§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
2.30 pm§ Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of the future of the royal yacht. Back in 1980, I had a similar debate about the Queen's flight: two different topics, but with a similar starting point—time has overtaken equipment in the royal service.
On 23 June, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an announcement about the future of Britannia in a written answer. It was short on answers, but posed some interesting and worthwhile questions. A further statement was promised, but has not yet been made. It is good of my hon. Friend the Minister to be present this afternoon, and the House hopes that he will use this opportunity to take the issue forward as it is a matter of considerable public interest.
The House will be familiar with the basic facts. Britannia was launched in 1953 on the Clyde and has travelled more than 1 million miles, serving as a secure royal residence in the age of international terrorism, providing a wonderful setting for official entertainment—she can host a reception for some 200 people and seat more than 50 around the dining table—and promoting this country's commercial interests abroad. Her last major refit was in 1987. A future refit, at an estimated £17 million, would be necessary in 1996–97, but we are told that this would prolong her life for only five years more. I understand that she would need new engines and, indeed, much new machinery. Even then, she would be difficult to maintain and very expensive to run. It has therefore been decided to decommission her in 1997.
There are those who think that Britannia should have the refit and not be decommissioned. They would like to see her given new engines, and the accommodation altered to allow more exhibition space. I must tell the House that I am not one of that number, as I believe that that would be allowing the heart to rule the head.
Britannia was originally designed to have an alternative function as a hospital ship. That concept was always put forward when her expense was criticised. Personally, I regret that she was never used in that role, and it is no longer practicable to do so. At the time of the conflict in the south Atlantic it turned out that she used the wrong type of fuel. The holiday liner Uganda was therefore used instead. However, the Britannia did rescue some British subjects trapped in the Yemen in 1986.
This is the moment to pay tribute to the Britannia's present and past crews. I am proud to have a cousin on board serving as a comparatively senior officer. Britannia has been a centre of excellence in a service renowned throughout the world for its skills and high standards. I lunched on board in 1991 when the British Council of Shipping took over the ship for a seminar. It was a memorable day in the pool of London—all was sparkle and style. From the admiral to the ratings, we were talking to carefully selected and dedicated individuals with many professional qualifications. There is tremendous enthusiasm in the Royal Navy to serve on such a ship.
Will the Minister tell us today about plans for the reduction and final removal of her present splendid ship's company, now down to some 220 sailors? May we also 589 be told what are the present guidelines governing the use of Britannia and the level of fees charged by the Ministry of Defence? I am told that Sir Robin Butler—the Cabinet Secretary, no less—chairs a commission to consider applications for her use. The ship certainly should not be made available free of charge for private or corporate functions at a time when, as we all know, the defence budget is under such strain.
Britannia has done Britain proud on countless visits abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has kindly given me permission to quote from a letter that he received from a former United States ambassador to the United Kingdom, Henry Cato. In 1976, that distinguished diplomat was the US chief of protocol, charged with preparing for the Queen's state visit to America. His letter said:
I was literally besieged with people wanting invitations to the various functions that were to be held on board. Corporate moguls would devise outlandish reasons as to why they should be invited; society matrons would throw themselves at me. In short, that ship was a superb tool for British industry and the British nation and to let her go and not replace her would be a great pity, sending a bad message to the world.Prudent Ministers could take heed of such comments.What should happen to that splendid ship after 1997? The Government believe that she should serve a useful purpose while never again going to sea. The bids are pouring in. I had a letter from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and as I have fine memories of his part of England I am happy to read out the key sentence:
I would like it to have a nice dignified retirement in Hartlepool where a maritime heritage centre and the new Imperial War museum are to be located.My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has been most active in this area. His constituency is very concerned about not having a royal yacht for Cowes week. He tells me that children have been raiding their piggy banks to buy the royal yacht for the Isle of Wight. The local council wants to use Britannia as a hotel, reception centre and museum—making her available, of course, for the royal family during Cowes week.Nearer to my neck of the woods, Greenwich council wants the Britannia to be moored permanently on the Thames for use as a museum or conference centre. However, Greenwich already has the fine old Cutty Sark, which is well worth a visit. There are plans to get visitors to London to go to see outer London and not just stay in inner London. Let Britannia therefore be moored permanently by Erith in the London borough of Bexley. She would be a wonderful attraction and would create much local interest and employment. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would note my suggestion and share his ideas with us.
The Government have now had five months to consider the question of whether to replace Britannia. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
The Queen has made it known that in the light of changes in the pattern of royal visits since the yacht was built, she does not consider a royal yacht to be necessary in future solely for the purposes of royal travel.Perhaps some weight should be given to the world "solely". In a week when the royal family has been the subject of considerable political debate inside and outside the House—including a colourful and over-the-top contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), a former diplomat—the 590 Queen's views are a reminder that the monarchy well understands the need carefully to scale down its size and scope and to evolve, to face better new national and international conditions and challenges.My noble Friend Lord Ashbourne wrote to me, after raising the subject in another place, to suggest that a new royal yacht should be designed and built, re-equipped for export promotion and royal duties. She could be funded by the Department of Trade and Industry, which could rent an admiral and crew from the Ministry of Defence. I agree with my noble Friend that the cost of a new yacht should not be borne by the defence budget, because her purpose would not be defensive and she would not have any defence capability.
I see no problem in Royal Navy personnel manning such a ship. The Merchant Navy would also be happy to take on such a responsibility, but we have a working formula and should keep to it. I imagine that a smaller crew would be required. At a time when Royal Navy destroyers, frigates and submarines have sadly been axed left, right and centre, such a vessel could provide valuable sea training and experience afloat.
My hon. Friend the Minister would be wise to announce today that he has decided that in future there will not be an admiral on the royal yacht. In the light of changing circumstances and roles, and bearing in mind that the yacht's crew is only 220 strong, I cannot believe that such an appointment is still justified. If an admiral is required on rare occasions for particular state visits, one could be despatched from elsewhere. In reality, the Queen is likely to use to the royal yacht only 20 days next year.
If some hon. Members still query the need for a royal yacht, primarily tasked for export promotion—as a country, we must export or face economic collapse—I draw attention to remarks by Britannia's present admiral, Rear Admiral Rob Windward, who was reported by a Portsmouth newspaper, The News, on 9 November as saying:
She more than pays for herself many times over.He told a Portsmouth audience that the royal yacht helped to secure hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of business for Britain, compared with annual running costs of £10 million to £12 million.The admiral is well placed to know the true position. During Britannia's recent visit to St. Petersburg, for instance, she was the venue for an event at which British bankers were put in touch with their Russian counterparts and a number of significant new business links will follow, to the great benefit of both countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir Keith Speed), chairman of the parliamentary maritime group, told me last night that he is fully behind placing an order for a new royal yacht for export promotion. I envisage private capital playing a major part. Sir Donald Gosling, chairman of National Car Parks—a young wartime signaller on HMS Leander—proposed in the summer that a consortium of British business men should contribute £5 million each to funding a new vessel. He has already pledged £5 million of his own considerable fortune. Management staff at Devonport dockyard, Plymouth's privatised royal naval facility, confirmed that they have held exploratory talks with Sir Donald, so that is not just a pipe dream.
Since its privatisation in 1987, Devonport has successfully attracted more than £40 million of yacht work, including the last big refit of Britannia. You, 591 Madam Deputy Speaker, will know better than I that it faces a severe shortage of orders for surface ship work after the blows of "Options for Change", and has recently announced 850 redundancies.
The project could have huge importance for the Plymouth area and its skilled work force. They have had a rough time and the Government owe them a measure of support. The Times reported Mr. Williams of Devonport Management Ltd. as saying:
Ideally, we would like to see a vessel that is a floating advertisement for the very best in British design, technology and engineering skills, as well as having the powerful draw of the Royal cachet. You will not achieve that by converting any old ferry.To summarise my case, I am asking the Government to announce without further delay that there will be a new royal yacht which will be primarily a selling machine for British exports, including our valuable defence exports.The new Britannia will become a symbol of our centuries-old maritime tradition, too often badly neglected by the Government, and of our own national pride. Visitors to her will see the latest and best of British design and fashion, British engineering and end-of-century advanced technology.The present Britannia initiated the idea of so-called "sea days" when she is left to British exporters while in foreign ports. Buckingham palace introduced the scheme partly to counter mounting criticism of the cost of the yacht. The scheme has proved to be a gigantic success and some big contracts have been signed on board the yacht, including a £1.5 billion agreement with India. The scheme has enormous potential, not least in the far east with the new south-east Asia tigers. It will allow us to take our products to them with a style and panache that they cannot yet emulate, for at its heart are the centuries-old traditions of the Royal Navy.
I ask today whether Whitehall has the agility and wisdom to sponsor such a proposal, involving as it does at least two Departments and their much-fought-over budgets. I trust that the comparatively new Minister, who has already demonstrated his interest in service traditions and who has personal links with the royal household, will give us an optimistic and far-sighted answer.
§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on securing this debate on a subject which has been a matter for a great deal of rumour and speculation. As he rightly says, it is certainly close to the hearts of many hon. Members as well as of people in the country at large.
As my hon. Friend knows, and as he rehearsed so clearly in his powerful speech, it is now more than 41 years since the sovereign launched Britannia at John Brown and Co Ltd., Clydebank. In the decades since then, the royal yacht has travelled the world, covering over 1 million miles and visiting more than 600 ports in some 135 different countries. She has been a powerful and graceful symbol of the dignity of the sovereign and the royal family, and therefore a potent image for Great Britain.
Throughout that period, Britannia made a visible and significant contribution to the country and to our image abroad, in her roles as a royal residence and as an 592 unmatched setting for official entertainment, and in the vigorous support of vital British commercial interests overseas that those roles allowed.
We should not forget that the yacht's genesis was in a different world. It was a world where passenger air travel was in its earliest stages of development, in those broader and I think better days when the British empire and Commonwealth stretched across the globe. In those days, test match teams toured the world not by jumbo jet, but by a stately and majestic liner, and the pace of life was a great deal slower. In those circumstances, it was clearly the special and different requirements of royal travel which dictated a royal yacht and brought into being the magnificent and beautiful vessel we know today.
The world has, sadly, become a smaller place, under the assault of the jet aircraft. An increasingly demanding and hectic royal schedule inevitably dictates that more and more be packed into less and less time, with a consequent increase in emphasis on flying to overseas engagements.
Britannia's age has, gradually, turned her into an almost unique vessel in the Royal Navy. Following the retirement of the last Leander class frigate, HMS Andromeda, at the end of November, she is, with HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, the last of that glorious and long line of steam-turbine powered ships in the Royal Navy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in July of this year an invitation to tender for replacement of those latter two ships, both 10 years younger than Britannia. When they leave the service of the Crown around the turn of the century, Britannia will be truly unique.
Given her age, and the amount of inevitably outdated equipment that she contains, Britannia is an expensive ship to run, costing about £10 million a year. We believe that, merely to keep Britannia safe and seaworthy for a further five years, a refit would be required in 1997 costing about £17 million.
With the change in the pattern of royal travel, Her Majesty did not believe such expenditure could be justified. That accorded with the view reached by Her Majesty's Ministers after the most careful, thorough and detailed consideration. Consequently, albeit reluctantly, a decision was taken to decommission the yacht in 1997. By continuing to run her until 1997, we shall gain maximum value for money from the £7.1 million that was spent during the docking and repair work undertaken in 1992.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath in paying tribute to the magnificent work of the officers and men of the permanent royal yacht service. Without their dedication and pride in such an admirable centre of excellence, the yacht could never have achieved so much in more than 40 years of golden and distinguished service.
Although never called upon to carry out her originally designed secondary role as a hospital ship, Britannia showed in 1986 that she could adapt readily to tasks other than her primary ones. The yacht, on her way to undertake a royal tour to New Zealand, was instructed to stand off Aden following the outbreak of fighting in South Yemen. She subsequently mounted a series of evacuations in and around Aden, taking off, as my hon. Friend for Bexleyheath rightly said, more than 1,000 people of many different nationalities.
However, Britannia will be, rightly and with great affection, best remembered for her ceremonial role—the beatings of retreat, the Commonwealth conferences, the 594 state visits and, less glamorously but every bit as importantly, her splendid and unique contribution to the trade promotion of Britain's interests. Those aspects of her life are leading us to study the best way forward when finally, in 1997, she lowers the white ensign for the last time.
One of the questions that is, of course, on everybody's minds—my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath asked this himself—is, what will become of Britannia when she is decommissioned? Until 1997, the yacht will continue a programme similar to that of previous years in support of the royal family's official commitments at home and abroad and of our commercial interests overseas.
On Britannia's future, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in his statement of 23 June that, once she has been decommissioned, we would seek to find a way to enable her to continue to serve a useful purpose, even though we would not envisage her going to sea. As I have already said, we believe that work costing about £17 million would be necessary in 1997 if she were to remain seaworthy for a further five years. Costs of that order, therefore, make a future sea-going role unlikely. We are, however, looking at a variety of proposals that we have received. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are very many such proposals.
Reaching a decision will not be a simple task. We shall need to assess the amount of work that might be necessary if she were to be preserved afloat in relation to that required if she were to be displayed in a dry dock. Any alterations that might be necessary to allow access to the public, while balancing the requirements of their comfort and safety, and, above all, the preservation of the fabric of the vessel, also need to be assessed.
These problems arise for the simplest of future uses, that of straightforward display, and before issues such as a possible location have been assessed. There have already been a number of bids in that respect, including the sensible and formidable one made by my hon. Friend for her to be moored at Erith, which we shall of course consider. Many of the arguments have been powerfully deployed and all need to be carefully assessed.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish us to rush into a decision; nor shall we do so. The announcement of the royal yacht's paying off, three year's before it will take place, gives us time to consider our options with care and a great deal of thought. That is what we intend to do.
While this consideration is under way, it would, of course, be improper of me to speculate on its outcome or the relative merits of any of the proposals, but I can assure the House, and my hon. Friend in particular, that a statement will be made in due course, once a decision has been reached. I am afraid that I cannot tell him when that might be. Of course, as well as all the issues being considered by the Cabinet, my hon. Friend will know that we shall be seeking Her Majesty's views on what should happen to Britannia after 1997.
As for a replacement for Britannia, I have made it clear that we greatly value not only her contribution over the decades, but that of her officers and men to Britain's image and commercial interests overseas in particular. I have also made clear the changed pattern of royal travel.
594 However, the considerable success of Britannia, to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention, in her trade promotion and representational roles—the latter seen to such glorious effect this year in her graceful and dignified participation in the D-day celebrations and the state visit to Russia—means that we are giving the most serious consideration to how these tasks might best be met in the future.
One option is, clearly, a replacement yacht, although we are considering alternatives. Many interesting ideas have been floated by members of the public, business organisations and, indeed, right hon. and hon. Members on possible ways to fund, run, and man a yacht and on a variety of potential secondary roles. I know that my hon. Friend has followed press speculation on the question of a replacement. All the ideas are very interesting, and before coming to a decision we shall give detailed consideration to all sensible proposals. However, to do so requires time and, contrary to press reports, I assure my hon. Friend that no decision has yet been reached.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, another important role played by the royal yacht has been to bring business to this country. That is something that we do not underestimate. Sea days involving Britannia have been a brilliant addition to our armoury for raising the profile of British industry and business abroad, and many important contracts have been signed on board. It is precisely because the Government realise the importance of trade promotion that we are considering how best to carry out that task in the future, once Britannia is no longer in service.
As well as considering the future of the yacht, I am also mindful of the need to give careful consideration to the future of the permanent royal yacht service. These men—some 111 ratings and Royal Marines who, once accepted, usually serve on board for the remainder of their careers—provide the support that the royal yacht needs to carry out its specialised functions. We are urgently considering their future.
The rest of the yacht's complement, made up of some 112 officers and men of the Royal Navy, most of whom serve a single tour of duty, would be expected to follow their planned career pattern at the end of their current tour or certainly by the time that the yacht pays off in 1997 I can confirm that the flag officer of the royal yacht is to be replaced on his retirement by a commodore. One of the reasons for announcing, three years in advance, the decision to pay off Britannia in 1997 was specifically that it allowed us to address properly the personnel issues.
I should like to express gratitude to my hon. Friend for the opportunity provided by the debate to put on record the Government's appreciation of the work which the royal yacht and her crew have performed in the past 40 years in the service of the Crown. Work to find her a dignified and fitting role once she has left service continues, and as I have already made clear, we will consider all sensible options. It is important that that work is not rushed, nor that hasty decisions are reached. I ask the House's indulgence in allowing our important deliberations to take their course. My hon. Friend can rest assured that, once decisions have been reached, a formal statement will be made.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.