Memorandum submitted by Mr Sid Anning
Thank you for the opportunity for allowing me
to submit my views to add to the discussions that are underway
regarding Historic Ships.
1. INTRODUCTION
(a) I write as a former Royal Naval Seaman Petty Officer,
Historic Ship campaigner and enthusiast.
(b) In 1989 one formed the HMS Cavalier
Association, and became it's Chairman until 1999. During which
time I helped to save the last of the WW2 Destroyers, HMS Cavalier.
(c) I am currently assisting the Maritime
Steam Restoration Trust (MSRT) in helping to save the last steam
driven Landing Ship Tank (LS1) which currently faces the threat
of being scrapped.
2. SAVING HISTORIC
SHIPS
(a) The problems which I faced over five years ago with
HMS Cavalier, are still very much prevalent today, despite the
fact of the CMS Committee making some excellent recommendations
with the "Presentation of Historic Ships: The case for HMS
Cavalier". There is still no mechanism, guidance, or help
of any sort, to those wishing to save an Historic Ship most of
which are left mainly to their own devices. This is indeed a totally
undesirable situation.
(b) It's all very well the establishment
saying "that individuals embark on ship restorations without
adequate resources, cost effective projections and the like, and
that most projects are seen to fail because of lack of maritime
experience in the management".
(c) Many of the Historic Ships that are
a national asset today, owe their very existence to the staunch
efforts of enthusiasts, campaigners, and volunteers, and until
there is a proper organised procedures and mechanisms on, "how
to go about saving an Historic Ship", one should not knock
the efforts of those who are at least willing to give it a try
until such times as there is a proper system installed.
(d) To me, 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 as buildings which often surround Historic Ships, barring
the few "icons" which DCMS are of the opinion are the
only ships worth saving. Why is our Maritime Heritage held in
such low esteem?
If that were not enough, we have the ludicrous
situation whereby the only way an Historic Ship can gain protection
from the state is by "sinking it". This is sheer
utter madness.
3. DEPARTMENT
OF TRADE
AND INDUSTRY
(DTI)
(a) One of the recommendations by the Committee was that
the OTI should be more vigilant over the issuing of export licences
after the case of HMS Cavalier. Despite the fact that the MSRT
had expressed an interest in HMS Stalker, Pounds of Portsmouth
(Ship Breakers) were still issued with an export licence, If the
same applied to a work of art or sculpture there would be uproar.
(b) The House of Commons Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs Committee has reported that Royal Navy Ships
should not be sent abroad for scrapping because of environmental
issues. In my view, this could be taken a step further, whereby
ships over a given age—say 50 years or over, should not
be exported until such time as its heritage value to our nation
has been properly evaluated and accessed.
4. NATIONAL HISTORIC
SHIPS COMMITTEE
(NHSC)
(a) It would be wrong for me not to recognise the time,
and effort, that the Committee puts in on our behalf. But unfortunately,
they are unselected, and unaccountable body of people, who have
set themselves up to be judge and jury over the futures of Historic
Ships, without a mandate or the proper authority to do so.
(b) The Committee purport to say that they
have the support of the Historic Ship Owners—but have they
been asked? Only recently because of the ill health of Sir Julian
Oswald, the NMM at Greenwich have "elected" a new Chairman.
If anyone has doubts about the existence of the proposed NHS Unit
being based at NMM, then their worries and concerns have been
substantiated by the news of NMM making these kind of arbitrary
and unilateral decisions over the selection of the Committee's
Chairman.
(c) I believe there is a case for Members
of the Main and Technical Committees of the NHSC being elected
by Regional Committees of Ship/Boat Owners, and to serve for five
years before seeking re-election.
For the Committee, or indeed its Chairman to
be appointed simply as another Government sponsored Quango will
be treated with suspicion by most within the industry, and would
not boost confidence and trust.
(d) One of the deepest concerns about the
NHSC, is that many of the Committee represent the major Maritime
Museums throughout Britain, whilst the other 90% of Ship/Boat
owners in Private and Trusts hands have no voice or representative
upon the NHSC at all.
It's difficult for people like me to believe
that the NHSC can be objective and unbiased in their deliberations,
and at the same time, represent their own interests.
(e) Twice now, once with HMS Cavalier, and
secondly with HMS Stalker, the NHSC has sat upon the fence being
evasive, and indecisive. Much of this comes down to the NRHV which
I believe the Committee and DCMS have overstated their importance
and significance to Historic Ships. It's debatable as to there
being an advantage by being upon the Registers other than for
HLF funding.
Indeed, Rear Admiral Harvey—President
of HMS Cavalier Association—was scornful of the lists when
he stated: "the proof of the pudding will be whether or not
the NRHV actually saves another Historic Ship".
(e) Because the NHSC has altered the original
criteria to allow ships such as Trincomalee, Mary Rose, Peggy,
and Zetland that do not qualify for entry onto the NRHV, (for
example, not being built in Great Britain or its hull is not fully
intact) then, the NHSC would have great difficulty in denying
other ships that equal right—HMS Stalker being one because
she was built in Canada.
(f) Another reason for HMS Stalker being
denied entry onto the registers by NHSC's Technical Committee
was because of project sustainability. The MSRT have only recently
applied for a Project Planning Grant (PPG) from HLF, and until
the feasibility study has been completed by Frazer Nash of Bristol,
it is curious to see how the Technical Committee can make a confident
decision on Stalker's project sustainability without that information
being made available.
5. HISTORIC SHIP
FUNDING
(a) Historic ship campaigners are constantly being reminded
by DCMS, and English Heritage, that Historic Ships—and in
particular the larger ships—are enormously expensive to
repair and conserve. But also, so are the Dome, The Royal Opera
House, Stately Homes, The Arts, and others which most in Whitehall
turn a blind eye to and never mention.
Recently, the Secretary of the NHSC remarked:
"Four years of banging on Government doors
has made me realise that changing the Whitehall mindset that readily
supports fine art or opera at the expense of solid steam driven
ships . . ."
(b) We are also told by DCMS "that
there is a tendency for discussions of ship preservations to focus
on the great national icons—Victory, Gt Britain, Cutty Sark
and the rest". One would have to agree to their saviour—but
not at ANY cost, and certainly not when it's to the detriment
of the rest of the Historic Ships.
(c) Let me if I may, put matters into perspective
a little. The "Icons" are already subsidised by grant-in-aid
from the major museums, and over the past 10 years HLF have given
just £38 million in grants to Historic Ships, out of a possible
£15.8 billion that has been given to good causes since the
Lottery began.
Eighty-seven per cent of the said £38 million
have gone to just NINE historic ships, in single or multiple grants,
whilst the rest of Historic Ships outside of the Museums get virtually
nothing at all. It would appear to me, and to the contrary, it's
not Historic Ships that are expensive.
(d) The following are an example of some
of the net recipients who divide the £1.2 billion up that
is given in grant-in-aid annually: The Arts Council—£365.4
million; British Library—£90.8 million; BTA—398.4
million; and English Heritage—£126.4 million to name
just a few. Whilst Historic Ships get nothing. I repeat, it's
not Historic Ships that are expensive.
(e) Although we are grateful to HLF for
the funding that has already been provided, we must not be complacent,
and I abhor the huge grants being handed out to just a few ships
such as Cutty Sark, SS Great Britain, much of it on mad cap schemes,
which are openly encouraged by HLF. In some cases, there is a
distinct advantage to building replicas which could in fact help
to earn its keep with film and tourism.
(f) We must try to remember that, one ship's
wholly imaginative and over expensive interpretations to try and
somehow guarantee its future, often means it's another ship's
undoing and demise to the scrap heap. It's essential that what
little money is available is not wasted, and believe HLF have
a duty to see that does not happen.
Sometimes a fraction of the money being spent
on Mary Rose for example, which never fails to get a grant (seven
to date if you include the grant from the arts), could mean a
great deal to the Medway Queen and HMS Stalker who are fighting
for their very existence, whereby a little bit of money could
make quite a difference.
(g) I acknowledge that without Heritage
Lottery Funding, our Historic Ships would hardly be worth keeping.
But, in my view, HLF are not particularly "qualified"
(even though they do have paid advisers whose views are often
ignored for political expedience), to say whenever a grant is
applied for, which Ships stays afloat (as that is what grants
comes down to at the end of the day) and which ships should sink,
or indeed, care enough about our Maritime History to be objective
in their deliberations and decision making process.
(h) Unfortunately, and at times HLF can
be ignorant and indifferent to the needs of Historic ships. One
of its senior case officers twice turned down HMS Cavalier for
heritage lottery funding, and referred to the Dunkirk little ships
simply as a collection of "little boats".
(i) The English Tourist Board withdrew support
(section 4 grants) for Historic Ships in 1989, and in 1992 English
Heritage withdrew grant aiding Historic Ships following a review
of its strategy and priorities—which literally cut Historic
Ships adrift with no proper governing body or aiding in place.
Why is it that those who the public think would
be the best people to look after our Maritime Heritage, English
Heritage for instance, have in fact deserted it?
(j) I do not profess to be an expert in
Historic Ships matters, but simply as a layman who first of all
was in the right position at the wrong time with HMS Cavalier,
and now with HMS Stalker with whom I have a very strong interest
in because only recently we held services to the memory of those
who lost their lives during the D-Day Landings 60 years ago, where
Landing Crafts of all descriptions went down with the loss of
many lives. I feel it's essential, as indeed I did with HMS Cavalier,
that we preserve the last of its kind.
I do hope that my work, and my views in this
memorandum, are of some use to the Committee, and to those who
strive to see that fairness, and equality prevail for Historic
Ships.
I write as an individual, and on behalf of the
Maritime Steam Restoration Trust—HMS Stalker,
January 2005
| 
