UNITED KINGDOM MARITIME COLLECTIONS STRATEGY

Notes of the Meeting held at the National Maritime Museum
25 September 2002

Attendees: Roy Clare, Margarette Lincoln, Janet Owen, Bill Ferris, Richard Holdsworth, Peter Cowling, David Penn, David Thompson, Matthew Tanner, Robert McWilliams.

Apologies: Tim Boon, Ian Whitehead, Tony Tibbles, John Edwards, Charles Payton.

Updates

Minutes of the last meeting: No matters arising.

UKMCS Website:
ML reported that the site was more accessible, and passwords were no longer necessary. More information was still needed for the site. MT enquired if there were live links to member museum websites. ML replied that such links could be added, and web addresses should be sent to NMM. The merger of NMM websites, and installation of a CMS was proving to be a long and laborious procedure, but the new site will be very good. The UKMCS now has a new home page.
DT mentioned Stockholm, which has an EEC-funded knowledge partnership for shipbuilding. The ongoing website provides database, reports, and pictures of ship restoration, and has proved valuable for the exchange of information and the dissemination of knowledge.

MA Conference Presentation:
At the Museums Association Conference, (19.09.02), ML convened a session on National-Regional Exchanges. RH had given a presentation on the UKMCS to approximately 40 people. The audience was wide-ranging, and had expressed a great deal of interest.

There had also been a presentation on Port Cities, a NOF-funded NMM project. Regional partners include Bristol, Southampton, Hartlepool, and Liverpool. Other regional port cities (especially in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland) were encouraged to hook into later stages of the Port Cities Project, which might act as a cross-sectoral ‘envelope’ for UKMCS.
RC commented that the UKMCS was a powerful tool to ensure Treasury support. Therefore it is has a dual purpose: the exchange of information, and to gain political leverage – both very important.
RH noted that the UKMCS/MCG was an excellent link, offering non-hierarchical partnerships.

MCG Report:
MT reported a successful meeting at Ulster. Key points:

a) The European Maritime Heritage Commission’s legal agreement for historic ships has been agreed, (‘Barcelona Charter’)
b) The breaking down of barriers – one enclave
c) The National Trust, seen as a ‘sleeping giant’ in the maritime sector
d) Manual of Curatorship: This had been delayed, due to printing problems. Copies should be obtainable by the next Curators’ group meeting in November
e) Touring Exhibitions report (Catherine Walker): discussed later
f) Charles Payton gave a short presentation on the Mary Rose Trust. RC commented on a new enthusiasm at the Trust; there was an interesting proposal for the Navy to release more land on the site, and possible uses for this could result in a marina, shops, etc.
g) The ticketing income at Chatham Dockyard was working successfully. RC commented that practical, but not financial, help had been offered.

MT raised the issue of how the UKMCS/MCG relationship could progress?
RC replied that the NHSC were maintaining close links. UKMCS and Historic Ships require money from English Heritage in developing a registry. The situation requires as little fractionalisation as possible. For example, the NMM are supporting the Cutty Sark – offering advice and expertise.

UKMCS and Collections Storage:
RC reported on the possible launch of a project to create a ship model centre at Chatham. A feasibility study is currently being undertaken, and the report is due in the autumn. The idea had been well received by the media. A strategy for ship models was essential, within a tiered collections storage solution, and Wroughton (owned by the Science Museum), could be a possible storage site and visitor centre. Angela Doane has recently been appointed Head of Collections at NMM, and she will administer collection/storage issues.
ML reported that an NMM Collections strategy was being developed, and that a Collections Informal Sub-Committee of trustees had met recently. The UKMCS will be fully informed of strategy as it developed.
BF commented that it was questionable as to whether Wroughton was the ‘Eden’ of the Science Museum.
RC replied that there would always be proposals for new museums, and mentioned the Colchester scheme, which involved the repair of Thames barges, and the Maritime Heritage area in Hartlepool. The preferred approach would be not to think of reasons to open new museums.

DISCUSSION

Gateway Museums:
JO referred to the letters that had been distributed to the committee. So far, replies from potential hubs had been encouraging. A discussion will take place at the MCG meeting in November on the way forward. The principles involved in ‘Gateway Museums’ had been outlined in the paper, also distributed.
RH commented that a regional hub strategy revision might be necessary, given funding issues, though overall this scheme was good. Would ‘Renaissance’ produce funding? Some schemes would go ahead anyway, without financial aid. Hubs would not be established until funding had been realised.
RC replied that Re:source were already fielding Minister’s questions over funding ‘Renaissance’, or maintaining free entry to museums. The coming together of regions and people is heartening, but there will also be high expectations from the national museums.
MT commented that the Southwest had not yet responded, nor made any commitment.
RH noted that in reality, we do not have the capacity to discuss strategy until plans for regional hubs had definitely materialised.
RC suggested that those who had not yet replied, should be approached again. Liaison should be an ongoing development, as should the UKMCS website. Once decisions have been finalised, we need to focus on future actions.
JO Spoke of the need for a headline viewpoint of what role these museums will encompass. We first need to hold discussions with Gateway museums. It is possible that the 5 key areas (see paper) will need revising.
DP expressed the opinion that the whole structure must become a co-operative, and not appear to be merely a help line. It must be seen as a major initiative.
RH suggested using the paper as a discussion base. It was important to maintain a good relationship between the national and regional museums, but also bear in mind that museum staff are already inundated with work – the hubs even more so. We need to wait until we hear what is forthcoming, financially, from the government. This may well be limiting to plans and activities, but it is not advisable to try and identify what may happen.
DT spoke of the need to use active words – ‘leadership’, ‘mentoring’, rather than simply ‘liaising’.
RC agreed with PC that each region was different and needed treating as such.
RH made the point that regional agencies in England would have different assessments. UKMCS must not give the impression that they are imposing their will on everyone. Hubs and UKMCS have distinct roles.
RC suggested adding one more heading to the 5 key areas: that of a Collections rubric on regional differences. Leadership issues, along with Collections audit and assessment, also need to be introduced to the paper.
ML asked how any Collections audit would interface with Cornucopia, etc.
It was agreed that this could be too problematic, and should not be attempted. The MCG would be meeting in November, and provide an update on these matters.

Touring exhibitions:
The funding aspect of this was discussed, (e.g. sponsorship), and the need for an Exhibitions Manager. Recruitment was proving to be a problem, as a cluster of skills are required for the post. The work involved in the forthcoming Elizabeth exhibition at NMM is preventing the secondment of a suitable candidate, and the work would prove more costly than a salary, if contracted out. The Corporate Development team would probably undertake sponsorship matters for touring exhibitions.
‘Skin Deep’ is to go to NMMC; the exhibition will then travel to Portugal, Spain, and Australia. Costings are being prepared, along with arrangements for a containerised exhibition space; this would allow the exhibition to be shown in areas that would not normally host a maritime exhibition.
RC and BF agreed to jointly meet the supplier of suitable containers.
The forthcoming exhibition on the work of William Hodge (2nd half of 2004) would be ideal for touring, but NMM would also encourage bids from other museums.

Marine environment outreach curator
ML explained that this suggested post emanated from the obvious need for a Touring Exhibitions Manager. There were opportunities for attracting sponsorship. RC added that the NMM’s marine environment initiative did not interfere with the Natural History Museum and their programmes.

Loans
ML reported that NMM’s target for loans is 80, (in 2002-3), and that the Museum expected to meet the target. Loans to other regional museums were being keenly pursued, but it was noted that international loans programmes were far more active than UK loans.
MT enquired if the new system had improved operations, and ML replied that it had made a significant improvement, resulting in a greater take-up for loans.
RC noted that this was quite a costly operation, but very important that it continues. Long-term loans would be discussed at MCG.

AOB
PC: announced that the official opening date for the paying public at NMMC will be 21 February 2003. Prior to this, NMMC plans to provide preview days during November, where invited groups can view the exhibits and provide feedback on their experience.
JO: UKMCS leaflets available for distribution to other organisations.
RC: There is a need to raise public awareness of UKMCS; the MCG are to consider the possibilities for re-naming the initiative. BF commented that ‘Maritime Collection’ did not provide an immediate identification.
RC announced the appointment of Glyn Wrench, a Master Mariner, who is now working in the Education & Interpretation department. He will be involved in Outreach work for schools, and the general public.
RC: Wherever you go in Britain, there is usually something of a maritime theme that can be visited. A fold-out promotional leaflet would be useful, though not actually in the form of a maritime trail. UKMCS now needs to reach the public. MT to place this matter on the MCG agenda.
RH expressed caution, as it would not be possible to put everything in one leaflet; it would probably be advisable to separate regional and national sites.
MT reported that a Cambridge-based website lists all maritime museums, and perhaps we could utilise the site for editing purposes.

RC reported briefly on the ICMM meeting that was held in Slovenia recently. The organisation has a new executive and this has signalled a new initiative. It was a good opportunity for networking, and it was evident that the British approach is regarded as very important. Interest was expressed in UKMCS, and it is possible that a presentation could be made at the next meeting.

DP informed the committee that Thames Water have four landing craft engines that they will give to any museum who wishes to collect them; they are currently stored at Hammersmith.

DT: on the EMH group conference in Helsinki on safety aspects when dealing with historic ships.

RC mentioned the appointment of Ian Whitehead, who is Keeper of Maritime History at Tyne & Wear Museums.

Date and purpose of next meeting: to be confirmed