Fleet Solid Support Ships

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Chalk

Friday 18th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I invite the hon. Member to look at the things that really matter—that is, the jobs that will come into British yards. Since we set out the national shipbuilding strategy, which was refreshed earlier this year, we have ensured that, for the first time in decades, there is a lasting pipeline for all Government-procured ships, whether for defence or elsewhere. That is important because the stability ensures that there can be investment.

On the hon. Member’s specific point, there is, of course, a role for Navantia UK—there is no secret about that—just as there is a role for BAE Systems and all sorts of other industries in other badged weapons systems. That does not mean, however, that there is any reduced benefit for British workers. On the contrary, there is £77 million of investment. I respectfully say to him that the question that he has to answer is: would he set his face against a deal that would mean £77 million-worth of investment in a British yard, which, by the way, desperately needs it? Without that investment, who knows what the future would be for Harland & Wolff? With that investment, we can be sure that it is bright, and he should welcome that.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Of course, if the whole contract was coming to UK yards, the investment would be more than £77 million. Now that the Minister has confirmed that the consortium is indeed Spanish-led, I remind him that no other G7 country offshores its warship production. Will he tell us how many jobs are going to Spain that would have come to this country as a result of this reckless decision by his Government?

[Alex Chalk]

I say respectfully that that is an absurd mischaracterisation. I am pleased that the overwhelming majority are coming here. By the way, jobs are also included for the people who designed this—BMT in Bath—which the hon. Member should welcome. The majority of the manufacturing is coming here. This decision also means that we will have the know-how to ensure that we have the pipeline to the future. If he wants to say that there are some jobs in Spain, that is perfectly true, but the overwhelming majority are here. Some of the Typhoons, for example, are assembled in Italy, so does he resent the fact that there are British jobs making some of the components? Of course he does not, because that is the modern world in which we live. Crucially, that modern world ensures that, as opposed to having some sort of prehistoric, antediluvian approach, we have strength for the United Kingdom, strength for the British armed forces and strength for British industry.

Draft Companies (Disclosure of Address) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Chalk

Thursday 29th March 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I had planned to trace the history of the Companies Act 2006 and, for the benefit of our illustrious company, to go through the reasons why it was so important that residential addresses, later service addresses, were published, but the Minister has given such a thorough, detailed and lengthy explanation—

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Exhaustive.

[Bill Esterson]

Exhausting or exhaustive? I could not quite catch from the Parliamentary Private Secretary which it was. I leave that for the readers of Hansard to determine for themselves.

I have two questions for the Minister. It is clearly right that the authorities still have access to residential addresses, including for former directors, and that a service address is available. As the Minister rightly set out, for reasons of fraud and the risk of violence and intimidation, and the 2003 cut-off, it is right that directors—as well as, I believe, company secretaries, shareholders and persons with significant control—receive adequate protection. My understanding from research from the fraud prevention organisation, CIFAS, is that one in five victims of recorded cases of such fraud is a company director. As the Minister says, there has been an increased incidence of fraud or risk of violence and intimidation reported to his Department.

It is clearly right that if the service address option exists, it is only fair that all directors, current and former, can take up the option. Will the Minister explain how the redactions are possible? What has changed in the technology to allow that? What is the new process that means it is now possible? Will he confirm that my understanding about full access by the authorities is correct and also that the publication of a service address is important to the wider public? With those replies, we will be happy to support the regulations.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Chalk

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

I had moved on to the second part, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We need to know what our relationship will be, given the important work—as the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) rightly described it—carried out by Members in this House over many years, which has been extremely important in making progress in the countries named in this Bill and others. It is important that we have a sense from the Government as to how we will stay involved in the work of such agencies. I am sure all Members will agree that this country still has a very important role to play whether or not we are in the EU.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a key bulwark of human rights in this country, and indeed across Europe, is the European convention on human rights, which is not affected by this Bill at all? That has to remain the key and most important element.

[Bill Esterson]

I completely agree.

The EU Commission states that there is a danger that the absence of a power to exchange information with the Canadian Competition Bureau will become an impediment as co-operation between the two parties increases; the Minister made that point. Co-operation with other competition authorities is now standard practice in international competition investigations. The EU has co-operation agreements with the USA, Japan, South Korea and Switzerland. The most advanced is the one with Switzerland; it is very similar to the Canada agreement and has proved, as the Minister said, uncontroversial. Many worldwide or transatlantic cartels include Canada in their operations, and the Canadian commission will get a good opportunity via this agreement to gain additional information concerning these cartels and whether practice is anti-competitive or not.