Memorandum submitted by the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport
On 21 December 2004, the Select Committee on
Culture, Media and Sport announced that it had agreed to establish
a sub-committee to examine the strategy, administration and
resources aimed at implementing the Government's stated policy
of preserving "the best of the . . . maritime heritage"
and called for submissions. This is the submission from the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport.
INTRODUCTION
The plight of the maritime heritage and ship
preservation has been an issue for a number of years. The English
Tourist Board withdrew support (Section 4 grants) for historic
ships in 1989, and in 1992 English Heritage withdrew from providing
grant-in-aid for historic ships following a review of its strategy
and priorities.
Successive public debates on well-known historic
vessels thought to be at risk (eg Carrick (City of Adelaide),
Cavalier, Challenge and Cutty Sark) have highlighted the need
for a coherent policy steer for preserving the country's most
important historic ships. This view was reinforced by the Culture,
Media and Sport Committee's Third Report of 25 February 1998 Preservation
of Historic Ships: The case of HMS Cavalier[2]
and Culture, Media and Sport Committee's Second Report of 4 February
1999 The Preservation of HMS Cavalier[3]
which concluded that the Government had effectively placed the
onus for funding of historic ships on the Heritage Lottery Fund
(HLF), and that the delivery of a coherent policy framework was
the responsibility of Government rather than the HLF.
CURRENT POSITION
Depending on the precise definition adopted,
there are probably between 2,000 and 4,000 historic ships and
boats in the UK. They range from great national icons, like HMS
Victory and SS Great Britain, to small fishing smacks,
working barges and inland waterways craft. They testify to the
huge importance of the sea, and of seagoing activity, in the nation's
history, and to the importance of trade on our rivers and canals
over many centuries and particularly during the period of industrialisation.
Apart from their historical importance, many ships and boats are
artefacts of great beauty and superb craftsmanship. The fact that
ships and boats occupy a special place in the cultural consciousness
of the UK is demonstrated by the extent of the public interest
in them, and by the numbers of vessels preserved by private effort
and made accessible to the public.
The current ownership of historic craft is very
varied. HMS Victory is still in commission in the Royal
Navy; a small number of ships are cared for by national and regional
museums (eg HMS Belfast in London, the pilot vessel Edmund
Gardner at Liverpool); many are preserved by trusts set up
specifically to preserve an individual vessel or class of boats;
most, around 90%, are in private ownership. Many craft are still
in use (eg the steam launches on Lake Windermere); others are
still afloat but not in use (eg HMS Warrior); some are
out of the water and preserved in dry dock (eg Cutty Sark)
or in a museum (eg Turbinia at the Discovery Museum, Newcastle
upon Tyne). Given the different reasons for preservation and the
methods adopted, there is inevitable duplication within the sector.
Much valuable work is already done for the preservation
of historic craft. Some are cared for by national and local museums,
but many more are preserved through the efforts of local trusts
and individual owners. One of the most striking features of the
sector is the enormous enthusiasm, expense and hard work which
many owners and volunteers devote to the preservation and maintenance
of historic craft.
Organisations such as the Association of Dunkirk
Little Ships, the Sailing Smack Association, the Steam Boat Association
of Great Britain and the Old Gaffers Association exemplify the
very active tradition of private ownership of hundreds of historic
vessels. Of particular importance in recent years has been the
work of Heritage Afloat (the Association for Ship and Boat Preservation
Organisations), which represents its members' concerns to Government,
regulatory and local authorities, and in contexts where important
local or national maritime preservation issues are at stake.
The Government provides financial support for
historic ships only through its grant-in-aid to those national
museums which hold vessels of historic significance in their collection
(such as HMS Belfast at the Imperial War Museum, and over
200 small craft in the National Maritime Museum's collections),
and through the PRISM fund administered by the Science Museum.
The principal source of funding for the preservation
of historic ships (in addition to private owners, private trusts
and charitable trusts) is the HLF: in March 2002 the HLF told
the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that grants totalling
£25.7 million had been made to 33 historic vessels, including
awards to assist SS Great Britain, HMS Trincomalee,
Cutty Sark and Mary Rose. This is compared with
32 awards to railway preservation projects to a value of £3.5
million.
There is no system for the statutory listing
and protection of historic craft, as there is for historic buildings.
One or two ships are listed or scheduled where they are now permanent
land-based fixtures, but these are very much the exception—for
instance, Cutty Sark at Greenwich is a Grade 1 listed structure.
However, great advances have been made over recent years in the
identification and classification of the historic fleet. The National
Historic Ships Committee (NHSC), which was set up by interested
groups in 1992 to develop and co-ordinate policy for historic
ships, has sponsored a major research exercise, the National Historic
Ships Project[4]
conducted by the Scottish Institute for Maritime Studies at St
Andrews University. The exercise resulted in the compilation of
a National Register of Historic Vessels, and the identification
of a "Core Collection" of 58 vessels of "pre-eminent
national importance" and a further 164 on the "Designated
List" of vessels "of substantial heritage merit but
of greater local or regional significance".
Within the parameters set for the study, historic
craft are now better documented than ever before. Work is currently
in hand, with financial support from English Heritage, to improve
and update the information provided in the lists, particularly
for those craft included in the Core Collection. Recent work suggests
that a significant proportion of vessels in the Core Collection
and on the Designated List continue to be at risk. Similar work
has been carried out recently for inland waterways craft by the
National Waterways Museum.
The Trustees of the HLF have acknowledged the
importance of the NHSC Register of Historic Vessels as a document
that establishes significance for the historic vessels sector.
In arriving at its grant decisions the HLF takes account of the
relative importance attributed to individual craft in the lists
published by the National Historic Ships Committee—the nationally
designated Core Collection and the list of Designated Vessels
for grant applications for vessels in Scotland, Northern Ireland,
Wales and the English Regions.
The HLF will continue to make decisions based
on the merits of individual applications from organisations seeking
to preserve and interpret historic vessels but will not predetermine
a number of vessels from the Register suitable for grant, either
from the Core Collection or from the Designated Vessels list.
Some funding has also been made available by local authorities
and from regeneration budgets. However, the bulk of the funding
for ship preservation has come from private individuals and owners,
including some hugely generous support for particular projects
from individual donors.
The Government is committed to delivering a
national policy on ship preservation, recognising that there is
a real opportunity to do something worthwhile for the maritime
heritage of which the country is rightly proud, as well as fulfilling
its obligation to the CMS Committee.
PROBLEMS
Despite the co-ordination so far achieved, the
overall impression of the sector involved with historic vessels
is one of fragmentation: massive enthusiasm on the part of many
owners and volunteers, but no real central focus or coherent ordering
of priorities. In these circumstances the risk is that exchange
of information will be inadequate and endeavour squandered through
duplication and lack of leadership. Failure to address the problems
facing historic vessels in a strategic and co-ordinated way could
result in the loss for ever of ships that are important to the
nation.
There is also evidence of a lack of realism
about the costs of preserving and maintaining historic vessels
coupled with an unrealistic expectation of state funding. Ships—particularly
the larger ones—are extraordinarily expensive objects to
repair and conserve, especially those exposed to the weather,
as nearly all are. Yet ships are often of outstanding historical
importance, have compelling associations with historic events
or achievements, and can also represent exceptional craftsmanship.
People tend, out of a very understandable enthusiasm, to embark
on preservation projects without full regard for the financial
implications. The result can be great difficulty in completing
a project or, perhaps even more commonly, great difficulty in
raising maintenance costs on a long-term basis. There appears
to be insufficient use in the sector of properly costed conservation
plans which take a long-term view of projects before they are
embarked on.
Nor is it clear that the merits of alternatives
to full-scale preservation have always been considered—in
particular, ship modelling and the detailed recording of vessels.
The latest recording techniques can offer a means of preserving
not only technical data but also the character and "feel"
of a vessel for much less than the cost of full preservation.
There needs to be a wider awareness of what can be achieved by
recording.
Ships and boats have such fascination for many
people that they offer an ideal means of raising interest in the
past, promoting tourism and revitalising particular areas of our
towns and cities. While much valuable use of historic vessels
has been made for education and for the regeneration of harbours
and other waterside areas, the Government believes that this aspect
of ship preservation ought to be looked at afresh. Historic ships
can play a significant role in delivering the Government's cultural
objectives. Their tourism and regeneration potential could probably
be taken further as part of the Government's strategy for tourism
as set out in the published report, Tomorrow's Tourism: A Growth
Industry for the New Millennium[5]
2002 MEMORANDUM
In its memorandum of April 2002 to the Select
Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Government set out
the following basic principles for a national policy for historic
ships:
— the policy framework should establish
the priorities for funding and the criteria against which funding
decisions should be taken;
— the policy should be sustainable,
affordable and practicable;
— the policy priorities should take
full account of the National Register of Historic Vessels;
— no project should be funded unless
the ongoing maintenance costs have been assessed properly and
arrangements can be made to meet them;
— there would be advantages in a sole
body with a general oversight of historic vessels whatever the
local management arrangements;
— the policy should have regard to
support for the creative industries; and
— DCMS will not itself provide ongoing
funding for the preservation and maintenance of historic ships
other than those that form part of the collection of its sponsored
museums.
The Government does not provide funds for major
projects; rather they are funded through arm's length bodies.
The Government sees no prospect of its being able to devote substantial
resources to the repair or maintenance of historic vessels, and
believes that the scale of preservation undertaken will have to
be related realistically to the resources likely to be available
from existing sources of funding. This remains the Government's
basic position. In a written response[6]
on 11 July 2001 to questions raised in the House of Lords by the
Baroness Anelay of St Johns, Lord McIntosh of Haringey replied:
"there are no plans to provide statutory safeguards for those
ships which are listed by the National Historic Ships Project
as either core collection or designated status". His answer
went on to say, "While the Government recognise the importance
of historic ships to our heritage, we are not convinced that the
extension of statutory protection to them is either necessary
or appropriate".
The Government believes that its main role should
lie in the creation of a mechanism which will facilitate the clear
identification of priorities; will ensure that sound guidance
on preservation and recording strategies is widely available;
and will promote public interest in ships, and their use for educational
purposes.
CONSULTATION
From 1 August-31 October 2003, the Government
consulted on "Ships for the Nation", a paper setting
out a Government policy for the preservation of historic ships
and proposing the establishment of a National Historic Ships Unit,
to:
— advise the Secretary of State on
policy and priorities for the sector as a whole;
— co-ordinate work within the sector
to assist those directly engaged in preservation; and
— promote public interest in historic
ships as a key component of the maritime heritage.
The consultation covered England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland and invited comments from individuals
and organisations with an interest in the preservation of historic
ships.
The Government's proposal was that a National
Historic Ships Unit (NHSU) should be created within the National
Maritime Museum (NMM). This Unit would not itself be directly
responsible for any historic ships, but would have the job of
advising the Secretary of State on policy and priorities for the
sector as a whole, would seek to co-ordinate work within the sector
to assist those directly engaged in preservation, and would seek
to promote public interest in historic ships as a key component
of the maritime heritage.
It was envisaged that the NHSU would be a small
Unit staffed by experts in the field and overseen by a committee
of leading figures in the maritime and inland waterways worlds.
The Unit would be steered by a Chairman, appointed by the Secretary
of State, who would have the personal responsibility of advising
the Secretary of State (and the devolved administrations) on policy
and priorities. The Unit would require funding for its own running
costs from central Government via grant-in-aid to the NMM.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
TO THE
CONSULTATION
Almost 100 responses to the consultation paper
were received, over 70 from a wide range of interested organisations
in the maritime sector and about 20 from individuals. The majority
of respondents were in favour of the creation of a National Historic
Ships Unit. However, as the consultation process also made clear,
the availability of resources would be a key to determining what
could be done and DCMS took the view that a formal response should
not be made until it was known whether, and to what extent, resources
would be available.
Therefore, DCMS has been working to secure funding
through the 2004 Spending Review to enable a response to be made
to the consultation. Now that the Spending Review is complete,
the funding has been secured and DCMS can confirm that it will
establish and sponsor an independent National Historic Ships Unit.
At Annex A is the draft document which has been prepared
to publish the result of the consultation exercise and to announce
the creation of the National Historic Ships Unit (NHSU).
Our expectation is that the Unit will begin
to operate on an interim basis during 2005-06 and will be fully
up and running by 1 April 2006 when the new funding from the Spending
Review comes on stream.
The Unit's primary responsibilities will be
to:
— provide leadership and strategic
vision across the historic ships community;
— continue to maintain an authoritative
and up-to-date register of the historic fleet, including the maintenance
and updating of the National Register of Historic Ships and the
development and monitoring of an "At Risk" register;
— provide the primary source of advice
to Government on national ship preservation and funding priorities,
monitoring practice in other countries;
— encourage a better understanding
of the real life-costs of restoring and maintaining historic vessels;
— advise the HLF on preservation priorities
and on individual funding bids for historic ships made to the
HLF and advise other public funding bodies;
— develop and promote professional
standards of good practice for the conservation and restoration
of historic vessels, providing advice to trusts and owners on
good practice and on fund-raising opportunities and promoting
and making available to the public research into ship preservation
and conservation techniques;
— provide guidance and advice to trusts
and owners on business planning and interpretation to make ships
become more self-sustaining and attractive to new audiences;
— improve the availability and standard
of ship and boat conservation skills and training, and sharing
of experience and expertise across the sector;
— advise on documentation and recording
techniques in cases where vessels are beyond physical and economic
preservation;
— promote the case for historic ships
to a wider audience, preparing publicity for historic ships, eg
a national website and other published material; and
— compile a register of firms and individuals
capable of offering potential conservation skills, and promote
opportunities for people to develop and maintain traditional ship-building
and ship repairing skills.
The Unit's work will be supplemented by a programme
of small grants—most likely administered by DCMS—to
promote DCMS objectives in the sector, the wider use of conservation
plans and to sponsor research. We would encourage owners applying
for HLF and other public grants to register first with the Unit.
For purposes of administrative efficiency and
to facilitate access to expert advice to the UK Maritime Collections
Strategy and the Maritime Curators Group, the Unit will be lodged
at the NMM. Co-location of the Unit at NMM was favoured by a majority
of respondents who commented on location. However, in the advice
that it gives, the Unit will be independent of the NMM.
The Unit will be a sponsored body of DCMS overseen
by an Advisory Board and Chair to be appointed by the Secretary
of State. The Advisory Board will comprise experts and advisers
drawn from across the historic ships, heritage management, commercial
and industrial sectors. The Chair will report to the Secretary
of State and will advise Government and the HLF on historic ships
and raise public awareness of their significant contribution to
our cultural and maritime heritage. During 2005 we will be consulting
on the Advisory Board.
DCMS, assisted by the NMM, will be responsible
for the establishment and funding of the Unit as well as the creation
of the Advisory Board. It will take time to create the Advisory
Board (our target is April 2006) but in the interim the NMM will
assist with the transition from the existing arrangements. With
the funding that the Secretary of State has made available, this
will enable the Unit to begin work, on an interim basis, in 2005.
Ultimately, the Chair of the Unit will be responsible
for delivering strategic and operational targets agreed with DCMS
via a "Funding Agreement". In the interim, these aspects
will be agreed with the NMM.
Respondents to the consultation were generally
in favour of a UK-wide remit for the Unit but agreed that how
it should relate to the devolved administrations would need further
discussion. DCMS has since consulted the devolved administrations
and has agreed with them that the Unit will advise on the historic
ships fleet in Scotland and Wales, as well as in England. The
Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service have advised
that it is not necessary to extend the Unit's brief to Northern
Ireland, "as there are very few historic vessels in Northern
Ireland" but have asked to receive copies of any general
guidance produced by the Unit. The Unit's services would be available
to Northern Ireland at their request.
We envisage that the Unit will take over the
functions of the National Historic Ships Committee. Under the
interim arrangements, responsibility for the National Register
of Historic Vessels will be transferred to the new Head of Unit
once appointed. Administrative support currently provided to the
National Historic Ships Committee by the NMM will be sustained
until the longer-term arrangements are in place. The Director
and staff of the NMM will remain available to advise and support
the Unit for a period to be defined.
Initially the Unit will have a core staff of
three people—a Head of Unit, a Case Officer and a Unit Administrator
who will also be responsible for administration and maintenance
of the Register of Historic Vessels. The Head of Unit will report
to the Advisory Board and the Chairman will report to the Secretary
of State.
The Unit will be funded by DCMS through grant-in-aid.
A sum of £100,000 has been made available to establish the
interim Unit in 2005-06, recruit its executives and enable some
preparatory work to be undertaken. In 2006-07 this sum increases
to £170,000 plus a further £80,000 which will be held
by DCMS to provide for small revenue grants towards publications,
research, training and similar activities, including preliminary
studies into methods and effectiveness of conservation techniques.
Respondents to the consultation were strongly in favour of the
creation of a small grants fund. This further £80,000, which
would be made available on a challenge basis, would benefit the
historic ships community by helping to make information available,
improving standards and encouraging best practice. The funding
has been increased to meet inflation in 2007-08. However, it is
not intended to support capital conservation projects.
The new Unit will not take on responsibilities
as a capital grant-giving body. Capital funding for historic ship
projects will continue to be dealt with by the HLF and other public
and private grant-giving bodies. However, the Unit will provide
HLF with a valuable source of advice when considering bids from
ships in the historic fleet.
STATUTORY LISTING
OF HISTORIC
SHIPS
The majority of respondents who commented on
the question of whether historic ships should be listed (61%)
opposed the idea. They argued that listing would lead to excessive
restrictions and costly requirements which are arguably unnecessary,
in that major historic ships are for the most part already in
the care of museums or trusts, that it would add little to the
current National Register, and that the priority should be to
update and complete the National Register of Historic Vessels
rather than introduce a completely new system. We are not, therefore,
planning to introduce the statutory listing of Historic Ships.
CONCLUSION
We are pleased that, as a result of the allocation
of resources, we can now proceed with the establishment of the
National Historic Ships Unit. The Unit will provide a sharper
focus on historic vessels, better access to trustees and owners
for expertise and advice, valuable guidance to the HLF on applications
for grants; and additional funding will be available to support
research and assessment.
Annex A
INTRODUCTION
1. In Autumn 2003 we consulted on "Ships
for the Nation", a paper setting out a Government policy
for the preservation of historic ships and proposing the establishment
of a National Historic Ships Unit to:
— advise the Secretary of State on
policy and priorities for the sector as a whole
— co-ordinate work within the sector
to assist those directly engaged in preservation; and
— promote public interest in historic
ships as a key component of the maritime heritage.
2. We are grateful for the many valuable
responses that we received from a wide range of contributors.
3. In response to this consultation we have
decided that an independent National Historic Ships Unit will
be established and, following the 2004 Spending Review, funding
is now in place to support this. The Unit's primary responsibilities
will be to:
— provide leadership and strategic
vision across the historic ships community;
— continue to maintain an authoritative
and up-to-date register of the historic fleet, including the maintenance
and updating of the National Register of Historic Ships and the
development and monitoring of an "At Risk" register;
— provide the primary source of advice
to Government on national ship preservation and funding priorities,
monitoring practice in other countries;
— encourage a better understanding
of the real life-costs of restoring and maintaining historic vessels;
— advise Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)
on preservation priorities and on individual funding bids for
historic ships made to HLF and advise other public funding bodies;
— develop and promote professional
standards of good practice for the conservation and restoration
of historic vessels, providing advice to trusts and owners on
good practice and on fund-raising opportunities and promoting
and making available to the public research into ship preservation
and conservation techniques;
— provide guidance and advice to trusts
and owners on business planning and interpretation to make ships
become more self-sustaining and attractive to new audiences;
— improve the availability and standard
of ship and boat conservation skills and training, and sharing
of experience and expertise across the sector;
— advise on documentation and recording
techniques in cases where vessels are beyond physical and economic
preservation;
— promote the case for historic ships
to a wider audience, preparing publicity for historic ships, eg
a national website and other published material; and
— compile a register of firms and individuals
capable of offering potential conservation skills, and promote
opportunities for people to develop and maintain traditional ship
building and ship repairing skills.
The work of the core funded Unit will be backed
up by a programme of small grants, (most likely administered by
DCMS) to promote DCMS objectives in the sector, to promote the
wider use of conservation plans and to sponsor research.
4. The Historic Ships Unit will be housed
at the National Maritime Museum (NMM) but will be independent
of it. Its remit will cover England, Scotland and Wales. Northern
Ireland wishes to receive copies of guidance produced by the Unit.
The Unit's services would be available to Northern Ireland at
their request. Our expectation is that the Unit will begin to
operate on an interim basis during 2005-06 and will be fully up
and running by 1 April 2006 when the new funding from the Spending
Review comes on stream. We envisage that it will take over the
functions of the National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC). The
Unit will be overseen by an Advisory Board. During 2005 we shall
be consulting on the establishment of the Advisory Board.
THE CONSULTATION
5. Almost 100 responses to the consultation
paper were received, over 70 from a wide range of interested organisations
in the maritime sector and about 20 from individuals. This report
looks in turn at the responses to each of the eight questions
set out in paragraph 9.1 of the consultation paper, but takes
the questions in a slightly different order. Where similar comments
were made in response to more than one question, they are recorded
only once in this report.
Question 1: Would the creation of a National
Historic Ships Unit be an effective way of helping the historic
ships sector co-ordinate its work better and identify priorities
more clearly?
Consultation Feedback
6. Just over 70% of all respondents who
answered the first question were clearly in favour of the creation
of a National Historic Ships Unit (NHSU). A further 20% of responses
supported the idea, but with some qualifications. About 9% opposed
the creation of a NHSU.
7. The main qualifications made by the second
group were the following:
(i) Is it absolutely clear that the creation
of a new Unit would be better than beefing up an existing body
or amalgamating existing bodies? Should the possibility of widening
the remit of the National Historic Ships Committee (NHSC), or
Heritage Afloat, and giving them appropriate financial support,
be considered instead? This point was effectively answered by
a comment from the National Maritime Museum—that with direct
responsibility to the Secretary of State and the DCMS, and with
new core funding, the Unit would have an authority and strategic
overview previously beyond the remit of the NHSC.
(ii) To be successful, a NHSU would need
staff with recognised expertise covering the whole sector: whether
a body of the size proposed could do this must be doubtful; it
would probably need to be supported by expert sub-groups and possibly
an Advisory Board.
(iii) It would be important for a NHSU to
engage fully with small craft and not become preoccupied with
the preservation of large ships: to make this possible, one of
its key priorities would have to be the extension of the National
Register of Historic Vessels (NRHV) to include vessels below the
current cut-off.
(iv) The sector would not welcome a NHSU
if it was the harbinger of greater regulation.
Question 2: Are there alternative approaches
which should be considered?
Consultation Feedback
8. The main points made by those opposed
to the creation of a NHSU were that the sector is far too wide-ranging
and diverse for one small Unit to be able to perform all the functions
proposed for it; that it would be better to go for improved co-ordination
of existing lead bodies, or to work through the new regional hubs;
and that the funding proposed for a NHSU would be better spent
on the repair and maintenance of historic vessels.
9. It was suggested that a NHSU should be
located "close to the heart of Government", with the
NHSC retained and possibly enhanced. However, another comment
was that "expansion of the NHSC is not a solution",
and that creation of a NHSU would throw into doubt the continued
raison d'étre of the NHSC. Some respondents stressed
the need for a national NHSU to have an effective regional organisation
(not necessarily of its own creation, but by working through existing
agencies).
10. It was suggested that it would be very
important for a NHSU to maintain a balanced interest in both large
ships and small craft, and not let one part of the sector overshadow
another: similarly, it would need to ensure that the interests
of both maritime and inland waterways craft were fully recognised.
It was suggested that only a full-time professional Unit would
be capable of updating the NRHV and extending it to smaller craft,
and it would be part of the benefit of having a NHSU that it could
put the work of the NHSC on to a more secure footing.
11. The NHSC's submission is very supportive
of the idea of creating a NHSU, and expresses the hope that the
NHSU will be able to build on the approach developed by the NHSC
so far: "there are certainly elements of the NHSC which could
be easily transferred and utilised within the proposed new Unit".
English Heritage comment that although it will be very important
for the new Unit to build on the huge store of experience and
goodwill existing within the NHSC, most if not all of the role
of the NHSC will be duplicated in the new Unit (were NHSC to continue).
12. Points which would need to be looked
at in more detail were:
(a) The creation of expert sub-groups to
support the small full-time staff of the NHSU: this seems an excellent
idea and one that the NHSU can follow up after its creation;
(b) The implications of devolution: there
seemed general agreement that the Unit should have a UK-wide remit,
but exactly how it should relate to the devolved administrations
will need further discussion: the suggestion that the overseeing
committee should have on it representatives of all four UK administrations
seems very sensible;
(c) Again, it seems a sensible idea that
the Unit should have some sort of regional network: it should
be possible to find a museum or a historic ship in each region
which could take a leading role (assuming this would be consistent
with the Renaissance in the Regions "regional hubs"
initiative).
(d) Arrangements for the appointment of the
overseeing committee or advisory board (presumably by the Secretary
of State) need to be spelt out.
Question 3: Does the structure proposed for
the NHSU sound right?
Consultation Feedback
13. Most respondents felt that the structure
proposed for the Unit was sensible. But several respondents felt
that there is a risk that the NHSU, if located in a museum, would
be too closely embedded in the museum/academic world. It would
be important for the Unit to have good links with the commercial
world, to ensure an adequate understanding of the issues facing
commercial operators of historic ships.
14. It would also be important for the Unit
to have access to practical knowledge of the problems of restoring,
maintaining and running historic ships. Some respondents suggested
that this would be much more important than museums' expertise
in handling ships as museum objects.
15. On appointments and staffing issues,
the following points were made:
(a) The sector would not welcome a NHSU if
it were the harbinger of an increase in regulation.
(b) The suggestion that the chair of the
overseeing committee should be appointed by and should advise
and report to the Secretary of State, was generally welcomed,
though it was felt that the chair would also have a role in advising
the heritage agencies.
(c) Arrangements for appointing members of
the overseeing committee would need to be more clearly defined.
(d) The Unit would be operating in a very
wide and varied field: to cover the ground adequately it would
either need to be bigger than proposed, or it would need to set
up panels of experts in particular areas to which it could look
for advice; it would also need to maintain strong links with boat
communities.
(e) The overseeing committee would need to
include someone with expertise in handling the media; the staff
of the Unit should include a maritime historian, a technical project
officer (to disseminate good tendering practice), and someone
with experience of business planning and fundraising.
Question 6: Where should the Unit be located?
Consultation Feedback
16. Of those who expressed an opinion on
location, a substantial majority favoured co-locating the Unit
with the National Maritime Museum (NMM) at Greenwich. It was felt
that there would be great advantages in the Unit's being able
to draw on the expertise of the NMM.
17. The other two sites that were favoured
by a significant minority were Merseyside and Portsmouth. Merseyside
was seen as having the advantage of historic links with both the
maritime and the inland waterways worlds, and having museums dealing
with both, as well as being nationally more central than Greenwich.
Portsmouth was seen as a centre that would enable the Unit to
keep in close touch with the practical aspects of ship preservation,
as well as offering access to important archives and other facilities
in the Solent region.
18. Other possible locations suggested by
other respondents were: Bristol, Glasgow, Newcastle, Sunderland,
Hartlepool, Hull, Lowestoft, Gloucester, Southampton, Swindon
and the Science Museum in London. Another possibility might be
to locate the Unit in a historic ship. It was suggested that choice
of a site should take account of the new "regional museum
hubs" framework established in the nine English regions following
the Renaissance in the Regions report of 2001.
19. Some respondents suggested that if listing
of historic vessels were to be introduced, it would be sensible
to co-locate the Unit with English Heritage.
20. A minority of respondents were strongly
against the idea of locating the Unit with the National Maritime
Museum at Greenwich. They argued that Greenwich is not nationally
central, nor particularly easy to reach; that the NMM has shown
very little interest in the practical aspects of ship preservation;
that there would be a strong risk of a maritime bias in the Unit's
work; and that (unlike some other museums) the NMM does not have
good links with the many private owners of historic vessels.
21. Most responses favoured the Greenwich
option put forward in the consultation paper. However, a good
case was also made for Merseyside, and it may be worth looking
at options for developing a regional outstation in Merseyside,
for the following reasons:
(a) Merseyside would be geographically more
central for the UK as a whole.
(b) Merseyside offers the possibility of
linking the Unit with both a maritime museum and an inland waterways
museum: Greenwich offers only the former, and there was quite
a lot of concern in the responses that the Unit should take a
balanced interest in both areas.
(c) The NMM at Greenwich is said to be a
little remote from practitioners generally: a Merseyside out-station
might be able to establish closer links with the sector.
(d) More generally, too many units of this
kind are based solely in London and it would be good if this one
could establish a presence in a regional centre.
Question 4: Does the list of functions proposed
for the new Unit sound right? Are there others which should be
considered?
Consultation Feedback
22. In general, respondents thought the
list of functions proposed for the NHSU in paragraph 7.3 of the
consultation paper was reasonable, though some commented that
it was ambitious. The following further comments were made.
23. It was suggested that more emphasis
should be placed on the role which the Unit could play as co-ordinator
of the work of other agencies as it impinges on the world of historic
ships. This would use the Unit's limited resources to best effect
and avoid risks of overlap. The Unit should seek to establish
close links not only with other maritime and inland waterways
bodies, but with the main heritage and tourism agencies, and also
act as co-ordinator of Government policy as it affects historic
ships, monitoring the unintended effects which new legislation
can sometimes have on the sector.
24. It would be very helpful if the Unit
could offer the HLF some strategic guidance on funding priorities,
rather than simply advising ad hoc on individual applications.
It would also be helpful if the Unit could give advice to other
potential grant givers besides the HLF.
25. Other points made were:
(i) It would be helpful if the Unit could
provide information on sources of specialist materials, and on
repair and docking facilities;
(ii) The Unit should be able to give ship
owners guidance on the management and development of volunteers;
(iii) It should aim to develop a code of
best practice on the repair, maintenance and management of historic
ships (drawing on material available elsewhere, eg in the United
States) and should cover such matters as fire safety;
(iv) The new Unit should be well placed to
encourage organisations to work more effectively across the sector.
Experience gained from the UK Maritime Collections Strategy has
demonstrated the benefits to be obtained from a national network
co-ordinating collecting policies, sharing expertise and working
towards a potential rationalisation of collections.
26. It was pointed out that there is already
a Conservation Register, maintained by the UK Institute for Conservation,
which includes details of many firms offering specialist conservation
skills. The Institute would be happy to collaborate with the new
Unit to enhance the usefulness of the list for historic ship preservation.
The Unit might also be able to build on work already being done
in the historic aircraft sector to maintain traditional skills.
Question 5: Would a small grants fund have
a useful role to play?
Consultation Feedback
27. An overwhelming majority of respondents
favoured the creation of a small grants fund. They saw the fund
as likely to be particularly valuable for the encouragement of
conservation planning and best practice, for promoting educational
projects and improved display arrangements, and as "seed"
money for securing more substantial finance from the business
and banking sectors.
28. It was emphasised that the fund should
be more than a token fund, and should be genuinely new money—the
larger the fund, the better. It would be important to think out
the relationship of any small grants fund to HLF funding for ships.
29. There was a difference of view on whether
the fund should be used to assist individual restoration projects.
One comment was that it would be better to use a small pot of
money to fund research and other work of general application,
rather than deal with specific projects. Others suggested that
funding should be available for emergency work, and for work that
would prevent serious and costly deterioration.
30. A comment made by several respondents
was that the creation of a small grants fund would be no substitute
for addressing the substantive capital and revenue funding issues.
Government should acknowledge that it must tackle the funding
problems of the major historic ships.
31. Of the very few respondents who did
not favour the creation of a small grants fund, two were particularly
notable. English Heritage commented that a grants programme would
be too hungry of manpower for the size of Unit envisaged, and
that the Unit's resources would be better devoted to advising
and influencing other grant-givers. EH suggested that the NHSU
should simply have some budget provision for commissioning work
from researchers and other specialists. Another view was that
the scale of demand for funding would be too large a burden for
a small Unit, and might deflect it from activities that would
have a much greater long-term benefit for the preservation of
historic ships. Any funding available should be targeted at commissioning
work to identify and promote exemplars of best practice.
32. There was strong support for a small
grants fund. However, some comments suggested that it would be
important to define the scope of the fund very clearly. As envisaged
in the consultation paper, it will be important to make clear
that the fund's purpose is to support research, education and
other "exemplary" projects, but not to fund straightforward
ship repair and maintenance. A small grants programme could be
established for, say, a three-year period, administered by the
Unit.
Question 7: Should statutory listing of historic
ships be introduced?
Consultation Feedback
33. Of those who commented directly on the
listing issue, about 61% were opposed to statutory listing and
some 39% in favour.
34. The main virtue of listing was seen
as protection of vessels against neglect or maltreatment—protection
which, it was suggested, was quite as important as for historic
buildings. Several of those in favour of listing suggested that
only the most important vessels (those in the current "core
collection" and some ships currently excluded on grounds
of origin) should be listed, and that care should be taken to
avoid over-rigid controls over owners. One suggestion was that
listing would be more appropriate to inland waterways vessels
than to maritime vessels, because of the close association of
the former with particular historic buildings and areas.
35. Those who opposed listing felt that
it would set a tone that would be authoritative and intimidating,
and would be well beyond the resources of a Unit of the size proposed.
There was concern that listing would lead to excessive restrictions
and costly requirements, which are arguably unnecessary, given
that major historic ships are for the most part already in the
care of museums or trusts. But in general, the mobility of many
ships was not seen as a crucial obstacle to the introduction of
a listing system.
36. Several of those who opposed statutory
listing suggested that it would add little to the current National
Register, and that the priority should be to update and complete
the NRHV rather than introduce a completely new system. Another
suggestion was that it might be better to develop a minimum standards
scheme (with certification), along the lines of museum registration.
37. One respondent suggested that it was
more important to give protection to land-based facilities, such
as historic docks and moorings, which are fast being destroyed.
Another suggested that a non-statutory list, like that for historic
parks and gardens, might be the best approach.
38. Several of those who did not express
a clear view on the issue suggested that further review of the
options was needed, either in the context of the Heritage Protection
Review (since the treatment of other moveable objects should be
considered at the same time), or by the new NHSU once set up.
Question 8: Are there any important issues
relating to the preservation of historic ships that you feel are
not addressed by these proposals?
Consultation Feedback
39. The following general comments were
made.
Skills
40. Stress was placed on the need to preserve
specialist skills and to provide training so that younger people
can acquire such skills. It was suggested that major ships should
host training programmes for trainee craftsmen; and that the NHSU
would need to act to preserve and create appropriate locations
for expert ship repair—heritage workshops, docking facilities,
etc.
Standards
41. It was suggested that the NHSU would
have an important role to play in promoting appropriate standards
of conservation, as distinct from the sort of restoration that
leads to the creation of replicas or pastiches. It would be important
to respect local expertise in matters of ship repair and maintenance.
Register
42. It was suggested that a more proactive
approach was needed than simply listing known historic craft,
ie identifying the types of ships that ought to be preserved and
then conducting a systematic worldwide search for extant examples.
Similarly, modern naval vessels should be identified for preservation
as they are decommissioned—an approach already adopted for
historic aircraft.
Tourism potential
43. It was suggested that many local councils
fail to appreciate the potential value of historic craft have
as tourist attractions. The NHSU would need to promote ships with
councils as a way of securing their preservation.
Inland waterways
44. Several respondents expressed concern
that the importance of the inland waterways and their craft to
the national heritage is still not fully recognised. It was suggested
that on present trends, the loss of several hundred historic canal
craft over the next few years would be inevitable.
Vessels at risk
45. It was suggested that it would be helpful
to introduce a "vessels at risk" register, similar to
that for historic buildings, to draw attention to the plight of
threatened ships and if possible to ways of rescuing them.
Administrative issues
46. It was suggested that the new Unit should
have unequivocal UK-wide responsibilities, with representatives
on its committee from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: the
implications of devolution for the working of the new Unit needed
to be more fully thought out. The Unit's remit should include
British owned historic vessels from any country of origin. Close
working would be needed with English Heritage's archaeology section,
to determine responsibilities for historic ships recovered as
wrecks.
Finance/Funding
47. It was suggested that it will be important
for the new Unit to address the case for financial relief for
historic ship owners, eg relief from VAT, from business rates
and from harbour dues.
48. Several respondents made the point that
proposal of a new administrative mechanism is in their view no
substitute for willingness to address the basic issue, which is
lack of funding for the repair and maintenance of historic ships.
Government should address this issue more directly, since no large
ship can hope to survive on visitor income alone.
Sea Britain 2005
49. It was suggested that it would be particularly
appropriate if any new initiative could be announced in time for
the celebrations planned for 2005.
THE RESPONSE
TO THE
CONSULTATION ON
HISTORIC SHIPS
50. We are most grateful for the many positive
and constructive responses that we received to the consultation
paper. Since the consultation concluded we have been working to
secure funding through the 2004 Spending Review to enable our
response. Now that the Spending Review is complete the funding
has been secured and we can confirm that DCMS will establish and
sponsor a National Historic Ships Unit, a proposal supported by
a majority of respondents.
Remit
51. The primary responsibilities of the
Unit will be to:
— Provide leadership and strategic
vision across the historic ships community.
— Continue to maintain an authoritative
and up-to-date register of the historic fleet. This will include
the maintenance and updating of the National Register of Historic
Ships and the development and monitoring of an "At Risk"
register.
— Provide the primary source of advice
to Government on policy on national ship preservation and funding
priorities, monitoring practice in other countries.
— Encourage a better understanding
of the real life-costs of restoring and maintaining historic vessels.
— Advise the HLF on preservation priorities
and on individual funding bids for historic ships made to the
HLF and advise other public funding bodies.
— Develop and promote professional
standards of good practice for the conservation and restoration
of historic vessels, providing advice to trusts and owners on
good practice and on fund-raising opportunities and promoting
and making available to the public research into ship preservation
and conservation techniques.
— Provide guidance and advice to trusts
and owners on business planning (including sources of funding)
and interpretation techniques designed to makes ships become more
self-sustaining and more attractive to new audiences.
— Improve the availability and standard
of ship and boat conservation skills and training and the sharing
of expertise across the sector.
— Advise on documentation and recording
techniques in cases where vessels are beyond physical and economic
preservation.
— Promote the case for historic ships
to a wider audience, preparing publicity for historic ships, eg
a national website and other published material.
— Compile a register of firms and individuals
capable of offering potential conservation skills, and promote
opportunities for people to develop and maintain traditional ship
building and ship repairing skills.
The Unit's work will be supplemented by a programme
of small grants—most likely administered by DCMS—to
promote DCMS objectives in the sector, the wider use of conservation
plans and to sponsor research. We would encourage owners applying
for HLF and other public grants to register first with the Unit.
Constitution
52. For purposes of administrative efficiency
and to facilitate access to expert advice, to the UK Maritime
Collections Strategy and the Maritime Curators Group the Unit
will be lodged at the National Maritime Museum (NMM). Co-location
of the Unit at NMM was favoured by a majority of respondents who
commented on location. However, in the advice that it gives, the
Unit will be independent of the NMM. The Unit will be a sponsored
body of DCMS, overseen by an Advisory Board and Chair to be appointed
by the Secretary of State. The Advisory Board will comprise experts
and advisers drawn from across the historic ships, heritage management,
commercial and industrial sectors. The Chair will report to the
Secretary of State and will advise Government and the HLF on historic
ships and raise public awareness of their significant contribution
to our cultural and maritime heritage. During 2005 we will be
consulting on the Advisory Board.
53. DCMS, assisted by the NMM will be responsible
for the establishment and funding of the Unit as well as the creation
of the Advisory Board. It will take time to create the Advisory
Board (our target is April 2006) but in the interim, the NMM will
assist in the transition from the existing arrangements. With
the funding that the Secretary of State has made available this
will enable the Unit to begin work, on an interim basis, in 2005.
54. Ultimately, the Chair of the Unit will
be responsible for delivering strategic and operational targets
agreed with DCMS via a "Funding Agreement". In the interim,
these aspects will be agreed with the NMM.
55. Respondents were generally in favour
of a UK-wide remit for the Unit but agreed that how it should
relate to the devolved administrations would need further discussion.
DCMS has since consulted the devolved administrations and has
agreed with them that the Unit will advise on the historic ships
fleet in Scotland and Wales, as well as in England. The Northern
Ireland Environment and Heritage Service have advised that it
is not necessary to extend the Unit's brief to Northern Ireland,
"as there are very few historic vessels in Northern Ireland"
but have asked to receive copies of any general guidance produced
by the Unit. The Unit's services would be available to Northern
Ireland at their request.
56. We envisage that the Unit will take
over the functions of the National Historic Ships Committee. Under
the interim arrangements, responsibility for the National Register
of Historic Vessels will be transferred to the new Head of Unit
once appointed. Administrative support currently provided to the
National Historic Ships Committee by the NMM will be sustained,
until the longer term arrangements are in place. The Director
and staff of the NMM will remain available to advise and support
the Unit for a period to be defined.
Structure
57. Initially the Unit will have a core
staff of three people—a Head of Unit, a Case Officer and
a Unit Administrator who would also be responsible for administration
and maintenance of the Register of Historic Vessels. The Head
of Unit will report to the Advisory Board and the Chairman will
report to the Secretary of State.
Funding
58. The Unit will be funded by DCMS through
grant-in-aid. A sum of £100,000 has been made available to
establish the interim Unit in 2005-06, recruit its executives
and enable some preparatory work to be undertaken. In 2006-07
this sum increases to £170,000 plus a further £80,000
which will be held by DCMS to provide for small revenue grants
towards publications, research, training and similar activities,
including preliminary studies into methods and effectiveness of
conservation techniques. Respondents were strongly in favour of
the creation of a small grants fund. This further £80,000,
which would be made available on a challenge basis, would benefit
the historic ships community by helping to make information available,
improving standards and encouraging best practice. The funding
has been increased to meet inflation in 2007-08. However, it is
not intended to support capital conservation projects.
59. The new Unit will not take on responsibilities
as a capital grant-giving body. Capital funding for historic ship
projects will continue to be dealt with by the HLF and other public
and private grant-giving bodies. However, the Unit will provide
HLF with a valuable source of advice when considering bids from
ships in the historic fleet.
Statutory listing of historic ships
60. The majority of respondents who commented
on the question of whether Historic Ships should be listed (61%)
opposed the idea. They argued that listing would lead to excessive
restrictions and costly requirements which are, arguably unnecessary,
in that major historic ships are for the most part already in
the care of museums or trusts, that it would add little to the
current National Register, and that the priority should be to
update and complete the National Register of Historic Vessels
rather than introduce a completely new system. We are not, therefore,
planning to introduce the statutory listing of Historic Ships.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
61. We are grateful to all of you who have
waited so patiently for our response to the consultation. As you
made clear from the start, the availability of resources would
be a key to determining what we would be able to do and we took
the view that we should not make our formal response until we
knew whether and to what extent resources would be available.
The allocation of funding was confirmed in December 2004. We are
pleased that, as a result we can now proceed with the establishment
of the Historic Ships Unit. The Unit will provide a sharper focus
on historic vessels, better access to trustees and owners for
expertise and advice, valuable guidance to the HLF on applications
for grant; and additional funding will be available to support
research and assessment.
13 January 2005
2 Third Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
Preservation of Historic Ships: The Case of HMS Cavalier,
Minute of Evidence and Appendices, HC 561. Back
3
Second Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The
Preservation of HMS Cavalier, Report and Appendices, HC
196. Back
4
Towards a Policy on Historic Ships: Research Projects for the
National Historic Ships Committee, Report by the Scottish Institute
of Maritime Studies, University of St Andrews, 21 November 1996. Back
5
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Tomorrows' Tourism: A
Growth Industry for the New Millennium 1999. Back
6
Hansard-House of Lords Official Report Volume 615 WA 25,
11 July 2005. Back
| 
