Member Info for stokey12

ref 11.08 post that should be closed period not a closed report.

Russelw65/Pokerchips I agree that the BoD are not in a closed report as both the interim and annual reports have been published. However, I think they may be in a Black Period as they are in discussions relating to a number of contracts. In particular we have not heard about the conversion of the ex-HMS Athelstone. As you both know a Black Period is defined as.
'A blackout period is a duration of time when access to something usually available is prohibited. In a financial context, a blackout period is a duration of time when a company's executives and/or employees who are privy to inside information are restricted from buying or selling any corporate securities.'

I have just seen this from the local paper in Birkenhead, https://www.birkenhead.news/birkenhead-mp-tories-set-to-betray-british-shipbuilding/. I note that he at least acknowledges that HARL is part of the Team Resolute bid. I also note that the number of jobs that will be secured has increased by 50% compared to the figures used by the GMB. If Cammell Laird can only survive on MoD contracts is it a viable business?

EarlofAIM ref 07.29 post What was posted in the Mirror was not contract news but, at best and being charitable, speculation by the unions who have a vested interest in spreading rumours to put political pressure on the MoD to give the contract to Team UK. I note that before the Defence Select Committee the Defence Secretary declined to comment on the rumours. I would caution against assuming that the decision has been made until something official has been said by the MoD. I am still monitoring the parliamentary pages for any news.

This twitter thread may be of interest it includes comments from the must buy British group. https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1587851970836037632

mcadder ref 16.21 post I must say I found the Birkenhead article a bit rich. Why are the yard owners not investing in the yards. It is should not be for the government ot invest in privately owned shipyards. It would also help if Cammell Laird could complete a contract on time and on budget.

LSE03 ref 16.27 post Thanks I will give Hansard a look.

EarlofAim ref 15.29 post you do realise that the £1.67bn is the total gross value of the contract spread over at least 8 years. Also not all of the value of the share for HARL will be going to HARL. The vast majority is likely to go to sub contractors. If we accept your figure of £960m is correct only about 1 - 5% is likely to be profit to HARL. HMG does not like contractors making too much profit. So at the end of the day HARL will probably only make around £46m on the contract. I accept I might be being conservative but it is likely to be more accurate than saying £960m.

Jabido This will make Defence Questions on Monday interesting when you consider the first question.

Jabido ref 14.54 post There was no way that Ben Wallace was going to answer that question in public while the markets were open. Once a decision has been made then we will get a decision. I suspect Team UK will leak the decision if it oes against them. Was anything said about when a decision will be made.

EarlofAim ref 14.28 post I think it was Monday somebody asked about a telegram group for HARL. I searched telegram and the group does not exist. Are you sure you are not getting with LinkedIn which JW does post on regularly.

EarlofAim ref 14.06 post Is this the same £300m you were touring last time you were on? If they are on twitter I doubt they are industry experts.

Was something said at PMQs as I have just looked at the recent trades and we have had a number of hefty trades in the last hour.

mcadder ref 12.03 post I found this quote in the article '“The UK should prioritise the maintenance and strengthening of our sovereign defence manufacturing capabilities. ' I am not sure how you strengthen the sovereign defence manufacturing capabilities if you always give the work to the same shipyards. This means other yards do not have the money to invest.

Xenor ref 10.39 post just seen this article from a couple of weeks back https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-accused-secrecy-gagging-firms-28268747. I am not sure that the CSEU know how tenders work but bidders are not obliged to answer questions on their bids from outside groups.

If the tender was to go to Team UK would Team Resolute challenge the award on the basis that the award was made on the basis of lobbying and not on the basis of the bid. Such an argument would have a good chance of success in my opinion if the value of the Team UK bid was significantly higher than the Team Resolute bid and the scores for the technical aspects were close. As an example let us assume that the respective scores for the technical aspects were 75 for Team UK and 74 for Team Resolute. Price covers 20% of the tender so if Team Resolute scores say 4% more than Team UK on the costs then the tender award should go to Team Resolute as they would have the higher overall score. However if because of lobbying it goes to Team UK we could see a challenge. Please note I have factored in social value in the scores.

We have Defence Questions on Monday. Of direct interest to us is number 10 which asks 'Alex Cunningham (Stockton North): If he will take steps to build the Fleet Solid Support ships in the UK.(902077)' It would be interesting to see if in answering this question he will say anything about when a decision will be made.

Also of interest is number 1 'Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North): What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the defence procurement system.' I would love to hear the answer to that one as I am not sure the procurement system is effective.

The Honourable Members for Eastbourne and Lincoln both ask 'What steps his Department is taking to support defence jobs in all regions of the UK' I am not sure if those questions will be reached as they are low down the list.

We also have PMQs today I wonder if FSS will come up after the weekend press. There are two written statements today from the MoD neither are on the FSS.

Running1 ref 19.58 post the accounts referred to were actually published on the 30 September 2022. That was the last date they could be published under AIM rules unless they got an extension. If you look under the RNS tab you will see the relevant RNS. No press release was issued yesterday if one was issued it would have been discussed here.

Just seen this from yesterday's Daily Express https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1690051/UK-Royal-Navy-more-defence-ships-service-2028-Russia-Ukraine-war-latest-news. Very little of this is different from the Telegraph article. Interestingly JW's comment in the Telegraph is quoted in this one. Also it as with the Telegraph says that the Prime Minister will be making the decision. While the Defence Procurement Minister is probably going t make the decision due to the value he would almost certainly consult the Defence Secretary but I do not see why this would go to the Prime Minister for decision unless I am missing something. Is there a limit on the amount the Secretary of Defence can authorise?

Hebridean9 ref 09.53 post I have more chance of winning the lottery without buying a ticket than that happening.