Member Info for stokey12

I am now totally confused because having checked the Companies House records it would seem that on 8th January 2024 Harland and Wolff (Marine Services) and Harland and Wolff (Scilly Ferries) were both incorporated. However it would appear that legally they are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Harland and Wolff Holdings Limited. This would seem to contradict what is on Facebook. It may be that operationally that Scilly Ferries is part of Marine Services.

Consuela ref 15.45 post you are clearly having problems grasping a simple point of company law when Harland and Wolff (Scilly Ferries) Limited was incorporated in January of this year it became as a matter of law a separate company distinct from its parent company and its ultimate holding company.

Consuela ref 15.36 post I assume you read the document I linked to in my 14.45 post. The whole purpose of the incorporation documents is to create another company. One clear give away that it is a separate company is that it has its own company number.

Hebridean9 ref 15.26 post the reason for that is because Harland and Wolff (Scilly Ferries) Limited was not incorporated until January this year so at the time of that RNS did not exist.

Consuela ref 15.27 post I read a lot of documents which document were you referring to?

Consuela ref 14.53 post I know you have an issue with admitting an error but your post is totally confusing. My 14.45 post was giving a reasoned explanation why scilly ferries funds could be kept separate from the rest of the businesses. The rationale is the same as why I stated on the previous ocassion that Harland and Wolff (Belfast) Limited is a separate company to Harland and Wolff Group Holdings PLC.

Consuela ref 14.16 post I remember having a discussion with Hebridean9 and broomtree on a similar point. The fact that Scilly Ferries is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harland and Wolff Holdings Limited and they have common directors does not preclude them from being separate companies. In fact as a matter of company law they are distinct companies. In this regard see this article https://www.british-business-bank.co.uk/business-guidance/guidance-articles/business-essentials/pros-and-cons-of-starting-a-subsidiary-business

This question was asked by Maria Eagle

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he plans to answer Question 22879 tabled by the Rt hon. Member for Garston and Halewood.

Answer

James Cartlidge

Commons

Answered on

17 May 2024

Meetings with Harland and Wolff take place regularly at an Official level. I last met with them on 13 March 2024.

Details of Ministers' meetings with external individuals and organisations are published quarterly in arrears on GOV.UK.

Have I missed something or have we stopped having barges coming out from Belfast? I cannot recall when number 9 left but it was over a month I believe so must be due one soon.

Garonne ref 07.53 post a very even handed accurate report.

David ref 06.20 post as you have fully researched this including checked the financials perhaps you can answer a few questions.

Firstly what will BAB do with the non core assets that HARL has?

Are you sure that the CMA will not initiate an invesigation on competition grounds?

Having only just restarted paying dividends what would the impact on their finances be of paying anything near fair value for HARL?

What is the view of the MoD on such a deal?

As BAB previously owned Appledore would this not be admitting the sale was a mistake?

Would the BAB shareholders approve the deal?

Having reflected on this overnight I feel that any complaint or challenge by IOSSC is very unlikely to succeed and therefore the aim of the complaints being made by them is to damage, or attempt to damage, HARL.

My reasoning is that as a threshold issue I have grave doubts, as I have said previously, that the guarantee is even a subsidy for the purposes of the Subsidy Control Act. If you read the document in the link in my 17 May 18.28 post there are four limbs to the test of whether any financial support amounts to a subsidy. In relation to the EDG the closest analogy I can think of is a business start up loan which is guaranteed by the government. However there is one very important difference between the two with the EDG the loan from the banks is at a commercial rate of interest while with a business start up loan the loan is if I recall is either interest free or with a low interest rate.

Secondly, the EDG cannot be used as far as I am aware to support Scilly Ferries. I say this because while it can be used for working capital purposes this must be tied to making HARL able to win export orders. As such providing support to Scilly Ferries from the loan would seem to be outside the scope of what the loan guaranteed by the EDG can be used for.

Finally, the argument that the guarantee would distort the market fails because the EDG would be used for a different market to the one they are in. So even if the EDG was a subsidy and it had a distortive effect it would not give rise to the basis of a claim by IOSSC as they would not be adversely affected.

The Daily Telegraph article does show us the probable source of the current problems, or at any rate, one of the sources. Clearly the IOSSC seems to want to cause trouble for HARL in an attempt to get rid of a rival.

Consuela ref my 18.06 post please see the document on this link https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/subsidy-control-rules-key-requirements-for-public-authorities/subsidy-control-rules-quick-guide-to-key-requirements-for-public-authorities#step-1--determine-whether-the-support-is-a-subsidy Limb 1 is arguably met the question is whether the guarantee amounts to the use of public resources. The money is not being supplied by the government but by the lending banks so I wold say Limb 1 has not been met. It is equally arguable that Limb 2 has been met as the loans by the banks would seem to be on commercial rates. Limb 3 does not seem to apply as any company can apply for an Export Development Guarantee so it is not specific. As not all of the four limbs can be answered in my opinion with a yes it is not a subsidy.

Consuela ref 18.00 post As there is no decision yet there is nothing for IOSSC to challenge. In my view for the reasons I have stated I do not think that they have an argument. For the subsidy control rules to apply the subsidy needs to come from a public authority. The fact is there is no subsidy as far as I can see no public authority is advancing the loan.

Bubble2021 ref 14.27 post I hope he is careful what he says or risk a defamation lawsuit.

Speedy_Gonzalez ref 15.59 post I am not sure that the article is accurate in relation to the question of subsidy control. Earlier this week I posted a link to a video with regards to the Subsidy Control Act. I would observe that as the article states that the finance is coming from private firms. Also UKEF are not providing the loan they are only providing a guarantee. This results in a question as to whether the guarantee would amount to a subsidy as the finance is not coming from a public authority. I accept that if HARL was to default on the loan then the guarantee may be called in. However I would argue that means that the loan is not a subsidy. I think that IOSSC are just causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble out of spite and because of the setting up the ferry service.

Navy Lookout has published a roundup of the weeks news and can be found here https://www.navylookout.com/rounding-up-a-week-of-news-following-the-royal-navys-sea-power-conference/ one thing I would take issue with is what is said about HARL

I read the comments and inparticular the second one that had the oriinal contract notice attached. The reason why nobody could find it is probably because it was dated December 2021. So it was not recent.

UK Defence Journal have posted an update/correction you will need to read the second comment for the contract notice. The link is https://x.com/UKDefJournal/status/1791416543949074758 the text of the post says.

UPDATE/CORRECTION - This article has been corrected and amended, the original contract notice published by the Ministry of Defence assigned a value of £906m to the contract, the correct value is actually £12,578,000.

This is the text of an email I have just sent to the Standards Commissioner and the Defence Select Committee

Dear Sirs

I am writing to raise concerns about the impartiality of the Honourable Member for North Durham, Mr Kevan Jones, as it relates to Harland and Wolff Group Holdings PLC (HARL). While his questions to Ministers in relation to HARL taken individually or his letter to the National Audit Office do not raise any concerns when viewed individually however when viewed cumulatively they do raise concerns. The questions in relation to the £200m Export Development Guarantee and the ferry service when viewed together with the frequent questions on FSS gives the impression of animosity towards HARL. I appreciate that Mr Jones is an Honorary Vice President of a maritime organisation it could be seen as if he is using his position to further outside interests. In this regard it is worth noting that two members of Team UK have employees who are on the executive of the same organisation that Mr Jones is an Honorary Vice President of. In view of these concerns can you please clarify whether it is appropriate for Mr Jones to take part in any inquiry by the committee where HARL is due to give evidence.