| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
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.
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 be 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.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page