtechniques in cases where vessels are beyond physical and economic preservation; — promote the case for historic ships to a wider audience, preparingpublic ity for historic ships, eg a national website and other published material; and — compile a register of firms and individuals capable of oVeringpotential conservation skills, and promote opportunities for people to develop and maintain traditional ship buildingand ship repairingskills. The work of the core funded Unit will be backed up by a programme of small grants, (most likely administered by DCMS) to promote DCMS objectives in the sector, to promote the wider use of conservation plans and to sponsor research. 4. The Historic Ships Unit will be housed at the National Maritime Museum (NMM) but will be independent of it. Its remit will cover England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland wishes to receive copies of guidance produced by the Unit. The Unit’s services would be available to Northern Ireland at their request. Our expectation is that the Unit will begin to operate on an interim basis during2005–06 and will be fully up and runningby 1 April 2006 when the new fundingfrom the Spending Review comes on stream. We envisage that it will take over the functions of the National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC). The Unit will be overseen by an Advisory Board. During2005 we shall be consultingon the establishment of the Advisory Board. 9947231010 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 29

The Consultation 5. Almost 100 responses to the consultation paper were received, over 70 from a wide range of interested organisations in the maritime sector and about 20 from individuals. This report looks in turn at the responses to each of the eight questions set out in paragraph 9.1 of the consultation paper, but takes the questions in a slightly diVerent order. Where similar comments were made in response to more than one question, they are recorded only once in this report.

Question 1: Would the creation of a National Historic Ships Unit be an eVective way of helping the historic ships sector co-ordinate its work better and identify priorities more clearly?

Consultation Feedback 6. Just over 70% of all respondents who answered the first question were clearly in favour of the creation of a National Historic Ships Unit (NHSU). A further 20% of responses supported the idea, but with some qualifications. About 9% opposed the creation of a NHSU. 7. The main qualifications made by the second group were the following: (i) Is it absolutely clear that the creation of a new Unit would be better than beefingup an existing body or amalgamating existing bodies? Should the possibility of widening the remit of the National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC), or Heritage Afloat, and giving them appropriate financial support, be considered instead? This point was eVectively answered by a comment from the National Maritime Museum—that with direct responsibility to the Secretary of State and the DCMS, and with new core funding, the Unit would have an authority and strategic overview previously beyond the remit of the NHSC. (ii) To be successful, a NHSU would need staV with recognised expertise covering the whole sector: whether a body of the size proposed could do this must be doubtful; it would probably need to be supported by expert sub-groups and possibly an Advisory Board. (iii) It would be important for a NHSU to engage fully with small craft and not become preoccupied with the preservation of large ships: to make this possible, one of its key priorities would have to be the extension of the National Register of Historic Vessels (NRHV) to include vessels below the current cut-oV. (iv) The sector would not welcome a NHSU if it was the harbinger of greater regulation.

Question 2: Are there alternative approaches which should be considered?

Consultation Feedback

8. The main points made by those opposed to the creation of a NHSU were that the sector is far too wide- ranging and diverse for one small Unit to be able to perform all the functions proposed for it; that it would be better to go for improved co-ordination of existing lead bodies, or to work through the new regional hubs; and that the fundingproposed for a NHSU would be better spent on the repair a nd maintenance of historic vessels. 9. It was suggested that a NHSU should be located “close to the heart of Government”, with the NHSC retained and possibly enhanced. However, another comment was that “expansion of the NHSC is not a solution”, and that creation of a NHSU would throw into doubt the continued raison d’eˆtre of the NHSC. Some respondents stressed the need for a national NHSU to have an eVective regional organisation (not necessarily of its own creation, but by working through existing agencies). 10. It was suggested that it would be very important for a NHSU to maintain a balanced interest in both large ships and small craft, and not let one part of the sector overshadow another: similarly, it would need to ensure that the interests of both maritime and inland waterways craft were fully recognised. It was suggested that only a full-time professional Unit would be capable of updatingthe NRHV and extending it to smaller craft, and it would be part of the benefit of havinga NHSU that it could put the work of the NHSC on to a more secure footing. 11. The NHSC’s submission is very supportive of the idea of creatinga NHSU, and expresses the hope that the NHSU will be able to build on the approach developed by the NHSC so far: “there are certainly elements of the NHSC which could be easily transferred and utilised within the proposed new Unit”. English Heritage comment that although it will be very important for the new Unit to build on the huge store of experience and goodwill existing within the NHSC, most if not all of the role of the NHSC will be duplicated in the new Unit (were NHSC to continue). 9947231010 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 30 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

12. Points which would need to be looked at in more detail were: (a) The creation of expert sub-groups to support the small full-time staV of the NHSU: this seems an excellent idea and one that the NHSU can follow up after its creation; (b) The implications of devolution: there seemed general agreement that the Unit should have a UK- wide remit, but exactly how it should relate to the devolved administrations will need further discussion: the suggestion that the overseeing committee should have on it representatives of all four UK administrations seems very sensible; (c) Again, it seems a sensible idea that the Unit should have some sort of regional network: it should be possible to find a museum or a historic ship in each region which could take a leadingrole (assumingthis would be consistent with the Renaissance in the Regions“re gional hubs” initiative). (d) Arrangements for the appointment of the overseeing committee or advisory board (presumably by the Secretary of State) need to be spelt out.

Question 3: Does the structure proposed for the NHSU sound right?

Consultation Feedback 13. Most respondents felt that the structure proposed for the Unit was sensible. But several respondents felt that there is a risk that the NHSU, if located in a museum, would be too closely embedded in the museum/academic world. It would be important for the Unit to have good links with the commercial world, to ensure an adequate understandingof the issues facingcommercial opera tors of historic ships. 14. It would also be important for the Unit to have access to practical knowledge of the problems of restoring, maintaining and running historic ships. Some respondents suggested that this would be much more important than museums’ expertise in handlingships as museum object s. 15. On appointments and staYngissues, the followingpoints were made: (a) The sector would not welcome a NHSU if it were the harbinger of an increase in regulation. (b) The suggestion that the chair of the overseeing committee should be appointed by and should advise and report to the Secretary of State, was generally welcomed, though it was felt that the chair would also have a role in advising the heritage agencies. (c) Arrangements for appointing members of the overseeing committee would need to be more clearly defined. (d) The Unit would be operatingin a very wide and varied field: to cover the gr ound adequately it would either need to be bigger than proposed, or it would need to set up panels of experts in particular areas to which it could look for advice; it would also need to maintain stronglinks with boat communities. (e) The overseeingcommittee would need to include someone with expertise in handlingthe media; the staV of the Unit should include a maritime historian, a technical project oYcer (to disseminate good tendering practice), and someone with experience of business planningand fundraising.

Question 6: Where should the Unit be located?

Consultation Feedback 16. Of those who expressed an opinion on location, a substantial majority favoured co-locatingthe Unit with the National Maritime Museum (NMM) at Greenwich. It was felt that there would be great advantages in the Unit’s beingable to draw on the expertise of the NMM. 17. The other two sites that were favoured by a significant minority were Merseyside and Portsmouth. Merseyside was seen as havingthe advantageof historic links with both the maritime and the inland waterways worlds, and havingmuseums dealingwith both, as well as beingna tionally more central than Greenwich. Portsmouth was seen as a centre that would enable the Unit to keep in close touch with the practical aspects of ship preservation, as well as oVeringaccess to important archives and other facilities in the Solent region. 18. Other possible locations suggested by other respondents were: Bristol, Glasgow, Newcastle, Sunderland, Hartlepool, Hull, Lowestoft, Gloucester, Southampton, Swindon and the Science Museum in London. Another possibility might be to locate the Unit in a historic ship. It was suggested that choice of a site should take account of the new “regional museum hubs” framework established in the nine English regions following the Renaissance in the Regions report of 2001. 19. Some respondents suggested that if listing of historic vessels were to be introduced, it would be sensible to co-locate the Unit with English Heritage. 9947231011 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 31

20. A minority of respondents were strongly against the idea of locating the Unit with the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich. They argued that Greenwich is not nationally central, nor particularly easy to reach; that the NMM has shown very little interest in the practical aspects of ship preservation; that there would be a strongrisk of a maritime bias in the Unit’s work; and that (u nlike some other museums) the NMM does not have good links with the many private owners of historic vessels. 21. Most responses favoured the Greenwich option put forward in the consultation paper. However, a good case was also made for Merseyside, and it may be worth looking at options for developinga regional outstation in Merseyside, for the followingreasons: (a) Merseyside would be geographically more central for the UK as a whole. (b) Merseyside oVers the possibility of linkingthe Unit with both a maritime museum and an in land waterways museum: Greenwich oVers only the former, and there was quite a lot of concern in the responses that the Unit should take a balanced interest in both areas. (c) The NMM at Greenwich is said to be a little remote from practitioners generally: a Merseyside out-station might be able to establish closer links with the sector. (d) More generally, too many units of this kind are based solely in London and it would be good if this one could establish a presence in a regional centre.

Question 4: Does the list of functions proposed for the new Unit sound right? Are there others which should be considered?

Consultation Feedback 22. In general, respondents thought the list of functions proposed for the NHSU in paragraph 7.3 of the consultation paper was reasonable, though some commented that it was ambitious. The followingfurther comments were made. 23. It was suggested that more emphasis should be placed on the role which the Unit could play as co- ordinator of the work of other agencies as it impinges on the world of historic ships. This would use the Unit’s limited resources to best eVect and avoid risks of overlap. The Unit should seek to establish close links not only with other maritime and inland waterways bodies, but with the main heritage and tourism agencies, and also act as co-ordinator of Government policy as it aVects historic ships, monitoringthe unintended eVects which new legislation can sometimes have on the sector. 24. It would be very helpful if the Unit could oVer the HLF some strategic guidance on funding priorities, rather than simply advisingad hoc on individual applications. It would al so be helpful if the Unit could give advice to other potential grant givers besides the HLF. 25. Other points made were: (i) It would be helpful if the Unit could provide information on sources of specialist materials, and on repair and dockingfacilities; (ii) The Unit should be able to give ship owners guidance on the management and development of volunteers; (iii) It should aim to develop a code of best practice on the repair, maintenance and management of historic ships (drawingon material available elsewhere, egin the Unit ed States) and should cover such matters as fire safety; (iv) The new Unit should be well placed to encourage organisations to work more eVectively across the sector. Experience gained from the UK Maritime Collections Strategy has demonstrated the benefits to be obtained from a national network co-ordinatingcollectingp olicies, sharingexpertise and workingtowards a potential rationalisation of collections. 26. It was pointed out that there is already a Conservation Register, maintained by the UK Institute for Conservation, which includes details of many firms oVeringspecialist conservation skills. The Institute would be happy to collaborate with the new Unit to enhance the usefulness of the list for historic ship preservation. The Unit might also be able to build on work already being done in the historic aircraft sector to maintain traditional skills.

Question 5: Would a small grants fund have a useful role to play?

Consultation Feedback 27. An overwhelmingmajority of respondents favoured the creation of a sma ll grants fund. They saw the fund as likely to be particularly valuable for the encouragement of conservation planningand best practice, for promotingeducational projects and improved display arrangements,a nd as “seed” money for securing more substantial finance from the business and bankingsectors. 9947231012 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 32 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

28. It was emphasised that the fund should be more than a token fund, and should be genuinely new money—the larger the fund, the better. It would be important to think out the relationship of any small grants fund to HLF funding for ships. 29. There was a diVerence of view on whether the fund should be used to assist individual restoration projects. One comment was that it would be better to use a small pot of money to fund research and other work of general application, rather than deal with specific projects. Others suggested that funding should be available for emergency work, and for work that would prevent serious and costly deterioration. 30. A comment made by several respondents was that the creation of a small grants fund would be no substitute for addressingthe substantive capital and revenue fundingis sues. Government should acknowledge that it must tackle the funding problems of the major historic ships. 31. Of the very few respondents who did not favour the creation of a small grants fund, two were particularly notable. English Heritage commented that a grants programme would be too hungry of manpower for the size of Unit envisaged, and that the Unit’s resources would be better devoted to advising and influencing other grant-givers. EH suggested that the NHSU should simply have some budget provision for commissioningwork from researchers and other specialists . Another view was that the scale of demand for funding would be too large a burden for a small Unit, and might deflect it from activities that would have a much greater long-term benefit for the preservation of historic ships. Any fundingavailable should be targeted at commissioning work to identify and promote exemplars of best practice. 32. There was strongsupport for a small grantsfund. However, some comment s suggested that it would be important to define the scope of the fund very clearly. As envisaged in the consultation paper, it will be important to make clear that the fund’s purpose is to support research, education and other “exemplary” projects, but not to fund straightforward ship repair and maintenance. A small grants programme could be established for, say, a three-year period, administered by the Unit.

Question 7: Should statutory listing of historic ships be introduced?

Consultation Feedback 33. Of those who commented directly on the listingissue, about 61% were opp osed to statutory listing and some 39% in favour. 34. The main virtue of listingwas seen as protection of vessels againstneg lect or maltreatment— protection which, it was suggested, was quite as important as for historic buildings. Several of those in favour of listing suggested that only the most important vessels (those in the current “core collection” and some ships currently excluded on grounds of origin) should be listed, and that care should be taken to avoid over-rigid controls over owners. One suggestion was that listing would be more appropriate to inland waterways vessels than to maritime vessels, because of the close association of the former with particular historic buildings and areas. 35. Those who opposed listingfelt that it would set a tone that would be auth oritative and intimidating, and would be well beyond the resources of a Unit of the size proposed. There was concern that listingwould lead to excessive restrictions and costly requirements, which are arguably unnecessary, given that major historic ships are for the most part already in the care of museums or trusts. But in general, the mobility of many ships was not seen as a crucial obstacle to the introduction of a listingsystem. 36. Several of those who opposed statutory listing suggested that it would add little to the current National Register, and that the priority should be to update and complete the NRHV rather than introduce a completely new system. Another suggestion was that it might be better to develop a minimum standards scheme (with certification), alongthe lines of museum registration. 37. One respondent suggested that it was more important to give protection to land-based facilities, such as historic docks and moorings, which are fast being destroyed. Another suggested that a non-statutory list, like that for historic parks and gardens, might be the best approach. 38. Several of those who did not express a clear view on the issue suggested that further review of the options was needed, either in the context of the Heritage Protection Review (since the treatment of other moveable objects should be considered at the same time), or by the new NHSU once set up.

Question 8: Are there any important issues relating to the preservation of historic ships that you feel are not addressed by these proposals?

Consultation Feedback 39. The followinggeneralcomments were made. 9947231012 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 33

Skills

40. Stress was placed on the need to preserve specialist skills and to provide trainingso that younger people can acquire such skills. It was suggested that major ships should host trainingprogrammesfor trainee craftsmen; and that the NHSU would need to act to preserve and create appropriate locations for expert ship repair—heritage workshops, docking facilities, etc.

Standards

41. It was suggested that the NHSU would have an important role to play in promotingappropriate standards of conservation, as distinct from the sort of restoration that leads to the creation of replicas or pastiches. It would be important to respect local expertise in matters of ship repair and maintenance.

Register

42. It was suggested that a more proactive approach was needed than simply listingknown historic craft, ie identifyingthe types of ships that oughtto be preserved and then conduc tinga systematic worldwide search for extant examples. Similarly, modern naval vessels should be identified for preservation as they are decommissioned—an approach already adopted for historic aircraft.

Tourism potential

43. It was suggested that many local councils fail to appreciate the potential value of historic craft have as tourist attractions. The NHSU would need to promote ships with councils as a way of securingtheir preservation.

Inland waterways

44. Several respondents expressed concern that the importance of the inland waterways and their craft to the national heritage is still not fully recognised. It was suggested that on present trends, the loss of several hundred historic canal craft over the next few years would be inevitable.

Vessels at risk

45. It was suggested that it would be helpful to introduce a “vessels at risk” register, similar to that for historic buildings, to draw attention to the plight of threatened ships and if possible to ways of rescuing them.

Administrative issues

46. It was suggested that the new Unit should have unequivocal UK-wide responsibilities, with representatives on its committee from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: the implications of devolution for the workingof the new Unit needed to be more fully thoughtout. The Unit’ s remit should include British owned historic vessels from any country of origin. Close working would be needed with English Heritage’s archaeology section, to determine responsibilities for historic ships recovered as wrecks.

Finance/Funding

47. It was suggested that it will be important for the new Unit to address the case for financial relief for historic ship owners, egrelief from VAT, from business rates and from harb our dues. 48. Several respondents made the point that proposal of a new administrative mechanism is in their view no substitute for willingness to address the basic issue, which is lack of fundingfor the repair and maintenance of historic ships. Government should address this issue more directly, since no large ship can hope to survive on visitor income alone. 9947231012 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 34 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Sea Britain 2005 49. It was suggested that it would be particularly appropriate if any new initiative could be announced in time for the celebrations planned for 2005.

The Response to the Consultation on Historic Ships 50. We are most grateful for the many positive and constructive responses that we received to the consultation paper. Since the consultation concluded we have been workingto secure fundingthroughthe 2004 SpendingReview to enable our response. Now that the SpendingReview i s complete the fundinghas been secured and we can confirm that DCMS will establish and sponsor a National Historic Ships Unit, a proposal supported by a majority of respondents.

Remit 51. The primary responsibilities of the Unit will be to: — Provide leadership and strategic vision across the historic ships community. — Continue to maintain an authoritative and up-to-date register of the historic fleet. This will include the maintenance and updatingof the National Registerof Historic Ships an d the development and monitoringof an “At Risk” register. — Provide the primary source of advice to Government on policy on national ship preservation and fundingpriorities, monitoringpractice in other countries. — Encourage a better understanding of the real life-costs of restoring and maintaininghistoric vessels. — Advise the HLF on preservation priorities and on individual fundingbids for historic ships made to the HLF and advise other public fundingbodies. — Develop and promote professional standards of good practice for the conservation and restoration of historic vessels, providingadvice to trusts and owners on goodpractic e and on fund-raising opportunities and promotingand makingavailable to the public research i nto ship preservation and conservation techniques. — Provide guidance and advice to trusts and owners on business planning (includingsources of funding) and interpretation techniques designed to makes ships become more self-sustainingand more attractive to new audiences. — Improve the availability and standard of ship and boat conservation skills and trainingand the sharingof expertise across the sector. — Advise on documentation and recordingtechniques in cases where vessels are beyond physical and economic preservation. — Promote the case for historic ships to a wider audience, preparingpublic ity for historic ships, eg a national website and other published material. — Compile a register of firms and individuals capable of oVeringpotential conservation skills, and promote opportunities for people to develop and maintain traditional ship buildingand ship repairingskills. The Unit’s work will be supplemented by a programme of small grants—most likely administered by DCMS—to promote DCMS objectives in the sector, the wider use of conservation plans and to sponsor research. We would encourage owners applying for HLF and other public grants to register first with the Unit.

Constitution 52. For purposes of administrative eYciency and to facilitate access to expert advice, to the UK Maritime Collections Strategy and the Maritime Curators Group the Unit will be lodged at the National Maritime Museum (NMM). Co-location of the Unit at NMM was favoured by a majority of respondents who commented on location. However, in the advice that it gives, the Unit will be independent of the NMM. The Unit will be a sponsored body of DCMS, overseen by an Advisory Board and Chair to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The Advisory Board will comprise experts and advisers drawn from across the historic ships, heritage management, commercial and industrial sectors. The Chair will report to the Secretary of State and will advise Government and the HLF on historic ships and raise public awareness of their significant contribution to our cultural and maritime heritage. During 2005 we will be consultingon the Advisory Board. 53. DCMS, assisted by the NMM will be responsible for the establishment and fundingof the Unit as well as the creation of the Advisory Board. It will take time to create the Advisory Board (our target is April 2006) but in the interim, the NMM will assist in the transition from the existingarrangements.With the fundingthat the Secretary of State has made available this will enable the Unit to begin work, on an interim basis, in 2005. 9947231013 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 35

54. Ultimately, the Chair of the Unit will be responsible for deliveringst rategic and operational targets agreed with DCMS via a “Funding Agreement”. In the interim, these aspects will be agreed with the NMM. 55. Respondents were generally in favour of a UK-wide remit for the Unit but agreed that how it should relate to the devolved administrations would need further discussion. DCMS has since consulted the devolved administrations and has agreed with them that the Unit will advise on the historic ships fleet in Scotland and Wales, as well as in England. The Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service have advised that it is not necessary to extend the Unit’s brief to Northern Ireland, “as there are very few historic vessels in Northern Ireland” but have asked to receive copies of any general guidance produced by the Unit. The Unit’s services would be available to Northern Ireland at their request. 56. We envisage that the Unit will take over the functions of the National Historic Ships Committee. Under the interim arrangements, responsibility for the National Register of Historic Vessels will be transferred to the new Head of Unit once appointed. Administrative support currently provided to the National Historic Ships Committee by the NMM will be sustained, until the longer term arrangements are in place. The Director and staV of the NMM will remain available to advise and support the Unit for a period to be defined.

Structure 57. Initially the Unit will have a core staV of three people—a Head of Unit, a Case OYcer and a Unit Administrator who would also be responsible for administration and maintenance of the Register of Historic Vessels. The Head of Unit will report to the Advisory Board and the Chairman will report to the Secretary of State.

Funding 58. The Unit will be funded by DCMS through grant-in-aid. A sum of £100,000 has been made available to establish the interim Unit in 2005–06, recruit its executives and enable some preparatory work to be undertaken. In 2006–07 this sum increases to £170,000 plus a further £80,000 which will be held by DCMS to provide for small revenue grants towards publications, research, trainingand similar activities, including preliminary studies into methods and eVectiveness of conservation techniques. Respondents were strongly in favour of the creation of a small grants fund. This further £80,000, which would be made available on a challenge basis, would benefit the historic ships community by helping to make information available, improvingstandards and encouragingbestpractice. The fundinghas been i ncreased to meet inflation in 2007–08. However, it is not intended to support capital conservation projects. 59. The new Unit will not take on responsibilities as a capital grant-givingbody. Capital fundingfor historic ship projects will continue to be dealt with by the HLF and other public and private grant-giving bodies. However, the Unit will provide HLF with a valuable source of advice when consideringbids from ships in the historic fleet.

Statutory listing of historic ships 60. The majority of respondents who commented on the question of whether Historic Ships should be listed (61%) opposed the idea. They argued that listing would lead to excessive restrictions and costly requirements which are, arguably unnecessary, in that major historic ships are for the most part already in the care of museums or trusts, that it would add little to the current National Register, and that the priority should be to update and complete the National Register of Historic Vessels rather than introduce a completely new system. We are not, therefore, planningto introduce the st atutory listingof Historic Ships.

General Conclusion 61. We are grateful to all of you who have waited so patiently for our response to the consultation. As you made clear from the start, the availability of resources would be a key to determiningwhat we would be able to do and we took the view that we should not make our formal response until we knew whether and to what extent resources would be available. The allocation of fundingwas confirmed in December 2004. We are pleased that, as a result we can now proceed with the establishment of the Historic Ships Unit. The Unit will provide a sharper focus on historic vessels, better access to trustees and owners for expertise and advice, valuable guidance to the HLF on applications for grant; and additional fundingwill be available to support research and assessment. 13 January 2005 9947231015 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 36 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

Witnesses: 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, DCMS, examined.

Q70 Chairman: Good morning, Minister. Can you historic ships and we were told that St Andrews did tell us a little bit about the National Historic Ships have a department but that actually it might be Unit that you are announcing, have announced or closing. If you are going to Greenwich with this want to announce? project, would it not make some sense to ask Lord McIntosh of Haringey: You are the occasion of Greenwich University to take over this role from St the announcement and I am very grateful to you for Andrews so we had everythingin one area? providingthat occasion because this becomes an Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would not want to say announcement to Parliament. We have always anythingabout the future of St Andrews. If they recognised that historic ships are an important part have got a viable unit going there I would not want of our maritime heritage and this is the 200th to say anythingthreateningto it. The positive idea of anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. It has always having a unit at Greenwich University linked with been the case, as your Committee has pointed out in the National Maritime Museum and with our both of your previous reports, that the preservation Historic Ships Unit sounds to me a very good idea of historic ships has been fragmented and and indeed we could talk to my noble friend Lady uncoordinated and there has not been any clear Blackstone. sense of priorities. We are committed to deliveringa national policy on ship preservation that preserves Q72 Chairman: The sum of £100,000 is not very the best of our maritime heritage. We have carried much. That may be one man and two dogs. Will this out extensive consultation and you might argue it £100,000 employ two people? has been rather lengthy consultation in terms of Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. The idea is it would time, but I am able to announce the establishment of employ three people, that it would employ clearly a National Historic Ships Unit to advise the the head of the unit and a field oYcer and then Government on policy and fundingpriorities for somebody who would be responsible for the register. historic ships, to coordinate work within the sector, I know it is not very much but it is what we have to help those directly engaged in preservation and to managed to get out of a very tough settlement in maintain an up-to-date register of the historic fleet, SpendingReview 2004. includingthe National Registerof Historic Ships and the “At Risk” register. The Unit will encourage a better understandingof the costs of renovatingand Q73 Chairman: We had Mr Doughty in front of us maintaininghistoric vessels, advise the Heritage earlier and he said that he has had to pay VAT on the Lottery Fund on ship preservation priorities and changes that have come in and he is going to have to bids for fundingand promote historic ships to a pay somethinglike £3 million on the cost of re- wider audience. We are makingavailable the sum of preservingthe Cutty Sark. What discussions have £100,000 to establish the Unit on an interim basis in you had with the Paymaster General on this 2005–06. In 2006–07 this will increase to £170,000 particular issue? and a further £80,000 will be given to provide a Mr Hartman: We have had no discussions on this. challenge fund to support research, publications, This is the first we have heard of this problem. It is training, recording and similar activities relating to normally a problem for the Treasury, Customs & the preservation of historic vessels. The Unit will be Excise, rather than us, so it would not come to us based at the National Maritime Museum in directly, but it is not a general issue that I am Greenwich and from 2006–07 it will be overseen by aware of. an independent Advisory Board appointed by the Secretary of State and we shall consult, as one does, Q74 Chairman: Paying£3 million in VAT takes on the establishment of the Advisory Board. Rear away £3 million from the project and other projects. Admiral Roy Clare, the Director of the National Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is normally the case Maritime Museum, has asked me to place on record that grants are allocated on the basis of knowledge that the museum welcomes the new Unit, which whether VAT will be payable or not. If that is not the will substantially enhance the expertise and case—and I think that is a matter for the Heritage organisational resources available to those Lottery Fund—I am certainly prepared to talk to responsible for Britain’s many significant historic Treasury ministers about it. vessels and will refine and focus the advice available Chairman: I think we certainly want you to do that. to grant giving bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund. Admiral Clare also says that the Museum Q75 Chris Bryant: Is this just England or is it looks forward to sustainingits support for the England and Wales? What is going to happen to heritage fleet and assisting directly with the process ships in Scotland and Wales? of establishingthe Unit in Greenwich under this Mr Hartman: It includes Scotland and Wales and independent board. I would like to join Roy Clare in Northern Ireland may refer to the Unit should it payingtribute to Admiral of the Fleet Sir Julian wish to do so. Oswald, until recently the Chairman of the Historic Ships Committee, whose leadership has helped to bringabout this policy. Q76 Chris Bryant: This body’s relationships with CADW and with English Heritage as well as the Q71 Chairman: Minister, we asked a previous Heritage Lottery Board are going to be important, witness whether it would be appropriate to have a are they not? university that specialised in this whole area of Mr Hartman: Yes, they are. 9947231015 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 37

2 February 2005 DCMS

Q77 Chris Bryant: Are you going to be providing Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The first response I any guidance? You referred to the fact that one of want to give is that what is wonderful in this country the things it is going to be looking at is outreach. The is the degree of devotion and expertise which people fact is that most ships are obviously on the coast and who are not in oYcial capacities want to give to lots of people in the country do not live on the coast, historic ships and it is marvellous that we have the they live inland, but our maritime heritage is a very Committee and that there are support groups for important part of understandingBritain’s role in the individual ships all round the country. That has led world and our history. Is there any guidance you are to a much greater appreciation of the values of going to be giving on how they balance all the historic ships and of the history around them as well. diVerent competingelements of this work? I would not want to say anythingabout o Ycial Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is what the action which would imply anythingother than Advisory Panel will be able to do. I do not think it extreme appreciation and gratitude for what is done should be a Government dominated initiative. We voluntarily. Having said that, English Heritage are talkingabout establishinga relatively small unit made a policy decision in 1992 and I do not think it of three people which will have the next financial is appropriate for Government to interfere in detail year to establish itself and at that time we will be in the way in which they determine their grants appointingthe Advisory Panel and I think they policy. Clearly they will listen to what you say and should be given a pretty free hand. That is not to say they will listen to what witnesses before you say, but that I do not agree with you that the principle of these grants are on an arm’s length basis and the getting people, even those who do not live near the Government does not determine them individually coast, to appreciate the virtues of historic ships is and I think it would be wrongif we did. important because I do agree with you.

Q80 Mr Hawkins: Historic ships are by their very Q78 Chris Bryant: Obviously it is historic ships that nature extremely expensive projects. A feelingthat we are talkingabout primarily today, but the whole the witnesses to us so far have been expressingis that of our maritime heritage goes rather wider than that, too great a burden is falling on the Heritage Lottery it is about the fact that the ships were built Fund, wonderful work though they are doing. The somewhere, there were major industries in particular volunteers do lots of wonderful work around the parts of the country and parts of the country relied country but they can only raise a relatively small very heavily on that heritage. Do you see amount of money and large sums are coming at the connections needingto be made there as well? moment from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Is there Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think there should be. not an argument for saying that there should be a The National Maritime Museum makes it possible greater role for Government, more than just setting to make those connections and the link with the up a Unit, welcome though it is, with only a small NMM makes that possible, but anybody who visits budget? Portsmouth and Gosport knows about the Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think there is a importance of the links between shipbuilding, particularly good argument for greater overlap between armaments for the Navy and the whole between the National Heritage Fund and English variety of ships themselves and clearly that is an V important element. Heritage. They do di erent jobs and it is better if they do not trespass in each other’s territories. You are quite right about the Heritage Lottery Fund, Q79 Mr Hawkins: Minister, I get the impression they do a marvellous job and they deal with the from all the evidence we have heard this morning particularly intractable problem for historic ships, and from the various written submissions to us that which is not only that you have to spend capital there is a strongfeelingin this sector that maritime money on bringing them up to standard, but there is history has been undervalued for a considerable continuous maintenance expenditure required and period of time. We have heard a lot of criticism of the Heritage Lottery Fund I think understands that, English Heritage who are prepared to list the which is why they have given the money to the Cutty buildings or land that may be associated with Sark Trust. I do not think there would be any heritage and they list all kinds of building all round advantage in having more than one source of oYcial the country but they have not been prepared to financial support for historic ships. support ships since the early 1990s. We have received very strongrepresentations from just about all our witnesses so far that as a Committee we should be Q81 Mr Hawkins: In your Department’s written recommending that English Heritage change their evidence to us you talk particularly about the stance back to supportingships in the way that once establishment of a small grants fund as one of the they did. Do you not feel, particularly in an ideas that most people welcome. Is this something important anniversary year and when so much of that you would particularly encourage the new Unit our history is bound up with the maritime nature of to look at, because certainly our witnesses so far this our country, that really we should give a greater morninghave generallywelcomed the idea that there priority to supportingour maritime heritageand can be small grants to smaller projects to encourage that it is quite wrong for English Heritage to say they volunteers to act as seed corn which might bring in will only look after buildings and they will not look business sponsorship and attract other sources of after ships? funding? 9947231015 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:47:30 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 38 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence

2 February 2005 DCMS

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that is a very £15 billion so that you would just pay an interest and appropriate thingfor the new Historic Ships Unit to you could have a more profound eVect on the look at when it is established and I am sure it is communities? somethingthat will be taken into account when we Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a National look at the appointment of the Advisory Panel. I find Lottery Bill, which has just had its First Readingin that a very helpful suggestion if I may say so. the House of Commons, which actually addresses the issue of balances in lottery funds. You are right, there are always substantial balances held by lottery funds and particularly by the Heritage Lottery Q82 Chairman: The Tourist Board do not fund ships Fund. They argue that those balances have been anymore. I think they stopped fundingit in 1999. It committed for projects which take place over a seems to me that shippingis part of the tourist considerable period of time and that they are business. I know how popular the Cavalier at committed and they are not beingwithheld, but I Chatham is. I am just wonderingif you and Mr think it is worth saying, without entering into a Caborn could put your heads together. debate on the National Lottery Bill in advance of Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My preference for not your Second Reading, that interest is gained on overlapping funding between English Heritage and those balances and, secondly, all of the interest that the Heritage Lottery Fund does not apply to tourist is gained on those balances goes into the Fund itself boards. I think tourist boards should be playinga and so nothingis lost. It would be a financial more active role in exploitingthe tourist potential of calculation which I cannot make oV-the-cuV as to historic ships. whether it is better to do as they do, which is to invest the money and use the income or to borrow against it in the City.

Q83 Chairman: One thingthat is clear in everything Q84 Chairman: I just wondered whether there was is that there is always a finite budget. All of the any other lottery anywhere in the world that used it lotteries have substantial amounts of money in the by borrowingfrom their own major bank. bank, between probably £4 billion and £5 billion. Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know. I would Even though that is allocated across it is still in the be interested to know and if we can find out we will bank. Is there anythingto stop the Government let you know. going to the City and borrowing against that £10 or Chairman: Minister, thank you very much. 9947211005 Page Type [SO] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 39 Written evidence

Memorandum submitted by Mr Wyn Davies

Some Thoughts on the Future Shape of Government Support to the Maritime Heritage Sector The main areas in which the heritage sector needs support are as follows: — Money; — Overview of the sector; — Local/better representation for boat/ship owners; — Establishment of centres of excellence.

Expanding on These in Turn

Money Not necessarily from the Government, although that would be useful, but help in findingappropriate donors, access to EU funds etc. Notingthoughthat the DTI is notoriously un able to help small businesses navigate through similar waters. Help in understandingsources of funds, exact requirements of fundingcha rities, listingpossible charitable trusts who donate, all would be useful to a sector who’s members are usually too busy “fighting fires” to have the time to do this for themselves, even just findingout who gavetheir n eighbour some money.

Overview of the sector Follows on from this last thought. The individual trusts, owners, museums are all too busy stretchingtheir limited resources to meet the problem of the moment. This results in their often missingout on help or reinventingthe wheel. There is a need for better exchangeof information o n all topics, ultimately this could save money within the sector. Example: HMS Trincomalee’s team spent a lot of time and eVort researching materials before selectingnatural, true to original,fibres for their rig ging. They overlooked the large body of evidence from modern, workingsailingships that suggestedmodern arti ficial fibres last longer and are cheaper in the longrun. The idea of not reinvention the wheel can be taken further to include best practise guides being produced centrally, like the US Secretary of State’ Guidelines for preservingship s, produced by the US Parks Dept. An excellent publication that would need little alteration for UK use.

Local Representation There is a ground swell of dissatisfaction with the National Historic Ship Committee at present. This is partly the result of not appreciatingthe behind the scenes work—politick ing—that is unavoidable in this sort of arena, but it is also because the committee is not representative of the sector as a whole. The vast majority of vessels on the National Register, put there by the NHSC, are “owner driver” organisations, small teams at best, not polished organisations like Portsmouth Historic Dockyard or the National Maritime Museum perceived to have little idea of the problems of the small man. This could be tied in with the need for some kind of overview of the sector. Regional committees, possibly elected, would be able to provide an overview of their region and report this back to the centre, giving the central committee the needs, views and concerns of the teams they represent.

Centres of Excellence This idea of regional committees could be taken further, with each region beingencouraged(funded?) to develop their own centres of excellence. Portsmouth beinga goodexample, with the RN museum, HMS Warrior, HMS Victory, Portsmouth University and Hampshire County Council Museums Service working together on warship restoration. It is worth noting that HCC’s work on Monitor M33, aided by Portsmouth Uni is now beingtaken forward to help solve some of Cutty Sark’s problems. 9947211001 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 40 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

Annex 1

Response to the Government To establish my bona fides, I will start my response with a brief description of my personal experience in the maritime heritage sector. Since leavingschool in 1965 my education has been that of a professional en gineer. I qualified as aircraft designer at the University of Salford, followed by a MSc at the College of Aeronautics, Cranfield, all whilst employed by A V Roe and Co. in its various incarnations under Hawker Siddeley Aviation. I then returned to my roots, comingfrom a maritime family as I do, and joined the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, gaining a second M.Sc. at University College, London. I spent 10 years with the Ministry of Defence, duringwhich time I was expose d to the leadership and guidance of several exceptional oYcers, whilst designing the Castle Class oVshore patrol vessels and the batch II and III type 22 frigates. Some of these gentlemen went on to establish themselves in the world of marine heritage, people like John Coates and D K Brown, and Charles Betts and David Chalmers, both of whom are now on the National Historic Ships Committee. On leavingthe Ministry, I moved into consultancy, briefly with Seaforth Ma ritime in Aberdeen, then for 18 years with Three Quays Marine Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of the P&O Group. Duringthe later years with Three Quays I introduced them to the maritime heritage sector and as a result I have personally worked on a uniquely wide range of types and vintages. I feel this variety gives me an insight into the range of problems faced by the various owners, the National Historic Ship Committee and the HLF in comingto terms with the needs of each individual ship. For the record the ships I have worked with are (in ship build date): — HMS Trincomalee — Dunbrody replica — HMS Warrior (as HLF monitor) — Cutty Sark — RRS Discovery — Medway Queen — Tug/tender Calshot — Paddle tugJohn H Amos — HMS Cavalier — ML1387 — PS Waverley — SS Shieldhall (as HLF Monitor). I have also attached copies of an article of mine, which appeared both in the Maritime Trust Review (No 17, Oct 2001) and in the World Ship Review (No 26) (not printed here) together with a proposal I prepared for the Maritime Trust’s BigShip Forum, for a website mechanism f or information and skill exchange. Hopefully these may prove useful in your deliberations. Detailed response followingthe question numbers of the proposal documen t: 1. A central body would most certainly help the historic ships’ sector. It must have, however, a funded secretariat to help provide the necessary communications, such as a website (see attached paper), as the individuals within the sector will still not be able to take on board a significant additional workload. It must also be large enough to include people with modern shipyard experience and operational experience as well conservation and museum backgrounds. It will therefore need a diplomatic leader! Settingpriorities surely has to be by consensus, the unit therefore must b e seen as independent and free from “history” as possible. (See comments about NMM). 2. It seems to me that there are a number of possible alternatives, less preferable admittedly: — How will the body fit with the existing functions of English Heritage? For example Cutty Sark is a Grade 1 listed building. English Heritage also has responsibility for wrecks—would this responsibility be transferred to the new unit? — Should English Heritage take on the Maritime Heritage role in total? The counter argument is that they know nothingabout ships and, pace Cutty Sark, have a track record of apparently not wantingto know. — Could a government department take on this role, as a parallel to the US National Park Services role in providing guidance and best practice? The counter argument to this may be that the unit would be a very low priority within government as a whole and thus unable to significantly improve the current situation. 9947211001 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 41

With reference to the US National Park Service, I do feel it is important for the unit not to waste time reinventingthe wheel themselves. The NPS produce a very sensible set of do cuments on the preservation and recordingprocess, which would be of greatvalue to the unit and in many case s, could be used as they stand. 3. See comments at 1 above regarding a paid secretariat. The members of the unit have to be seen as free from any personal “hobby horses”, no track record of eccentric (as viewed by the sector as a whole) decisions duringan historic restoration. It would be of significant benefit to include a member from the “modern” shipbuildingindustry to ensure a good grasp of “conventional” costs and timescales, to provide base line experience. 4. Acceptable as described. 5. Small grants, without a lot of paperwork would be welcome to the sector, but how would it tie in the HLF’s planninggrants(up to 50K)? 6. The unit should be located at a “centre of excellence” in the sector. Although no such centre exists currently, moves are in hand to encourage such groupings, and some areas are definitely perceived as such in the sector, ie Portsmouth, Falmouth, and Liverpool/Birkenhead. I do not believe that embeddingit in the NMM would satisfy the sector. NMM ha s no track record of successfully restoringa “working”vessel—indeed they most recently cam e to the sector’s attention as a result of cuttingup their steam tug! My personal preference would be in the Portsmouth/Southampton area where a variety of ships, universities and museums are to be found all actively restoringor success fully runningheritageships and their equipment. 7. It’s not clear what a statutory listingwould achieve. The recent BBC 2 se ries Restoration has graphically illustrated the fact that listing a building does not safeguard its continuingexistence. The current voluntary listing, winnowed down by the NHSC to a core collection seems to satisfy the needs of the sector. Unless statutory listingbringswith it some financial rewards, tax relief or grant aid it would be seen as an unnecessary encumbrance. 8. From my personal experience (see above and attached articles) the need to provide easily assimilable communications throughout the sector is perhaps the most important aspect of any future unit, see my earlier comments about a secretariat. This is covered by the proposal, but I believe it has not been given the weight that it deserves as a cost eVective and almost instantaneous tool to reduce duplication and costs within the sector. The proposal suggests that the small unit would “compile” a register and “prepare” a website. I believe it should carry out these tasks as a matter of urgency and be given suYcient manpower and funds to do it properly, but speedily. Relyingon the core sta V to do it means that it will inevitably receive a lower priority than it deserves.

Annex 2

Wyn Davies is a project manager with the marine consultants Three Quays Marine Services Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the P&O Group. He has been mainly responsible for buildingup that company’s involvement in historic ships by utilisingexistingsail trainingship ex pertise. A fully qualified naval architect, he has been with Three Quays for 16 years now, havingpreviously spent 10 yea rs with the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors. The views expressed here are entirely the author’s.

Some Thoughts on Maritime Heritage Duringthe last century there were successive waves of public enthusiasm f or recoveringand restoringthe ships that provided the punctuation to the story of our nation. Perhaps the earliest example of this enthusiasm was the preservation of HMS Victory in the nineteen twenties, then the rescue of the Cutty Sark in 1952 and most recently, the 1970 recovery of the Great Britain. Each of these eVorts precipitated public enthusiasm, which unfortunately proved to be short lived. In the meantime, and in the background, the hardcore of enthusiasts, supporting their own ships, plodded along, short of funds and desperately short of oYcial support. The most recent, and hopefully, continuingwave of enthusiasm for preserv ingour maritime heritagewas fuelled by the arrival of the Lottery Fund in 1995. Although, given the fickleness of the Great British people, it is doubtful whether this movement really sprangfrom the result of publi c concern or was more an enthusiasm powered by public money. One of the spin-oVs from the involvement of the Lottery money, in the form of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), was a perceived need to employ reputable consultants; Fred from next door was no longer good enough. It was at this point that I became professionally involved. 9947211002 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 42 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

Comingfrom a seafaringfamily I had been broughtup on a diet of “salty” stor ies, particularly from my grandfather, who started as a boy on a spritsail barge and retired as Convoy Commodore on the East Coast route duringWorld War II. My father’s claim to fame rested on beingrespons ible for the loss of the only degaussing drifter not returned to its owner at the end of hostilities, an event that had more to do with spring tides in the Bristol Channel than enemy action! A catholic interest in all things nautical and historical, a career that spans warships to floatinggymnasium, with little in between that could be called mundane, meant that I was perhaps a natural choice to undertake the work on these ships when it started comingin to Three Quays. An early involvement with the restoration work on the Cutty Sark was soon followed by work on HMS Cavalier, HMS Trincomalee, PS Medway Queen and HMS Warrior 1860. CurrentlymyeVorts are concentrated on a further bid to restore the Cutty Sark’s hull structure as well as monitoring, on behalf of HLF, the renewal of HMS Warrior’s upper deck timber. Havingexplained how I found myself involved with the marine heritagebusi ness, let us look at what I found. One of the first things I found, after a bit of research on the Internet, was the United States Parks Service web site. I’m still not entirely clear how they got into the historic ship business, but the result was a couple of documents that should be required readingfor everyone thinkingof pres ervinga ship. The first is the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Historic Vessel Preservation Projects with Guidelines for Applying the Standards” and the second is “Guidelines for RecordingHistoric Ships ” by Richard K Anderson JR. from the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American EngineeringRecord, also part of the National Parks Service. As I mentioned above, the bulk of the work of restoringand preservingour hi storic ships and boats is carried out by unpaid volunteers and enthusiasts, in many cases people with personal experience or memories of the vessel in question. With the larger ships, the drive for preservation sometimes comes from historic associations with a particular location—the recovery of the SS Great Britain from the Falkland Islands to its original building berth in Bristol being the classic example of this. Had they read the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Vessel Preservation Projects, many of them probably would never have started! This is not to say that the document is in any way impractical, it’s just that it describes very graphically the potential pitfalls. Pitfalls that were well illustrated to me by my first sight of an almost abandoned HMS Cavalier lyingin a weed-festooned drydock at Hebburn on Tyn eside. In actual fact the document is very largely based on common sense and well worth a read. Havingnow toured several ships and museums in a professional capacity my o verridingimpression is one of respect for those people who, in many cases, set out with little more than a bright idea and succeeded in the preservation of one of the nation’s historical icons. At the same time I remain concerned about the number of times I have found that a group is re-inventing the wheel —at some cost to their project. The training of riggers or shipwrights from scratch by one group, when another group is searching for work to prevent them havingto lay o V similarly trained staV is a classic example of what can happen. Whilst I suspect that some of this is down to rugged individualism and some of it perhaps the result of competingfor the same money, much of it is the result of ignoranceabout wha t the other projects are doing. Once a restoration project has started it takes on a life of its own and seldom is there time to look over the fence at neighbours. In fairness, there have been a number of attempts to overcome this. The Maritime Trust have established the BigShip Forum (now run by the Cutty Sark Trust) for the exchange of ideas and experience amongst the groups who look after the larger vessels. And there is at least one internet-based discussion forum for historic ships and by now most enthusiast groups have their own web sites. Whilst this goes some way to addressing the perceived need for communication and co-ordination between groups, it is still hard work to chase down particular information. The BigShip Forum, for example, suVers from poor attendance and it is currently undergoing a rethink about the format and membership. If the forum is any guide, there is still a large number of people who are seekinganswers to very fundamental questions. Simply put, there are too many cries of “I have got an old ship/boat/relic, where can I keep it?” when what should be asked is “If I get an old ship/boat/relic, where can I keep it?” Even worse are the oft heard laments of “If I can’t get a berth/home/museum, I’m goingto have to scrap/sell HMS Nonsuch!” All of which points to a continuinglack of essential informatio n gathering before committing to a project. I believe there is a need for an easily accessible source of this basic information. In this day and age it should logically be based around a web site where groups and individuals could record information about their projects. A site where artisans and skilled workers could lodge their CVs, groups could advertise for expertise and everyone can exchange information and experience with regulations, manning, educational resources or any other pertinent issues. Links could be added, to each participatinggroup,to marinas, to companies like Three Quays and to governmental departments and agencies. The only problem with this idea is that it would need at least one full time operator/editor to keep the site up to date because the pressures of work on the enthusiasts which currently prevent them devotingtime to this sort of thingare unlikely to diminish with time. 9947211002 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 43

The web site may even work as a marketingdevice. Many American visitors alr eady plan their visits to Europe solely on the Internet; indeed one of my colleagues has done this in reverse with a very successful trip to several eastern seaboard maritime heritage sites in the USA. Any group not on the Internet is likely to miss out from this potential income. Further links could be added for travel and accommodation information, to complete the experience. We still have to address the familiar question of who pays? It is unlikely that any one group would be willing to carry the cost out of their hard won funding, although a levy may be acceptable if everyone was seen to contribute. An approach to HLF would probably only be acceptable for the set-up phase as, so far, it has been reluctant to pay for operational costs, although there may be a better case to be made here, as I’m sure such a facility would save money within the overall heritage context. I believe the next set of problems are likely to come, not from within, but from the increase in the overall number of new visitor attractions, many of them also funded by HLF, that are springing up all over the country and are all vyingfor the tourists’ money. A lesson that a few people already have had to learn the hard way is that you now have to be very conservative in predictingvisitor n umbers in support of your business plans. The introduction of the world’s largest roller coaster a few miles up the road could devastate the finances of a lonely preserved ship. Although it may oVend the purest, I believe that quantity probably counts more than quality to Joe Public. Both Chatham Historic Dockyard and Portsmouth Historic Ships are good examples of this, where three good ship presentations bring in enough visitors to support other exhibits and displays, which may, by themselves, be less able to attract customers. Havingsaid all this, I believe that the “Industry” is, on the whole, in good heart. The Scottish Maritime Museum has won some more funding, the former Exeter Maritime Museum’s collection looks as if it will be back on display and the new British Powerboat Museum is revealingan abilit y to produce very high quality restorations. Smaller groups, like the one found at Padstow are preservingthe smaller, but nonetheless important, vessels to a very high standard and more people seem to be realisingthat the sea has played, and indeed is still playinga very important role in everyday life. Providingt he existinggroupscan continue to attract visitors and new groups plan their attraction properly we can continue to enjoy the sight of our maritime heritage in much of its original glory. 27 January 2005

Memorandum submitted by English Heritage This submission sets out the strategy, administration and resources deployed by English Heritage in contributingto the implementation of the Government’s stated policy of p reserving“the best of the . . . maritime heritage”.

English Heritage 1. English Heritage is a non-departmental public body established under the National Heritage Act 1983 to help protect the historic environment of England and promote awareness, understandingand enjoyment of it.

Maritime Heritage 2. “Maritime heritage” is not well defined. The archaeology of Europe and the place we now call Britain serves to illustrate our commonality with the continent rather than our separateness in the millennia before risingsea levels severed us from the mainland, about 10,000 years ago.But , ever since, beingon an island has been central to our identity. 3. The seas which surround our coasts have served as a highway as well as a barrier over many centuries and the numerous shallow estuaries around the coast have been as much an invitation as an impediment to sea-borne visitors, whether invader, trader or immigrant. These maritime contacts have given England its name, and a language and a heritage that connect us with places on the other side of the North Sea. 4. Maritime heritage falls into two main parts—that which is terrestrial (either built on land for example port buildings and docks, or which has finished up on land, for example silted up river channels) and that which is marine (either on former dry land now flooded by marine incursions for example the North Sea, or always under water such as wrecks).

Terrestrial Maritime Heritage 5. The combination of maritime trade and naval power—and they are intimately linked—produced both the Empire and the Industrial Revolution; a chance combination of circumstances that came together in Britain in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and changed the history of the world. It is no surprise that many of the potential new World Heritage Sites identified in England in 1999 relate directly to this period of our history. Liverpool—one of the first to be inscribed by UNESCO—is the supreme example of a 9947211003 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 44 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

commercial port developed at the time of Britain’s greatest global influence, its distinctive architecture echoing (and in some cases pre-dating) that of the great cities of the American East Coast. Other significant maritime built heritage includes the naval dockyards and our great seaside towns. 6. England’s coastal zone contains an important legacy of historic assets including, in particular, a complex array of archaeological remains. Many of these fragile and irreplaceable remains were originally constructed on dry land or stable inlets and cliV tops. A combination of risingsea levels and maritime erosion over the centuries and millennia threatens to destroy many of these sites, and the information about our heritage encapsulated in them.

English Heritage and Terrestrial Maritime Heritage

7. English Heritage has had responsibility for terrestrial maritime heritage since our establishment in 1984. It has been recognised from the start as a very important sector of the historic environment and issues relating to conservation and management of change have been addressed in a number of ways. — Designation of terrestrial maritime heritage sites of particular significance, through listing, scheduling, conservation area designation (by local authorities) and inscription as World Heritage Sites. — Investigation of terrestrial maritime heritage sites through archaeology, historical research and buildingsurvey, and the associated dissemination and publication of the results, either directly or through financial support. — Creation, maintenance and dissemination of databases and archives relatingto the historic maritime environment. — Management of change to significant terrestrial maritime heritage sites through advice to owners, local planningauthorities, governmentdepartments and others on planni ngpolicies, statutory controls, and methods of conservation, repair and alteration. — Financial assistance through grant for the repair and conservation of historic buildings and structures. — Direct management of a number of terrestrial maritime heritage sites, principally coastal fortifications all periods.

8. The range of English Heritage’s involvement in the maritime terrestrial heritage is very wide, extending in date from Seahenge and the earlier drowned mesolithic and palaeolithic landscapes of the North Sea, to the 20th century buildings of Liverpool’s waterfront and the impact of modern warship servicingfacilities on the naval dockyards. We have published books on the development of the naval dockyards in England, surveyed coastal sites beingeroded and lost to the sea, studied seaside to wns, advised on the conservation and presentation of projects such as the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, helped to develop regeneration schemes for sites like the Royal William Yard, and grant aided the repair of waterfront and dock facilities and buildings. Our own coastal sites such as Tintagel and Pendennis Castle are major visitor attractions.

9. The terrestrial maritime heritage will continue to have a high priority for English Heritage, within our overall priorities and strategies for the historic environment, and we will continue to commit an appropriate level of resources to the conservation of and management of change to significant elements of it.

Marine Archaeology

10. The seas around Britain contain an immense wealth of archaeological sites and remains, potentially without equal elsewhere in the world in terms of their number and diversity. These remains include extensive submerged landscapes, primarily relating to the earlier prehistoric period duringwhich Britain was divorced from mainland Europe by risingsea levels, as well as remains derivingfrom the subsequent history of the British Isles and its inhabitants’ exploitation of the sea.

11. Despite their radically diVerent environmental circumstances, marine and terrestrial archaeological remains provide a seamless physical and intellectual continuum. As a result of coastal change, some originally terrestrial sites are now submerged and some marine sites are now on land; some sites have ambivalent settings, being situated in the inter-tidal zone and enjoying marine and dry land environments sequentially; and others extend from dry land into the sea. Even wholly submerged and discrete sites, such as shipwrecks, can be considered to be part of wider maritime cultural landscapes that also embrace the yards where they were constructed, the ports they served and the defences erected against them. 9947211003 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 45

English Heritage and Marine Archaeology 12. Despite this rich maritime history—and in contrast to the situation in the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—English Heritage, the lead agency responsible for managing the physical remains of the historic environment in England, did not (prior to 2002) have responsibility for marine archaeology within its territorial sea. However this has been remedied by the National Heritage Act (2002), which extends English Heritage’s remit to include ancient monuments in, on or under the seabed to the 12-mile limit around England. 13. The National Heritage Act (2002) modified our functions to include securingthe preservation of ancient monuments in, on, or under the seabed, and promotingthe public’s e njoyment of, and advancing their knowledge of ancient monuments, in, on, or under the seabed. It increased English heritage’s area of responsibility by 70% and brought in whole new areas of work such as undersea pipelines. Followingthe passing of the Act the Government transferred to English Heritage funding of £340K an year, the amount they were spendingon administeringthe responsibilities for marine arch aeology they were transferring to us; they supplemented this with a further ring-fenced £200K a year increase in English heritage’s grant-in- aid to cover wider issues. Both these sums were recognised as being inadequate for the needs of marine archaeology at the time and have not been increased since. 14. Since June 2002 we have established a Maritime Archaeology Team with responsibilities for: — administeringDCMS’s Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites; — managing the Government contract for archaeological services in support of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973; — administering funds to provide signs and buoyage for Designated Wreck Sites; — promoting the physical management of England’s 41 Designated Wreck Sites; — participatingin the DCMS Review of HeritageProtection marine consulta tion; — advisingregulators; — settingup a framework to ensure, as far as possible, that marine developm ent consultations take account of the marine historic environment. 15. In a relatively short period the English Heritage Maritime Archaeology Team has raised the profile of maritime archaeology within English Heritage and externally. 16. We propose to maintain our current approach, within the broad framework of our policy document Taking to the Water. As English Heritage Commissioners have recognised, the funding levels provided to English Heritage for maritime archaeology in 2002 do not allow for the implementation of all Taking to the Water policies and initiatives. We need, therefore, to pursue every opportunity for additional resource; in particular by standard setting, increasing awareness and enjoyment of the maritime environment, and promotingthe sense of responsibility of Government departments and agen cies, and industries whose activities impact upon it.

English Heritage and Historic Ships 17. Historic ships (in common with other historic vehicles) have never enjoyed statutory designation. Uniquely in England the Cutty Sark (grounded and never likely to move again) is listed Grade I. Three other ships (HMS Trincomalee, SS Great Britain, and HMS Warrior) have been judged to be ancient monuments for grant purposes, though they were never scheduled. Some historic wreck sites on land, which include in some cases the remains of vessels, have been scheduled. English Heritage has funded a number of excavations of such vessels, and the associated preservation of survivingelements of the vessel, such as the Roman boat excavated some years ago at Dover. 18. When it was set up English Heritage was willing to consider grant aid for the repair and conservation of ships, and in the period 1984 to 1992 we oVered grant aid for the repair of at least three. In 1992, triggered by a large grant application from the Cutty Sark, we reviewed our policy on grant aiding ships in the light of our then financial resources and demand from our core business of the built historic environment. We decided to stop grant aiding ships, putting them on all fours with other types of transport. The reasons for doingso were primarily resource driven; we were havingto turn down many ap plications to our grant schemes because of the overall level; of demand, we were grant aiding ships on a first come first served basis without any overall assessment of need and without havinga significantimp act on the overall problem of historic ship conservation, and ships were seen as secondary to our core business. The subsequent launch of the HLF has provided a major new source of fundingfor ships, on a scale whi ch vastly outweighs anything we have been able to do in the past or are likely to be able to do in the future. 19. In 2002 English Heritage agreed to support a three year research project (in partnership with the National Maritime Museum and the National Historic Ships Committee) to develop the national database of historic ships and in particular to provide better information on conservation plans, financial viability, and sustainability in the context of access, education, regeneration and skills preservation. This was seen as complementary to our new responsibilities for maritime archaeology. It is intended to provide more authoritative guidance to other funding bodies and a better informed debate with government. The study 9947211003 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 46 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

has now been completed and produced by the NHSC and the NMM as The ShippingFo recast. We understand that the NHSC will be giving evidence to the Committee and we will leave it to them to set out the detailed results of the survey. 20. The recent spending round has been a tough one for English Heritage in common with other DCMS sponsored bodies. We have seen an eVective cut of 6.3% in our grant-in-aid in real terms over the three year period 2005 to 2008, and this comes after an already diYcult period when we have had to cut some activities significantly. Against this background there is no likelihood of English Heritage being in a position to oVer any new assistance for the preservation of historic ships. 21. Over a year ago the DCMS issued a consultation document on government policy for the protection of historic ships. In our response we strongly endorsed the government’s proposal to establish a Historic Ships Unit within the National Maritime Museum. We are not aware of any action from the government since the completion of the consultation. We would welcome the implementation of this proposal which would provide the policy focus for historic ship preservation which is now lackingand which English Heritage cannot provide. 28 January 2005

Memorandum submitted by the 40! Fishing Boat Association The 40! FishingBoat Association was set up by Mike Smylie and Michael Craine in 199 5, against the background of the enforced decommissioning and destruction of hundreds of fishingboats, as part of the overall European Commission’s intention to reduce fishingcapability thr oughout the Union. Unfortunately, from a maritime heritage point of view, this has resulted in the scrappingof many wooden fishingboats that would otherwise have been an integralpart of Britain’s m aritime heritage. As well as highlighting this “enforced vandalism”, as we termed it at the time, the Association has grown over the last 10 years into one that is workinghard to protect what fishingheritageremai ns. At the same time it is encouraging the restoration of fishing vessels and the research into fishinghistory. It is the only UK-based maritime group to actively support all types of historically important fishingvessels, whether oar-, sail- or motor-propelled. Thus we have over 500 members, with over half havingex-fi shingboats in their ownership. Britain, as an island nation, has a maritime heritage that we are supposedly proud of, but one that all too often ignores, and thus overlooks, the contributory work of ordinary people that made the country’s expanse throughout the globe in the period between the 17th and 19th centuries possible. The role played by British fishermen duringthis era is one that has never been fully recogni sed. It was the herringfishery that was the first recognisedfishery of importance to the country and a committee was appointed by the House of Commons to enquire into the state of this fishery. Thus the “Reports from Committees on the State of the British HerringFisheries” da ted 1798, 1799 and 1800 were produced. These reports, while emphasisingthe scale of the fisheries and t he benefit to the country in its encouragement, also highlighted the importance of the fishermen as being a source of manpower to the Royal Navy. Fishermen all over the world were the first mariners, vital because of their maritime skills. Thus we see that for a longtime it was to the fishingfleets that both the Royal and Me rchant Navies relied upon as a pool of crew to man the vessels employed in expandingBritain’s Empire. But, in the words of an Indian writer, they are “the lost people of history: its silent actors”. Furthermore, duringthe First and Second World Wars, it was Britain’s fishe rmen that crewed the majority of the coastal minesweepingfleets and other coastal vessels that played such a major role in protectingBritain from German intents around these coasts and further afi eld. Their contribution through lives given to the cause is one that has never really been recognised until very recently, especially by the Admiralty. Duringthis period, as well as contributingto the expansion and war e Vorts, the fishermen also played a major role is supplyingfood to feed the nation at times when food was in sho rt supply. Many paid the ultimate penalty. Because fishingboats, like lifeboats, pilotagecraft, ferryingboats, ba rges etc, are vernacular in their very being, they do not visually impact upon the public in the same way that the large ships such as HMS Victory, Warrior, Belfast (to name a few) do. This is one reason that they have largely been ignored. Furthermore, fishingcommunities often live apart from the rest of society, even both soc ially and physically at the extremity of the larger community, and are often regarded as dirty and uncouth folk. This, too, has meant they are often overlooked. But there is no doubt that their contribution outweighs that of other groups within the field. The variety in shape and design of fishing boats around these coasts are tremendous, and Britain probably has the greatest number of diVeringtypes of fishingboats of any country in the world. My book Traditional Fishing Boats of Britain and Ireland (1999) catalogues all these types. Although some of these types have disappeared for good, examples of the vast majority do still exist and have often been pulled from near extinction through the perseverance and hard work of individual people, without the help and 9947211004 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 47

encouragement of any national body. Thus we can see today many ex-fishing boats sailingand working around the coasts. In a few cases, individuals have built replica boats from plans that have survived even if no original examples of those types remain. From this we can see that by attainingto the “best of the maritime heritage” , this hasn’t in the past necessarily included these fishingcraft. “Best” all too often does mean th at with the optimum visual impact, but it is self evident that all sectors in the maritime field must be included in any future policy. Funds have been made available to certain projects over the last few years, largely from the National Lottery, which has resulted in an increase in exhibits available to the larger public, and thus their awareness of their importance. But, in the majority of cases, fishingboat restoratio ns have been funded by the individuals themselves, subsequently funded through working the vessels as charter vessels. Now, it is plainly obvious that there is never going to be the funds made available by the government to fund more than a handful of restoration projects, nor the fundingto enable vessels to remain at sea. That is not to say that this should be the case. It’s just a matter of the reality of the situation! Many argue that the best place to exhibit historically important vessels is in museums, as static displays. In some instances this may be so, but in the writer’s mind, for vessels to survive longterm the y should be in their native environment—egkept workingat sea. Whilst more resources should be made a vailable to this field, there are other factors that should be taken into account. Firstly, maritime heritage isn’t just about boats. It is about boatbuildingtechniques, designimplications, maritime buildings and dockyards, maritime traditions and associated skills (sail-making, rope-making, early motorisation etc). Resources should be made available within all these fields. Secondly there are a number of institutions and groups within Britain that do focus their eVorts on particular fishingvessel types such as The Coble and Keelboat Society, The SailingSmack Association, The Nobby Association and The Cornish Lugger Association. The International SailingCraft Association holds fine examples of workingand pleasure craft from all over the world. Individ ual museums hold their own collections of vessels, the finest in the writer’s opinion beingthat at the Scottish Fisheries Museum in Anstruther, Fife. All these bodies should be given recognition and encouragement. Other than makingfundingavailable as already stated, there are two other points that are worthy of investigation, both of which would go along way to help those working in the maritime heritage field. 1. The settingup of “historic harbours” where boat owners can keep their ve ssels, free of charge, and where they will be available for public scrutiny. Such harbours successfully exist in Holland and other countries. In Britain, Brixham is workinghard to achieve just this. It sho uld be mirrored in other areas of the coast. 2. The makingavailable of resources in settingdown a national archive of a ll traditional British working craft that have worked these coasts. This should be in the form of plans, photographs, building specifications and workingdetails. Much of this information does exist to day, albeit in various quarters, but it should be centralised and made easily accessible to all. I apologise for the very brief nature of this submission, which has been rushed, but the writer only returned from a six-week research trip around the coasts of India this morning. However, after spendingtime recordingand studyingthe fishermen and fishingboats on the coast of the sub -continent, as well as observing the catastrophic results from the December tsunami, it has made me plainly more aware of the many failings we have made over many decades in protectingour maritime heritage.It is a h eritage that we should be proud of, indeed one that we keep repeatingthat we are proud of. Yet it is one that we have chosen to ignore except in certain limited areas. If those whose lives have been destroyed through one natural disaster are more aware of their own heritage than we are in a so-called developed country, it really doesn’t say much for us in Britain. So much has been lost through inaction and successive governments’ policy, especially with regard to our fishing heritage. Yet it isn’t too late if we act now. Therefore I implore you to take account of this history when formulatingstrategywithin the Government’s stated po licy of protectingthe “best” in maritime heritage. 8 February 2005

Memorandum submitted by Heritage Afloat I make this submission as Chairman of Heritage Afloat which promotes and protects the interests of owners, operators and class associations of historic vessels in Britain. It represents the United Kingdom at meetings of European Maritime Heritage (EMH), and it contributed substantially to the draftingof the Barcelona Charter, recently published by EMH, which sets out guidelines for the restoration and operation of traditional ships, now beingendorsed across Europe. I have had the adva ntage of attending the hearing yesterday morningin Committee Room 8 when Lord Mackintosh announced the e stablishment of a National Historic Ships Unit (NHSU). 1. We welcome the establishment of this NHSU even though we might have preferred more extensive funding, but recognise the limitations of treasury, etc. We note that the NHSU will be based at the National Maritime Museum and that it is likely to employ a head of unit, a field oYcer and a third person to maintain 9947211005 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 48 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

the register of historic ships. We are conscious of the good work previously carried out by the National Historic Ships Committee and we do hope that the constitution of the new Unit will allow the retention of their experience and expertise, perhaps in the form of an advisory panel. We are particularly concerned that close liaison is maintained with those who have experience of operatingsh ips and that the NHSU’s focus will not be restricted to static vessels in museums. Indeed, the new Unit would be performinga useful role if it were to establish some form of recognition status for historic vessels which would be helpful should we be able to negotiate concessions as suggested in paragraph 3 below and in obtainingreciprocal recognition by other countries under the Memorandum of Understandingnegotiatedby EM H and promoted by Heritage Afloat which has been signed by nine member countries of the International Maritime Organisation. 2. In a climate of keen competition for fundingall aspects of the heritage, we deplore current proposals under the draft Lottery Bill to deplete the resources of the Heritage Lottery Fund by transferringunspent balances and accumulated interest to other distributors. Such moves can only send a discouraging and demoralisingsignalto the hundreds of thousands of citizens voluntarily occupied with safeguarding all aspects of our national heritage, that their contributions to national life are not valued by Government. The increasinginvolvement of Government in how Lottery proceeds are distrib uted cynically disregards the undertakings given when the National Lottery was established that its charitable disbursements would be “at arm’s length” from Central Government. It also usurps the independence of Trustees. 3. We also share the concern expressed by Mr Richard Doughty of The Cutty Sark Trust about the impact of the burden of VAT which must now be borne by preservation bodies. While Lord Mackintosh indicated that he thought that the Heritage Lottery Fund would recognise the additional burden that would cause, we are concerned that this makes a further inroad on lottery funds which will now have to be partitially deployed in the payment of VAT to the Government and on the ability of volunteer organisations to raise match funding. 4. As the National Register of Historic Vessels maintained at the National Maritime Museum confirms, most of the UK’s fleet of historic vessels is in private ownership. Owners make their restored and preserved vessels widely available for public inspection, both at large gatherings such as the International Festivals of the Sea in Bristol, Leith and Portsmouth and at smaller gatherings such as the Newlyn Fish Festival. Throughout the year, the sight of traditional vessels attracts tourists to historic harbours like Charlestown, Chatham, Lowestoft and the Albert Dock at Liverpool. The diminishingfleet of authentic workingnarrow boats on our canals adds significantly to the visual amenity of the canal network. Heritage Afloat is anxious that the contribution made by such vessels, a small minority of the leisure fleet, should be recognized and encouraged through concessionary licence and mooring fees. We accept the need for rigour in admitting individual vessels to such concessions, but believe that such policy would encourage owners who have to bear a heavy financial burden to keep their vessels afloat and operational to preserve the historic and traditional features of historic vessels, just as English Heritage grants have encouraged the owners of listed buildings to retain traditional architectural features. 5. We believe that planningand tourism authorities should be required to p ay regard to the need for mooringfacilities for historic and traditional vessels when considerin gschemes for waterside development. Nor should the rapid spread of waterside housingbe allowed to drive out tra ditional industries such as ship repair and timber processing, whose survival may depend on their proximity to navigable waterways. 6. Compliance with EU directives on reducingfish catches has resulted in th e needless destruction of dozens of historic British fishingvessels, whose survival would have been assured in the hands of private owners had their transfer into private custody been approved by Government. We urge a sympathetic policy which permits a small proportion of the British fishingvessels o Vered for de-commissioningto be permanently excluded from fishingand released for preservation and recre ational use. The National Fishing Heritage Centre at Grimsby previously acted as a guarantor for such a scheme, but its closure some years ago removed a facility which has not been replaced. I have purposely kept this submission short but can expand or clarify any points if necessary.

Annex

Proposal for Exemption from Navigation Charges for Heritage Vessels on the Register Built pre-1955

Background Heritage Afloat aims to encourage the active use of heritage vessels. The National Register of Historic Vessels (NRHV) has recorded a Core collection of 58 UK vessels and 164 Designated Vessels with an extended list of over 1,000, based on criteria of 40 foot length, over 40 tons and pre 1955, British built in British waters. The National Maritime Museum maintains this register, and it will become the responsibility of the National Historic Ships Unit. Beingon the Registerconfers no direc t financial advantage, although 9947211005 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 49

the cachet of being registered may improve chances of grants from the Heritage Lottery Funds or other fundingsources. There is no incentive to keep the vessels afloat (indeed se veral, such as Victory, Great Britain and Cutty Sark, are permanently ashore).

Why abolish cruising licence fees, harbour dues and light dues? Craft based on waters that require licences/fees/dues to navigate often become immobile when maintenance backlogs become too major or expensive to keep them up to their workingor racing specification. This has the eVect of isolatingsuch boats from the wider public that cannot travel to thei r home waters to see them. The skills needed for movingand usingthem will als o be lost. The requirement for registration and appropriate safety certificates (with their associated costs) would still be necessary if cruisinglicences and mooringfees were free, but freedom from these fees a nd dues would be a significant annual concession, encouraging both inland and sea-going vessels. Heritage Afloat has encouraged port and waterway authorities (and councils and property developers) to reduce or abolish mooringfees for heritageboats that enhance the tourist and environmental attraction of their waters. However, these vessels are usually expected to stay on their mooring. Vessels travelling to or from international festivals and rallies are sometimes oVered free moorings (eg French ports for the Brest festival), and this is more in the spirit of Heritage Afloat’s aims. Subsidy would compensate for the costs of maintainingthe vessel in an active and attractive state.

Do we need a broader register? Heritage Afloat has proposed to record all appropriate heritage/historic vessels on an inclusive and comprehensive register, initially including appropriate vessels in all HA member organisations. This register could be more easily generated if it conferred benefits on registered vessels. The HA Register could also be used particularly for vessels that do not qualify for the NRHV list, for example because they are not British. Owners of vessels so registered and exempt from fees/dues would have to sign up to the Barcelona charter, which requires a commitment to heritage values.

Motor Vehicle precedents Cars built before 1972 currently pay zero Road Fund Tax, although their ownership records are maintained at DVLC Swansea and they have to have MOT and insurance if used on the public roads. The date chosen appears to have been 20 years before the date of the legislation, and has not been extended since. Cars with Disabled stickers are able to use special parkingspaces that are suitable and designated for the purpose. Providingthese concessions requires no new money.

Why 1955 for boats? The choice of 1955 for heritage craft is 50 years from when concessions might be expected to be agreed in 2005, and harmonises with the current NRHV limit date. 3 February 2005

Memorandum submitted by the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee welcomes the opportunity to make a written submission to the Select Committee. The JNAPC responded to the DCMS consultation on Ships for the Nation in October 2003 and believes that most of the comments made then are relevant to your examination today. A copy of our response is therefore attached. The JNAPC believes that the Maritime Heritage includes a very wide spectrum of interests as well as historic ships. It covers: — The remains of ships (a) underwater (b) in the inter-tidal zone (c) floating(d) docked (e) on land in museums or as buried archaeological sites. — The ship building yards, dockyards, buildings and navigational systems associated with them. — The culture and life-style of those that sailed the vessels. — Maritime trade and maritime industrial processes. — Oral testimony to the UK’s maritime past. From the above it is apparent that no single item should be seen in isolation. We believe there should be a seamless approach to the whole maritime cultural heritage both within the DCMS and across all government departments. For example the MoD retains responsibility for naval ships and shipwrecks, DfT 9947211006 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 50 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

administers the Merchant ShippingAct 1995 and the Receiver of Wreck, FCO i s lead department with DCMS on the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, DEFRA and DTI issue licenses for work on the seabed aVectingthe maritime heritage,and the Crown Estate is the owner of the seabed. When we responded to the DCMS consultation in October 2003 we pointed out that DCMS had already issued its consultation paper Protecting our historic environment and would shortly be launchingits consultation paper Protecting our marine historic environment with the intention that the marine historic environment should be considered as part of the whole historic environment. We suggested that DCMS should include historic ships within these two consultation processes and seek integration wherever possible. This has clearly failed to happen and historic ships have not been included in any of the current proposals for improved designation or protection. They have eVectively “fallen down the crack”, which regrettably shows a lack of joined-up government. The JNAPC would welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the Select Committee to expand upon these views.

Ships for the Nation—Consultation Paper The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee welcomes the opportunity to comment on the consultation paper Ships for the Nation. The JNAPC was formed over 15 years ago from individuals and representatives of institutions who wished to raise awareness of Britain’s underwater cultural heritage and to persuade government that underwater sites of historical importance should receive no less protection than those on land. Some summary information on the JNAPC is attached below. Much progress has been achieved over the last few years with responsibility for marine archaeology in England being passed from DCMS to English Heritage, and the recognition that the terrestrial and maritime is a seamless continuum. DCMS has issued its consultation paper Protecting our historic environment and shortly will be launchingits consultation paper Protecting our marine historic environment with the intention that the marine historic environment should be considered as part of the whole. The JNAPC believes that Ships for the Nation should review its position in relation to these two DCMS initiatives and seek integration wherever possible. Our maritime cultural heritage covers all historic ships whether still afloat, in dry dock, in museums (includingexcavated ships an d boats), and sunken ships that are preserved on the seabed. We believe there should be a seamless approach to the whole maritime cultural heritage in line with the Government’s commitment to deliver a national policy on ship preservation. In answer to your specific questions:

(a) Would the creation of a NHSU be an eVective way of helping historic ships sector co-ordinate its work better and identify priorities more clearly? The JNAPC believes the creation of a permanently funded NHSU would be a positive way of going forward.

(b) Are there alternative approaches that should be considered? We have no specific suggestions

(c) Does the structure proposed for the NHSU sound right? The role and responsibilities of the chairman are unclear and need to be defined. It is proposed that the chairman advises the Secretary of State, but a review of the NHSU functions show that there is little in which the Secretary of State would wish to be involved other than fundingand statutory listing. As far as funding is concerned, it is proposed that the NHSU should be part of the National Maritime Museum, which would therefore be responsible for its grant in aid, and no other major fundingis envisaged by DCMS. It is also likely that Statutory Listingresponsibility will pass to English Heritage in England. It therefore seems that a link to the Secretary of State would not necessarily be appropriate. A more appropriate solution could be for the chairman to advise the heritage agencies of the Home Countries. English Heritage, Cadw, Historic Scotland and DOENI already have responsibility for similar historic assets and with greater in-house expertise are probably better placed than DCMS to carry out this responsibility. It goes without saying that suitable extra financial resources would need to be made available to these agencies to cover this responsibility. 9947211006 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 51

There is clearly a great overlap between the NHSC and the NHSU and there would not appear to be room for both. It would be important to see now much of the NHSC could be absorbed into the NHSU. Many of the initiatives in areas such as historic ships and underwater archaeology are undertaken by volunteers who also give much of their time. The transition would need to be carefully managed in order not to lose goodwill.

(d) Does the list of functions proposed for the new Unit sound right? Are there others which should be considered? JNAPC suggests there should be an additional function, which would be to maintain links with other stakeholders interested in historic ships such as maritime archaeologists. It would be appropriate to have a maritime archaeologist on the committee.

(e) Would a small grants fund have a useful role to play? Yes, who would fund it and how much (order of magnitude) should this be? This should be new money not out of existingbudgets.

(f) Where should the new unit be located? In principle, Greenwich seems the logical place given the National Maritime Museum’s involvement with the NHSC and the National Register of Historic Vessels. However if a more holistic approach is to be taken which involves links with shipwrecks and marine cultural assets, then the NMM has some shortcomings. The NMM has relinquished all responsibility for maritime archaeology, which it appears to have passed to the Mary Rose Trust, a body that is neither national nor suitably organised or funded to undertake this responsibility. There are clear concerns that the NMM would not encourage a wider view of Historic Ships.

(g) Should statutory listing of historic ships be introduced? In principle, marine historic assets such as historic ships should be capable of beingprotected by Listing in the same way as any other historic asset. The question of how this should be done should be undertaken by DCMS in its current Review of Heritage Protection.

(h) Are there any important issues relating to the preservation of historic ships that you feel are not addressed by these proposals ? We do not feel that you have considered suYciently the issue of funding, including that provided by the HLF. This whole initiative will have limited impact unless sensible schemes for fundingthe conservation and maintenance of historic ships can be devised. We would like to draw your attention to the plight of the Cutty Sark which will probably close to visitors in the near future unless substantial funds are found very soon for its conservation. It would indeed be ironic if this were to happen just as the NHSU was set up in Greenwich. It has been reported in the press that fundingwas rejected by HLF over two ye ars ago which, had it been made available, would have secured its future. Whilst recognising the importance of conservingsmaller vessels, the conservation of an iconic ship of national importance such as Cutty Sark should be addressed with urgency under the Government’s commitment to deliver a national policy on ship preservation. The Cutty Sark is also of major importance for London and Greenwich in promotingtourism, access, education, cultural objectives, and local regeneration. We note from Appendix C that the Cutty Sark received HLF fundingof £406,000 whereas SS Great Britain and HMS Trincomalee received £7.7 million and £4 million respectively. We would be pleased to respond to any further questions or issues if you felt that was appropriate. It would also be appreciated if you would include JNAPC on your list of consultees in future.

Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee:The JNAPC—Past,Present and Future The JNAPC was formed over 15 years ago from individuals and representatives of institutions who wished to raise awareness of Britain’s underwater heritage and to persuade government that underwater sites of historical importance should receive no less protection than those on land. The JNAPC launched Heritage at Sea in May 1989, which put forward proposals for the better protection of archaeological sites underwater. Recommendations covered improved legislation and better reporting of finds, a proposed inventory of underwater sites, the waivingof fees to the R eceiver of Wreck, the 9947211006 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 52 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

encouragement of seabed operators to undertake pre-disturbance surveys, greater responsibility by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce for their historic wrecks, proper management by government agencies of underwater sites, and the education and the trainingof sports divers to respect and conserve the underwater historic environment. Government responded to Heritage at Sea in its White Paper This Common Inheritance in December 1990 in which it was announced that Receiver’s fees would be waived, the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England would be funded to prepare a Maritime Record of sites, and fundingwould be made available for the Nautical Archaeology Society to employ a full time trainingo Ycer to develop its training programmes. Most importantly the responsibility for the administration of the 1973 Protection of Wrecks Act was also transferred from the Department of Transport, where it sat rather uncomfortably, to the then heritage ministry the Department of the Environment. Subsequently responsibility passed to the Department of National Heritage, which has since become the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The aim of the JNAPC has been to raise the profile of nautical archaeology in both government and diving circles and to present a consensus upon which government and other organisations can act. Heritage at Sea was followed up by Still at Sea in May 1993 which drew attention to outstandingissues, the Code of Practice for Seabed Developers was launched in January 1995, and an archaeological leaflet for divers, Underwater Finds—What to Do, was published in January 1998 in collaboration with the Sports DivingAss ociations BSAC, PADI and SAA. The more detailed explanatory brochure, Underwater Finds—Guidance for Divers, followed in May 2000 and Wreck Diving—Don’t Get Scuttled, an educational brochure for divers, was published in October 2000. The JNAPC continues its campaign for the education of all sea users about the importance of our nautical heritage. JNAPC published its proposals for legal change in Heritage Law at Sea in June 2000 and its Interim report on the Valletta Convention in 2003. JNAPC has been working with English Heritage and DCMS on the forthcomingconsultation paper on protectingthe marine historic env ironment. January 2005

Memorandum submitted by the Maritime Steam Restoration Trust

HMS Stalker—Grant Application Further to my recent communications with you, in which I bought to your attention the fact that Pounds—Scrap Merchants at Portsmouth—had decided to sell HMS Stalker for scrap to an unknown purchaser, and that an Export Licence had been issued by the DTI, I am pleased to write and tell you that the Maritime Steam Restoration Trust of which I write on behalf of, will in the next few days, be applying for a Project PlanningGrant from the HeritageLottery Fund for £32,000, to carry out a feasibility study in preparation for a full application to repair the ship, and to put her back into full workingorder. It is hoped that your Committee will give the MSRT it’s full support whilst these applications are being looked into, and that you contact the Department of Trade and Industry to recommend that the export licence be withdrawn until such time as the Trust has a clearer picture in respect of its applications. It’s essential in my view, that the last steam driven LandingShip Tank left in Britain is given a chance of survival when one considers that this year was the 60th Anniversary of the D-Day Landings in which many of these crafts took part. 1 November 2004

Memorandum submitted by The Medusa Trust

Introduction and Context The Medusa Trust exists to maintain and operate the former HMS Medusa as a seagoing historic vessel to provide a range of people from veterans to the general public the chance to experience a small World War II naval vessel. As well as the vessel, the Trust holds an archive relatingt o this class of vessel (Harbour Defence Motor Launch) of which there were 480 built with Medusa as the last operational and original example. The Trust welcomes this opportunity to contribute and believes that it has useful experience to oVer in understandingthe broader maritime heritagesector. 9947211008 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 53

Market Sectors within Historic Vessels One of the major problems within the overall sector is that it is highly fragmented with many small bodies competing for limited funding. Sources of funding are jealously guarded by individual groups, which has mitigated against consolidation. The market can be broadly sectored:

Vessels owned by national bodies An example of this is Belfast, owned by the Imperial War Museum. Bodies such as this are high profile and are able to use that profile to access funds. These large vessels can be very expensive and absorb large sums of money to the detriment of smaller vessels whose needs are more modest but do not have the same ability to make national headlines.

Vessels that are commercially operated Examples here are the Steam Ship Shieldhall and the Paddle Steamer Waverly. Such vessels “earn their keep” by passenger carrying and are viable businesses. There is a virtuous circle here in that the vessel has a purpose, is able to raise money through that purpose and in doing so ensures that an historic vessel remains operational. The current thinkingis that vessels are best preserved by keepingthem ope rational. The concept of putting them ashore or in drydock in the belief that this will “freeze time” is now flawed as shown by the experience with Cutty Sark. The Trust regards the option of Medusa coming ashore as one of last resort as we know that she will continue to deteriorate even ashore in a controlled environment. Like any business they have substantial fixed costs in berthing, power, certification, safety equipment etc as well as variable costs for fuel and crew. If passenger numbers and hence income fall, they can soon become overwhelmed by the fixed costs. Though operations sustain this class of vessel, there is rarely enough operatingsurplus generatedto cover major repairs or service large loans and some grant funding is necessary.

Small vessels operated by groups or Trusts This sector sits between the privately owned vessels below and the sectors above and includes vessels such as Medusa and MTB 102. These vessels are too small to make a livingout of oper atingas passengervessels apart from the problems of MCA certification. The experience is that by beingowned by a Trust (as opposed to private), fundingcan be raised from companies (principally those oper atingin the marine sector) but this is usually “in kind” rather than in cash. The public benefit that these vessels oVer is mainly derived from them appearingat events ( Medusa and MTB102 lead the 60th D day fleet sailingfrom Portsmouth) and openingthem to the pub lic. Though this gives real public benefit, it raises little cash. The experience with Medusa is that we are able to fund normal operations and routine repairs, most of which are done by our volunteers, but more major repairs is outside the scope of our skills and finance. This sector needs external funding. The boats are of small cash value (though priceless) and the Trusts have few other assets such that loans are out of the question. Spendingmone y on this class of vessel does not raise its market value; it just ensures its survival. Attempts to raise substantial funds from companies are rarely successful, as they generally want somethingin return such as corporate use of the vessel. This immediately r aises the question of MCA certification and raises the cost base significantly thus using up most of the funds generated. All roads lead to the Heritage Lottery Fund as the source of funding for this class of vessel.

Privately owned historic vessels The majority of the smaller vessels are privately owned and entirely funded by the owner and private support he can raise. We are in contact with several owners in this sector and they are all acutely aware of their responsibility to preserve the vessel that many regard as “in their care”. All do their best until finance, health or age gets the better of them at which point the vessel deteriorates rapidly. We are about to undertake a recordingand rescue mission to a sister vessel o f Medusa which has deteriorated beyond recall and will now be scrapped. Fundingis a problem for this sector as fund-givingbodiesare reluctant to put money into a privately held asset. 9947211008 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 54 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

What Constitutes an “Historic Vessel”? Until recently this question was answered by the enthusiasm, marketingca pability and dedication of whoever looked after her. We wish to pay tribute to the work of the National Historic Ships Committee who took the initiative to select from the 2000 or so potential candidates a collection that represents the nation’s heritage. This was the first time objective criteria had been developed and applied. Though this is diYcult for people who look after vessels that have not been listed, it has introduced some structure and forced the acceptance of the fact that cannot and should not preserve everythingjust because it is old. Beingon the “core collection” (top 58 vessels) or the “designatedlist” do es not guarantee funding but goes a long way to justifying the importance of the vessel to potential fundingbodies. The NHSCC selection went down to vessels over 40 feet and there is still a task to look at smaller vessels. It is important to note that beingon one of the lists does not givethe vessel any protection (as compared with listed buildings) and the owners/operators are free to alter or even scrap the vessel if they so wish. Since the NHSCC lists were formed several vessels in both core and designated lists have been lost.

HLF Funding HLF has been identified as the primary source of fundingfor historic vessel s. This is positive in that there is somewhere to go but negative in that other funding bodies tend to think that HLF automatically looks after historic vessels. This is not the case and historic vessels compete for funds on an equal basis with applicants from across the board. The process to submit an HLF bid is costly and complex and is beyond the resources of some groups. It is reckoned to cost £20K to put together a full bid. The Trust was fortunate with the bid it submitted in May 2004 (due for decision in March 2005) in that it won a small Project Planning Grant from HLF and had the requisite skills in house to produce the necessary documents. Though complex, the HLF process forces the applicant to think about sustainability and public access/ benefit post the project. This is important as vessels can deteriorate as rapidly as they can be repaired. Without a sustainable business plan grant money can easily be wasted.

The Future At the beginning of this submission, we noted the fragmented structure of this sector. It is unthinkable that all historic vessels should come under common ownership but there is a need for a national structure to set policy, routes to fundingand ensure the survival of the vessels, whi ch have been deemed important. As well as maintainingthe vessels per se it is vital to maintain and regener ate the skills to operate and maintain them. The Trust in conjunction with SS Shieldhall and the Association of Dunkirk Little Ships has proposed to SEEDA (South East England Development Agency) that a small part of the redevelopment at the Vosper site at Southampton should be given over to an initiative, in conjunction with Southampton City College, to establish a heritage skills workshop and training facility in conjunction with moorings for historic vessels. We are delighted that this proposal is finding favour. Overall we would like to see a national body, perhaps a strengthened NHSCC, that maintains the registry of vessels, sets policy, forms an interface to other bodies such as MCA and has some powers to prevent the destruction of vessels as well as an emergency fund. This body should play a major part in the decision on allocation of fundingbut it should remain with operatinggroupsto make an d be responsible for presenting their case. At a regional level there is a need for “centres of excellence” to maintain and regenerate the skills to maintain vessels built with traditional techniques. These centres will need seed fundingbut can become self suYcient by providinga service to historic vessel operators and to the buoyan t leisure vessel industry. We believe this initiative can be combined with other local regeneration initiatives.

Conclusion The UK has a rich collection of historic vessels but it is highly fragmented and does not enjoy any protection in the same way that historic buildings do. It is important to have national co-ordination as well as recognised funding sources if these vessels are to survive. 28 January 2005 9947211009 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 55

Memorandum submitted by the National Maritime Museum Cornwall

The National Maritime Museum Cornwall The National Maritime Museum Cornwall (NMMC) is an independent museum which opened to the public for the first time in November 2002. It does not receive revenue support from any Government bodies. Its mission is to promote an understandingof: — Small boats and their place in people’s lives; and — The maritime history of Cornwall. The museum is the only one in the UK solely dedicated to small boats and the maritime history of the immediate regional area. It was recognised by the UK Maritime Collections Initiative (UKMCI) as being the lead museum for boats of “sportingand recreational use and (the) socia l significance of boats and small sailingcraft”. The museum was founded by a happy congruence of interest between the Cornwall Maritime Museum, a regional museum in Falmouth, and the National Maritime Museum (Greenwich) which was lookingfor a location where their collection of 104 small boats (the National Small Boat Collection) could be displayed for public benefit. The construction of the museum was part funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, the SW Regional Development Agency and through private sponsorship. Professional input was provided by NMM Greenwich. It now stands as an iconic buildingon the waterfront in Falmouth playinga d ual role as a museum and a catalyst for regeneration. It welcomed 168,000 visitors in its first year and presents the history of small boats and the maritime history of Cornwall. It engages the enthusiasm of some 170 volunteers—possibly the largest single heritage site volunteer programme in the country—and has a full time staV of 25 people. In addition to its collections of boats, artefacts and archives, it is supported by the unique Bartlett Library of over 13,000 volumes which contains one of the largest collections of books and magazines on small boats in the country. The museum works closely with relevant partners especially: — The Falmouth Marine School (part of Cornwall College) whose NVQ Level 3 course on traditional boatbuildingis run from the museum’s premises, helpingto pr eserve craft skills — The Cornish Maritime Trust whose restored boats, Ellen and Softwingmay o ften be seen on the museum’s pontoon — The Port of Falmouth Sailing Association which brings together the local sailingclubs and local workingboats — The RYA and other similar bodies.

What is the UK’s Small Boat Maritime Heritage? As an island nation the UK has had a longtradition of producingsmall boats. The history of vernacular small boats is poorly documented but experience suggests that the range is very wide indeed. These boats were generally produced by small local builders who did not formally document their work and types thus vary significantly. In the late 19th century, the rise of leisure boatingled to well known yacht designers and builders such as Fife, Linton Hope and Camper & Nicholson. From the 1930’s onward there has been an enormous growth in mass participation in waterborne leisure activities. Designers such as UVa Fox, Jack Holt, Ian Proctor, Peter Milne and the Prout brothers were experimentingwith new designsand materials which made small boat sailin g, both competitive and leisure, a sport for everyone and not just the preserve of the very rich. No figures are available but it is estimated that some five million people are actively involved in designing, buildingand sailingsmall boats of one kind or the other rangingfromjet sk is to small family cruisers.

Small Boats in Collections in the UK There is no recognised central database of boats in collections in the UK, however surveys suggest that there are at least 500 boats in museum collections. The two largest collections are: — The 300 or so boats of the SISCAE collection, a combination of the collection of the former Exeter Maritime Museum with that of a private collector. Only a few boats from this collection are currently on display to the public 9947211009 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 56 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

— The 122 boats in the NMMC, consistingof the National Small Boat Collectio n which is in the process of beingtransferred from the National Maritime Museum (Greenwic h) to Falmouth and the museum’s own collection created over the past two years In 2000 the Transport Trust was commissioned by the Heritage Lottery Fund to produce a report into the heritage needs and potential of transport in four categories, aviation, buses railways and boats (too small to have been considered by the NHSC.) In the case of boats the Transport Trust split them into classes derived from specialist umbrella organisations eg, The Old GaVers, Lifeboats, The Steamboat Association of Great Britain. This initial study by the Transport Trust concluded that there were probably around 500 small boats which might be of suYcient historical importance to merit grading. This figure accords with the museum’s own study. However, the Transport Trust did not specifically address many of the types of small boats most familiar to the general public: boats associated with leisure and pleasure. The Transport Trust report concluded that: “Prioritisation across the categories should be actively encouraged, and its coordination funded. It will however have to be led . . . Gradingwithin categoriesand classes is t he first priority. This should lead to improved co-operation between private and public sectors of preservation.”

Large Ships v Small Boats The National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC) has done excellent work in surveyingthe needs of historic vessels as a whole and producingthe National Registerof Histori c Ships. In order to reduce the range of vessels considered the register was limited to vessels of over 40 ft in length, over 40 years old and British built. The options for small boats are diVerent from those for large ships. Small boats are more aVordable for individuals to care for, store and use. Where they are owned by conservation trusts, fewer members are required and, if the materials of the boat are traditional, the repair work can often be done by enthusiasts. Importantly, the “conservation option of last resort”—takingthe boat ou t of the water permanently—is much more aVordable with small boats than it is with bigships. Experience of projects s uch as SS Great Britain or the Cutty Sark demonstrate just how costly it can be to make a ship “dry”. In contrast, the boats in the museum’s displays or store can be stored dry indefinitely and cost-eVectively with minimal direct intervention simply because of their materials, size and ease of storage. For a given amount of money, small boats are thus a much cheaper option, and can provide more variety, than large ships. Used in imaginative educational displays, they can also portray a greater variety of stories about the past.

DCMS Policy Towards Maritime Heritage and Small Boats The NMMC would expect to interact with the DCMS in two ways: as part of the museum community and as the lead museum for small boats. In practice the museum has had not been invited to engage in any direct policy discussions with the DCMS and it is therefore diYcult to define what, if any, the DCMS policy is towards maritime heritage and small boats in particular. A search of the DCMS website for maritime heritage’ concentrates on the Historic Ship Survey and Underwater Archaeology. Despite this, the museum’s task is entirely consistent with the declared DCMS objective: “to make the historic environment accessible to everyone and ensure that it is seen as somethingwith which the whole of society can identify and engage”. The museum does engage in discussions with sponsored bodies such as the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and its regional body SWMLAC on professional matters; and with VisitBritain and SW Tourism on tourism development.

Developing Priorities for Small Boats In lookingat the small boat sector of the maritime heritageof the nation it is clear to the NMMC that a number of steps are needed: — The provision of leadership to build on the work done by the Transport Trust. — The creation and maintenance of a central database (the National Small Boat Register or NSBR) to coordinate the information collected by all bodies concerned with the preservation of small boats. — Fosteringthe development of a gradingsystemwhich will enable prioriti es for the conservation individual craft to be set. — Provision of a common archive “of last resort” to ensure that valuable material is not lost. 9947211009 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 57

— The establishment of a centre of expertise in the management of small boats, their conservation and preservation. — Engaging fully with all sectors of this very diverse group and draw upon expert advice from those with experience in the relevant sectors. The NMMC has already carried out a pilot project to establish the feasibility of creatinga central database as the core of its proposal for the establishment of a National Small Boat Register. It is seen as eminently sensible to build on this experience, and workingaccordingto t he principles established by the Transport Trust, draw upon the expertise available within umbrella and other groups in the field. The museum’s intention is that the project should be a very inclusive one, engaging partners all around the country to report and provide information. This project has yet to be scoped in detail and is, as yet, unfunded. It is most strongly felt that the museum is now in a good position to take the lead and make a very real contribution to the understandingand managementof the small boat sector of our maritime heritage. 28 January 2005

Memorandum submitted by The Royal Naval Museum I am writingto you as Clerk to a sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Cul ture Media and Sport which is meetingunder the chairmanship of Mr Derek Wyatt MP to enquire into the preservation of historic ships and the maritime heritage in general. In this, the year of the bi-centenary of the Battle of Trafalgar, the Year of the Sea no less, it is most appropriate that the subject should have taken the attention of the Select Committee and its initiative in the matter is most welcome. In view of the stated purposes of the inquiry—namely, to examine the strategy, administration and resources aimed at implementingthe Government’s sta ted policy of preservingthe best of the country’s maritime heritage—many of us in the field, I am sure, will respond to your call for submissions. In makingthis submission, thus, I am writingon behalf of my colleaguesin P ortsmouth Historic Dockyard. It has frequently been suggested that if at any time in the distant past, an informed observer of the maritime scene had sought to draft a collecting policy for the future preservation of a small number of vessels uniquely capable of representingconcisely, accurately and vivi dly the principal stages or pivotal points in the evolution of British ships of war in the modern era, they could hardly have done better than to select Mary Rose, HMS Victory and HMS Warrior (1860). These three great vessels are of course now preserved here in the Historic Dockyard. Our perspective on the subject therefore is informed by a decent understandingof the issues and of the very great challenges which all of us, indeed, labouring in this particular vineyard, daily confront as we endeavour to do our bit to preserve “the best of the country’s maritime heritage”. If you and the members of the sub-Committee, I have been asked by my colleagues to say, were able to spare the time to visit Portsmouth to see at firsthand somethingof our achievements in this line, w e would extend to all of you a warm and hospitable welcome. In the expectation however that pressure of time will prohibit you from takingup this invitation, our submission is contained in the Annexure to this letter. In summary, it briefly reviews the current position within the sector and concludes with the recommendation that early action is taken by DCMS to bringinto existence the National Historic Ships Unit, an initiative we warmly welcomed in the 2003 consultation exercise. We trust that our submission will contribute helpfully to the sub-Committee’s deliberations.

1. Introduction 1.1 The preserved ship community in the British Isles is one of the most versatile, lively, inventive and energetic sub-sets to be found in the entire heritage enterprise. It is enormously diverse in its character, in the patterns of ownership which apply across the sector, and in the sheer scope of its holdings. These range from outstanding national symbols of the great age of British naval mastery, like the above-mentioned Mary Rose, HMS Victory and HMS Warrior (1860), and the equivalent examples for the era of mercantile supremacy, as represented by such equally remarkable survivals as Cutty Sark and SS Great Britain, to the smallest fishingboat or pilot cutter. 1.2 Probably there is no precise definition of what constitutes a historic vessel that could do justice to the extraordinary variety of preserved craft of all sizes that have survived. Some of these are still afloat, like HMS Caroline in Belfast; some are secured in dry docks; others are to be found within museums, but a great many are still in use and regularly available for the education and enjoyment of the public, like PS Waverley. From humble Clyde puVers to Yarmouth fishingsmacks, from canal boats and sailingbargesto works of technological genius like Turbinia, from handsome yachts and elegant steam launches, whose fine lines and 9947211010 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 58 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

gracious interiors are almost works of art in themselves, to modest oyster dredgers and workaday harbour tugs: all have their place, all have their supporters. And all say somethingpowerful about the greatsway which the sea, ships, boats, and the maritime culture in general still exercises in the national consciousness. 1.3 Perhaps they help to answer that deep, lonely longing for the wide blue yonder that seems to remain such a potent element in all our lives. The Third International Festival of the Sea to be held at Portsmouth this summer will again provide the perfect occasion to showcase this glorious spectacle and its continuing public appeal. Not only will it demonstrate just how deeply rooted in the cultural consciousness is the regard for things maritime. But, it will also illustrate something of the extraordinary lengths, and expense, that any number of private owners and committed volunteers are prepared to go to in order to preserve and maintain their historic craft.

2. Present Position 2.1 The Government it is known recognises the national significance of historic vessels and of their important place in the cultural heritage, and of course this is appreciated. But at the moment, government sources provide through DCMS direct financial support only for those vessels in the ownership of the national museums, such as HMS Belfast, or through its PRISM fund. This will remain the position. No further central government funding for preserved ships is envisaged save that HMS Victory, of course, a commissioned warship, the flagship of Second Sea Lord and Commander in Chief Naval Home Command receives, and for the foreseeable future will continue to receive, her core fundingfrom the Defence vote. 2.2 Otherwise, the principal source of at least capital funds for the sector is through HLF, and the aforementioned dedicated eVorts that individuals and the owningcharitable trusts are prepared to mak ein their endless search for resources, from the corporate sector, from charitable foundations, from individuals, and elsewhere—for example, from local authorities, development corporations and regeneration budgets. Naturally, income from payingvisitors is a key element in the equation for many projects, in Portsmouth not least, where HMS Victory plays a key role. Fare payingpassengers,as is the case with PS Waverley and other workingvessels, make equally crucial contributions to the commerc ial viability of these projects. 2.3 As for HLF support for the sector, recent figures suggest that funding from this source has yielded in excess of £35 millions in awards to over 30 vessels since 1996. This figure excludes the recent large award to Cutty Sark and equates to about one-tenth of the support given to historic buildings in general. But on the other hand, standfast this month’s grant to the tea clipper, it is in the order of ten times the amount awarded to railway preservation projects in the same period. 2.4 The National Historic Ships Committee, founded in 1992, and the source for this kind of statistical data, conducted a formidable amount of research into the subject in the middle of the decade. Subsequently, the National Register of Historic Vessels was produced. The numbers on this list, it is now estimated, dependingto some extent on how matters are defined, admittedly, could exce ed 4,000 craft. NHSC proceeded to identify a core collection of some 50 vessels (of over 40 feet in length and above 40 tons, built pre-1945), which it described as of “pre-eminent national importance”. A secondary series, known as the designated list of vessels “of substantial heritage merit, but of greater local or regional significance”, was also produced. To that extent, British historic craft are now tolerably well documented at least in general terms, and further work is in hand to upgrade and refine the data, with particular reference to the ships in the core collection and in respect of the definition of “significance” in this context. 2.5 The work of the National Historic Ships Committee has undoubtedly been of great value in bringing a degree of focus and a measure of precision to the subject, and its endeavours to build up a national database, with images, recording in detail information on all types of survivinghistoric vessels has been generally welcomed. Trustees of HLF, for example, while continuing to stress quite properly that they reach their decisions ultimately on the merits of individual applications have nevertheless acknowledged that, confronted with very complicated and competingbids for financial support from this sector, they take into account the NHSC assessment of the significance of individual vessels.

3. The Issues 3.1 Notwithstanding the progress made in recent years with the encouragement of NHSC towards the development of standards of good practice and a greater clarity of purpose throughout the sector, improved co-ordination of eVort and sharingof expertise, the impression overall remains disappointi ngly one of fragmentation. Decision-making, particularly with regard to the selection of future vessels for preservation continues to be taken haphazardly, without reference to any developed national plan or collectingpolicy, so that there is no real central organising principle or coherent ordering of priorities underpinningthe business. 3.2 Nearly all ship preservation projects remain “supply-side driven”. Little eVort is made by the promoters of new undertakings to determine the level of public demand for, or interest in, their schemes. All too typically, the drive comes from dedicated enthusiasts whose judgement of the case is likely to be faulty, compromised as it often must be by their deep attachment to the “project” to the exclusion of all other advice and considerations. Worthy as this passionate commitment undoubtedly can be in any given instance, objective, rational assessment of the issues easily gets mislaid, this failure to deal with fundamental realities beingoften particularly marked in the promoters’ patently unrealistic e xpectations about the prospects of 9947211010 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 59

public sector support for their projects. This weakness of approach characteristically goes along with a complete absence of realism about the both the long-term costs of preservation and the relentless demands inherent in the continuingmaintenance of largefloatingartefacts. (In th is general context, see attachment to this Annexure on the case of the former HMS Vengeance, January 2004) 3.3 One major consequence of this laissez faire approach to ship preservation in the past has been to spread the available resources far too thinly, if not infrequently to waste them completely. Ill-conceived ship preservation ventures, such as those levered rather desperately into re-development plans to add cosmetic appeal to otherwise uninspiringre-generationinitiatives in rundown se aports, have merely exacerbated the problem by permittingto come into existence many more historic ship proje cts than the community at large could ever realistically hope to sustain. With enough money to get going, but not enough to continue, such projects are all too often under-capitalised, unable to budget and plan eVectively for the longterm maintenance programmes that their needs demand, lack sound management skills and financial competence, and oVer little interest for the visitor after the initial novelty. 3.4 Prompted to some extent by the increasingly robust requirements of HLF in assessingthe bids of those making applications for large-scale capital funding, but assisted by a steadily maturing professionalism and better awareness of the financial arithmetic of ship preservation, the growing use of carefully prepared and costed conservation plans is helpingto overcome t hese kinds of weaknesses. Taking a proper and considered view of the longterm preservation issues and real- life costs involved in the care of historic ships has undoubtedly helped to import a measure of realism into the sector, particularly in the case of the larger and arguably more vulnerable projects. Not only do these documents form a key management tool, vital in planningthe through-lifeconservation and maintenance ne eds of preserved ships and boats. But, once produced they provide an essential benchmark for future maintenance, a rational and continuing basis for decision-makingwhich can help to clarify the issues in the kinds of diYcult choices that often have to be faced in ship preservation schemes. 3.5 Nevertheless, it is said that a significant number of vessels on both the core collection and the designated lists remain broadly “at risk”. Apart from those genuinely facingan uncertain future, such as the City of Adelaide, at Irvine in the west of Scotland; or like M33 in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, relatively secure for the time beingbut for which no defined future purpose has yet been agreed, the largest number suVer chiefly from want of adequate resources to meet their existing, overwhelming, conservation and maintenance requirements. Preserved ships, in particular those berthed in the open and exposed to the elements, are essentially in a permanent state of decomposition. 3.6 It has indeed been wisely observed that all ships are eminently biodegradable—and notoriously voracious therefore in their demand for resources in order simply to maintain the condition of the material fabric in their structures, fixtures, fittings and running gear in a proper, even safe, state. In this context, it has been estimated that further sums in the order of £50–60 millions in total will require to be found in the near future, if the vessels on these lists are to have any chance of enjoying a decent future. As the matter was once rather neatly put: “(S)hip preservation suVers from beinginherently only slightlyless expensive than grand opera, while regarded as marginal to the main field of heritage. . .”

4. Our Recommendation 4.1 It is known, however, that Government is committed to the development of a national policy for historic ships. It recognises in fact the genuine historic worth of the preserved ship collection as a valuable expression of an important dimension of the cultural heritage, not least in the potential of the vessels to contribute creative solutions to its other cultural objectives—in education, access, social inclusion, as well as in economic regeneration and tourism in certain contexts. Its memorandum of April 2002 to the CMS Select Committee refers. 4.2 This document, as Members of the Committee will be aware, set out the basic principles that should inform a national policy for the preserved ship collection. A key proposal envisaged the establishment of a “National Historic Ships Unit” funded by a grant in aid from DCMS. The purpose and objectives of this “Unit” would be, in summary, — to advise the Secretary of State on policy and priorities for the sector as a whole; — to act to co-ordinate the activities of the sector in general; and — to promote interest in the role of historic ships as a central element in the education of the public in the maritime heritage. 4.3 In August 2003, under the banner of Ships for the Nation, these proposals went out to extensive public consultation. They were in general welcomed and their broad thrust, although expressly but unsurprisingly ruling out DCMS core funding for the assistance of vessels other than those already supported through grants in aid to the national museums, for the most part was endorsed. The general consensus, however, was against the introduction of a system of statutory listingfor ships alongthe lines employed in the case of buildings. But, the proposal that a National Historic Ships Unit be established was received with generally warm approval. 9947211010 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 60 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

4.4 Departmental resources for the purpose we believe havingnow been iden tified, in makingthis submission our strongrecommendation is that steps should now, urgently, be put in hand to establish the National Historic Ships Unit. 4.5 It is not necessary here to rehearse in detail the purpose, objectives and mode of workingalready proposed for this Unit: these will be well known to the members of the Select Committee. Our firm view is that such a body would provide the most eVective vehicle for helpingthe preserved ship community to realise its objectives. 4.6 By promotingthe development of a coherent, unified focus for the sector at large, particularly since it will play no part in supportingindividual capital projects, the Nation al 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. In this respect, we are confident that the new Unit could in time occupy a uniquely influential position in a fragmented environment. From this position, it should be able to help the sector not only to identify priorities and promote a much greater co-ordination of eVort than has hitherto been possible. But, by encouraging the application of best practice and the sharingof 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.

Annex

Introduction For some months now a group of dedicated individuals based primarily in the south west (www.fleetairarmarchive.net/vengeance/proposal.html), has been energetically pursuing the case for the preservation of HMS Vengeance, launched in 1944 and the last British aircraft carrier with a record of service in WW2. On her commissioning, early in 1945, the vessel was placed in the British Pacific Fleet and it is said that the Japanese surrender of HongKongtook place on board. Subs equently, on loan to the Royal Australian Navy, the ship saw combat in the Korean War but in the early 1950s she was sold out of the service, and purchased by Brazil. Re-named Minas Gerais, she served honourably in the Brazilian Navy until a year or so ago, when she was de-commissioned and oVered for sale, for preservation or scrap. During those years, of course, she underwent a succession of conversions and numerous smaller alterations which have altered her appearance and general configuration in quite a considerable degree, although her original machinery and certain other components are still in the ship as built. In eVect, however, what would be preserved is a very longway from the vessel that was originallybuilt and sa w service in the Royal Navy, however briefly.

Present Status There is no doubt that the promoters of this scheme are highly committed and dedicated individuals, with a deep passion and absolutely sworn to their objective, the permanent preservation of the ship as a memorial to British naval aviation and as a centre of interpretation and education in this subject. Their motives are not in doubt and their enthusiasm cannot be faulted. Unfortunately, they are also completely misguided and profoundly unrealistic as to the practicalities of this venture. In particular, they are payinginsu Ycient attention to the financial realities of the thing. There is no business plan for this project which would do other than demonstrate the complete impossibility of turningit into a via ble undertakingwithout the help of a considerable injection of public funds, annually, to underwrite its runningcosts, which is most unlikely to be forthcoming. In addition, the promoters are also choosing to ignore completely the massively distortinge Vect of such a grotesquely inflated venture on a sector that is already frankly over-extended, whether in terms of the existinglevel of preservation commitments or in re lation to the available resource base, either now or in the future. The question of whether there exists anythingresemblinga genuinelevel of sustainable public interest in such a scheme remains to be demonstrated. No investment appraisal or market testingappears to have been conducted.

Funding Possibilities Our intelligence in this matter would suggest that resources from the public sector on the scale required, but in fact at almost any level that would make a significant diVerence, simply do not exist. The Ministry of Defence will certainly not provide any such funding. And DCMS has virtually ruled out new revenue support for any ship preservation schemes other than for those it presently supports through grants in aid to national museums: ie HMS Belfast, owned by IWM; the vessels owned by the National Museums Liverpool; and the NMM vessels at Cotehele and Falmouth. The Vengeance promoters set high store by Lottery/HLF funding, naturally. But to the extent that this can be obtained—doubtful, without a proper business plan demonstratingthat the project is financially viable and thi s cannot realistically be produced— HLF fundingwill be for capital/conversion works and not for runningcosts . The project therefore is likely 9947211010 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 61

simply to add another unsustainable burden to a sector that is already labouringand in which the future economic prospects for individual projects on average, HMS Victory and one or two others excepted, may best be described as somewhat to the windward side of indiVerent. Since 1997, HLF has provided some £35 millions towards ship preservation projects. Recent work in DCMS in an endeavour to develop a coherent policy framework to assist in the longterm managementof the preserved ship fleet suggests that it will require in excess of a further £50–60 millions simply to ensure the stabilisation of those vessels presently listed in the core collection as identified by the National Historic Ships Committee over the next five years. No figure as far as I know is presently available to meet the requirements of those vessels contained on the designated list, but ship preservation is seen to be an awesome burden. Addingto the lists a ship with such an obviously voracious demand f or fundingas Vengeancewould surely present, and whose justification for preservation on any objective assessment of the case, curatorially speaking, is quite weak, is not likely to be seen by HLF as indicative of a sense of realism, maturity, soundness of judgement or any other criterion related to common sense, on the part of the sector.

Conclusion This scheme is precisely indicative of the fragmented, incoherent nature of the way that the ship preservation interests tend to go about their business: there is no real orderingof priorities; a complete lack of realism, especially over longterm costingsfor such projects; hopeles sly optimistic assessments of future business prospects, whether in terms of visitor numbers, public sector support or other sources of income. The sector, in short, is fragmented, lacks co-ordination, and is all too likely still to drift from one daft idea to the next, etc. Ship preservation in fact remains uncomfortably the triumph of hope over experience. In these circumstances, as far as this case is concerned those in the sector in a position and able to use their influence to induce clarity, coherence, maturity of judgement and a sense of reality into the business, should be usingtheir best endeavours to do so.

Action In the case of Vengeance, realism demands that the project is denied the oxygen of publicity, and that across a broad front no encouragement is given to the promoters to pursue their demented scheme. And to the extent that this could be construed by those interests intent on pursuingthe adventure as demonstrating a lack of commitment to the naval heritage, every endeavour is made to rebut such uninformed criticism: egby stressingthe considerable e Vorts that already put into the task, not just by the Naval Museums, but in support of HMS Victory, for example, and by numerous other means. 28 January 2005

Memorandum submitted by The Old GaVers Association Thank you for the invitation to respond to the New Inquiry for Maritime Heritage and Historic Ships to which The Old GaVers Association are pleased to take part. The UK has a wide and diverse collection of historically significant vessels of all types. This varies from the one oV example of a particular type to significant numbers, an example of this beingThames Barges where their numbers remain significant due to commitment by the owners and a public interest and passion for them. Maritime Heritage is undoubtedly the forgotten sector of our heritage, and every opportunity should be explored to bring this major aspect of the United Kingdoms heritage to greater public awareness and educational advantage. In the interests of brevity we set out our main observations and thoughts in bullet format to assist with your inquiry process. - National Register of Historic Vessels. The National Register of Historic Vessels (NRHV) was conceived and set up a number of years ago as an attempt to register UK built craft of historical significance, that survive, having been built before a particular cut oV date and conformingto the criterion “not less than 40ft or 40 tons”. This revealed a considerable number of craft in varying conditions—the great majority of which were in private ownership, which includes bodies set up by individuals to maintain or rescue particular craft. This National Register is of inestimable value in the future preservation (overview) management of the UK’s Maritime Heritage. As time goes on it could be progressively expanded to catalogue craft of (progressively) lesser size, as we believe was intended, to become a comprehensive archive for future reference. - Museums. It has to be acknowledged that museums undoubtedly have a place in assemblingand displayingartefacts—in this case of a maritime nature—but their resourc es are limited and it may be that they are better suited to to providingtechnical and historical adv ice rather than the burden 9947211011 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 62 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

of care. It is here that organisations like the Old GaVers Association (OGA) have a part to play in the encouragement of owners in the care of the smaller heritage, craft savingthem from oblivion. The very thingthat broughtthe OGA into existence in the first place, in pres erving, and then promoting, the GaV Riginto the success it is today with many new designsof craft beingbuilt to sail under this rig. The Old GaVers Association holds a considerable archive of GaV Rigged vessels gathered over the Association’s 42 year history. This is available for members use in the research and preservation of their craft, and could if requested, be made more widely available.

- Private ownership. Private owners do not own heritage vessels as such—they consider that they are their custodians for the period they are in their care. Given the above museum comments we would consider that private ownership is to be encouraged where appropriate as another way of conservingthe country’s maritime her itage. Thames barges, already mentioned, are beingrebuilt—with a passion—providingemployme nt and skills retention, as does their sailingand use, not to mention the sheer joy of seeingthem und er sail doingwhat they were designed to do. This is wonderfully typical of most of the larger vessels surviving, other well known examples beingthe Paddle Steamer Waverley and the three masted tradingschooner Kathleen and May built in 1900 in North Wales to serve ports around the country. Smaller heritage craft in private ownership likewise benefit from the same passion and joy of ownership. The diVerence here is that the smaller vessel is more manageable in terms of cost and expertise to maintain. Indeed a great many owners derive great pleasure from that work of rebuildingand maintenance, keepingthose vessels in gleamingcondition . Those owners though do it because they enjoy it and in most cases—in our experience perhaps as high as 95%—are ordinary workingfolk. As a general guide 40ft seems to be a manageable maintenance size for most owners with many copingadmirably with vessels of this size. Given the comment that most own ers are ordinary workingfolk a case could be made for fundingassistance for specific items f or what to them would be major expenses. Private owners find the best way of maintainingthese ves sels is to actually use them and send them to sea.

- Funding. The fundingof work to many private vessels does not have to be significant.I tis undoubtedly diYcult to correctly assess and may appear unjust. A register could play a major part in identifyingworthy craft when assessingthem for a particular financial application. It could be somethinglike the rebuildingof an old but unique example of a marine engin e or replacement of an old and decayed deckhouse with a new one of the same design.

- Government Funding. Government funding, or at the very least an initial acknowledgment of fundingneed, would be of valuable assistance. It could be oVset by what existingprovision there may be, or that of General Education, a s in the recent proposed expansion of skills development in schools. Skills use and development which were used in the re-buildingof Thames Bargesin London, Essex and Kent, and the Kathleen and May, which worked to support west country communities, for example. These could be used to demonstrate to children within the TeachingCurriculum how their environ ment was supported and came about. Fundingdoes not have to be direct. There are already examples of preferent ial treatment to attract vessels to a particular area, capitalisingon the revenues thus broughtin by the leisure sectors visitors to the local economy. The French are particularly adept at this knowingalmost to the “centime” beforehand of the financial benefit to the local economy. The waivingof fees as an example would be a considerable hidden but very rea l assistance to the maintenance of our maritime heritage for vessels of all sizes. Easier said than done perhaps with many harbours now given over to costly—often exorbitantly so—closely packed marinas, but it would attract heritage vessels to those harbours and inland waterways historic sites where the public could also collect to delight in them. A Public Access issue is addressed here and resolved at little relative cost but with huge social and political benefit.

- Legislation. Legislation seems to get ever more weighty. Recognition needs to be made therefore with old and new legislation that to get a vessel to conform often will destroy the very thingwe are tryingto save. The paradox is that a vessel that has survived many many year s in service being made to comply to rules which have a high financial penalty and limited practical improvement, still survive. A better awareness of the match between older designs and current Maritime Legislation, we would suggest, needs to be a consideration of this enquiry.

- Skills retention, employment opportunities and public participation. In maintainingthe older vessel skills are retained and passed on to the next generation. In these days of computers it is often forgotten just how skilled this old workforce was and how diverse the type of work is—shipwrights in wood, riveters and caulkers in iron, wire splicers, the list goes on. Lose the craft and we lose the skills. 9947211011 Page Type [O] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence Ev 63

In retainingthe craft we retain the skills and importantly we provide work , not only to those already in the industry but also to those with a desire to train in those skills to carry the skills in their turn forward. This applies also to those in the peripheral industries such as providingthe hard to find timbers (forestry) manufacture of traditional sail cloths (weavers) etc. Those skills can be further harnessed for public enjoyment at selected locations. Here museums actually owningvessels could play a leadingpart in demonstratingthose s kills in a real working environment. Examples are to be seen in other industries, like glassblowingfactories demonstratingto the public, with maybe an attached shop for the products a nd a cafe beingjust one example. The Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum on the East Coast of the USA is a good example of bringing the skills and interest to the public for them to join in and participate. A site worth visitingas an example is at http://www.cbmm.orgwhere some of what i s possible, with just a little vision, can be seen. Enclosed with this “New Inquiry” response is the latest copy (December 2004) of our quarterly newsletter GaVers Logfor your interest (not printed). 27 January 2005

Memorandum submitted by VisitBritain

VisitBritain

As Select Committee Members will know, VisitBritain, the tourism authority for Britain, markets Britain to the rest of the world and England to the British—building the value of tourism by creatingworld-class destination brands and marketing campaigns. These campaigns are supported by an overseas network covering30 key markets around the world. VisitBritain works closely with the British Council and other organisations avoiding duplication and ensuring the best value is obtained from public funds by working in partnership through the Public Diplomacy Board. VisitBritain was created on 1 April 2003. It was formed by the merger of the British Tourist Authority and England Tourism Council (which led to the launch of the first domestic marketingcampaignsunit for England in over 10 years). The organisation remains legally constituted as the British Tourist Authority under the Development of Tourism Act 1969. It is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB), funded through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and receives £35.5 million each year for international marketing, and (since the merger with the ETC) £10.4 million for the domestic marketingof England.

VisitBritain generates £1.1 billion pa in incremental export earnings for the British economy, which supports over 27,000 fulltime equivalent jobs—this contributes approximately £200 million pa for the Exchequer through VAT and Air Passenger Duty receipts alone. VisitBritain generates approximately £50 million in additional domestic tourism expenditure. Through eYciencies and rationalisation, VisitBritain has been able to expand its presence recently into Russia, Poland, China and South Korea. In 2005–06 VisitBritain will be developinga presence in Malaysia, Thailand, Mexico , Czech Republic, Hungary, Turkey and Greece. VisitBritain also operates the flagship Britain and London Visitor Centre at 1 Regent Street as a “one stop shop” for travel information oVeringfree brochures and travel advice for the whole of Britain and London. VisitBritain, VisitScotland and the Wales Tourist Board together make up the family of British National Tourist Boards (NTBs).

Grants for Maritime Heritage/Historic Ships and Other “Tourism”Projects

There remains a common misconception that the National Tourist Boards administer grants schemes for tourism-related projects. England, Scotland and Wales tourist boards were all granted the power to do so in the Development of Tourism Act (1969) that set up the boards. Known as Section IV grants, the schemes were launched in 1971. Wales Tourist Board is the only NTB that retains the grants scheme—during 2003–04, £14.9 million was allocated in grants to 286 projects throughout Wales, creating or safeguarding1,042 jobs. Scotland stopped oVering these grants in 1995, although grants are now available there through the enterprise network. In England, a Government review led to the ending of the grants scheme in 1990. 9947211012 Page Type [E] 11-03-05 22:49:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 64 Culture, Media and Sport: Evidence

Seabritain 2005 and Waterside England—VisitBritain’s Contribution to the Promotion of Maritime Heritage In September 2004, VisitBritain wrote to MPs on the Select Committee outliningthe plans for SeaBritain 2005, but this is a good opportunity to update Members on our activity. SeaBritain 2005 is a spectacular, year-longfestival of events celebrati ngall the aspects of our maritime heritage and relationship with the sea, our coastline and estuaries. The Trafalgar Festival 2005 is at the heart of the SeaBritain 2005 celebrations, culminatingin Trafalgar Weekend, 21–23 October 2005 with oYcial Nelson Commemorations inspired by the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalagar and the death in action of Admiral Lord Nelson on 21 October 1805—a defining moment in British naval history. With the Trafalgar Festival as its central inspiration, it was decided to use SeaBritain 2005 to broaden the scope of the celebrations and commemorations and to take this unique opportunity to promote greater public awareness generally about the sea and its impact on all our lives. The National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, the largest museum of its kind in the world, is leadingthe way throughout the year with major exhibitions and displays. The campaign is beingprimarily funded by VisitBritain and the National Maritime Museum, and supported by the followingorganisationsto ensure a coordinated eVort: Royal Navy; OYcial Nelson Commemorations Committee; The National Trust; Royal Yachting Association; The BBC; The Royal National Lifeboat Institution; The Chamber of Shipping; The Baltic Exchange; English Heritage; Seatrade; Lloyd’s Register; The Marine Society; Sea Cadets; Sea Vision UK; Trinity House; International Festival of the Sea; Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The aims of SeaBritain are: to raise awareness of Britain’s maritime and coastal heritage; to encourage participation in maritime sport and leisure activities; to promote the UK coast and its islands as a tourism destination and travel by sea for European visitors; to promote an understandingand involvement with the marine environment and marine conservation; to raise awareness of the contribution made by the sea and seafaringto the UK economy and culture; to develop maritime learningmate rials designed specifically to link with the National Curriculum; and to leave a legacy in 2006 and beyond VisitBritain’s participation takes a number of forms. We have provided a highly experienced senior member of marketingsta V to be seconded to the National Maritime Museum to co-ordinate the campaign, and she will remain there for over a year. The centrepiece of SeaBritain 2005 is its website www.seabritain2005.com which features all of the events and activities planned, includingstreet parties, sea-shanty festivals , river races and regattas, concerts and seafood extravaganzas. Events have been submitted from across the country, and can be easily added to the database online—thus any local events can be publicised nationally. This initiative is giving them an international platform on the web. More than 450 events have been so far advertised on the website, and the list grows daily with events all round Britain, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands. The site is also championingover 350 maritime attractions, museums and exhibitions open duringthe year, and a permanent display has been installed in the heart of London at the Britain and London Visitor Centre. Profile-raisingwork has also been carried out at the recent Daily Telegraph Schroders London Boat Show. Runningparallel to SeaBritain 2005, is VisitBritain’s Waterside Englan d campaign which aims to persuade British residents to enjoy, experience and explore England’s seagoing maritime heritage, which is the basis for the whole campaign. The campaign taps into and stimulates our interest in all things waterside—seaside breaks, rivers and canals, activity holidays, maritime heritage attractions, cuisine and relaxation. Waterside England was distributed to Members some time ago, and a further copy is attached. It includes a SeaBritain 2005 supplement featuringsome of the events planned. The campaign launched in July 2004 and will run until December 2005, promotingall thingswet and wonderful to domestic tourists—coveringthe coast, inland waterways (in cludingrivers, canals, the Broads, lakes, and reservoirs), maritime heritage, water sports, and seafood. Major partners in the campaign are waterscape.com, who promote the inland waterways; Tourism South East, whose major products are maritime heritage at Portsmouth and Chatham and the lovely south coast of England; and Bristol, who represent overseas trading heritage, exploration and the engineering genius of Brunel. The online presence for Waterside England is at www.visitengland.com/waterside. Waterside England is promoted through PR, field marketing events, advertising, targeted inserts, and online promotions. Plans for 2005 include the Outdoors Show at the NEC. Our partnership with waterscape is extremely supportive of maritime heritage—the whole inland waterway network is a historic icon/feature in its own right—and our work to promote the Norfolk Broads are other areas clearly benefit our distinct maritime heritage. I hope this draws the attention to Select Committee Members of the work of VisitBritain that contributes to promotingand thereby supportingthe features of our greatmaritime her itage, which is a vital part of our international and domestic tourism oVer, especially in this crucial year. 7 February 2005

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited 3/2005 994721 19585