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 administers the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Receiver
of Wreck, FCO is 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 affecting the 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 launching its 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 effectively "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 launching its 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 (including excavated ships and 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 effective 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 funding and 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 funding is envisaged
by DCMS. It is also likely that Statutory Listing responsibility
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.
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
existing budgets.
(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 being protected 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 sufficiently
the issue of funding, including that provided by the HLF. This
whole initiative will have limited impact unless sensible schemes
for funding the 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 funding
was rejected by HLF over two years ago which, had it been made
available, would have secured its future. Whilst recognising the
importance of conserving smaller 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 promoting tourism, access, education,
cultural objectives, and local regeneration. We note from Appendix
C that the Cutty Sark received HLF funding of £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 waiving of fees to the Receiver of Wreck,
the encouragement of seabed operators to undertake pre-disturbance
surveys, greater responsibility by the Ministry of Defence and
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for their historic wrecks,
proper management by government agencies of underwater sites,
and the education and the training of 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 funding would
be made available for the Nautical Archaeology Society to employ
a full time training officer 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 outstanding issues,
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 Diving Associations 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 forthcoming consultation paper on protecting the
marine historic environment.
January 2005
| 
