| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 59:
The noble Earl said: I am sure that the Committee will be thankful that this is the last amendment but it is worth just a few words.
Again, this deals with what was described recently as a loose power. This is the commencement clause which provides that a number of the sections are to come into force:
I raised that point briefly on Second Reading. The Minister replied as usual by defending his intentions. With apologies to the noble Baroness, I do not wish to argue about the Minister's intentions. I accept entirely that he intends to bring this Act into force. But what is happening now is that the Minister or any subsequent Minister--and I assure the noble Baroness that I am not worrying about her intentions either but we never know what might happen in the future--could decide in circumstances which no one could now foresee that he did not want to bring this Act into force at all. Therefore, I should like there to be a terminus ante quem in this clause to say that this Act must be brought into force before a certain date.
In the amendment I have provided the date of 1st November 1997. The Minister said that he intends to bring the Act into force by October. If the Minister were to tell me that the amendment is too tightly drawn and that because a lot of what needs to be done is technical and might take longer, I should listen to that argument and come back on Report with a slightly more distant date which I hope would allow the Minister the necessary flexibility because I accept that there are cases in which flexibility is needed.
I want to have a firm date. If the Minister does not like this date, I should like to have another which suits him better. But I am not happy with leaving the situation open-ended. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure that the noble Baroness and I are both very grateful that the noble Earl has indicated that whatever happens at the next election, he is sure that whichever one of us stands here--and of course, I expect to stand here--he would obey. I notice that he did not explore the scenario that he might stand here.
Earl Russell: I thought that was implied in my tabling of the amendment by which I would expect to be bound, just like everyone else.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think we should leave that matter where it is and turn to the amendment. As the noble Earl pointed out, the amendment would place on the face of the Bill the fact that the scheme would have to come into force no later than 1st November 1997. The noble Earl has already accepted that I have indicated quite firmly that it is our intention that the reform scheme should come into force in October 1997. Clause 33 is a standard commencement clause. It will allow the Secretary of State to appoint a suitable date for implementation of the reformed scheme.
I believe that the noble Earl rather predicted my arguments. Nonetheless, I believe that they are valid. There could be difficulties in pinning a particular date for the implementation of the Act because, for reasons that I cannot foresee, difficulties could arise which might make it impossible to implement the scheme on the time-scale proposed--namely, 1st October next--whereas the noble Earl would tie me to 1st November 1997. If that were to happen, we would require further primary legislation in order to amend the commencement provision before the Act could be brought into force. Otherwise, the Government might be in breach of their statutory duty if they failed to implement before 1st November.
I appreciate the noble Earl's legitimate concerns about the implementation of the Bill; indeed, he has raised the issue on a number of previous occasions, although I do not believe that he has ever tabled such a tightly-worded amendment. With my assurance that it is our absolute and firm intention that the reform scheme should come into force in October and that any delays would be for the most exceptional reason, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I accept what the Minister said about the possibility of unexpected delays and obstacles. However, I am awfully sorry that he is not going to accept the temptation to think about a later date which might allow for such possibilities. I also accept what the Minister said as regards this being a standard commencement clause. But that is precisely what worries me. The Minister assumes throughout that the decisions will all be made in his office. Indeed, that has been his attitude about the regulation-making power and many other such matters. The idea that Parliament makes the law is very much on its last legs. I appreciate that there are difficulties in keeping it going, but I would miss it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
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
When launching "Britannia" on the Clyde in 1953, Her Majesty observed,
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,
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
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 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:
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:
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
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.
Page 15, line 43, at end insert--
("( ) Any day appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) shall be on or before 1st November 1997.").
"on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".
My attention was first drawn to that as a general issue by a memorandum submitted by Professor Sir William Wade which was quoted in the first report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in 1993. He drew attention to the open-ended commencement in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and pointed out that that was a potentially arbitrary power. In the light of what has happened to that Act since, those observations can only be regarded as prophetic.
10.3 p.m.
"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".
"I was literally besieged with people wanting invitations to the various functions 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".
"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".
"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".
"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".
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 be 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?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |