Memorandum submitted by The Royal Naval
Museum
I am writing to you as Clerk to a sub-Committee
of the Select Committee on Culture Media and Sport which is meeting
under 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 implementing
the Government's stated policy of preserving the best of the country's
maritime heritage—many of us in the field, I am sure, will
respond to your call for submissions.
In making this submission, thus, I am writing
on behalf of my colleagues in Portsmouth 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 representing concisely,
accurately and vividly 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 understanding of 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 something of our achievements in this line,
we would extend to all of you a warm and hospitable welcome.
In the expectation however that pressure of
time will prohibit you from taking up 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 bring
into 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 fishing boat
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 puffers to Yarmouth fishing
smacks, from canal boats and sailing barges to works of technological
genius like Turbinia, from handsome yachts and elegant
steam launches, whose fine lines and 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 something powerful about the great sway 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 funding
from the Defence vote.
2.2 Otherwise, the principal source of at
least capital funds for the sector is through HLF, and the aforementioned
dedicated efforts that individuals and the owning charitable trusts
are prepared to make in 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
paying visitors is a key element in the equation for many projects,
in Portsmouth not least, where HMS Victory plays a key
role. Fare paying passengers, as is the case with PS Waverley
and other working vessels, make equally crucial contributions
to the commercial 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, depending to some extent on how matters are
defined, admittedly, could exceed 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 surviving historic 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 competing bids 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 effort and sharing
of expertise, the impression overall remains disappointingly 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 collecting policy, so that there is no real central organising
principle or coherent ordering of priorities underpinning the
business.
3.2 Nearly all ship preservation projects
remain "supply-side driven". Little effort 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 being often particularly
marked in the promoters' patently unrealistic expectations about
the prospects of 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 continuing maintenance
of large floating artefacts. (In this 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 uninspiring re-generation
initiatives in rundown seaports, have merely exacerbated the problem
by permitting to come into existence many more historic ship projects
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 effectively for the long term maintenance programmes
that their needs demand, lack sound management skills and financial
competence, and offer little interest for the visitor after the
initial novelty.
3.4 Prompted to some extent by the increasingly
robust requirements of HLF in assessing the 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 helping to
overcome these kinds of weaknesses. Taking a proper and considered
view of the long term 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 planning the through-life conservation and maintenance needs
of preserved ships and boats. But, once produced they provide
an essential benchmark for future maintenance, a rational and
continuing basis for decision-making which can help to clarify
the issues in the kinds of difficult 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
facing an 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 being but for which no defined
future purpose has yet been agreed, the largest number suffer
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 suffers from being inherently only
slightly less 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 listing for ships along
the lines employed in the case of buildings. But, the proposal
that a National Historic Ships Unit be established was received
with generally warm approval.
4.4 Departmental resources for the purpose
we believe having now been identified, in making this submission
our strong recommendation 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 working already
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 effective vehicle for helping the preserved ship
community to realise its objectives.
4.6 By promoting the development of a coherent,
unified focus for the sector at large, particularly since it will
play no part in supporting individual capital projects, 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. 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
effort than has hitherto been possible. But, 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.
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 Hong Kong took place
on board. Subsequently, 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 offered
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
effect, however, what would be preserved is a very long way from
the vessel that was originally built and saw 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 paying insufficient 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 turning it into a viable undertaking without the help of a
considerable injection of public funds, annually, to underwrite
its running costs, which is most unlikely to be forthcoming. In
addition, the promoters are also choosing to ignore completely
the massively distorting effect of such a grotesquely inflated
venture on a sector that is already frankly over-extended, whether
in terms of the existing level of preservation commitments or
in relation to the available resource base, either now or in the
future. The question of whether there exists anything resembling
a genuine level of sustainable public interest in such a scheme
remains to be demonstrated. No investment appraisal or market
testing appears 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 difference,
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 demonstrating
that the project is financially viable and this cannot realistically
be produced—HLF funding will be for capital/conversion works
and not for running costs. The project therefore is likely simply
to add another unsustainable burden to a sector that is already
labouring and 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 indifferent.
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 long term management of 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. Adding to the lists a ship with
such an obviously voracious demand for funding as Vengeance would
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 ordering of
priorities; a complete lack of realism, especially over long term
costings for such projects; hopelessly 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 using their 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 pursuing the adventure as demonstrating
a lack of commitment to the naval heritage, every endeavour is
made to rebut such uninformed criticism: eg by stressing the considerable
efforts 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
|
