Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5. Mr. Godman: What recent representations hehas received anent the future of the royal yachtBritannia. [16798]
9. Mr. Syms: If he will make a statement on the future of the royal yacht Britannia. [16802]
Mr. George Robertson: My Department has received a large number of approaches about Britannia's future. Seven substantive preservation proposals are being examined in detail. I should prefer the yacht to be preserved, providing that the use is fitting and that there can be adequate arrangements to ensure that her fine appearance can be maintained. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
Mr. Godman:
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has decided to ignore the suggestion, or request, from Buckingham palace that the vessel be scuttled or scrapped. Does he agree that neither London nor Leith has a legitimate claim on her and that, in all fairness, she should go to the Clyde, to be berthed at the Govan dry dock close to the proposed science park? The ship should not finish up at the bottom of the Atlantic; she should be returned to the Clyde, where she was built.
Mr. Robertson:
Buckingham palace has been kept closely informed of the options for the ship's future, and has made it clear that the decision should and will be taken by the Government. Britannia is regarded by most people as a national treasure. She has given 44 years of distinguished service to the Queen and the country. My preferred option is that the yacht should be preserved, but its use must be fitting and there must be adequate arrangements to maintain its appearance. All seven bids will be considered fairly and in detail, and we shall come to a conclusion in the near future.
Mr. Syms:
May I press the Secretary of State further? When will he come to the House with a decision?
Mr. Robertson:
It is critical that we look at each of the proposals in some detail. I am concerned to preserve Britannia, and to ensure that her dignity and long-term future are absolutely assured. I shall take no prior view of which option is best. They will all be considered on exactly the same basis, and I hope to be able to make a decision shortly.
Mrs. Gilroy:
The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has just issued a plea for the south coast. It will not surprise my right hon. Friend if I rise to make a plea, backed by the representations, which I know that he has received, for Plymouth. I ask not only that the vessel be preserved but that, by means of a private finance initiative, she is kept in use. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to that idea, along with the other representations that he has received.
Mr. Robertson:
I am not certain whether my hon. Friend made a slip of the tongue when she said Plymouth--perhaps she meant Portsmouth, as Plymouth has not entered a bid for consideration. We need to take a dispassionate and objective view of the proposals, and to consider all representations. I appreciate that there are strong views in each of the localities involved in the decision. They serve to underline the fact that there are strong feelings in the country that Britannia should be preserved. It is my responsibility to ensure that, if she is preserved, that is done in a way most fitting for the ship and for the country.
Mr. Hancock:
Most of my constituents will be delighted that the Secretary of State shares their opinion and not the opinion of the Princess Royal, which was that the ship should be scuttled. Indeed, they have made a strong case for Britannia to go to her natural home, in Portsmouth. However, if the ship is to be kept as a national treasure, I suggest that that can be done only if the Government keep some control over her by providing a dowry to ensure that the ship is restored in the way most people would expect her to be.
Mr. Robertson:
It has been made clear that there will be no call on public funds, but we must ascertain that in connection with any of the seven bids that are being considered. The Britannia will not be replaced or rebuilt; that decision is final. All the private finance options would have been viable only with substantial amounts of public money. I appreciate that, inevitably, the hon. Gentleman will favour the Portsmouth option, and it will be carefully considered among all the other options.
I look forward to being in Portsmouth next Thursday for the decommissioning of HMY Britannia.
6. Jacqui Smith:
If he will make a statement on the Government's plans for a defence diversification agency. [16799]
Mr. Spellar:
Our aim is to fulfil our manifesto commitment to facilitate the wider application of defence
Jacqui Smith:
I thank my hon. Friend for his assurance that this remains a priority, especially in the light of a survey of companies in my Redditch constituency with defence involvement, which suggested that, despite a reduction in their defence turnover, they believe that jobs could be preserved by defence diversification. What role will there be for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in the Government's plans for defence diversification? Will the Government learn from the experience of industries and other countries in that process?
Mr. Spellar:
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question of industries in her Redditch constituency, because many of those are the small and medium enterprises that are very much the core of our defence industry. Sometimes we concentrate too much on the prime contractors, to the exclusion of SMEs.
Obviously, I cannot go into all the details of the paper now but, in answer to my hon. Friend's question about the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, we shall consider how to diffuse the technology and expertise in the agency into the wider economy. We shall study the experience of many of the major companies in this country that have diversified some of their activities, and the example of other countries--not least the United States--and the successful work that they have undertaken in diffusing defence technology more widely into industry.
7. Mr. Pike:
What estimates his Department has made of the potential for disposal of its land and buildings over the next five years. [16800]
Mr. Spellar:
In addition to forecast receipts this year of £140 million, we expect to receive about £200 million over the next two years for land and buildings that have already been identified as surplus. The strategic defence review is examining vigorously the scope for further disposals.
Mr. Pike:
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can he assure me that the review is as vigorous as possible, to ensure both that every possible piece of land and building that can be disposed of in the new defence situation that we are facing can be sold and the money realised for the nation and that use of large parts of our land will not be blocked?
Mr. Spellar:
There has already been a considerable reduction in the defence estate. Further disposal will follow the identification of other areas. Of course we want to ensure that land and buildings are used to the maximum efficiency, not only to realise money for the defence budget but, quite properly, to ensure that land is available for regeneration and housing. Many local authorities are
Mr. Viggers:
Can the Minister give an undertaking that, when defence land is released, the broader range of issues will be taken into account? I think especially of land in my constituency at Royal Clarence yard, where the Ministry of Defence is proposing to retain nine and a half acres, which is central to the millennium project for the development of Portsmouth harbour. Will he ensure that the Ministry of Defence is given an assurance by Government generally that broader interests are taken into account?
Mr. Spellar:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We try to take regeneration issues into account and to work with local authorities and other planning agencies wherever possible, but in many cases we must retain sites for strategic defence interests. We should not consider alienating that land if it were to the detriment of training or of the operations of the services. We are mindful of the need for regeneration and the ability, through that, to contribute to the regeneration of the whole country.
Sir George Young:
Where land and buildings are surplus to the Department's requirements, will the Minister liaise closely with planning departments, such as those in Hampshire, to see whether the sites could be put to housing use, thereby reducing the threat of green-field development on which so many of his hon. Friends seem hellbent?
Mr. Spellar:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who perhaps strayed into one of his previous incarnations in asking that question; but I take his point. We try to work with planning authorities at an early stage. That is important because it can facilitate the disposal of land, which can then be brought into effective use for the benefit of the community--with, incidentally, the best possible return for the defence budget.
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |