Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-29)
2 FEBRUARY 2005
MR RICHARD
DOUGHTY, REAR
ADMIRAL JOHN
HERVEY AND
MR SID
ANNING
Q20 Chairman: In the Treasury who is
the Minister?
Mr Doughty: I am afraid I cannot
remember the name.
Q21 Chris Bryant: I think it is the Paymaster
General, Dawn Primarolo. You have referred to English Heritage
and I just wonder whether you have had similar experiences in
Scotland and in Wales? I do not know what it is called in Scotland
but in Wales it is CADW. Has that not entered into it at all?
Mr Anning: No.
Mr Doughty: I do not have experience
of that.
Q22 Chris Bryant: We might need to find
that from another source.
Mr Anning: One of the good things
that has come out of the Cavalier is the volunteers who
have put a tremendous amount of time on board the ship. Something
that needs to be thought about is that those skills need to be
passed down to the younger generation to keep those going. That
saves a lot of money through volunteers.
Q23 Chairman: There is no NVQ, there
is nothing at any level in further education that would retrain
them, as it were?
Mr Anning: That is right.
Q24 Chairman: That is the issue, is it
not?
Rear Admiral Hervey: The Naval
Historic Dockyard at Chatham looked at the question of whether
they could introduce actual training for people but the rules
and regulations about running that sort of organisation that you
have to meet are very, very restrictive and up to now they have
frightened them off a bit.
Q25 Chairman: We have a very energetic
Learning and Skills Council in Kent and Medway, have they been
approached?
Rear Admiral Hervey: I honestly
do not know. I think Sid is absolutely right about the question
of volunteers. Every day that the volunteers put in is counted
towards the matched funding, so it works in more than one way.
Mr Doughty: In our case, we are
working with the Learning and Skills Council because we are relying
on being able to train people up to work through our project so
that it becomes a centre of excellence for the maritime heritage.
Can I just come back to a point Mr Hawkins raised about whether
there is rivalry because I am not aware of this rivalry that Mr
Anning speaks of, I am only aware of co-operation. One thinks
of the Maritime Curators' Group and the work that they are doing
and all the other umbrella organisations that work well together.
We are in a competitive environment in terms of drawing down resources
but certainly if I think of the work that has been done through
the Maritime Trust, for example, it has all been in the spirit
of co-operation. The fact that Cutty Sark has the challenge
that it now has today in terms of raising the capital it needs
is a reflection of the fact that the monies that it has raised
in the past it has put into other projects. The Maritime Trust,
the former owner of the Cutty Sark, has probably done more
for maritime heritage than any other organisation other than the
Heritage Lottery Fund itself. It is not just historic ships that
have benefited all around the country, it is also museums. For
example, the excellent fishing museum in Anstruther would not
have been set up without the core funding that came to Cutty
Sark nor the boat museum in Windermere. I think there is a
spirit of support. I have to highlight and commend the work that
John Payton has done with the National Historic Ships Committee
because for the last three years or more on a very limited budget
he has been doing exactly what this new Unit is being charged
with undertaking. I know that John goes round and gives advice
to organisations. Sometimes those small organisations do not always
listen to what they are being told. As I say, putting in a grant
application is a very, very complex procedure. We have only been
able to do it because we have drawn on the advice and expertise
from a large number of people.
Q26 Mr Hawkins: Can I explore that a
little bit more. In his written evidence to us, Mr Anning has
referred to some schemes as being "madcap schemes" which
may have been encouraged by the Heritage Lottery Fund. I just
wonder if you can give us some examples of what you regard as
"madcap schemes"?
Mr Anning: I spoke to the Heritage
Lottery Fund and I asked for a break down of Cutty Sark's Lottery
bid because I thought it was very high. I was met with a certain
amount of prevarication. What I asked for were costings for the
fabric of the ship and costings for interpretation. I understand
that some things are not quite clear-cut and cross over into each
other. (The fabric of the Ship is sometimes part of the interpretation
and vice versa). What I was told was that there was loads and
loads of paperwork—this I understood, and said, "that
I did not want all the paperwork". I then said I wanted to
make it as clear as possible as to what money was being spent
on the Fabric of the Ship and what money was being spent in interpretation,
that was all I asked for. Then commercial confidentiality came
in, which was another red herring, and I said, "I am not
asking for Mr Bloggs' name, all I am asking for is how much he
is charging for his work". In fact, I was referred back to
Mr Doughty for that and I asked him that question myself. I just
believe that the Heritage Lottery Fund should be a bit more transparent
over these things. It is public money and I think we have a right
to know what is being spent on what. That is something that I
think needs to be opened up quite considerably.
Q27 Mr Hawkins: In other words, what
your evidence to us really referred to was the lack of information
about how public money is being spent rather than being a criticism
of other individual projects?
Mr Anning: My view is this: every
pound saved on a scheme is a pound that goes to another ship.
I am very pleased that the Cutty Sark has got this, believe
me, they need it badly, but my concern is the interpretation,
the amount of money that is going on interpretation. I understand
that a certain amount of interpretation is needed to sell the
ship, to make it attractive, we know that, but to raise a ship
with Kevlar and put glass around it to make it look like it is
going through the water is a waste of money to me, especially
when, as the Chairman knows, just up the river is the Medway
Queen which only a few months earlier was turned down for
funding. The Heritage Lottery Fund in here says that the Cutty
Sark should not put a bid in above £10 million. I do
not know why they said that because the way I look at that is
they are saying, "You can have £10 million and no more",
and that is before they have even looked at it. I just want to
see fair play. That is not taking anything away from the Cutty
Sark, I want to see that ship brought back up to a good standard
but not to the detriment of everybody else.
Rear Admiral Hervey: I think that
there is a parallel with when we were trying to save Cavalier.
I know that Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust, who are operators
and managers of the consortium, were given a very clear steer
that they should not ask for more than two million or they would
not get anything at all. The same answer was given to the director
of the submarine museum because at the time politically it was
seen as being bad news to have a huge figure constantly publicised.
Of course, the hope was that one could come back incrementally
and break down part of it that could be done for two million and
then come back for some more perhaps to do another bit, which
was virtually what they did in the submarine museum. It gives
the feeling all the time that there is no trust between the two
sides in the handling of this sort of thing.
Mr Doughty: I have to say I think
the point is it is ludicrous for anyone to turn round and say
that heritage is not worth more than £10 million of public
money but, let us be clear, it is not the maritime heritage sector
that is being singled out here, I am sure that is advice that
is being given by Heritage Lottery Fund officers to any potential
applicant who comes forward. The point is that there is a diminishing
resource that the Heritage Lottery Fund has available to give
to the very many good causes that it has to process. I understand
why they bring in the thresholds that they have to enforce, it
is just very difficult for all applicants because I have no doubt
that the quality of bids is getting higher as the resource is
getting lower.
Q28 Chairman: Are there any ships overseas
that are in danger that you know of?
Mr Anning: There is one in the
Egyptian Navy that enthusiasts are trying to bring back.
Rear Admiral Hervey: It is a Black
Swan class frigate. I was talking in the Army and Navy Club last
night to Michael Gretton who is running the business of trying
to save her and they have got to the point where they are doing
quite well at raising the money and they are now waiting to get
the technical assessment by the team who are going out there to
have a look at her. Basically she is in quite good stead. They
have never tried to adapt her to do anything else so from the
point of view of if you want something from the Second World War
she is in quite good shape.
Q29 Chairman: Gentlemen, can I thank
you very much. One thing I will do is I will ask the clerk to
write to Dawn Primarolo so we can get a better understanding of
the VAT position and we will publish that.
Mr Doughty: Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
