The upkeep of Britannia was funded from the UK's defense budget, with no other commonwealth country contributing to the cost. Some of the decision not to replace the royal yacht may have related to the Queen's advancing age and presumably lower propensity to travel by ship. That said, I'm told that cruises are the most popular amongst the aged population.
This link supposedly shows the decommissioning of Britannia, but I watched it for ages without coming to that. It's more like a scrap book that covers Prince Charles' life, interesting in itself if you want to see how a Prince lives. Save it for when you have a lot of spare time...
By the way, if you are ever really struggling to get to sleep and need some somnalent reading, you could do worse than to delve into the goings on at Parliament.
Actually, if it's on a topic that interests you there are some amazing things to be found on their website. I searched for the discussions around the fate of the royal yacht Britannia and found these (and about 70 other) selections. Check out how they speak to one another.
July 1994
Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the decision on the future of the Royal Yacht Britannia.Mr. Hanley : We are currently considering the future of the royal yacht Britannia following her decommissioning in 1997.
Mr. Winterton : Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, it adds little to what we know already. Does not he accept that the royal yacht Britannia is a floating trade ambassador for the United Kingdom ? It brings immense status to the UK wherever it goes and it brings great wealth to the economy of our country. Is not it important that the royal yacht Britannia is either completely refurbished and upgraded, or that a new royal yacht is produced for this country ? It is worth every penny that we spend on it.
Mr. Hanley : I agree with my hon. Friend's description of the royal yacht, but even he must recognise that it is now a very aged craft and that it would cost about £17 million to refit, which would extend its life by about only five years. I remind my hon. Friend that the royal yacht has a crew of 220 and that the crew even of a type 23 frigate is some 40 fewer. The costs involved, therefore, must be carefully considered. The royal yacht's trade promotion activities are a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry and they are without dispute. Her Majesty's foreign travel needs are a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This is an important matter and must be carefully considered in the months ahead.Mr. Mandelson : Does the Minister recall my letter to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence suggesting that the royal yacht Britannia should receive a comfortable and dignified retirement as befits her age in the new maritime heritage centre and marina at Hartlepool ? Is he aware that I have discussed the matter personally with Her Majesty the Queen who has expressed her interest in that ? Will the Minister confirm
Madam Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is proud, but he should not be divulging conversations that he has had with Her Majesty.
Mr. Mandelson : Is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's private secretary has graciously given me permission to disclose that information ? Will the Government, therefore, confirm that they will consider the option most positively ?
Mr. Hanley : If such are Her Majesty's instructions, I could do no less.
Madam Speaker : It is the Speaker of the House who rules here and not Her Majesty's private secretary.
Mr. Clifton-Brown : Bearing in mind the importance of the royal yacht Britannia to our trade promotion prospects, will my hon. Friend redouble his efforts in his discussion with his hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether some private finance from firms that are likely to benefit from exports could be brought in so that a new royal yacht Britannia could be commissioned ?
Mr. Hanley : I can say to my hon. Friend only that that is one of the matters that will be considered. The trade promotion activities of the royal yacht Britannia have been second to none. She has earned billions of pounds of contracts in travelling around the world and we must not lose sight of that. Exactly what the relevance is, however, to Her Majesty's transport needs around the world is a different subject.
5. Mr. Godman: What recent representations he has received aBout the future of the royal yachtBritannia.
9. Mr. Syms: If he will make a statement on the future of the royal yacht Britannia.
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.
[Whispering: I'm sure you're asleep by now, but thought I'd leave the rest just in case you wake up and need more help.]
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? The public are greatly concerned that the yacht's use should be appropriate. May I make a plea for the south coast--particularly for Portsmouth, which has a very good claim to have the yacht berthed there?
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.
Oct 1997
The royal yacht Britannia has a part to play in promoting not only defence sales but all British exports. I am very sorry that it has been dropped. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)--my former boss, to whom I was parliamentary private secretary--was far too gentle yesterday when he mentioned all the press reports on Sunday 3 August about how the Government were going to reinstate the royal yacht Britannia. The reports were designed to ensure that the Foreign Secretary's adultery with his secretary was driven off the front pages of the newspapers. It is no good the Under-Secretary shaking his head; he knows that that was why it was done.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the royal yacht. We have considered carefully what would be appropriate for Britannia after decommissioning. The Government do not believe that it is appropriate to sell her to a new owner for private use. She will not put to sea again, but we are interested in proposals for a suitably prestigious use for Britannia in the public interest in the United Kingdom. Such a scheme would need to take account of the plan to transfer royal fittings to the new yacht. Any proposals for Britannia would need to guarantee that the yacht would be kept in excellent condition. If that cannot be assured, it would be better to see her scrapped than to see her deteriorate.
Dr. David Clark (South Shields): I thank the Secretary of State for bringing the House this news, but we are disappointed that there has been no discussion whatever with the Opposition on the matter. As you know, Madam Speaker, it has been the convention that policy regarding Her Majesty is an all-party matter. Why was the Secretary of State not prepared to discuss the issue with the Opposition?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I miss a point or two. Part of his statement was drowned by laughter and I was not able to pick up every point, but I shall try to do my best.
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North): Why?
Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman does not realise why, he has simply learnt his lines and spouts them and no longer thinks--if he ever did. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall be calling hon. Members to put questions. Wait for it.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked how long it would take to build the yacht and when contracts would be let. I have told him that it should be in service in 2001 or 2002. It will take about two and a half years to build and the period up to the beginning of building will be taken up by deciding on the specification and by the competition.
Mr. Douglas Hurd (Witney): Is it not characteristic that new Labour should have announced its conversion to private finance on the wrong occasion? May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Government's decision, including the decision on finance, which seems to me entirely right? I accept entirely what my right hon. Friend says about the usefulness to British finance and industry of Britannia and her successor, but at the heart of the issue, is there not the deeper point that a royal yacht is the best way of enabling the sovereign of our country to remind us--and, indeed, the world--of the links between these islands and the sea, which are fundamental to our past and our present?
Mr. Portillo: Indeed. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are a maritime nation, a nation of traders, global thinkers and global doers. The royal yacht will help to emphasise all that and enable us to extend the hand of friendship and connection to our many allies and friends around the world. I am so pleased to have my right hon. Friend's support--not least for the funding, which is wholly appropriate to the dignity of the monarchy and the vessel that will support them in it.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East): I fear that the Secretary of State might be embarrassed by the amount of congratulation on his conversion to the virtues of public funding for such a matter. Does he share my disappointment that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), for whom I have the greatest respect, did not seem able to match his commitment? Is not the virtue of what the Secretary of State has proposed the fact that the vessel can assist Britain's economic and trade interests and provide dignified and often secure accommodation for the royal family while they fulfil their duties abroad? In view of the fact that the yacht's running costs are to be met from the defence budget, is it envisaged that the vessel should have any role in time of war?
Mr. Portillo: On the last point, it is not envisaged that the vessel should have any role in time of war. I cannot of course predict the future, but it is not expected that she will double as a hospital ship, for example, as was the plan with Britannia. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right that the vessel is secure accommodation for Her Majesty. She will be escorted and protected by the Royal Navy. It is an admirable way in which to protect our economic interests and to underline our ties with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth values the vessel as well as our own country.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight): May I thank my right hon. Friend for today's decision? It will mean much rejoicing in the Isle of Wight. Will he forgive me for mentioning pounds, shillings and pence? As the new royal yacht will play a bigger role in promoting Great Britain plc than Britannia, may I remind my right hon. Friend that the arrival of Britannia in Cowes week every year makes a substantial contribution to the Isle of Wight's economy? I would hope that I could hang on his words and that, perhaps, Britannia will sail on in UK waters beyond 1997. That would make a big difference to us on the island. Her arrival is very much treasured every year by my constituents.
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has been a notable and strong advocate of the replacement of the royal yacht and I can understand its impact on the Isle of Wight, as on all of us. However, I want this statement to be entirely straightforward and without ambiguity. We do not intend that Britannia should run on beyond the end of 1997. I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend on that; I want to make it perfectly clear that there will be a new royal yacht in 2001 or 2002.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West): It is hard to conceive of who has been more ill advised, the Government in offering the matter to the palace in an attempt to bring it into the political game, or the palace in making the mistake of accepting it.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): Unworthy!
Mr. Williams: I am allowed to make my point. Is it not a fact that, over the next three years, there will be unprecedented cuts in social services? I cannot understand a sense of priority that diverts £60 million more away from such services. Halving the running costs will still cost £10,000 a day. If the royal yacht is a symbol, it is one of extravagance and irrelevance.
Mr. Portillo: I found the right hon. Gentleman's comments ungenerous, inaccurate and wrong. It is entirely the Government's decision as to whether there is a royal yacht, and although we have informed Her Majesty, Her Majesty did not request this. Her Majesty's assent is not required in that sense. Her Majesty is pleased with the decision, but it is not a matter for her. Any blame to be attached should be attached to the Government only. The right hon. Gentleman is not right to bring Her Majesty's name into the matter, as he sought to do.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): Nowhere will my right hon. Friend's statement be more welcome than in Gosport, with its Navy connections and loyal traditions. May I ask further about the future of Britannia? Her home port has been Portsmouth and she has been berthed in Portsmouth harbour for many years. Nowhere would her future be more secure and more applauded than in Portsmouth harbour, as a centrepiece of the exciting millennium project there. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that suggestion will be given full consideration?
Mr. Portillo: Certainly it would be given consideration. I was in Portsmouth recently on HMS Victory, and I am aware of the marvellous heritage of the city and of the ships berthed there, which represent some of the maritime history of this nation. However, I must repeat the conditions that I made clear during my statement. The proposal must take account of the fact that at least some of the fittings will have been stripped out from Britannia. The yacht must have a prestigious use; it must be in the public interest; it must be in the United Kingdom; and we need a sponsor who can guarantee the excellence of her condition. I stress again that it would be distressing for all of us to see Britannia deteriorate--we would rather see her scrapped than deteriorate.
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): The present Britannia has made a valuable contribution to Britain's presence overseas, both diplomatically and commercially, and I have no doubt that the Government have made a good decision in ensuring that we have a worthy successor. May I particularly congratulate the Government on their conversion to the use of selective public sector purchase? May I ask the Secretary of State to give the assurance that the yacht will be built in a British shipyard? Will he make it absolutely clear that on no account will he allow the European Commission to insist upon open competition among European shipyards? Will he give a pledge that, even if Mr. van Miert refers him to the European Court of Justice, he will not allow the Commission to interfere and to get away with it?
Mr. Portillo: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the generous way in which he welcomed the statement. The yacht will be built in a British shipyard--for security reasons, the yacht should be built here. In any case, this will be a royal yacht and it is appropriate that it should be built in a British shipyard. If there were any challenge to that decision, I would defend it every inch of the way.
Mr. David Martin (Portsmouth, South): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about the existing royal yacht and its replacement, and I particularly welcome the fact that the yacht will continue to be crewed by the Royal Navy. Will he confirm that I will have his personal support for the proposal that the new royal yacht should be home based at Portsmouth, as the existing yacht has been for so many years?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has been generous in his welcome for the statement, and he has been a great advocate for today's decision--as many others who have spoken today have been. I ask him by all means to open his campaign today, but not to press me for a final decision on that--although I understand perfectly the strength of his claim.
Ms Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West): I certainly welcome a statement that will bring work to Britain's hard-pressed shipyards, which have suffered so severely from the cuts in the Government's defence expenditure. I should welcome the return of the Royal Yacht Britannia to the Clyde, where she was constructed so skilfully and ably many years ago. However, the Secretary of State should give the House more details on why it was decided to use public money for the capital costs of Britannia.
Mr. Portillo: On the last point, I repeat that it was because we thought that it was appropriate to the dignity of the monarchy. On the earlier points, if the hon. Lady is concerned about our hard-pressed shipyards, I would remind her that those at Barrow would not be building a fourth Trident boat if it were not for the fact that there was a Conservative victory at the previous general election.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): May I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend most warmly? Does he, however, accept that Britannia is part of this country's maritime heritage and that it would be as appropriate to maintain it at public expense, either as part of the complex at Portsmouth or at Greenwich, as to pay for the new yacht? Will he think carefully about that and about keeping Britannia in service until the new yacht is ready?
Mr. Portillo: I am glad that the statement pleased my hon. Friend, but it is a statement with firm edges. We do not intend to keep Britannia in service beyond the end of 1997, and we do not believe that it would be a suitable use of public funds overall to keep it as some kind of museum. Others may wish to make proposals for a public interest use of the yacht, and I dare say that those people could apply for funding in the usual way--to the national lottery, for example--but we do not intend to launch a Government initiative to keep Britannia in any particular form. The challenge to those who would come forward is clear: suggest a use that is prestigious and suitable and by all means apply for the funding that is available; but any proposal must keep Britannia in excellent condition.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Why did the Secretary of State, in responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), have to turn to insolence, pomposity and arrogance, knowing that out there in Britain, probably 30 or 40 per cent. of the people--it may be more--do not agree with the monarchy? Those views should be expressed in the House. The Prime Minister, on being elected, talked about a classless society.
Mr. Portillo: There is a language of priorities and there is a language of proportion. The hon. Gentleman has no sense of proportion. He equates the billions of pounds that we put into the health service and social security with a few million pounds that will be spent on this project over several years and which is, in any case, economically justified. There is more to it than economics. There is national esteem and pride, which he does not share or even understand. Some might think that he was arrogant in pontificating with such self-satisfaction and certainty about the views of 30 or 40 per cent. of the population. I criticised the right hon. Member for Swansea, West not for his views but because he blamed Her Majesty for a decision that was not hers.
Sir Keith Speed (Ashford): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the all-party maritime group, which I chair, welcomes this decision, for which we have campaigned for more than two years? The new yacht should not only be built in Britain, but contain the finest British marine technology, to show the rest of the world that we still lead in maritime affairs.
Mr. Portillo: Speaking from his position and with his background, my hon. Friend's approval is especially welcome. I emphasised in my statement that the ship will provide a showcase for British skills, engineering and design. That, too, will be of great benefit to our nation.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that most people throughout the country will warmly welcome this statement? Does he accept from me that most people throughout this country very much appreciate the services rendered by Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Charles to Britain? Does he not agree with me that the Carlton TV programme was a load of unutterable rubbish and totally unrepresentative of British public feeling? [Interruption.] I will be heard. Does he not finally agree that very few people in this country want to see a series of political presidents?
Mr. Portillo: If I may add to that, very few people in this country want to see a brave Labour Member who speaks up for the monarchy being barracked by his colleagues in the way that the hon. Gentleman was. I appreciate his remarks. Apart from their feelings about the monarchy, many people will look forward to the 400 or 500 jobs that I estimate will be created by the contract. As was said by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), who has left the Chamber, the shipyards will welcome the work.
Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): Does my right hon. Friend accept that, with the exception of a few Opposition Members, the nation will warmly applaud the Government's decision? Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family will be able to visit the Commonwealth and other nations in a royal yacht that is fit to show the fine maritime heritage of this country. Could he say a little more about the design of the yacht? May I hazard the thought that, after free competition, and bearing it in mind that Britannia was built on the Clyde, the new royal yacht might also be built there?
Mr. Portillo: Certainly, the Clyde would be a candidate, but there must be a competition and a specification. In welcoming my right hon. Friend's remarks, I must make it clear that the new yacht's specification will be different from that of Britannia. In those days, the designers envisaged that the royal family would travel long distances on board. Today, they travel by air and use the yacht as a residence. Modern technology will allow lower running costs and a smaller crew. There will be substantial differences, but some important things will stay the same. The yacht must be prestigious. It must carry status. It must have royal apartments and state rooms that are suitable. It must create a great impression when people visit it, as something special, something remarkable, and something uniquely British.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): May I, on behalf of not only my party but well over 1 million people in Northern Ireland, warmly welcome the statement? Even 77 years after the Republic separated from the kingdom, there are those in the Republic who still have royal yacht clubs and other titles because they, too, are royalists. May I express the hope that when the time comes for the competition, Harland will be one of the bidders, maintaining a tremendous tradition? As a Belfast Member, I hope that there will be those with the vision to bring Britannia to the new Lagan waterfront, which is making Belfast boom. Amidst all the cringing, it is encouraging to realise, when people think that we are bankrupt, that the £90 million is coming from the reserve.
Mr. Portillo: It is £60 million. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that the decision will be welcome to his constituents and to, I think, the vast majority in the Province. He rightly points out that it will be welcome north and south of the border in the island of Ireland. I am pleased that he reminded us of that. I thank him for the two bids, one in respect of Britannia and the other in respect of the new yacht. They have been carefully noted. Again, I recognise that those claims could be very strong.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of our people, including some living in the constituencies of Opposition Members who poured scorn on the decision, owe their jobs in part to the £2 billion of trade that the royal yacht has won overseas during the time that she has been operating as our national flagship? Does he further agree that in future the Britannia replacement should be called our national flagship, because that is what she is, rather than a yacht, which conjures up visions of junketing around the Mediterranean? If my right hon. Friend is thinking in terms of berthing her, she should be berthed in London as our national flagship, where most people can see her, rather than being tucked away in Portsmouth.
Mr. Portillo: I am tempted to call, "Any more bids?" I heard very well what my hon. Friend said, but I reiterate what I said in the statement--that we shall be looking for a use of public interest in the United Kingdom, and that stands. I cannot accept that anything that was inPortsmouth would be tucked away. I understand the promotion of the case for London. It is not within my authority by any means to propose that the royal yacht should be called anything other than the royal yacht. That is a contentious suggestion.
Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I warmly welcome the announcement to replace Britannia. Anyone who has seen the thousands of people who flock to see Britannia anywhere in the world--I particularly look back to the pictures from South Africa last year--must know the importance not only to the economy but to the whole image. Given the announcement last week of £500 million--a large amount--to be spent from the millennium fund in Greenwich, which is a project that we can support, although there are certainly some queries about the amount, why has the Secretary of State not considered taking £60 million from that fund, so that the money comes from public money, but money that has been paid for by people through the national lottery?
Mr. Portillo: The answer is simple. The legislation governing the national lottery does not allow us to use it as a substitute for proper public spending, and that is an important rule. This is a burden that properly falls on the nation and the taxpayer. While it would have been possible to think about private finance, it is not possible to use the national lottery for that purpose.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): In congratulating my right hon. Friend on his admirable decision, which was announced in the most felicitous language, may I be practical and ask that the specification include a helicopter deck? Secondly, could the ship's company of the Royal Navy, who take a great pride in fulfilling that most important role for the duration of their tour, from time to time include distinguished members of the Royal Naval Reserve, who would enormously appreciate the honour of serving on board?
Mr. Portillo: I can accept my hon. Friend's first suggestion straight away. Of course, a helicopter deck should be part of a modern ship. The possibility of arriving and leaving by helicopter and, indeed, of evacuating by helicopter in an emergency, should be part of the design. My hon. Friend's second suggestion is extremely important, and I should like to consider it. I mentioned state rooms and, of course, there must be provision for a band to play on board, because that is an important part of the image, prestige and projection associated with the royal yacht.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): Given that the public are paying for the yacht, will they be able to visit it when the Queen is not in residence, which will be most of the time? Has the Secretary of State given any thought to a dual use--what about using it to take disadvantaged children from our inner cities to a foreign destination for a holiday?
Mr. Portillo: I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we have never considered financing the yacht out of swaps, as I believe he used to do in his early days. The royal yacht attracts many people, all over the world. I would not propose making any great changes in the usage of recent years. No doubt the way in which the yacht is used will evolve over time, but it is important that it should be there principally for the promotion of Britain and of her economic interests abroad.
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside): Does my right hon. Friend understand that the Scottish people will be delighted at the proposal to replace the Royal Yacht Britannia? They will hope that it will be based on the Clyde after it ceases to be operational. Secondly, they will hope that the Clyde will have the opportunity to build the new ship, just as we built Britannia. We should also like my right hon. Friend to note that the Scottish national party has called for a bicycling monarchy, and there would be no prospect of a new Britannia being built on the Clyde with such a monarchy.
Mr. Portillo: Let me assure my hon. Friend that no part of the specification will include room for bicycles. During my hon. Friend's remarks, I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland say, "Hear, hear." I am sure that he was doing that clearly within the bounds of collective responsibility, but none the less my hon. Friend was well heard on the Front Bench.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian): I welcome the statement, although I have some suspicions about the motivation that may lie behind its timing. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about what he regards as being appropriate or not appropriate in respect of total or partial private financing? Why is it not appropriate to have any private financing for the royal yacht, given that he recently decided that it was entirely appropriate to sell all the married quarters of all our soldiers, sailors and airmen in England and Wales to Nomura, a Japanese bank?
Mr. Portillo: I do not think that it is the duty of the state to own houses, but I do think that it is the duty of the state to support the monarchy.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal commitment to this project over the past two and a half years and on winning the arguments that must have occurred in the Cabinet? Given that the new royal yacht can be built in only one location, can he give an undertaking that there will be a proper symbolism in its construction and fitting out of the fact that it represents the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Can he remind the House of any conventions that might exist on what the royal yacht should be called? Have the Government given any consideration to that matter and has Her Majesty expressed an opinion?
Mr. Portillo: We do not yet know the name of the yacht. Undoubtedly, that question will be considered and many suggestions will be made; Her Majesty will certainly be consulted. My hon. Friend, who also fought hard for this decision, makes an excellent point that the yacht must be representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Her Majesty the Queen is the Queen of the United Kingdom and her yacht should reflect that.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Was the Secretary of State in the House on Friday, when we witnessed another spending decision? A Bill on the wind chill factor, which was presented by one of my hon. Friends, sought to provide £60 million to give essential life-saving help to poor pensioners. The question that the country will ask about Government priorities is why the Government do not have £60 million to give to poor pensioners, but do have it to allow one family to travel in a billionaire life style.
Mr. Portillo: Yes, but the cold weather payments scheme was invented by the Conservative Government--it did not exist when the Labour party was last in office. Time and again, it has been improved in its generosity and extent. The Labour party did not make those payments. When the hon. Gentleman blathers on, as he has just done, let him admit all that the Government have done in providing a social security budget of £90,000 million. Let him then go away and talk the language of comparisons and proportion, about £60 million over 30 years for a royal yacht.
Sir Cyril Townsend (Bexleyheath): While regretting the lack of forward planning some years ago, despite prodding from Conservative Members, which means that inevitably there will be a delay, I warmly welcome this sensible decision. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the offers of financial support from commercial and City organisations that were put to the royal yacht parliamentary group and others are a signal of how much interest is felt in such sectors for the concept of a royal yacht? Does he further agree that having a royal yacht is a tried and tested formula and a good way of presenting the latest in British technology and expertise?
Mr. Portillo: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent knighthood--this is my first opportunity to do so. He is right to say that tremendous interest was shown in the matter, and the interest expressed by the business community tells us a lot about what is happening in the general community and about the spirit in this nation. I entirely reject the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in that respect. The yacht is tried and tested; the nation has benefited from it; it has helped our sovereign in her work; and I believe that almost the whole House will warmly welcome today's announcement.
Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton): May I support the introduction of a vessel that will be unique to the United Kingdom as an aid for the royal family? It has been suggested in the past, however, that the royal vessel could be used as a training ship when Her Majesty was not using it. There is also the question of the royal family's future. We are told that the royal family will have to use passenger trains and that no extra provision will be made for special aircraft. The Secretary of State says that it is important that the royal family should have a vessel financed from public funds, but that it is not important for the royal family to have their own train. What is the difference?
Mr. Portillo: First, I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I have already said several times: this decision was for the Government, not the royal family. The Government believe that it is for the nation to finance something that so closely touches the monarchy's dignity. I can continue to repeat that all afternoon if the hon. Gentleman likes, but it remains our firm position.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not choose the training ship design, which was an imaginative idea. We took the view that the vessel's primary purpose is to combine use by the monarchy with promotion of Britain abroad and of our economic interests. To confuse that primary purpose with something quite different, which would be difficult to make compatible, seemed to make the matter too complicated and likely to fail in its primary purpose.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): May I assure my right hon. Friend that nowhere will the Government's decision to build another royal yacht be more happily received than in Lancaster, with its special relationship with Her Majesty in her style as Duke of Lancaster?
Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The connection between Lancaster and Her Majesty is clear and well known. I am relieved that, to the best of my knowledge, Lancaster has no shipyard, so I do not have to chalk up another bid.
and so on and so forth...
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the royal yacht.
We have considered carefully what would be appropriate for Britannia after decommissioning. The Government do not believe that it is appropriate to sell her to a new owner for private use. She will not put to sea again, but we are interested in proposals for a suitably prestigious use for Britannia in the public interest in the United Kingdom. Such a scheme would need to take account of the plan to transfer royal fittings to the new yacht. Any proposals for Britannia would need to guarantee that the yacht would be kept in excellent condition. If that cannot be assured, it would be better to see her scrapped than to see her deteriorate.
Dr. David Clark (South Shields): I thank the Secretary of State for bringing the House this news, but we are disappointed that there has been no discussion whatever with the Opposition on the matter. As you know, Madam Speaker, it has been the convention that policy regarding Her Majesty is an all-party matter. Why was the Secretary of State not prepared to discuss the issue with the Opposition?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I miss a point or two. Part of his statement was drowned by laughter and I was not able to pick up every point, but I shall try to do my best.
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North): Why?
Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman does not realise why, he has simply learnt his lines and spouts them and no longer thinks--if he ever did. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall be calling hon. Members to put questions. Wait for it.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked how long it would take to build the yacht and when contracts would be let. I have told him that it should be in service in 2001 or 2002. It will take about two and a half years to build and the period up to the beginning of building will be taken up by deciding on the specification and by the competition.
Mr. Douglas Hurd (Witney): Is it not characteristic that new Labour should have announced its conversion to private finance on the wrong occasion? May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Government's decision, including the decision on finance, which seems to me entirely right? I accept entirely what my right hon. Friend says about the usefulness to British finance and industry of Britannia and her successor, but at the heart of the issue, is there not the deeper point that a royal yacht is the best way of enabling the sovereign of our country to remind us--and, indeed, the world--of the links between these islands and the sea, which are fundamental to our past and our present?
Mr. Portillo: Indeed. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are a maritime nation, a nation of traders, global thinkers and global doers. The royal yacht will help to emphasise all that and enable us to extend the hand of friendship and connection to our many allies and friends around the world. I am so pleased to have my right hon. Friend's support--not least for the funding, which is wholly appropriate to the dignity of the monarchy and the vessel that will support them in it.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East): I fear that the Secretary of State might be embarrassed by the amount of congratulation on his conversion to the virtues of public funding for such a matter. Does he share my disappointment that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), for whom I have the greatest respect, did not seem able to match his commitment? Is not the virtue of what the Secretary of State has proposed the fact that the vessel can assist Britain's economic and trade interests and provide dignified and often secure accommodation for the royal family while they fulfil their duties abroad? In view of the fact that the yacht's running costs are to be met from the defence budget, is it envisaged that the vessel should have any role in time of war?
Mr. Portillo: On the last point, it is not envisaged that the vessel should have any role in time of war. I cannot of course predict the future, but it is not expected that she will double as a hospital ship, for example, as was the plan with Britannia. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right that the vessel is secure accommodation for Her Majesty. She will be escorted and protected by the Royal Navy. It is an admirable way in which to protect our economic interests and to underline our ties with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth values the vessel as well as our own country.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight): May I thank my right hon. Friend for today's decision? It will mean much rejoicing in the Isle of Wight. Will he forgive me for mentioning pounds, shillings and pence? As the new royal yacht will play a bigger role in promoting Great Britain plc than Britannia, may I remind my right hon. Friend that the arrival of Britannia in Cowes week every year makes a substantial contribution to the Isle of Wight's economy? I would hope that I could hang on his words and that, perhaps, Britannia will sail on in UK waters beyond 1997. That would make a big difference to us on the island. Her arrival is very much treasured every year by my constituents.
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has been a notable and strong advocate of the replacement of the royal yacht and I can understand its impact on the Isle of Wight, as on all of us. However, I want this statement to be entirely straightforward and without ambiguity. We do not intend that Britannia should run on beyond the end of 1997. I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend on that; I want to make it perfectly clear that there will be a new royal yacht in 2001 or 2002.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West): It is hard to conceive of who has been more ill advised, the Government in offering the matter to the palace in an attempt to bring it into the political game, or the palace in making the mistake of accepting it.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): Unworthy!
Mr. Williams: I am allowed to make my point. Is it not a fact that, over the next three years, there will be unprecedented cuts in social services? I cannot understand a sense of priority that diverts £60 million more away from such services. Halving the running costs will still cost £10,000 a day. If the royal yacht is a symbol, it is one of extravagance and irrelevance.
Mr. Portillo: I found the right hon. Gentleman's comments ungenerous, inaccurate and wrong. It is entirely the Government's decision as to whether there is a royal yacht, and although we have informed Her Majesty, Her Majesty did not request this. Her Majesty's assent is not required in that sense. Her Majesty is pleased with the decision, but it is not a matter for her. Any blame to be attached should be attached to the Government only. The right hon. Gentleman is not right to bring Her Majesty's name into the matter, as he sought to do.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): Nowhere will my right hon. Friend's statement be more welcome than in Gosport, with its Navy connections and loyal traditions. May I ask further about the future of Britannia? Her home port has been Portsmouth and she has been berthed in Portsmouth harbour for many years. Nowhere would her future be more secure and more applauded than in Portsmouth harbour, as a centrepiece of the exciting millennium project there. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that suggestion will be given full consideration?
Mr. Portillo: Certainly it would be given consideration. I was in Portsmouth recently on HMS Victory, and I am aware of the marvellous heritage of the city and of the ships berthed there, which represent some of the maritime history of this nation. However, I must repeat the conditions that I made clear during my statement. The proposal must take account of the fact that at least some of the fittings will have been stripped out from Britannia. The yacht must have a prestigious use; it must be in the public interest; it must be in the United Kingdom; and we need a sponsor who can guarantee the excellence of her condition. I stress again that it would be distressing for all of us to see Britannia deteriorate--we would rather see her scrapped than deteriorate.
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): The present Britannia has made a valuable contribution to Britain's presence overseas, both diplomatically and commercially, and I have no doubt that the Government have made a good decision in ensuring that we have a worthy successor. May I particularly congratulate the Government on their conversion to the use of selective public sector purchase? May I ask the Secretary of State to give the assurance that the yacht will be built in a British shipyard? Will he make it absolutely clear that on no account will he allow the European Commission to insist upon open competition among European shipyards? Will he give a pledge that, even if Mr. van Miert refers him to the European Court of Justice, he will not allow the Commission to interfere and to get away with it?
Mr. Portillo: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the generous way in which he welcomed the statement. The yacht will be built in a British shipyard--for security reasons, the yacht should be built here. In any case, this will be a royal yacht and it is appropriate that it should be built in a British shipyard. If there were any challenge to that decision, I would defend it every inch of the way.
Mr. David Martin (Portsmouth, South): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about the existing royal yacht and its replacement, and I particularly welcome the fact that the yacht will continue to be crewed by the Royal Navy. Will he confirm that I will have his personal support for the proposal that the new royal yacht should be home based at Portsmouth, as the existing yacht has been for so many years?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has been generous in his welcome for the statement, and he has been a great advocate for today's decision--as many others who have spoken today have been. I ask him by all means to open his campaign today, but not to press me for a final decision on that--although I understand perfectly the strength of his claim.
Ms Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West): I certainly welcome a statement that will bring work to Britain's hard-pressed shipyards, which have suffered so severely from the cuts in the Government's defence expenditure. I should welcome the return of the Royal Yacht Britannia to the Clyde, where she was constructed so skilfully and ably many years ago. However, the Secretary of State should give the House more details on why it was decided to use public money for the capital costs of Britannia.
Mr. Portillo: On the last point, I repeat that it was because we thought that it was appropriate to the dignity of the monarchy. On the earlier points, if the hon. Lady is concerned about our hard-pressed shipyards, I would remind her that those at Barrow would not be building a fourth Trident boat if it were not for the fact that there was a Conservative victory at the previous general election.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): May I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend most warmly? Does he, however, accept that Britannia is part of this country's maritime heritage and that it would be as appropriate to maintain it at public expense, either as part of the complex at Portsmouth or at Greenwich, as to pay for the new yacht? Will he think carefully about that and about keeping Britannia in service until the new yacht is ready?
Mr. Portillo: I am glad that the statement pleased my hon. Friend, but it is a statement with firm edges. We do not intend to keep Britannia in service beyond the end of 1997, and we do not believe that it would be a suitable use of public funds overall to keep it as some kind of museum. Others may wish to make proposals for a public interest use of the yacht, and I dare say that those people could apply for funding in the usual way--to the national lottery, for example--but we do not intend to launch a Government initiative to keep Britannia in any particular form. The challenge to those who would come forward is clear: suggest a use that is prestigious and suitable and by all means apply for the funding that is available; but any proposal must keep Britannia in excellent condition.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Why did the Secretary of State, in responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), have to turn to insolence, pomposity and arrogance, knowing that out there in Britain, probably 30 or 40 per cent. of the people--it may be more--do not agree with the monarchy? Those views should be expressed in the House. The Prime Minister, on being elected, talked about a classless society.
Mr. Portillo: There is a language of priorities and there is a language of proportion. The hon. Gentleman has no sense of proportion. He equates the billions of pounds that we put into the health service and social security with a few million pounds that will be spent on this project over several years and which is, in any case, economically justified. There is more to it than economics. There is national esteem and pride, which he does not share or even understand. Some might think that he was arrogant in pontificating with such self-satisfaction and certainty about the views of 30 or 40 per cent. of the population. I criticised the right hon. Member for Swansea, West not for his views but because he blamed Her Majesty for a decision that was not hers.
Sir Keith Speed (Ashford): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the all-party maritime group, which I chair, welcomes this decision, for which we have campaigned for more than two years? The new yacht should not only be built in Britain, but contain the finest British marine technology, to show the rest of the world that we still lead in maritime affairs.
Mr. Portillo: Speaking from his position and with his background, my hon. Friend's approval is especially welcome. I emphasised in my statement that the ship will provide a showcase for British skills, engineering and design. That, too, will be of great benefit to our nation.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that most people throughout the country will warmly welcome this statement? Does he accept from me that most people throughout this country very much appreciate the services rendered by Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Charles to Britain? Does he not agree with me that the Carlton TV programme was a load of unutterable rubbish and totally unrepresentative of British public feeling? [Interruption.] I will be heard. Does he not finally agree that very few people in this country want to see a series of political presidents?
Mr. Portillo: If I may add to that, very few people in this country want to see a brave Labour Member who speaks up for the monarchy being barracked by his colleagues in the way that the hon. Gentleman was. I appreciate his remarks. Apart from their feelings about the monarchy, many people will look forward to the 400 or 500 jobs that I estimate will be created by the contract. As was said by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), who has left the Chamber, the shipyards will welcome the work.
Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): Does my right hon. Friend accept that, with the exception of a few Opposition Members, the nation will warmly applaud the Government's decision? Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family will be able to visit the Commonwealth and other nations in a royal yacht that is fit to show the fine maritime heritage of this country. Could he say a little more about the design of the yacht? May I hazard the thought that, after free competition, and bearing it in mind that Britannia was built on the Clyde, the new royal yacht might also be built there?
Mr. Portillo: Certainly, the Clyde would be a candidate, but there must be a competition and a specification. In welcoming my right hon. Friend's remarks, I must make it clear that the new yacht's specification will be different from that of Britannia. In those days, the designers envisaged that the royal family would travel long distances on board. Today, they travel by air and use the yacht as a residence. Modern technology will allow lower running costs and a smaller crew. There will be substantial differences, but some important things will stay the same. The yacht must be prestigious. It must carry status. It must have royal apartments and state rooms that are suitable. It must create a great impression when people visit it, as something special, something remarkable, and something uniquely British.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): May I, on behalf of not only my party but well over 1 million people in Northern Ireland, warmly welcome the statement? Even 77 years after the Republic separated from the kingdom, there are those in the Republic who still have royal yacht clubs and other titles because they, too, are royalists. May I express the hope that when the time comes for the competition, Harland will be one of the bidders, maintaining a tremendous tradition? As a Belfast Member, I hope that there will be those with the vision to bring Britannia to the new Lagan waterfront, which is making Belfast boom. Amidst all the cringing, it is encouraging to realise, when people think that we are bankrupt, that the £90 million is coming from the reserve.
Mr. Portillo: It is £60 million. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that the decision will be welcome to his constituents and to, I think, the vast majority in the Province. He rightly points out that it will be welcome north and south of the border in the island of Ireland. I am pleased that he reminded us of that. I thank him for the two bids, one in respect of Britannia and the other in respect of the new yacht. They have been carefully noted. Again, I recognise that those claims could be very strong.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of our people, including some living in the constituencies of Opposition Members who poured scorn on the decision, owe their jobs in part to the £2 billion of trade that the royal yacht has won overseas during the time that she has been operating as our national flagship? Does he further agree that in future the Britannia replacement should be called our national flagship, because that is what she is, rather than a yacht, which conjures up visions of junketing around the Mediterranean? If my right hon. Friend is thinking in terms of berthing her, she should be berthed in London as our national flagship, where most people can see her, rather than being tucked away in Portsmouth.
Mr. Portillo: I am tempted to call, "Any more bids?" I heard very well what my hon. Friend said, but I reiterate what I said in the statement--that we shall be looking for a use of public interest in the United Kingdom, and that stands. I cannot accept that anything that was inPortsmouth would be tucked away. I understand the promotion of the case for London. It is not within my authority by any means to propose that the royal yacht should be called anything other than the royal yacht. That is a contentious suggestion.
Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I warmly welcome the announcement to replace Britannia. Anyone who has seen the thousands of people who flock to see Britannia anywhere in the world--I particularly look back to the pictures from South Africa last year--must know the importance not only to the economy but to the whole image. Given the announcement last week of £500 million--a large amount--to be spent from the millennium fund in Greenwich, which is a project that we can support, although there are certainly some queries about the amount, why has the Secretary of State not considered taking £60 million from that fund, so that the money comes from public money, but money that has been paid for by people through the national lottery?
Mr. Portillo: The answer is simple. The legislation governing the national lottery does not allow us to use it as a substitute for proper public spending, and that is an important rule. This is a burden that properly falls on the nation and the taxpayer. While it would have been possible to think about private finance, it is not possible to use the national lottery for that purpose.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): In congratulating my right hon. Friend on his admirable decision, which was announced in the most felicitous language, may I be practical and ask that the specification include a helicopter deck? Secondly, could the ship's company of the Royal Navy, who take a great pride in fulfilling that most important role for the duration of their tour, from time to time include distinguished members of the Royal Naval Reserve, who would enormously appreciate the honour of serving on board?
Mr. Portillo: I can accept my hon. Friend's first suggestion straight away. Of course, a helicopter deck should be part of a modern ship. The possibility of arriving and leaving by helicopter and, indeed, of evacuating by helicopter in an emergency, should be part of the design. My hon. Friend's second suggestion is extremely important, and I should like to consider it. I mentioned state rooms and, of course, there must be provision for a band to play on board, because that is an important part of the image, prestige and projection associated with the royal yacht.
Mr. Portillo: I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we have never considered financing the yacht out of swaps, as I believe he used to do in his early days. The royal yacht attracts many people, all over the world. I would not propose making any great changes in the usage of recent years. No doubt the way in which the yacht is used will evolve over time, but it is important that it should be there principally for the promotion of Britain and of her economic interests abroad.
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside): Does my right hon. Friend understand that the Scottish people will be delighted at the proposal to replace the Royal Yacht Britannia? They will hope that it will be based on the Clyde after it ceases to be operational. Secondly, they will hope that the Clyde will have the opportunity to build the new ship, just as we built Britannia. We should also like my right hon. Friend to note that the Scottish national party has called for a bicycling monarchy, and there would be no prospect of a new Britannia being built on the Clyde with such a monarchy.
Mr. Portillo: Let me assure my hon. Friend that no part of the specification will include room for bicycles. During my hon. Friend's remarks, I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland say, "Hear, hear." I am sure that he was doing that clearly within the bounds of collective responsibility, but none the less my hon. Friend was well heard on the Front Bench.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian): I welcome the statement, although I have some suspicions about the motivation that may lie behind its timing. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about what he regards as being appropriate or not appropriate in respect of total or partial private financing? Why is it not appropriate to have any private financing for the royal yacht, given that he recently decided that it was entirely appropriate to sell all the married quarters of all our soldiers, sailors and airmen in England and Wales to Nomura, a Japanese bank?
Mr. Portillo: I do not think that it is the duty of the state to own houses, but I do think that it is the duty of the state to support the monarchy.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal commitment to this project over the past two and a half years and on winning the arguments that must have occurred in the Cabinet? Given that the new royal yacht can be built in only one location, can he give an undertaking that there will be a proper symbolism in its construction and fitting out of the fact that it represents the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Can he remind the House of any conventions that might exist on what the royal yacht should be called? Have the Government given any consideration to that matter and has Her Majesty expressed an opinion?
Mr. Portillo: We do not yet know the name of the yacht. Undoubtedly, that question will be considered and many suggestions will be made; Her Majesty will certainly be consulted. My hon. Friend, who also fought hard for this decision, makes an excellent point that the yacht must be representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Her Majesty the Queen is the Queen of the United Kingdom and her yacht should reflect that.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Was the Secretary of State in the House on Friday, when we witnessed another spending decision? A Bill on the wind chill factor, which was presented by one of my hon. Friends, sought to provide £60 million to give essential life-saving help to poor pensioners. The question that the country will ask about Government priorities is why the Government do not have £60 million to give to poor pensioners, but do have it to allow one family to travel in a billionaire life style.
Mr. Portillo: Yes, but the cold weather payments scheme was invented by the Conservative Government--it did not exist when the Labour party was last in office. Time and again, it has been improved in its generosity and extent. The Labour party did not make those payments. When the hon. Gentleman blathers on, as he has just done, let him admit all that the Government have done in providing a social security budget of £90,000 million. Let him then go away and talk the language of comparisons and proportion, about £60 million over 30 years for a royal yacht.
Sir Cyril Townsend (Bexleyheath): While regretting the lack of forward planning some years ago, despite prodding from Conservative Members, which means that inevitably there will be a delay, I warmly welcome this sensible decision. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the offers of financial support from commercial and City organisations that were put to the royal yacht parliamentary group and others are a signal of how much interest is felt in such sectors for the concept of a royal yacht? Does he further agree that having a royal yacht is a tried and tested formula and a good way of presenting the latest in British technology and expertise?
Mr. Portillo: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent knighthood--this is my first opportunity to do so. He is right to say that tremendous interest was shown in the matter, and the interest expressed by the business community tells us a lot about what is happening in the general community and about the spirit in this nation. I entirely reject the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in that respect. The yacht is tried and tested; the nation has benefited from it; it has helped our sovereign in her work; and I believe that almost the whole House will warmly welcome today's announcement.
Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton): May I support the introduction of a vessel that will be unique to the United Kingdom as an aid for the royal family? It has been suggested in the past, however, that the royal vessel could be used as a training ship when Her Majesty was not using it. There is also the question of the royal family's future. We are told that the royal family will have to use passenger trains and that no extra provision will be made for special aircraft. The Secretary of State says that it is important that the royal family should have a vessel financed from public funds, but that it is not important for the royal family to have their own train. What is the difference?
Mr. Portillo: First, I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I have already said several times: this decision was for the Government, not the royal family. The Government believe that it is for the nation to finance something that so closely touches the monarchy's dignity. I can continue to repeat that all afternoon if the hon. Gentleman likes, but it remains our firm position.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not choose the training ship design, which was an imaginative idea. We took the view that the vessel's primary purpose is to combine use by the monarchy with promotion of Britain abroad and of our economic interests. To confuse that primary purpose with something quite different, which would be difficult to make compatible, seemed to make the matter too complicated and likely to fail in its primary purpose.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): May I assure my right hon. Friend that nowhere will the Government's decision to build another royal yacht be more happily received than in Lancaster, with its special relationship with Her Majesty in her style as Duke of Lancaster?
Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The connection between Lancaster and Her Majesty is clear and well known. I am relieved that, to the best of my knowledge, Lancaster has no shipyard, so I do not have to chalk up another bid.
2 comments:
Dear Shelley.
Your photos here are so fascinating!!!
I am Yang, a nickname is Josephus. A research student in Aberdeen.
Your photo of the writer's museum is very relevant for a quotation of my article. May I copy the photo for my article?
If you give me your permission, it would be really helpful. Unless, I will never copy it and have to go to Edinburgh.
I look forward to your answer and permission.
My email is josephus1324@gmail.com
Best regards,
Yang
Yang/Josephus You may use my photos if you credit my blog (www.shelleyshouse.blogspot.com) as their source. I hope you find this message and save yourself the trip to Edinburgh, though you really ought to visit that city sometime. Best wishes, Shelley
Post a Comment