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;
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
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.
23 Third Report, paragraph 39 Back
24
Second Report, paragraph 9 Back
25
Second Report, paragraph 10 Back
26
Second Report, Appendix 4 Back
27
Culture, Media and Sport Committee Fifth Special Report Session
1998-99 HC 387, paragraph (v) Back
28
Ev 25 Back
29
Ibid Back
30
Ibid Back
31
Ibid Back
32
Ev 26 Back
33
Ev 37 Back
| 
