HL Deb 10 December 1996 vol 576 cc1055-74

10.3 p.m.

Lord Ashbourne rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements have been made to replace HMY "Britannia" when she is decommissioned in 1997.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad of this opportunity to debate the prospect of a successor to the present Royal Yacht, Her Majesty's yacht "Britannia". I must begin by thanking all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate, in particular my noble friend the Minister who will reply on behalf of the Government. I must declare an interest as the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Royal Yacht Group which was formed in July 1995 with a view to stimulating discussion on the future of the Royal Yacht in the hope of persuading Her Majesty's Government of the need to design and build a successor to "Britannia" for the dual roles of export promotion and royal duties.

We have spoken to and corresponded with a number of Cabinet Ministers with an interest in the yacht and have pointed out to them the merits of the vessel and the importance to the country of replacing the present yacht. Our secretary, Cyril Townsend (the Member for Bexleyheath) introduced adjournment debates in another place on 9th December 1994 and 10th July of this year. I am extremely grateful to him for those initiatives.

We see the Royal Yacht as a national yacht, which is both a status symbol for Britain and, indeed, a symbol of British excellence. There are not many things we do better than anyone else in the world, but ceremonial is one. Whether it is Trooping the Colour on Horseguards, the Lord Chancellor and Madam Speaker greeting a foreign head of state in the Royal Gallery or Westminster Hall, or the Royal Marines beating retreat on the Padang at Singapore, the precision and timing are superb. The Royal Yacht presents a wonderful opportunity to display these skills in the presence of the monarch and at prestige venues around the world. As head of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty is able to use the yacht as her mobile palace and visit her subjects around the globe.

When launching "Britannia" on the Clyde in 1953, Her Majesty observed, My father felt most strongly, as I do, that a yacht was a necessity, and not a luxury, for the head of our Great British Commonwealth, between whose countries the sea is no barrier, but the natural highway".

Henry Catto, US ambassador to the Court of St. James from 1989 to 1991, who in 1976 found himself US chief of protocol, charged with preparing for the Queen's State visit to America, wrote, I was literally besieged with people wanting invitations to the various functions on hoard. 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 had message to the world".

In 1993 in Bombay the Department of Trade and Industry and British Invisibles conducted a trade initiative on board "Britannia". This was the Indo-British partnership initiative, followed up by the Prime Minister's visit in 1992. During that visit, contracts worth £1.3 billion to Britain were signed. It was publicly agreed that those contracts would not have been signed in anything like the short time it took if it had not been for the presence of the Royal Yacht. That figure is in the public domain and is over 12 times the cost of building a new Royal Yacht. Or, put another way, at an annual running cost of, say, £10 million, is equivalent to running the new Royal Yacht for over 100 years. In 1994, Sir Robert Woodard, one time flag officer Royal Yachts, informed a Portsmouth audience that "Britannia" had helped Britain to secure hundreds of millions of pounds worth of business, compared with annual running costs of between £10 and £12 million.

The All-Party Royal Yacht Parliamentary Group takes the view that the Government should have a new Royal Yacht designed and built for the dual roles of export promotion and royal duties, and that it should ideally be largely funded by public money, broken down into payments by the various departments which benefit from her. Thus the main contributors might be the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with smaller contributions, where appropriate, from the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If Her Majesty wished to use the yacht privately, say for the Western Isles cruise which has historically taken place after Cowes each year, the Palace would be charged for those events. Thus one might end up with a vessel largely funded by public money, with a contribution from the Palace for non-governmental royal use, where appropriate.

If the Government can see the advantages of building a successor to the present yacht, but are not minded to raise the £80 million or so of public money to fund her, the necessary funding could be raised commercially, possibly on a private finance initiative or similar basis. Indeed the parliamentary maritime group has within the past few months submitted a scheme involving a bare boat charter. The money, we are informed, will be raised by a private consortium which would lease the yacht to Her Majesty's Government for a period of some 15 or 20 years. She would be manned by a Royal Navy crew and would fly the White Ensign like any other naval vessel. The taxpayer would be required to fund only, say, £5 million or £10 million per annum for 15 or 20 years, similar to a private finance initiative scheme.

We take the view that the Royal Yacht could and should be used much more in the commercial role, as determined by the President of the Board of Trade. We agree with the House of Commons Defence Committee which, in its seventh report dated 17th July 1996, states in paragraph 86: The withdrawal from service of HMY 'Britannia' will relieve the defence budget of a significant burden. In view of the important ceremonial, diplomatic and trade functions which will otherwise go by default, we recommend that an appropriate replacement vessel, flying the white ensign and manned by the Royal Navy, be built by a British shipyard by the year 2000".

The yacht's programme would require careful, long-term planning involving the Palace, the Ministry of Defence, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as well as the Department of Trade and Industry.

Our views are strongly supported by the British Exporters Association. Once people can see the Royal Family and Her Majesty's Government working together in tandem to boost British exports and stimulate inward investment, we feel that this is likely to raise the esteem in which Her Majesty and her family are held by the nation as a whole.

Perhaps I may share one letter from many hundreds about the Royal Yacht. It states: Britannia is the most beautiful yacht afloat. She doesn't just belong to the Queen but is the pride and joy of all Britons. Wherever she sails she takes a little bit of Britain with her. She is our shopwindow, our heritage—and we are losing too much of that already … Let the Queen keep Britannia".

The letter is signed by Hilda Liptrott, from Bolton in Lancashire. I merely share it, as one of many, from ordinary people who have caught the vision of what the Royal Yacht does and could continue to do even more effectively for Britain.

To return to one-time US Ambassador Catto. He wrote in the Daily Mail of 27th July 1994: I remember my farewell call on the Queen, as I left my post as Ambassador to the Court of St. James. We chatted about a number of things, Britannia included. Jokingly, I told her if the day ever came when there were parliamentary hearings to decide whether or not to build a new Britannia, I would be glad to come and testify. For a foreigner, I have had a unique experience with the grand old vessel. I know what she has done for Britain, and for the world for that matter. In a time of increasing public ugliness, of ethnic strife, of endless drabness, Britannia is a point of light and beauty, a symbol of British greatness, in which I, for one, am still a believer".

Have not the Government sat on the fence for long enough? They have repeatedly stated that all options are being considered, and that a decision will be made in due course. With a general election approaching, is it not timely that the Government should announce the findings of the Cabinet committee which has been considering the issue and say whether public money is to be used for this venture or whether private money should be raised? We feel that if this is handled sensitively, it could be a real vote winner, as well as a boost for the esteem in which the Royal Family is held.

I trust that the noble Lord the Minister will see that we are trying to help the Government, and that he will at least respond by announcing that the Government are in principle in favour of a new Royal Yacht provided that satisfactory funding arrangements can be made.

10.14 p.m.

Lord Charteris of Amisfield

My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest to the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, and agree with much of what he says.

I presume to take part in this debate because I have been fortunate enough to spend many weeks at sea in "Britannia", and have been able to experience at first hand the effect she has when she sails into any port in any part of the world wearing the Royal Standard.

The Royal Yacht is, and has been for 42 years, a priceless asset for this country, principally because she adds an extraordinary dimension to visits by the Queen to foreign or Commonwealth countries, something which is not enjoyed by any other head of state. The effect of "Britannia" is electric.

To understand the effect the yacht has, you need to be on board on a Sunday morning when "Britannia" passes through the Sydney Heads in Australia and sails up the harbour, trailing a thousand yachts behind her like a comet's tail. You should be with her sailing into Philadelphia for what the Americans called their Bicentennial; or in Brazil, in Salvador and Rio; or sailing down the Elbe from Hamburg after the Queen's first triumphant visit to Germany in 1964. I cannot speak with authority of recent years, of course, because I was not there, but my friends in the Household—old-time colleagues—assure me that it was as it has always been in South Africa and St. Petersburg. The old magic never fails.

Although "Britannia" was called a yacht for perfectly sound historical reasons, I think it was a pity that she was so called, because the name "yacht" gives a completely wrong impression. When you speak of a yacht nowadays, I think you conjure up pictures of hot, idle days in the Mediterranean, the popping of champagne corks, and illicit love affairs. I can assure you that that is simply not the form in HMY "Britannia". "Britannia" is a custom-built vessel designed to carry our Sovereign, who is also Queen of the Commonwealth, around the world as she does her business. The ship has first-class communications and the ability to lay on impressive ceremonial, to provide dinner for 50 and a reception for 250, things which are essential for a state visit, and also, incidentally, extremely useful when you are visiting places like Papua New Guinea or the New Hebrides.

And there is another thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said, through the years "Britannia" has more and more been used for the promotion of trade, providing a place where British businessmen can meet their opposite numbers in whatever country the ship visits. I have not the slightest doubt that in this way "Britannia" has earned very many millions of pounds for Britain.

I need hardly say that I hope very much indeed that Her Majesty's Government will decide to build a replacement. If by any chance those who are now on the Opposition Benches should come to power, I hope they will remember that "Britannia", that splendid national asset, was built by the Labour Government under Mr. Attlee, as Prime Minister. If the opportunity comes to them, I hope that they will do it again. I hope that the Government themselves build a new yacht or ship without allowing Barclays Bank or anyone else to do it. The ship should be able to do what "Britannia" has done for so many years; and she should be manned by the Royal Navy and fly the White Ensign.

10.20 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, we have heard from a former naval officer, the chairman of an expert group and from a former private secretary to Her Majesty with close relevant experience. It might be helpful now to hear how the problem seems to a layman watching Her Majesty's Government ask themselves whether they can afford a replacement for the Royal Yacht. I speak as a layman with some commercial interests and entirely on my own behalf.

I see the Royal Yacht as a ship with two functions, each of which benefits the other. I think most of us do so. "Britannia" is an efficient and well appointed trade centre and trade promotion centre. By operating out of that environment on overseas visits, Her Majesty reminds every newscaster, every reporter and every viewer and reader that she is the head of a modern trading state, offering opportunities to everyone prepared to do business with it. It is a superlative advertisement for UK plc.

"Britannia" is also an efficient and well appointed residence, available to the Queen in any country in the world with a usable harbour for the purpose of state visits. By inviting potential trading partners to meet them on board, British business organisations offer an inducement which many find it very hard indeed not to accept. That is a superlative advantage for UK plc. The combination of roles emphasises to those trading partners the importance which our Government and country accord to their success and therefore the success of the trading partners. Take away trade from those two functions and one is left with very little more than a very big state coach. Take away the Royal Standard from the maintop and one has nothing more than a very small office block. The first point to make, therefore, is that, whatever its other attractions, a replacement vessel that does not do both those things will do neither of them half as well.

I said that Her Majesty operates out of, rather than travels in, "Britannia" because travel is no longer a function of that vessel. Its function is to provide a highly effective centre of operations to use on arrival, a centre that is detached, secure and British staffed, providing an incomparable setting for diplomacy as well as trade. A string quartet in an ambassador's drawing room cannot hold a candle to the Royal Marines beating retreat floodlit at the dockside. Nor could one produce the phenomenal volume of contracts that my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, to whom I hasten to add my thanks for beginning this debate, referred to during the South African visit by flying the equivalent of Air Force 1 into Capetown or Johannesburg and leaving it within the perimeter fence. It also accords a fitting dignity to our Sovereign, one of our nation's greatest assets, and it adds materially to the respect in which in consequence our country is held abroad.

Such a resource is valuable but it is also expensive. It is cost that is bringing the ship's career to an end—not just the cost of refit but the cost of running the ship, which was designed when there was National Service, a large naval reserve and an urgent need to provide seagoing experience to as many hands as possible. The need, therefore, is for neither a refit nor a replica but for a new ship with the same high standards of accommodation, services and communications and heavily reduced manning costs.

That brings us not just to the capital cost but to paying for the running of the vessel. Plainly, its use by the head of state should be paid for by the state of which he is head. Clearly also the direct costs of commercial users should be paid for by them in expectation of the resultant profit. But the value of increased trade benefits the nation and will be returned, at least in part, out of taxes and excise.

To many of us, and therefore to many members of the public, it still seems that the exercise should be funded entirely by central government out of taxation. Whatever the source of funds, they must he efficiently used. The use of the ship must be subject to efficient planning and management structures, which must maximise its use and carefully integrate the diplomatic and commercial interests with Her Majesty's own exacting programme of work. The annual costs should be apportioned between departments—presumably with the Ministry of Defence in the lead—and ring-fenced against virement and cost-cutting rounds, not to permit inefficiency, but to avoid the greater inefficiency of aborted forward programmes. If there are to be outside funders, there can be an MoD agency to work with them on a contractual basis. If there is to be a civil list element at all, it should be sufficient only to ensure that Her Majesty's interest is formally protected in both planning and management stages.

So, commercially and diplomatically, Britain needs "Britannia"; so does Her Majesty's Government, who are sitting not on the fence but on the taffrail—and we know what lies on one side of that. "Britannia" is a piece of history. Her very name is emotive, a reminder of a noble past. To consign her now to the scrapyard with no successor nominated, just as the Government are straining every nerve to assure the country that Britain will not be subsumed into a grey Europe, but will remain vibrant, individual and itself, will surely be seriously inept. The question is not, can Her Majesty's Government afford to replace "Britannia"? It is, can they afford not to?

10.26 p.m.

Lord Amherst of Hackney

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, for raising this important question. The concept of the all-party yacht replacement committee is a fine one, but it would appear that we are not all toeing the party line. However, the aim is very much one that we all have in common.

I speak as somebody who has worked a lifetime in maritime London. I believe that the "Britannia" is immensely important to maritime London. When the "Britannia" was built in 1953, the British flag fleet was the third biggest fleet in the world. Now the British flag fleet is the 33rd biggest. Even this year, as your Lordships may be aware, Cunard and the QE2 went into Norwegian control and P & 0 transferred the management of its substantial container fleet to Holland.

Almost the last vestige of our once great maritime prowess is vested in the "Britannia". I should like the concept of rebuilding her to be thoroughly examined. Without doubt she has a silhouette that is the best-known of any ship in the world, with the possible exception of the QE2 which is no longer under British control. The "Britannia" and her shape are unique.

Nowadays one can find cruise liners which are over 40 years old, some in excess of 25, still trading. They have been rebuilt and rebuilt again to comply with fire and safety regulations; modernised for modern passengers' needs and they are still effective, still trading and still competitive. Surely it is possible to thoroughly refit, refurbish and revamp the "Britannia". We could give her conference and exhibition rooms; she could be totally re-engined, modernised and automated. Once again we would see that superbly beautiful shape, but as a 1997-98 built ship with perhaps another 40 years in front of her.

I find it inconceivable that one could combine the role of a Royal Yacht with a passenger cruise vessel. I do not believe that there would ever be the grandeur or the celebrity status on a, so to speak, combined yacht-cruise liner, because anyone would then know that they could go on that cruise liner by taking a Caribbean cruise. It would be as simple as that.

If it is not possible to rebuild and revamp "Britannia", then I would at least recommend that the Government should consider—and I believe certainly maritime London would be contributors—something that is original and unlikely to be confused with a small cruise liner or something built by an Arab potentate. It could be along the lines of the Cadland design of a square-rigger; very original, rather romantic, very much a ship for the nation and particularly a ship for the nation's youth.

My Lords, I should like to conclude with the thought that 1995 saw the Norwegian Royal Yacht grace Cowes Roads, and 1996 saw the Danish Royal Yacht grace Cowes Roads. Are we really going to be belittled by those magnificent and admirable, but numerically tiny, countries?

10.31 p.m.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, this is a timely debate. As from next July a 330 year-old tradition will be broken. For the first time we shall not have a Royal Yacht either in existence or building. Let us not lose heart. If we make an early decision we could have a successor to the Royal Yacht appearing at Greenwich in the year 2000. But it does require an early decision.

Unfortunately, we have the impression of governmental indecision. The Government have been accused of sitting on the fence. I sincerely hope that they have not sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered into their souls, as someone once said. I believe there is widespread public and commercial support for a successor. As already stated, the concept stands up to hard-nosed assessment of the benefits to both commerce and national prestige.

It is not a royal plaything. As my noble friend Lord Ashbourne said, the contribution of "Britannia" to our export performance is difficult to assess. It has been put at £2 million for an investment of £12 million a year, which surely justifies the support which the British Exporters Association gives to the idea.

Furthermore, there are indication of generous gifts being available which might very well support something like half of the £80 million which is generally accepted as the ballpark figure for a suitable successor. But industry and the City are looking for a lead from government. Lest the Minister should say, "I am terribly sorry, it is a great idea, but we do not have any money", let me make the point, which I think my noble friend Lord Ashbourne has already made, that there is no need to find the upfront capital. This could be made into a bankable proposition if the Government were prepared to commit themselves to using the yacht, on a charter basis, for around 40 days a year. If that cost £2 million, £3 million, £4 million or £5 million, it should not be overlooked that £1 million would be saved in what might be called the alternative hotel costs. There is also the other advantage, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others referred, of the sheer ambience that the yacht brings with it.

Critical to reducing the cost of royal or government usage of the yacht is keeping her gainfully employed. At the moment "Britannia" spends around six months a year tied up alongside the wall in Portsmouth. That is no way to treat a valuable asset. In that regard, I pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst. It is here that the concept of the Royal Sail Training Ship impacts. I have been associated with that, although I hasten to add that I have no pecuniary interest to declare. This was an idea of Maldwin Drummond, who at the time was the Commodore of the Royal Yacht Squadron. Of course royal duties would always have to take precedence, but the Cadland concept is that one would have a university of the sail training world turning out 3,000 Queen's cadets a year, thus involving youth in the promotion of the country's interests and looking after our interests abroad.

There would be other advantages. The presence of a tall ship would capture public attention, the "green" idea of sails fits with the Rio conference of 1992, the nature of the work is character forming, and the sails offer stability and distinction from other super yachts. This is no tea-clipper dinosaur.

I should like to refer to the technical capabilities of the boat but I am running out of time. I merely say that this is not a definitive proposal, but I hope it is an illustration of what might be done. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government will look at all these suggestions before, for preference, Christmas; if not, we shall give them another chance by having a Royal Yacht stand at the Boat Show at Earl's Court in January.

10.38 p.m.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ashbourne for introducing this debate and thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I strongly support the principle of having a Royal Yacht, roughly as described by my noble friend Lord Ashbourne. I shall not go into the varieties but on the whole I am against the sail training solution. We want something like the "Britannia" but a modern vessel. I should not have thought it worth trying to preserve "Britannia" into the indefinite future. She is such an old ship now that there really is a need for something new. It is important that the country as a whole, and the Government and their officials in particular, not to mention the Navy, appreciate the importance of this vessel to a whole range of people who do not make themselves as well known as they could do.

I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Ashbourne quote from the letters that he had received. What the vessel represents among other things is a demonstration of respect for Her Majesty the Queen. I very much fear that there has been a lot of thinking along the lines that, "We cannot afford to keep "Britannia" going for another couple of years until 2002 when the Queen will have been on the throne for 50 years and because the odd few million pounds have to be found" and not enough listening to the engineering department of the ship which says that it can keep it going much more efficiently than is credited by officials ashore.

There is a great lack of respect for this vessel and for the monarch of this country. There is a lack of respect for this country, what it stands for, what it has been and what it looks like if one is abroad. I have not been abroad very much recently, but when I do go I always find that people respect this country much more than the few characters who sit around in Whitehall and Westminster. It is sad. It is important that we have a vessel roughly like "Britannia", certainly for trading purposes. I agree that six months in the year is not really enough. I am sure that there are other things that can be done both for royal people as well as for trading.

More importantly, we should have a vessel which provides a home and a base, as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, described so eloquently. If only his contribution were more widely spread. I hope that all the newspapers will pick it up in a big way. We really need a home and a base for Her Majesty the Queen and other royal persons when they are officially going abroad. We need to respect their need for such a facility.

I shall touch on two other matters. Whatever size the vessel is in modern terms, it would need a much smaller ship's company which would be in the order of 120 or so people instead of 220. That would mean that out of the total strength of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines of, I believe, around 40,000—they have been squeezed down and the figure may be lower—a ship's company of 120 people, most of whom are highly specialised for the task, would represent a tiny fraction of the charge on the Ministry of Defence.

The other factor is that one has heard—and I suspect that some naval officers have taken it too much to heart—that people have said, "The Treasury will do you out of a frigate if you have the Royal Yacht because they will cost roughly the same to build and run". That is not true, but that is the kind of thing which is said. That is tragic. This is not the moment to comment on it except in passing. We have far too few frigates and destroyers to do the duties that we have cast on ourselves over many years, including the immediate present. Therefore, the Royal Navy is very sensitive to this question.

It is quite wrong that anybody should not see this vessel as a tribute to the Queen's authority, and as a vessel which can be provided for Her service; which represents Her Government's and people's respect for Her and which, when it is not doing those things, can be used to expand trade in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said. We need to look at the matter from that point of view. During the past five or six years that I have been involved in this argument, I believe that the Government have behaved like a crowd of lily-livered ladies of ill-repute.

10.45 p.m.

Viscount Addison

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as treasurer of the All-Party Royal Yacht Parliamentary Group. As a yachtmaster, one of the most important tasks that I perform prior to passage-making is passage planning, which includes: knowledge of past weather and weather predictions; poring over charts; plotting a course; negotiating hazards; consulting tide tables and tidal streams; considering time at sea and options to take in the event of severe weather; checks of equipment and safety equipment; the ability of the crew; and notification of the coastguard (the authorities) before embarking on the passage. Fog must not cloud the issue. Careful planning in advance is of the essence. The option for "Britannia" and her replacement must be planned in much the same way.

We are barely three years away from a new century and a new millennium. Yet we must move with the times. A successor to "Britannia" should be a modern solution and a forward-looking one—one that demonstrates British excellence, design and craftsmanship, shows that Britain is again a leader in building the finest ships in the world, reinvigorates our maritime heritage and enhances national pride. In short, this should be a Britannic project.

Let us use this opportunity to promote British interests worldwide by building the Royal Family ships that set new standards in elegance and taste. As with the current Royal Yacht, these ships should be available to promote Britain throughout the world when not in use by the Royal Family. Both the British Exporters Association and British Invisibles are most keen to see a replacement and freely acknowledge the past benefit to British trade and industry from trade missions undertaken by "Britannia". But, as ships move slowly, distances are great and daily operating costs high. When not in use by the Royal Family or British exporters, these new ships should also be made available to the world's most discerning travelers: world opinion formers, the best potential buyers of British products.

I did say "ships". If we build two ships and base one in each of the eastern and western hemispheres we shall cut logistical costs, double the impact and produce key benefits for Britain. Our export industry will be able to carry out more overseas promotions in the most powerful of settings possible and at far lower cost. Our passenger shipbuilding industry will construct two of the finest ships in the world and re-establish its position in a market which has seen some 55 new ships ordered in the past three years alone. Leading shipbuilders are ready, willing and most certainly able. The revenue generated when not in Royal use means that the Royal Family can enjoy ships built to a higher standard than any other proposed solution, complete with helicopter pad and a specially-designed Royal tender for transport from ship to shore when at anchor. Naturally, the Royal apartments would be reserved exclusively for Royal use.

I propose that the ships should fly the Red Ensign, giving a much-needed boost to our Merchant Navy and providing opportunities for training new generations of British seafarers. There are precedents. For example, the Queen travelled around the world in 1952 on a merchant ship, "Gothic", and was accompanied by a rear admiral as flag officer. These ships would be entirely privately financed. British banks and other individuals and organisations are ready to provide the finance needed. Thus, there is no need for taxpayers' money for the construction, future necessary refits or refurbishment, or operating costs. The only public cost would arise in Royal use, and that is estimated to be no more than 15 per cent. of the current yacht's annual cost.

The ships will be an immense source of pride for Britain and a showcase for British excellence. In short, let us plan for the future and not live in the past. I commend the Britannic project to the House. I urge the Government to give this proposal immediate consideration and support.

10.49 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, like I am sure most people, I want to see another Royal Yacht to replace the present one. However, I believe that she must be powered by modern diesel engines, because that is by far the most economic method. In fact, I suggest that she burns the kind of oil as is used in the commercial ships which sail around the world.

Her Majesty's yacht "Britannia" was built in such a way as to be convertible into a hospital ship. That fact should be considered but, equally, she should be as flexible as possible in order to cover the important trade functions for which she will be needed. That too should definitely be borne in mind.

It has been suggested that the yacht should be made into a sailing vessel. I speak from my own experience as a naval seaman on one of the last commercial sailing ships—I admit, way back in 1947—in saying that the cost of the sails, rigging and so forth make such ships totally uneconomic.

This country's future lies in electronics, silicon chips and very sophisticated computer-ware. One of the great advantages of having a Royal Yacht is that such products can be displayed on board the ship, which will boost trade. That would be done almost on home base and would introduce the commercial side.

During the past 40 years all commercial ships have become bigger and therefore perhaps we should not rule out the idea of the replacement ship being bigger than the 5,000-tonne "Britannia". I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on the proposal. If they give it a boost I am sure that many of this country's important businesses will back it completely.

10.52 p.m.

The Earl of Effingham

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, for introducing this debate in your Lordships' Chamber. It is inconceivable that a replacement yacht should not be built. As a nation we excel at pomp, ceremony and showing the flag and "Britannia" has been a superb diplomat for Britain abroad. The impact as she enters harbour, dressed overall, is incredible and while overseas she is a wonderful flagship for tourism both outwards and into the UK.

The yacht has been a unique and potent advertisement for Britain, particularly in its trade mission role. From this comes contacts and even contracts, and it has been quoted widely that some £500 million-worth of export deals are clinched every year on her decks. A new ship, with strong commercial links, must be developed.

Foreign statesmen and business leaders enjoy the ambience of being entertained on the yacht and as a symbol of Britain's prestige, surely it cannot be bettered. The yacht costs £21,000 a day, or £7.7 million a year, to run and her fate was sealed when it was announced that she needed a £ l 7 million refit which the Government, at the time, were not prepared to approve.

Last year "Britannia", while representing a very secure base from where the monarch can fulfil her state functions, had Royal Family members on board for 22 days and spent a further 14 days on trade missions. But I am sure your Lordships are aware that she has to spend far greater time on passage, positioning herself worldwide to enable her to undertake these duties.

I believe also that the yacht provides a unique capability of hydrographic and oceanographic support and research on the lesser used navigational routes.

The Royal Yacht was not used in the Falklands because she was incompatible with the tasks and nature of the war and lacked a modern helicopter capability. But the "Britannia" was used very effectively for evacuating about 1,000 people from Aden in 1986.

I believe that a new Royal Yacht must have a significant and well-defined wartime role; for example, casualty reception, operating theatre, disaster relief and evacuation. Taxpayers would want to see money spent wisely. At least four serious proposals for a new vessel have been aired, from a sail training ship to a luxury cruise liner. Various consortia claim to be able to raise all the necessary funding. Doubtless a small contribution from the lottery would not go amiss.

I understand that an outline specification for a replacement yacht costing in the region of £80 million has been drawn up but awaits government approval. A new vessel is not an £80 million problem but an £80 million asset, a vision for the future. The immense value of the Royal Yacht is demonstrated by her forthcoming and final deployment and plans have been drawn up to send the "Britannia" on an extensive tour of the Far East in a combination of royal visits and trade missions. That will culminate in a visit to Hong Kong with the Prince of Wales for the hand over of the colony to China next July.

I have no doubt that the royal and commercial roles are of vital importance. Both are compatible and give a very good return for one's money. A new national vessel with a clear war-time role should not be just a Royal Yacht but a ship for the nation. I believe that she deserves ministerial support. Now is the time for her to be given a fair wind and I hope a political head of steam is building up for a decision on her replacement.

10.57 p.m.

Lord Monteagle of Brandon

My Lord, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Ashbourne for bringing this important topic to your Lordship's notice, and I should like to reiterate what he said. However, I fear that much of what I wanted to say has already been said by other noble Lords.

Two and a half years ago, I was lucky enough to be taken on a conducted tour of the "Britannia". It was a most memorable day which I shall never forget. From then on, I started to take an interest in the future of the yacht, particularly as just before my visit it was announced that she was due to be decommissioned in 1997. It seemed to me that the yacht has such tremendous style and charisma and is such a national asset that it would be a tragedy if she were allowed to disappear without trace.

Obviously with a ship of this age, there are a number of disadvantages and problems compared with more modern ships: because of her old-fashioned design, she needs a very large crew; she is not suitable to be used as a hospital ship; and I understand that all the food has to be manhandled up three flights of stairs. Those are just a few of the problems.

Therefore, it could be said that she is past her sell-by date and that considerable embarrassment would be caused if, for example, she were to break down or have a fire at sea. However, one of the options for her future is that it may be possible to refurbish and refit her to present day standards and incorporate modern technology and equipment. However, the consensus of opinion seems to be that that would be astronomically expensive and that even if that were done, at the end of the day her shelf life would not be very long.

Another option is that a new yacht should be built, and there the problems start. First, there is the cost and who should pay for her; what type and size she should be; how her usage could be shared by the Royal Family, business interests, export promotion and a host of others. However, the building of a new yacht would bring tremendous prestige and employment to whatever shipyard was chosen.

It is to my mind a very great pity that a certain section of opinion seems to think that the yacht is just a private gin palace of the Royal Family and that it has no other uses. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is used on many occasions to show the flag abroad, and every year there are a number of "sea days", as they are called, where receptions for businessmen are held.

On my visit to the yacht we were told that at a reception in Bombay in 1993 orders worth over £1 billion were given to British companies that evening. It is difficult to quantify exactly how much of that was attributable to "Britannia"; but I venture to suggest that if the reception had been held in a Bombay hotel, the result would not have been nearly so spectacular. What a new yacht may cost—and a figure has already been mentioned of approximately £80 million—pales into insignificance compared with the income that she could generate.

Since my visit to the yacht I have kept most of the relevant press cuttings from the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail. The majority opinion is that the yacht should be kept in some shape or form. I should also like to quote Mr. Henry Catto, whom my noble friend Lord Ashbourne mentioned. He was host at a state visit by the Queen to America in 1976. During the visit, "Britannia" was also used for commercial purposes. Mr. Catto says:

What the British did was, I thought, clever. The great ship was used as a floating promotion for British industry and never was that industry projected in a more glamorous or effective way". Mr. Catto goes on to say:

Why on earth would this symbol of Britain be put to rest. If she is too old and too expensive, for heaven's sake replace her with a 21st century ship, replete with good engineering and good design". A yachtsman serving on "Britannia" wrote in July this year:

We have so little to shout about these days, yet we attack the things that are unique to us, in the vain belief that their liquidation will result in hard cash. The total of such losses will always be far greater than any noticeable financial gain". There are numerous other letters and articles expressing the same sentiments; but there are far too many for me to mention here tonight.

I have no need to bore your Lordships with examples of waste or unnecessary use of public money and there is frequent evidence of this. I gather that the proposed millennium dome in London is expected to cost in the region of £360 million—enough to buy four new Britannias with something to spare! I would implore the Government to keep the question of replacing "Britannia" in perspective and make a positive decision without any further delay.

11.3 p.m.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

My Lords, I should like, first, to thank my noble friend Lord Ashbourne for initiating tonight's debate. It is now apparent that the current Royal Yacht "Britannia" needs to be replaced. Even if she were refurbished, she would be extremely expensive to run, having been built for a different age. However, it is most important that she has a dignified end—possibly, as a floating museum—but I personally feel that the best solution would be for her to be scrapped. Then there would be no question of her being exploited in the future.

Regarding a replacement, some very good ideas have been aired; but there are a number of points which need to be worked out, in particular the role of the Royal Navy in the enterprise especially if there is also to be the possibility of a passenger element.

In conclusion, the design of the new yacht should be a mix of the best of the old and the best of the new—plenty of teak, brass and leather with very little plastic and Formica. We do not want her appearance to resemble a giant speedboat as is the case with some of these modern yachts or cruise liners. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, mentioned the silhouette of the "Britannia", which is well known, so perhaps her replacement could represent something similar in that respect.

11.4 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am afraid that I may appear something of a spectre at what has been rather an emotional feast, but I echo the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, when I say that we must live in the future and not in the past. I think the future is something that we have to discuss.

This Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, is for the Ministry of Defence. I find it rather curious to see that the Ministry of Defence is involved in this particular enterprise. It could be, as I read in my Mail on Sunday, that Barclays Bank is prepared to put up all sorts of funds and underwrite all sorts of things for a replacement for the Royal Yacht. That would seem to me to be a Department of Trade and Industry question. I have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, that the Welsh Office might contribute some of the costs of the new Royal Yacht. I find that a rather bizarre suggestion. I have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, that this would be a vote winner for the Government if they agreed to spend money from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office; that is, taxpayers' money. Therefore I am, I am afraid, a little doubtful about the response that I can make to the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne.

It is perfectly clear, as many noble Lords have said, that the Royal Yacht is an export bonus. I do not think anyone who has been involved in exports would deny that. Personally I have never had the honour of being invited on the Royal Yacht, but then 55 million other people in this country have equally had the honour of not being invited on the Royal Yacht, and so I share that with the majority of the population. No doubt noble Lords opposite are invited the whole time, but I am afraid I am not. But I have no doubt that there is an export potential in the Royal Yacht, or in a Royal Yacht. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, was rather reticent in not quoting what he was reported as saying to the financial section of the Mail on Sunday; namely, that Barclays Bank was prepared to put up all the money and underwrite everything, and there would be an export potential and that would be absolutely fine and dandy. If that is the case, that is not a Ministry of Defence matter; it is a trade and industry matter. Noble Lords who have spoken have said this is important for exports. That is a trade and industry matter. I cannot for the life of me—I say this seriously to the noble Earl—see how a Royal Yacht in any conception that any noble Lord has put forward could be a matter of the defence of the United Kingdom. It obviously was not suitable for—

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, how about the defence of Her Majesty the Queen?

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, Her Majesty the Queen can probably look after herself.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, when Her Majesty goes on official visits I can understand that there is a requirement for a protection from the Ministry of Defence. That is perfectly obvious, but that is a small part of what the Royal Yacht, as I understand it, is about, unless the noble Earl can tell me that I am wrong. Where I have a difficulty is in perceiving this as a MoD matter rather than a DTI matter. I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl has to say.

11.10 p.m.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Ashbourne for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I know that the future of the Royal Yacht is a subject which he follows closely, not least through his membership of the All-Party Parliamentary Royal Yacht Group. I can assure him that he is joined by a great many others in Parliament and across the country, for barely a week goes by without press interest in the Royal Yacht's past, present and future.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, it is not exactly the major talking point in Middleton Street in Llandrindod Wells.

Earl Howe

My Lords, that is a matter for regret. I believe that interest in the Royal Yacht is fully deserved. Since "Britannia" was launched over 40 years ago, she has served Her Majesty and this country with the highest distinction. She has been all the things that noble Lords tonight have said that she is. In addition to her splendid service as a royal residence and setting for Her Majesty's official entertainment, she has lent her unique prestige to the promotion of British exports and trade across the world. These duties, including the undertaking of hundreds of state visits, have led her to travel over 1 million miles and visit almost every accessible part of the United Kingdom at least once. Her programme last year included a central role in the VJ day celebrations. Then, as ever, "Britannia" drew plaudits as a distinguished and graceful embodiment of all that is best about Britain.

It must, however, be recognised that the world has changed greatly since "Britannia" entered service. Unlike the 1950s, travel by sea is no longer the most practical and convenient way to undertake long journeys overseas. Indeed, the opposite is true. Technology has moved forward apace. "Britannia", measured against all reasonable yardsticks, is now an elderly ship. Her 1940s technology includes steam-powered engines, now rare in the Royal Navy. Her complement is larger than that of a modern Royal Navy frigate. The age of "Britannia" makes her difficult to maintain, and this means that she is an expensive vessel to run.

My noble friend Lord Strathcona bemoaned the fact that "Britannia" spends extended periods alongside in Portsmouth. I am afraid that there is no avoiding the fact that a vessel of her age requires such periods for maintenance and repair, to say nothing of the need to permit her crew their well-earned leave ashore.

"Britannia" was released from her defence role in 1992 when we concluded that she was no longer suitable for use as a hospital ship during wartime. Without a defence role, with ever-increasing upkeep costs, and with, frankly, more efficient means of royal travel available, we needed to take a long hard look at the future of "Britannia".

We began by estimating the cost of running her on and found that a £17 million refit would give her a mere five-year life extension—not, in our view, good value for money. We therefore decided with great sadness that "Britannia" should be decommissioned in 1997 at the natural end of her operational life. I am convinced that this decision was correct.

And what of her future, post-decommissioning? Clearly we need, if we can, to ensure that she continues to serve a useful purpose, reflecting her many years of distinguished service. It is too early to say what that might be, though we have received a number of proposals from both public and private bodies all over Britain for her future use. Most envisage the preservation of "Britannia" as a heritage attraction. However, I am aware that opinions vary about this. We have heard tonight the view that she should be scrapped. We are actively considering all options, but I can assure noble Lords that once a decision has been made a statement will he made in the House.

My noble friend Lord Ashbourne has asked specifically about the Government's arrangements for replacing "Britannia". Noble Lords will appreciate that this is a decision which cannot be arrived at lightly.

The Government are committed to securing value for money from the resources that we spend and we have to be absolutely convinced that there is a requirement for a replacement. These days, for example, the Royal Family rarely use "Britannia" as a means of transport, though state occasions do still take place aboard. With increasing pressures on the Royal diary, it usually makes more sense for Her Majesty the Queen to travel by air. Your Lordships will be aware that, when the announcement to decommission "Britannia" was made in 1994, Her Majesty made it known that she no longer believed that a Royal Yacht was required for the purposes of royal travel alone.

Let me be clear also that there is no defence requirement for a replacement Royal Yacht. "Britannia", when built, had a secondary task as a hospital ship in wartime, but circumstances never conspired to permit her to fulfil that role. After we decided in 1992 that she was no longer suitable for service as a Primary Casualty Receiving Ship, her primary tasks were representation of the United Kingdom overseas, provision of a setting for state occasions, and promotion of trade. These roles, rather than any defence tasks, provide the focus for the Government's deliberations on a replacement. If there is to be a replacement, my department will, of course be involved—for example, if it seems likely that the Royal Navy would crew the vessel—but defence by no means drives the requirement.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams, questioned the appropriateness of the running costs of "Britannia" falling to the defence budget at all. I can understand the point of view he has expressed. I have mentioned "Britannia's" erstwhile defence role as a reserve hospital ship, and largely we are looking at a historical carryover of practice from years gone by. Were there to be a replacement, and were there to be a Royal Naval crew, doubtless that element of the running costs would still fall to the defence budget.

Against these considerations we need to weigh very carefully the other purposes for which a yacht might be used. There is first the role a Royal Yacht can play in promoting British trade and industry. The success of "Britannia" in assisting British companies to win business overseas hardly needs repeating by me. Sea Days have been a highly valuable tool in enabling British businesses to meet potential overseas customers, and many important contracts have been signed on board, as noble Lords have mentioned. Though the contribution of "Britannia" to trade promotion is difficult to quantify, I have no doubt that a replacement Royal Yacht would continue to perform this well established function.

I touched a moment ago on the question of manning the Royal Yacht. I should like to take the opportunity offered by the debate to mention the first-rate contribution of those who serve aboard "Britannia", both members of the Permanent Royal Yacht Service and the Royal Naval officers and ratings. Their dedication and professionalism represent the best traditions of the Royal Navy and are the foundation of "Britannia's" unique standing and success. The Secretary of State for Defence has already made it clear that it would be difficult to envisage a new Royal Yacht without a Royal Navy crew. I would, however, stress again that no decisions have been taken and this issue must await the conclusion of our deliberations on whether a new yacht should be procured.

My noble friend took the Government to task for not having taken a decision yet. I hope I have explained that the range and complexity of the issues that need to be resolved before a judgment can be reached are considerable. Without the absolute need for a Royal Yacht for royal travel which existed when "Britannia" was first commissioned, the balance of arguments is a much finer one than it was 40 years ago, despite all the arguments advanced this evening, to which I have listened very carefully. As I have indicated, the Government need to consider carefully whether the expense of a new yacht can be justified on representational and trade promotion grounds. I can assure noble Lords that a statement will be made in the House once a decision has been taken.

The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney and my noble friend Lord Strathcona mentioned a possible training role for a new Royal Yacht. I was, of course, aware that the idea of a joint Royal Yacht and sail training vessel had been proposed. I am sure that noble Lords will be most familiar with the Cadland Committee proposal. The sail training option is one of a number under consideration by Ministers. But, as I said, no decision has been made on the question of a new Royal Yacht and, until such a decision is taken, it would be premature for me to comment on any particular design idea.

In fact, the Government have continued to receive many innovative proposals for the design and running of a new yacht. Some of these have mentioned—as did my noble friend Lord Addison—the possible use of private finance to fund the construction of the vessel. I have listened sympathetically to the pleas from other noble Lords that construction should be supported from public funds. The question of finance is one of the many issues being addressed by the Government in our consideration of a replacement. Other proposals combine the functions of a Royal Yacht with other roles. But this is a complex issue that demands detailed study. It would therefore be premature to venture an opinion either on the overall question of a replacement or on a particular option.

I hope I have given a fair summary of the complex and delicate issues before us. The future of the Royal Yacht is not a subject that this Government treat lightly. Decisions on both "Britannia" and a potential replacement for her will be taken only after careful consideration of all the options available to us. I can assure my noble friend Lord Ashbourne that the role of the Royal Yacht in trade and export promotion, on which noble Lords have placed particular emphasis this evening, will be a key consideration.

In conclusion, "Britannia" has served this country with great dignity for more than 40 years. I am convinced that we are right to decommission her next year and that our deliberations on her future, and on her replacement, will lead us to a way forward befitting the place of "Britannia" in the nation's affections.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he say whether he expects an announcement on the future replacement of "Britannia", if any, to take place before 1st May 1997?

Earl Howe

My Lords, I should like very much to give an indication to the House as to when a decision might be taken. Unfortunately, I think it would be somewhat rash of me to do so. These are very complex matters, as I indicated, and there are a great many government departments and Ministers looking at this question. While it might be desirable to do so, I can unfortunately give no promises.

House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.