HC Deb 10 July 1996 vol 281 cc544-52

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

12.9 am

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

Perhaps we could move into calmer waters and discuss—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker

Order. Members must leave the Chamber quietly. Business remains before the House. The hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate must be heard.

Mr. Townsend

I wish to discuss the subject of a future royal yacht. I last secured an Adjournment debate on the topic in December 1994. In 1980, I initiated a debate on the Queen's flight. I acknowledge that they are different matters, but there is a common starting point, which is that time is overtaking equipment in the royal service.

I begin on a critical note. Like many of my hon. Friends, I am appalled that the Government seem to be unwilling or unable to make up their mind on a future royal yacht. Pass the parcel is being played in Whitehall and basic decisions are not being taken. It has reached the stage at which some of us feel that the file has been put in the too difficult category and that Whitehall will fail to make up its mind this side of the general election. That would be shameful. Surely a Conservative Government can decide whether there should or should not be a royal yacht.

If plans for a future royal yacht have been abandoned, as has been suggested in several press reports, tonight is the time surely for the House to be so informed. To support my criticism, I remind the House that it was as long ago as 23 June 1994, 25 months ago, that the then Secretary of State for Defence made an announcement about the future of Britannia in a written answer. He promised then that a further statement would be made, but even after prompting it has still not been made.

The House will be familiar with the basic facts. Britannia was launched on the Clyde in 1953. It has travelled well over 1 million miles, serving as a secure residence in an age of international terrorism. It has provided a splendid setting for official entertainment, promoting in great style Britain's many and various commercial interests abroad.

During the Conservative leadership contest last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested a further refit. I discussed the matter with him this evening and that is still his view. A refit, however, would cost an estimated £17 million and would prolong Britannia's life for only another five years. We are told that she would need new engines and much new machinery. Even then, she would be difficult to maintain and expensive to run. Reluctantly, I must support the decision to decommission her next year. It would be interesting to know exactly when that will take place.

Let us take a moment to pay tribute to Britannia's past and present crews. Britannia has been an important national centre of excellence. Her crew has been composed, from the captain to the newest and most junior rating, of carefully selected, dedicated and highly professional individuals. We need to hear tonight of the detailed plans for a fine ship's company. I like to think that all members of it have been offered new jobs within the Royal Navy.

The Government correctly believe that after 1997 Britannia should serve a useful purpose while never again going to sea. I used my previous Adjournment debate to put forward strongly the idea that Britannia should be moored permanently off Erith in the London borough of Bexley. It would be a great attraction and would create interest and employment in an area of the borough that Bexley council is seeking to enhance.

Since my previous debate on this subject, Bexley council has created a first-class brochure that supports my suggestion and goes into further details. I thank the council for its most welcome support. I trust that the brochure has been drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Can he confirm that the Government are giving serious consideration to my proposal, which has much local support? Better still, will he back it?

Britannia has continued to be used for important occasions. Information can be found in paragraph 227 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996". Last month, the Prince of Wales sailed into Belfast aboard the royal yacht for a three-day visit to Northern Ireland, and the Queen Mother was on board off the south coast only a few days ago.

In Parliament, the maritime group, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), has taken a close and enthusiastic interest in the idea of a new royal yacht. In addition, an all-party royal yacht parliamentary group has been formed under the chairmanship of Lord Ashbourne, a former naval officer. Members of the group have called on the President of the Board of Trade, the Leader of the House of Lords and the Secretary of State for Defence. There has also been contact with a senior official in the royal household. Letters have been sent to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we are grateful for the encouragement of the British Exporters Association and the international maritime group in particular. In his reply, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed: the issue of a replacement is still under consideration. The Government is, however, well aware of the successful role played by Britannia in export promotion activities … and of the value placed on this by industry and commerce". The all-party royal yacht group is promoting what I regard a good, sensible and practical idea. Far from contemplating any form of royal frippery, we suggest that a new—probably smaller—royal yacht should be designed and built without further delay for export promotion. Royal duties would, in practice, be a secondary role. The Department of Trade and Industry—I welcome the Minister from that Department—should be the lead Department. I suggest that the reply should come from a Minister from the DTI. The Royal Navy, we believe, would wish to man such a royal yacht. By chance and skill, Britannia has produced an excellent working formula on which we should build, a key part of which is the panache that is based on the centuries-old tradition of the senior service.

The cost of a new royal yacht—it is early days to be suggesting a serious figure, but the papers have used the round sum of £80 million—should not be carried by the defence budget, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be pleased to know, because its purpose would not be defensive. It would have no defence capability. Unlike Britannia, it would not be designed to be used as a hospital ship. Times have changed, and I am not convinced that, today, there is a requirement in the Royal Navy for a hospital ship. I would welcome my hon. Friend's observations on that point.

It would be up to the Department of Trade and Industry to seek imaginative ways to fund the project. The private finance initiative is clearly one possibility, and we have discussed that. Private capital should and could be obtained. At least one serious industrialist has proposed a consortium of British business men, who should contribute £5 million each to funding for a new vessel. What progress has the DTI made in that direction?

This is no pipe dream. British Invisibles, a high-level organisation representing some of the heavy players in British and international finance, has stated: There is certainly evidence to show that Britannia has undoubtedly assisted in winning orders for Britain by attracting a top level audience of decision-makers who would not normally attend conferences at hotels". This afternoon, I received a fax from Keith Johnson, chairman of the British Exporters Association, in which he told me: Companies such as Rolls Royce Power, Balfour Beatty, British Aerospace, GEC-Alstholm, Siemens-Plessey and British Telecom have benefited from the prestigious arrival of Britannia in ports around the world to act as a focus of attention and flagship for British Capital Goods and Services. Surely those big names would be able to make some financial contribution to a vessel that could benefit them directly for many decades. Perhaps Prince Charles could launch a high-profile fund-raising appeal to persuade British industry and commerce to invest in a new vessel.

I appreciate the Treasury's current difficulties with public expenditure, but the financing of a new royal yacht whose primary task is export promotion should be placed in the proper context. As a nation, we must either export or face economic collapse. For UK Ltd., exporting is essential; thus, spending at least some public money to encourage exports makes good sense.

Rear-Admiral Rob Windward, Britannia's former admiral, has been reported as saying of the yacht: She more than pays for herself many times over". He should know. In 1994, he informed a Portsmouth audience that Britannia had helped to secure hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of business for Britain, compared with annual running costs of between £10 million and £12 million. A modern royal yacht should have considerably lower running costs.

It is worth repeating what was said by Henry Cato, a former United States ambassador in London, who in 1976 found himself the US chief of protocol, charged with preparing for the Queen's state visit to America. He wrote to one of my hon. Friends: 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. We are told that in the bowels of Whitehall—perhaps in the basement of the Cabinet offices—there are some officials looking into the future of the royal yacht. I trust that that quotation is pinned to their wall.

In a statement back in 1994, the Secretary of State for Defence 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. My hon. Friend may recall telling me in December 1994: 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."—[Official Report, 9 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 592] I have with me Britannia's programme for 1995. Royal duty days numbered only 36; it is clear that a high percentage of the time of a new royal yacht could be allocated to export promotion without causing problems to the royal household.

Incidentally, five of those royal duty days were taken up by the Queen's superbly successful visit to Simons Town, Cape Town and Durban. I recall unforgettable television pictures of the royal yacht slowly sailing into Cape Town harbour, and the excitement of the vast waiting crowd.

There can be no doubt that the Foreign Office appreciates and values the role of a royal yacht in projecting a favourable image of the United Kingdom abroad. It is something a little bit extra and special that Britain can still offer. One of the last major tasks to be performed by Britannia—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will take this further—will be to mark the handing over of Hong Kong to China next year.

Many shipbuilders will be seriously interested in building a new royal yacht, once Whitehall gives the green light. I have in mind companies such as Vickers Shipbuilders and Engineering, Harland and Wolff, Vosper Thornycroft and, you will be interested to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, Devonport Management Ltd.

The Government should opt for a vessel that would be a floating advertisement for the latest and best of British design, fashion, engineering and state-of-the-art technology. It would be a chance to remind our competitors not only of our centuries-old maritime traditions but of new, present-day shipbuilding abilities. British shipbuilding and shipping need all the support that they can get. I like to think that designing and constructing a new royal yacht would give a considerable boost to our most talented craftsmen and marine engineers. I hope that it will be a source of great pride to many people in these islands who are interested in ships, shipbuilding and life at sea.

My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that there is considerable support on the Conservative Benches for a new royal yacht that could vigorously support Britain's vital commercial interests overseas, particularly perhaps in the far east. I hope that he and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry will be able to accept the case that I have briefly outlined on behalf of the royal yacht parliamentary group and of many interested groups and individuals outside Parliament, who are in touch with us and who back our ideas.

Above all, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can expunge the unfortunate impression that, after 25 months of consultation and debate in Whitehall, the Government are still dithering. A decision is long overdue. I trust that the Government whom I support have the good sense and vision to make it a favourable one.

12.25 am
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames)

May I start by trying to assuage any feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) may have that the Government are dithering? This Government do not dither. We come forward at the appropriate time with what I hope will be the right decisions, but this is not an easy decision. It must be taken not lightly or, as the marriage ceremony says, wantonly, but with much careful thought and deliberation, and that is precisely the position.

I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that, as I told him when he informed me that he intended to raise the matter, I have nothing much more to add to what I said when we debated it on 9 December 1994, although I wholly endorse and share his anxiety that a conclusion should be reached as soon as possible. I acknowledge that, throughout the House and the country, there is keen interest and much debate on the royal yacht's future and a keen anxiety that the matter should be settled sensibly.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, on a subject in which he has taken a keen interest. To my intense sadness and great regret, I have not yet received the proposal from Bexley borough council. I am sure that it is an admirable proposal. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have probably seen and read it thoroughly as it would be of great interest to you, bearing in mind the fact that there may be the opportunity for a new build in Devonport. Sadly, however, my office has not been vouchsafed that great pleasure. If my hon. Friend would be kind enough to obtain from the borough council a copy of its admirable proposal, I assure him that it will receive the sort of attention that he would rightly expect from the office of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.

I feel a peculiar sense of déjà vu, as my hon. Friend and I, as I said, debated this subject on 9 December 1994. It is a pleasure to see present two keen royal yachtsmen from the Labour party—the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who is also a noted yachtsman. In Lewes, he has replaced my late and lamented friend the former Member for Eastbourne, who was known as the fisherman's friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes is known as the yachtsman's friend in that part of world.

I am pleased to debate this subject again at such an important time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath said, since that debate, interest in the royal yacht throughout the country and in the House has not waned. It is easy to understand why that should be so.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, Britannia has served this country with immense dignity and the highest distinction since she was launched by Her Majesty the Queen at John Brown and Company Ltd., Clydebank, over 40 years ago. In that time, she has travelled over a million miles and has undertaken hundreds of state visits, as well as visiting almost every accessible part of the United Kingdom. She has served with great dignity and distinction as a royal residence and as a setting for official entertainment by Her Majesty.

Britannia was seen at her best last year at the time of the VJ day celebrations. Moored by Tower bridge, she was the setting for a reception that was attended by, among others, veterans from every Commonwealth country. Britannia has long been associated with such events and with the projection of Britain's unique image abroad. But she also, of course, lends her extraordinary prestige to the promotion of British exports worldwide. However, I say respectfully to my hon. Friend that he allowed the balance between Britannia as a royal yacht and as a vehicle merely to act as a promoter of British exports to get rather out of kilter.

Since the debate to which I referred, the royal yacht has represented this country across the globe. She has taken part in immensely successful state visits to many countries, including South Africa, Germany, the United States and Canada. As my hon. Friend said, the Prince of Wales used her on a most successful visit to Northern Ireland a couple of weeks ago, and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother may be on board her now.

Britannia has also continued to support British exports. Since December 1994, she has hosted 18 sea days that were attended by representatives of financial and industrial institutions, all of which used her to promote the aims and interests of dozens of British companies. Tonight Britannia is in Amsterdam, where she will host another sea day. Although her programme for her final year has not yet been finalised, my hon. Friend may rest assured that it will be a phenomenally busy time for her.

As my hon. Friend is well aware, it was with extreme reluctance that we took the decision in 1994 that Britannia should be decommissioned next year. It would not have been sensible to run her on because although she is undeniably beautiful and beautifully maintained, she is now an elderly ship, built with 1940s technology, including steam-powered engines. She takes a great deal of manpower to maintain, with a ship's complement rather larger than that of the latest generation of Royal Navy frigates. All that consequently makes her difficult and expensive to run. A refit costing £17 million would have been required next year to keep her safe and seaworthy, and even that would have prolonged her life for only another five years.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames

I must press on.

Furthermore, from my viewpoint as a Defence Minister, Britannia has not had a defence role since 1992, when it was announced that we would no longer plan to use her as a hospital ship in time of war. When built, that was the purpose for which she was designed, although circumstances never allowed her to be deployed in that role. It was a symptom of her age and design that she was no longer considered suitable for the role, and there are no other defence roles that could easily be combined with a ship whose primary task is to represent Britain overseas.

The decision to decommission Britannia also reflected the fundamental change in the pattern of royal travel. In the early 1950s, long voyages were almost invariably made by liner and there was a real need for a royal yacht to enable Her Majesty to travel overseas. Of course, the world has changed greatly since then. In this age of jet travel, it is much more convenient and sensible for Her Majesty to travel by aeroplane to her destination and to join the yacht there. That is all the more important, given the very demanding royal schedule, which requires more and more to be packed into less and less time. Nowadays Her Majesty rarely uses the yacht as a method of transportation; it is used rather as a setting for state occasions.

Although the final decision to decommission Britannia was of course one for Ministers, Buckingham palace was carefully consulted in the process and Her Majesty made it clear that a royal yacht for the purposes of royal travel alone is not, in her opinion, necessary.

Bearing in mind Britannia's long and incredibly distinguished history, the Government considered very carefully the cost and manpower required to maintain her, given her lack of defence role and the changed requirements in royal travel. After careful consideration, it was decided that she should not undergo a refit in 1997, but should be decommissioned.

I should like to pay tribute to the superb work of the officers and men who have served aboard Britannia during her lifetime, especially those of the permanent royal yacht service. They are a very special company of men. Without their professionalism, dedication and brilliant skill for more than 40 years, the yacht could never have achieved the standards of excellence that have contributed so much to her success and made her unique in the world. The diversity of skills required has always been in the best traditions of the Royal Navy, and the future of the royal yacht service is rightly one of our key concerns.

Those men, once accepted, normally serve for the remainder of their career on board Britannia and, quite understandably, they are very attached to her. All yacht service personnel remaining in the Royal Navy in 1998 will transfer to general service and be given any necessary additional training. The yacht service will be disbanded once Britannia is decommissioned.

Not all the ship's complement are members of the permanent royal yacht service, and many of them are officers and men of the Royal Navy serving a single tour. They will follow their normal career pattern when they leave Britannia.

We are considering very carefully what will become of Britannia after she is decommissioned. We wish to find a way in which the yacht can continue to serve a useful purpose, even though she would no longer go to sea. Of course, that use would have to be in keeping with the dignity of her many years of service, and we are examining proposals.

I should like to express my thanks to all those who have offered many exciting and interesting ideas for Britannia, which have been received from towns and individuals across the country. We are still considering those proposals, and it would be improper of me to speculate on the outcome. I can assure the House that, of course, the Government will consult Her Majesty on what may happen to Britannia after 1997. Whatever the outcome, the Government could not let such a distinguished ship slip away without considering the case for a replacement. It is a finely balanced decision, because a new yacht of the style and grace that we all expect could not be procured cheaply.

Above all, hon. Members should remember that, whatever we procure, it will not be Britannia. While a modern-design ship built with modern materials and the latest technology would doubtless be more efficient, it would still be costly to maintain, and we would have to be sure that such expense could be justified.

Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath, have highlighted the export opportunities and inward investment that Britannia has brought to the United Kingdom. The Government are particularly conscious of the importance of that role, and it is a central element in our considerations about a replacement. I can say that we shall give very detailed thought to the issue of trade promotion.

There have been many eloquent pleas for a replacement yacht to be commissioned as a means of providing work for British shipyards, as my hon. Friend said. I can assure those who make such pleas that, should it be decided to build a new yacht, clearly it would be built in a British yard. I am quite confident that it would be a splendid showcase for all that is best of our technology. That is, however, putting the cart before the horse.

Many ideas have been suggested by members of the public on possible ways of funding, running and manning a vessel. They have included, for example, the possibility of funding the construction of the yacht with private finance. The idea of a joint royal yacht and sail training vessel has been suggested by a number of groups, most notably the Cadland committee. I should like to take this opportunity to commend all the individuals who made suggestions for their energy and imagination. The sail training option is one of those being considered.

I can assure my hon. Friend that since we last debated the issue, the Government have devoted a great deal of time and effort to exploring the possibilities. Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry are involved in the consideration of a possible new royal yacht. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also taken a close interest in the issue. The considerations are being supported by a Cabinet Office-led working group of officials from the relevant Departments.

The work continues. I hope that I have explained the range and complexity of the issues that must be resolved. Without the absolute need for a royal yacht for royal travel, which existed when Britannia was first commissioned, clearly the balance of arguments is much finer than it was 40 years ago. The Government must consider carefully whether the expense of a new yacht can be justified. I can assure hon. Members that a statement will be made in the House once a decision has been made.

Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this matter to the House's attention. I agree with him about the need to come to a conclusion as soon as we can, but it is a complex and difficult decision, and we must take our time to ensure that we get it right.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.