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:
— 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 finding appropriate donors,
access to EU funds etc. Noting though that the DTI is notoriously
unable to help small businesses navigate through similar waters.
Help in understanding sources of funds, exact
requirements of funding charities, listing possible 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 finding out who gave their
neighbour some money.
Overview of the sector
Follows on from this last thought. The individual
trusts, owners, museums are all too busy stretching their limited
resources to meet the problem of the moment. This results in their
often missing out on help or reinventing the wheel. There is a
need for better exchange of information on all topics, ultimately
this could save money within the sector. Example: HMS Trincomalee's
team spent a lot of time and effort researching materials before
selecting natural, true to original, fibres for their rigging.
They overlooked the large body of evidence from modern, working
sailing ships that suggested modern artificial fibres last longer
and are cheaper in the long run.
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 preserving ships,
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 appreciating the behind the scenes work—politicking—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 being encouraged (funded?) to develop
their own centres of excellence. Portsmouth being a good example,
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 being taken forward
to help solve some of Cutty Sark's problems.
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 leaving school in 1965 my education has
been that of a professional engineer. 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, coming from 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,
during which time I was exposed to the leadership and guidance
of several exceptional officers, whilst designing the Castle Class
offshore 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 leaving the Ministry, I moved into consultancy,
briefly with Seaforth Maritime in Aberdeen, then for 18 years
with Three Quays Marine Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of
the P&O Group. During the 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 coming to terms with the needs of each individual ship.
For the record the ships I have worked with
are (in ship build date):
— HMS Warrior (as HLF monitor)
— 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 Big Ship Forum, for a website mechanism for information
and skill exchange. Hopefully these may prove useful in your deliberations.
Detailed response following the question numbers
of the proposal document:
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!
Setting priorities surely has to be by consensus,
the unit therefore must be 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 nothing about ships and, pace Cutty Sark, have a track
record of apparently not wanting to 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.
With reference to the US National Park Service,
I do feel it is important for the unit not to waste time reinventing
the wheel themselves. The NPS produce a very sensible set of documents
on the preservation and recording process, which would be of great
value to the unit and in many cases, 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 during
an historic restoration.
It would be of significant benefit to include
a member from the "modern" shipbuilding industry 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
planning grants (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 embedding it in the NMM
would satisfy the sector. NMM has no track record of successfully
restoring a "working" vessel—indeed they most
recently came to the sector's attention as a result of cutting
up 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 restoring or successfully running heritage
ships and their equipment.
7. It's not clear what a statutory listing
would achieve. The recent BBC 2 series Restoration has graphically
illustrated the fact that listing a building does not safeguard
its continuing existence. The current voluntary listing, winnowed
down by the NHSC to a core collection seems to satisfy the needs
of the sector. Unless statutory listing brings with 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 effective
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 sufficient manpower and funds to do it properly,
but speedily. Relying on the core staff 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 building up that company's involvement in historic ships by
utilising existing sail training ship expertise. A fully qualified
naval architect, he has been with Three Quays for 16 years now,
having previously spent 10 years with the Royal Corps of Naval
Constructors. The views expressed here are entirely the author's.
SOME THOUGHTS
ON MARITIME
HERITAGE
During the last century there were successive
waves of public enthusiasm for recovering and restoring the 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 efforts 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 official support.
The most recent, and hopefully, continuing wave
of enthusiasm for preserving our maritime heritage was 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 sprang from the result of public concern
or was more an enthusiasm powered by public money.
One of the spin-offs 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.
Coming from a seafaring family I had been brought
up on a diet of "salty" stories, particularly from my
grandfather, who started as a boy on a spritsail barge and retired
as Convoy Commodore on the East Coast route during World War II.
My father's claim to fame rested on being responsible 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 floating gymnasium,
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 coming in 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. Currently my
efforts 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.
Having explained how I found myself involved
with the marine heritage business, 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 reading for everyone thinking of preserving a 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 Recording
Historic Ships" by Richard K Anderson JR. from the Historic
American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record,
also part of the National Parks Service.
As I mentioned above, the bulk of the work of
restoring and preserving our historic 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 lying
in a weed-festooned drydock at Hebburn on Tyneside. In actual
fact the document is very largely based on common sense and well
worth a read.
Having now toured several ships and museums
in a professional capacity my overriding impression 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 having to lay off
similarly trained staff 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 competing
for the same money, much of it is the result of ignorance about
what 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 Big Ship 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
Big Ship Forum, for example, suffers 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 seeking answers 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 going to have to scrap/sell HMS Nonsuch!" All of which
points to a continuing lack of essential information 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 participating
group, 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 devoting time to this sort of thing
are unlikely to diminish with time.
The web site may even work as a marketing device.
Many American visitors already 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 vying
for 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 predicting visitor numbers 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 offend 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.
Having said 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 revealing an ability to produce very
high quality restorations. Smaller groups, like the one found
at Padstow are preserving the smaller, but nonetheless important,
vessels to a very high standard and more people seem to be realising
that the sea has played, and indeed is still playing a very important
role in everyday life. Providing the existing groups can 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
| 
