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 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 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.
44 For example see Ev 3; Ev 13 and Ev 54 Back
45
Ev 11 Back
46
Ibid Back
47
Ev 13 Back
48
Ev 18, Q 30 Back
49
Ev 2 Back
50
Ev 3 Back
51
Ev 61 Back
52
Ev 62 Back
53
Ev 43 Back
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 Back
55
Ev 46 Back
56
Ev 39, Q 79 Back
57
Ibid Back
58
Ev 6, Q 10 Back
59
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zoological Society of
London Case C-267/00, 21 March 2002 Back
|
