Nelson & His World

The Ministry of Defence have announced that the funding of the Victory is under review and that they are considering handing her over to a charity or a private company.

See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... mpany.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7612554.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... agedy.html

Tony,

I had heard of this idea some while ago and don't quite know what to think.
I tend to agree with the critics and don't think she will be run as efficiently as she was under the MOD. I hope I'm wrong, but one thinks of other things that have been privatised.

Kester

Tony,

My initial reaction that HMS Victory should be handed over to private management was one of total horror - with visions of Macdonald's Golden Arches on the hull, or flags encouraging us to 'Fly Emirates' replacing 'England Expects...' A truly gruesome prospect.

The sums needed to maintain Victory, even when major work is required, must be an infinistesimal proportion of the overall MOD budget. Maybe this is just a 'kite-flying' exercise by the government to gauge public reaction. (Incidentally, I was intrigued to see that the government spokeswoman is Baroness Taylor of Bolton, who attended the same school as I did!)

I hope the handover doesn't happen; but if it should, Disneyfication need not necessarily be the result. HMS Belfast is run as a private trust, and its authenticity and status as an historic warship have not been devalued. I wonder too, whether an organisation such as the National Trust might be charged with caring for Victory. The NT's sphere of interest is historic houses and landscape; but an exception might be made for Victory. The Trust's record in caring for our national heritage is exemplary; its devotion to authenticity and craftsmanship in the maintainance of historic buildings, gardens and landscape is unrivalled. Its discreet commercial enterprises exist only to support its work and not for private gain; and its slogan, 'For everyone, for ever' would ensure that Victory continues to be seen as part of our common heritage rather than a commodity for commercial exploitation.

Tony,

I read this with concern, not because HMS Victory should be (and should always remain) under the auspices of the MOD, but because these questions are so often addressed at the wrong time (too late) and for the wrong reasons (when black holes are appearing in departmental budgets and panic starts to set in.)

I hope that's not the case, but the muddled and divisive way this news has reached the public domain, and the resulting press coverage so far is worrying. One of the politicians quoted mentioned the words 'Best Value' - and that is the most frightening phrase of all for the Victory. How do you measure her in comparative terms with healthcare, education, defence and crime? And it's not always about money, often equating directly to the politicians' favourite refrain: 'Are there any votes in it?' I have to admit, I worry very much about our heritage being solely in the hands of politicians and prey to every economic crisis, funding deficit, changing priority and electioneering shift on the horizon.

I don't want to speak out of turn on the subject as we see only the merest (balanced?) glimpse of the overall story in the press, but I too would question whether a heritage asset of this nature and importance should sit where she does, within a government department (indeed within a government) that may struggle to provide, consistently and without conflicting responsibilities, what she needs in the future.

That Victory represents much of what our Navy should be most proud of is beyond question, a maritime golden age possibly without parallel. But the question of whether the Navy alone remains the best body to ensure Victory's future as an accessible national asset of iconic proportions may be valid.

At this stage, having worked a little at the coal face of heritage conservation, survival/sustainability and public engagement, if I had to throw my hat into the ring, I'd like to see English Heritage brought to the table. From what I've experienced they work well across administrative and departmental boundaries, are good at bringing interested but diverse parties together into structures that can deliver; whilst encouraging consesus and combining passion and professionalism to achieve results.

EH could be a possibility as a lead - a well placed public/private sector partnership builder who could be capable of bringing to Victory the resources, the skills, the integrity, and the secure future at the forefront of our maritme heritage that she undoubtedly deserves. With the Navy remaining an integral and influential member of any partnership.

The National Trust too, as Tycho says, have an exemplary record in preserving and sustaining our past heritage for the nourishment of future generations. It doesn't have to be about Disneyfication and rampant commercialism by any means. Perhaps I'm an idealist by nature, but I believe that we have wonderful private and voluntary sector resources already in place to avoid this extreme.

http://amaxus.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.2

For me, Victory is on a par with Stonehenge and the Tower of London, and whilst her foundations are not made of stone or her history rooted in the earth, she is solidly embedded at the heart of our heritage, lodged deeply within our sense of place and identity, and truly representative of the sacrifice, aspirations, achievements and pride of our ancestors.

If the figures quoted are accurate - at a basic cost of £1.5m per annum, with 400,000 (paying?) visitors walking the decks each year - and with the possible advantages of charitable trust status, the picture looks far from bleak. But a brutally honest overview and evaluation of the situation must be necessary to get a real feel for the future.

Handled correctly without cutting her adrift, and given a fair wind (what can we do to preserve Victory for the nation, rather than how can we offload a potential money pit) this could be seen as the dawn of a new golden age for this magnificent and priceless national monument.

When year on year public funding cuts seem inevitable, and at a time of recession which could affect income streams for assets like the Victory, it's necessary to look at how this will all pan out. But I really hope it isn't a knee jerk reaction to some crisis at the treasury relating to internal issues that Victory has nothing to do with.

The feasibility study or scoping work, whatever form it takes, will be interesting to watch. And don't forget we have the Freedom of Information Act (although a moveable feast in practice) to keep an eye on progress.

Mira:

thank you very much for that thoughtful and informative contribution, infused with your wide experience and understanding of this field.

My initial horror was prompted by seeing the headline in a newpaper - or maybe it was 'The Sun' - reading over someone's shoulder in a cafe: as you say, the journos have made hay with this and given a very confused and inaccurate picture of what is under discussion.

Now I'm going to ramble a bit here as I am trying to clarify my thoughts on the issue. The baroness and the admirals seem to be saying, in effect, 'Victory will still belong to the Navy, but someone else will foot the bill'. And the options they have in mind seem rather strange.

If another government department assumes responsibility - which? one is tempted to ask - how will this relieve the burden of maintenance on the Exchequer?

If the NT or EH become involved all sorts of problems could ensue. Who, for example, will determine what sort of restoration might be needed at a future date, the Navy or the charitable organisation? If 'he who pays the piper calls the tune', the Navy will be powerless to influence future developments. This might be for good or ill. That isn't really my point. I simply foresee an impossible situation if the 'owner' and the 'bill-footer' cannot agree about future developments, however tightly drawn the initial agreement might be.

Owners who hand over properties to the NT often continue to have some living accommodation there; but they have no rights whatsoever over the executive and managerial decisions that are subsequently taken. Presumably, the Navy will have to accept similar restrictions. Would they be happy about that?

I can't help feeling that the ship should either remain under MOD control or be handed over in its entirety to a non-profit making private trust with an established track record of financial probity and a commitment to historical integrity.

I feel sure that the NT or EH would do the job superbly. But I have a strange niggling feeling I find it difficult to explain. HMS Victory is not only a ship but an icon, imbued with historic resonance, yet still commissioned, manned by the Royal Navy, still a working ship, though not performing her original function. If she were to come under the control or influence of another body, even if she remained 'commissioned' (and this seems an odd and contradictory position) we should have to acknowledge, I think, a shift in her status, her role, her function, that we are perhaps unready for. Will she slip irretrievably from an integral and living part of the Royal Navy and become a museum? A wonderful, unique and treasured one, but a museum nonetheless? It might be argued that she is that already and we simply don't admit it. It matters to me, somehow, that Victory is still commissioned, still part of the living navy and not some old pensioner, a drain on the family coffers, shoved off to be looked after by - admittedly kindly - strangers.

I hope this makes sense!

I find the whole thing very confusing. The MoD is seeking to guarantee the funding of maintenance and conservation while retaining the Victory as a commissioned Royal Navy warship.

I simply don't understand the numbers. There are 400,000 visitors per year and the current admission fee is £12.50 for HMS Victory and the Royal Naval Museum. Even after allowing for family tickets and other concessions, the revenue must be at least double the £1.5 million needed for the Victory's maintenance. I have no idea of the cost of running the Royal Naval Museum, but I cannot understand how there is any risk of visitor revenues not meeting the maintenance cost. Or is it that the maintenance bill is met entirely by the MoD and not by the visitor revenue? Does anybody know?

If the Victory's future is dependant on MoD funding, then surely that has to change? It is insanity for the Government to be choosing whether part of its defence budget should go towards the Victory or to the proper protection of troops in Afghanistan. That must put the Victory at serious risk, and ring-fencing the funding seems vital to me.

In Amsterdam is a replica of a three mast bark sailship from 1850, named the Pollux. She has been build in 1940. She was moored in Amsterdam. Until 1989 she has been used as a trainings ship for merchant navy sailors for many years. Now she is turned into a restaurant. I could see her every day when I lived in the inner city of Amsterdam on my way to work. The Pollux was “only” a replica. Imagine a similar fate would happen to the Victory.

http://www.pollux-amsterdam.nl/

I think you are right to be very concerned about the Victory’s future.
Sylvia

Presumably most people have now calmed down somewhat from the inevitable knee jerk reaction to this news which this has been quite considerable in most of the papers, including many replies from abroad, and have considered what is actually being said by the MOD and the Royal Navy. This is that the control of the Victory will remain with the Navy and that she will be run much as she is at present. It is the funding and who is to provide it that is at issue.

I too cannot see why the revenue from visitors does not cover this, as it should do quite easily, £1.5 million being a mere drop in the ocean compared to the millions spent, and in many cases wasted, by the government as a whole.

Sorry, but I don't think that the National Trust or English Heritage, fine bodies though they are in what they do, would be the right people to run the Victory. They do not have any experience or expertise in running a ship, which is completely different proposition from a stately home or castle. To do that you need experts in the maritime field and that experience is already in place, it having been built up over a number of years. Thus the Victory has the support and skills of the Technical Advisory Group, the Society for Nautical Research (who largely saved the ship back in 1922), the Royal Navy, the Curator Peter Goodwin, the National Maritime Museum and the Royal Naval Museum. Should the running of the ship not somehow remain with either the MOD or RN, if would be a brave body indeed who would ignore such informed advice!

Sylvia, sorry I don't think you can compare the Pollux, a relatively unknown vessel to the icon of the Victory! They really are the nautical equivalent of chalk and cheese. You have probably visited the Victory, but to get a measure of how important she is to the English, try and imagine that instead of the Pollux you had De Ryter's flagship sitting in a dry dock in Amsterdam!

Tycho, a small point, but I agree with you - there is something comforting about the fact that Victory is still in commission and is flagship of the Second Sea Lord. I like to think it is a link with Nelson himself.

Kester

Kester:

I don't think we need worry about the loss of expertise should the NT or EH take over the management and care of Victory. I know that the NT is always careful to engage consultants who provide expert advice for the maintainance and restoration work to their properties, and I'm sure EH is too. Renowned interior design and architectural historians, such as John Fowler and now David Mlinaric, for example, have provided superb guidance in the authentic restoration of historic houses. The NT also has an excellent record for maintaining and encouraging the continuation of disappearing crafts and skills.

Should they take charge of Victory, I don't think the NT or EH would move an inch without drawing on the expertise and judgement of all the naval authorities you mention.

Kester,

I am sorry you misunderstood me. I never had the intention of comparing the Victory to/with the Pollux. Only the circumstances, lack of money to maintain her. So I used her as an example of what can happen to a ship, when the government is short of financial resources.

I have never visited the Victory, and due to circumstances I don’t think I will regrettably ever be able to do so.
Sylvia

Tycho,

Yes, you're right and I'm probably overstating the case. In all probability too, she will remain within the navy's control so the problem won't arise.

Kester

A cautionary note is sounded in today's Times about transferring Victory to a charitable trust. This comment is by Roy Clare, CEO, Museums Libraries and Archives Council:

Transferring HMS Victory to a charitable trust may relieve the defence budget, but it is not a cheap option. Experience with museums trusts shows that undercapitalised charities struggle with cash flow, leading to cutbacks in preservation and upkeep, and gradual deterioration of historic collections.

Unless the Victory's trust is properly endowed from the outset, the transfer could deprive future generations of an excellent experience on board a unique and priceless national treasure. Nelson's flagship is currently among the best-presented historic vessels in the world. Whatever is decided, she must remain in the van of the UK's historic fleet.

Tycho,

Thanks for adding that additional insight.

Sylvia,

Of course you weren't comparing the two ships, and I shouldn't have done so either as they are so different. However, I cannot imagine that things will ever get so bad as to turn the Victory into a restaurant. Apart from anything else, the British people won't let it.

I do hope you will be able to visit her sometime. There is by the way a CD Rom available about the Victory, giving a virtual tour. I haven't yet seen it (its unfortunately PC and we have Mac) but have heard its very good.

Kester

I was wrong when I said that those who handed over their properties to the care of the National Trust had no input over decisions about what happened to it afterwards. In an interview in yesterday's Times, Adam Nicholson (who wrote an excellent book, 'Men of Honour' about Nelson's navy) whose family handed over Sissinghurst to the NT, points out some of the difficulties encountered by a 'resident donor', as a former owner still living in the property is called. Of course, the comparison between the navy as 'resident donors' of Victory and a private family of an historic house is not exact, nevertheless, AN's comments are interesting:

'The term that the Trust uses [for former owners] is 'resident donor'. Even the phrase reveals the awkwardness, as if one were living in a body whose heart had been given away. It's your home, but somebody else's business, a place that is yours emotionally, but very far from being yours in terms of who owns it, runs it, pays for it, works at it and conceives of its future.

It doesn't take much to imagine this relationship going wrong, but it is also perfectly possible to make it go right.'

It is clear that AN has managed to exercise some control over Sissinghurst's future, but 'the Navy' and/or 'the government' could find themselves in a very difficult position if they claim to maintain ownership of Victory yet hand over the care and/or funding to another body.

I don't think it's necessarily that difficult to balance naval ownership with day to day running by another agency. The government, and indeed the MOD, is used to negotiating such shared agreements.

Edinburgh Castle, for example, is a British Army garrison, but decisions over restoration and maintenance, and management of visitors, is undertaken by Historic Scotland (the Scottish counterpart of English Heritage). There is a clear understanding of who controls what, and everything runs pretty smoothly (although I confess that once, as a HS steward, I did have a stand up row with a military policeman about where he wished to park his car...). The esplanade, during visiting hours, is the responsibility of HS, but becomes an official military parade ground under the supervision of the Army on the hour, every hour, for the changing of the guard!

Also, the Byzantine arrangements of government finance can often mean that moving something to a non-departmental or non-governmental body can save money without actually resulting in less money being spent because there are fewer restrictions on how they can be funded and how they can raise and spend money. I can't give you chapter and verse because I was never an expert on government finance, thankfully.

In other words, I wouldn't panic - I shouldn't imagine the Navy would relinquish control of what happens to the Victory.