Historic ships have been left high and dry by the draft Heritage Protection Bill

No other nation in the world owes more to its relationship with the sea than Britain. Our language, our social and cultural diversity, many of our institutions and much of our science, our colonial and post-colonial interactions, and more than 90 per cent of our modern trade are products of that relationship.

It is reasonable to expect that the future of our maritime patrimony in all its forms would be at the heart of the steps we take to protect our national heritage.

However, the draft Heritage Protection Bill which is due to be laid before parliament this session (see link 1 below) and which is to be welcomed in the main for the rationalisation it proposes for heritage protection in England and Wales, paints a different picture.

It is true that alongside historic buildings, landscapes and battlefields, the docks and quaysides, warehouses, breakwaters, lighthouses and other aspects of maritime infrastructure will be eligible to come within the new unified registration system envisaged in the legislation. So too will historic wrecks, both on the seabed and in the intertidal zone. But there is no mention of ships.

Historic ships have always been the bete noir of the heritage conservation world. In their ocean-going form they are the largest man-made structures designed to move, immersed in a severely corrosive environment, and with an average design life of 30 to 50 years. And of course, whatever their size, they have a tendency to sink.

It is instructive that in the main (with notable exceptions such as HMS Victory, HMS Belfast, Edmund Gardner and HMS Alliance) large ship projects in the UK have been taken on by charitable trusts without regular sources of public finance.

High-profile projects such as the Cutty Sark, ss Great Britain and the Mary Rose have secured their future through hard work and support from the Heritage Lottery Fund (which to its credit has funded ship projects of all sizes to a level of more than £94m) but that leaves many more still exposed, and (with two exceptions - Cutty Sark and City of Adelaide, which are Grade 1 listed) without any legislative protective framework.

Over the past year we have seen the demolition of HMS Handy, the start of the demolition of HMS Stalker, permission to demolish the paddle steamer Ryde, the likely loss of the incomparable "mini-liner" Manxman and failure by Consuta (a beautiful Thames steam launch) to secure a sustainable berth in Berkshire as she has no status in planning terms.

Permission has been granted to demolish the Grade 1 listed ship City of Adelaide as it is not deemed practicable to apply the conditions relating to listed buildings to this listed ship.

The recently published response by government to consultation on the draft bill recognises that there are outstanding issues on the protection of historic ships, but closes the door on inclusion in this bill.

Historic ships should be part of this legislation. The proposals for immediate protection for sites under threat, so that investigations can be carried out to review permanent protection, could save many ships which need breathing space to find a sustainable solution. HMS Stalker might well have been saved under such an arrangement.

At another level, static ships such as HMS Victory, ss Great Britain and permanently berthed ships such as HMS Warrior 1860 and HMS Belfast should be eligible for listing to gain the protective benefits that can bring. As to sunken vessels, can it be right that wrecked ships have more protection than those afloat? Should we sink the National Historic Fleet in order to be assured of its long-term protection?

Legislation for terrestrial heritage cannot be applied en bloc to ships. Many remain mobile and methods need to be developed to cope with this.

The draft bill needs to do four things. It should recognise the significance of historic vessels as crucial heritage assets; it should acknowledge the role of the advisory committee administering the National Register of Historic Vessels and the status of the National Historic Fleet; the provisions of the new act should be applied to static and permanently berthed vessels in the National Historic Fleet; and recognition should be given that further steps are needed to address the complexities associated with the protection of historic ships.

It is unrealistic to think that all the ships in the National Historic Fleet can be preserved for all time. But it is reasonable to expect them to have an equal footing in the debate about how we engage with protecting the many aspects of our past for future generations.

The Heritage Protection Bill must at least signal its intentions for historic ships, and pave the way for effective actions to be taken later. This is not the time to be turning a Nelsonic blind eye.

Martyn Heighton is the director and secretary to the advisory committee National Historic Ships.