Tuesday 26 August 2008

Labour's dodgy donations again

Oh ye of little faith! I looked up the Electoral Commission's website and Manchester Airports Group's accounts - do your own homework.

Anyway, here's an interesting thing:

In September of 2003 the Ministry of Defence took a most unusual step in when it took over the cost risk of a ship-building contract which it had entered into with Swan Hunter (exactly the opposite of what good public procurement practice would be - you would normally try to sherrick all the risk onto someone else).

When Swan Hunter made a right mess of the contract, it was closed and moved to BAE Systems. The cost of the contract had risen from £210 million to £600 million which was now borne by the public purse as a result of the cost risk transfer.
So what, says you - see here, says I. Swan Hunter made two – and only two – political donations, both to the Labour Party, and both around the time of the transfer of cost risk. One of these payments was of the order of £5,500 in September of 2003 and the other was £300 in October of the same year.

The public purse is £390 million worse off but the Labour party came out £5,800 to the good.

Not only are they rotten to the core, they're cheap as well.
Here's some stuff to do your own homework on:
National Labour Party
Swan Hunter (Tyneside) Limited
status: Company company reg no: 3083461
Wallsend Shipyard WallsendTyne
and WearNE28 6EQ
04/09/03
£ 5,500.00

National Labour Party
Swan Hunter (Tyneside) Ltd
status: Company company reg no: 3083461
Wallesend Shipyard WallsendNE28
6EQ
14/10/03
£ 300.00


Landing Ship
Logistics

Mr.
Viggers:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the original agreed contract price in relation to the contract with Swan Hunter (Tyneside) for the construction of Landing Ship Logistics (LSL) Largs Bay and Lyme Bay was; what the latest anticipated cost is; how much BAE Systems will be able to claim from the Department by reason of the failure of Swan Hunter to deliver design information to BAE Systems in relation to the two LSLs that that company is to build; whether his Department will claim from Swan Hunter in respect of its lateness in delivering design information on the LSLs; and which party under the terms of the original Swan Hunter contract undertook to accept the risk of the engineering requirements being greater than anticipated. [216889]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 21 February 2005]: The original contract price for the design and construction cost of the two Swan Hunter Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) ships, Largs Bay and Lyme Bay, was £148 million and the anticipated cost is now £235 million. The Ministry of Defence has made a provision of £40 million in the 2003-04 Accounts for delay and dislocation costs in respect to the two LSD(A)s that BAE Systems are building and has already paid £16 million as an initial payment. Negotiations continue on the final settlement figure with the company. As further disclosure could prejudice 24 Feb 2005 : Column 804W these negotiations I am withholding further information under the commercial interests exemption of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The MOD will not be pursuing a claim from Swan Hunter in respect of providing information to BAE Systems as this would seriously jeopardise company's ability to delivery the Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary capability. The Swan Hunter undertook the engineering risk in delivering against the original contract. However, in September 2003, when the company announced that it could not absorb the risk and complete the contract at the agreed price and timescale, both financial and timescale risks were in effect transferred to the MOD.
This new Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary class will provide a significantly enhanced capability that will enable the faster deployment of troops, vehicles and stores into operational and front line areas, at a safer distance and in worse sea conditions than the Landing Ships they will replace. The construction of Largs Bay and Lyme Bay is virtually complete and the retention of Swan Hunter as the lead yard offers MOD and the taxpayer the best value for money solution for delivering this new capability.

No comments: