As household debt in the UK has become the highest it’s ever been on record,  many lower income households finds themselves unable to save money at all, increasing these households’ vulnerability in times of financial insecurity.  Households unable to make ends meet have been said by the Office of National Statistics  “to be living beyond their means”. 

Blaming of borrowers often occurs whenever the topic of household debt comes up. The notion that debtedness is the fault of the individual, is often fuelled by soundbites and stories in the media. Society promotes the idea that it is a self-inflicted punishment for something one person has done, because they’re the ones signing up to credit cards, taking out loans, repaying the mortgage. But most household debt isn’t because people are frivolous like many presume. Rather, it is caused by reductions of wages and benefits, redundancy, and illness. According to Stepchange’s Scotland in the Red Report, before COVID-19 the main cause of household debt was  ‘life events’, Life events are classified as unexpected shocks that put a burden on a person’s finances. In many cases, such events are costly burdens that complicate a person’s life, with no room for flexibility. 

With a third of people being affected financially by COVID-19, a wide range of people have experienced a ‘life event’ that has affected them financially.  An estimated 4 million people have been added to the number with substantial household debt since the crisis began. This begs the question of whether or not this will pave the way for people to talk about their debts and how it affects them.

At the same time, The Bank of England stated that £7.4bn of consumer credit was repaid during the first month of lockdown, the biggest net repayment in a month since 1993. A huge reduction in retail spending led to this, with the outstanding debts on credit cards remaining at £64bn. This positive sounding news demonstrates how the lockdown has added to the wealth divide in the UK. People who were able to keep working can see their debts cleared from a lack of incentive to spend, while many workers being hit by job losses and cut wages take on more debt while on furlough. If this trend continues we are unlikely to see a decrease in stigma associated with debt. It’s possible that these figures could be used by creditors to present a distorted version of events when payment holidays end, adding to the guilt of people who are unable to repay when so many others could.

A poll conducted by Citizens Advice Scotland this summer found that 1 in 4 Scottish people were concerned about their debt repayments. In response to these findings a spokesperson for the Scottish Government said that “We recognise the stress and strain debt can create and we would encourage anyone with concerns to contact organisations such as CAS to get advice and support.” While this statement acknowledges the fact that it’s a stressful time for people in debt, it passes the buck of having a conversation about debt back onto the charities that have already done so much to bring the issue to the foreground. Along with voting down the recent plans for rent controls, the Scottish Government hasn’t done much to address people’s heightened debt concerns. 

A reduction of the stigma around household debt is necessary to widen the conversation on the topic and increase the pressure on government and public lenders to make systematic changes to our flawed financial system. To make this happen  we have to harness the shared experience of COVID-19’s impact on household debt. People should not be treated like criminals for the chaotic circumstances that life throws at them. The conversation needs to be facilitated in a way where the Scottish government talks about personal debt, in a transparent way that makes people feel heard instead of at risk for speaking out.  If we don’t talk about the devastating impact of household debt openly and address the scale of the problem, we won’t build back as a better society. 

Spread the word...

The post To help people through the COVID-19 recession, we need to reduce the stigma around household debt appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

The outbreak of COVID-19 has reminded us what is really important – looking after each other and our communities, our health and well-being, our public services. Now, as Scotland moves past a peak of infections, our attention turns to what comes next The choices made by the government now will affect our communities and our climate for generations to come. 

The recovery plan must lay the foundations of a greener, fairer Scotland for everyone. Where we reduce inequalities, strengthen public services and provide an adequate income for everyone. Where we do our fair share of climate action and restore nature. Where we all have a say in decisions that affect us.

We are proud to stand with over 80 organisations in Scotland calling for a Just and Green Recovery in Scotland. Together, we wrote to the First Minister outlining five steps for the recovery which you can read here.

This is just the beginning, we need to grow and show public support for a recovery that helps us transform our society for the better

Will you join Scotland’s movement to Build Back Better?

Sign the petition here!

Spread the word...

The post A Just and Green Recovery for Scotland appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

We need to assess the public health crisis that is about to explode in the Global South if debt is not outright cancelled. While most Northern countries are in the midst of fighting against the virus, the heaviest impact caused by the pandemic will be on countries in Africa, South & Latin America and Southeast Asia. With many of the Healthcare and social security systems of these countries being ill-equipped to handle the outbreak, the virus will have a devastating effect on the poorest communities. Jubilee Scotland has signed onto a new Debt Jubilee along with 200 other organisations, alling for the cancellation of debt payments paid out from global south countries to the World Bank and IMF during this time. This petition  is one of many calling on the government to take a stance on a pressing issue. It’s estimated by the Jubilee Debt Campaign that over $300 Billion in full debt cancellation is necessary for these countries to fight the virus over the next year. Some payments have been delayed so far, but by merely suspending debt payments, they only defer the problems of these countries for a little while. 

This approach ends up costing creditors nothing, but borrowing countries will have bigger repayments and higher debt risks down the line for many of these countries. Covid-19 has already led to falls in commodity prices and projected increases in borrowing costs in the global south, with limited resources at hand to handle a public health crisis. If these countries have to rely on more outside loans to fight the pandemic they will be stuck in high interest debt traps for decades to come.  One of the biggest risks that these countries are exposed to is the legal challenges that can be brought upon them for failing to keep up their payments. The G20 have called upon private creditors to delay payments, but they are not obliged to. Currently 77 countries are estimated to pay $9.4 Billion from May to December, as part of the G20 deal. Private lenders can sue governments in the UK courts for following the G20’s advice and suspending payments. But the Global South should not be pushed into this by the western institutions who have pledged to help them.

We need your help to call on Chancellor Rishi Sunak, to promote debt relief in these countries that are worst affected by the virus. By signing up to our petition, you help us put across the message that we need real debt cancellation and ways to work out debt in future that doesn’t put human lives at risk. 

Spread the word...

The post A call for a new Debt Jubilee appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

Oxfam International’s Head of Washington DC Office, Nadia Daar, said:

“We commend Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Chairwoman of the HFSC, for advancing this crucial reform agenda at the IFC where the US remains the largest shareholder, and applaud IFC CEO Philippe Le Houérou for his leadership in making these reforms possible. This is a huge step forward not just for the IFC, but for how we understand the role of the private sector in development.”

“This historic decision from the IFC will ensure its investments support improvements in education without excluding children or impoverishing families. Public aid money should not be used to fund corporate-backed private school chains that fuel inequality. Other donor agencies and governments now need to follow suit.”

This freeze is in response to concerns raised by 170 organizations, including Jubilee Scotland who called on the World Bank to end support for these forms of private education that profit on the exploitation of poor children, creating wider inequality. We called for expansions of public education that everyone can access- instead of ‘low-fee private schools’ which exclude girls, impoverished children and paid extremely low wages to under qualified teachers. In Uganda and Kenya, these schools have been accused of refusing to comply with minimum government education standards.

In addition to the freeze the IFC announced an evaluation of its investments in private schools by the World Bank’s independent evaluation group. Oxfam have stated that the COVID-19 Pandemic cannot be used by any donor as an excuse to invest in for-profit education, with the need for these organisations to financing to help countries meet educational needs of millions of children out of school with no access to online classes, tutors or computers.

This move by the bank has been a good start for ending private financing that negatively impacts communities while letting private companies profit. It is time for the UK to take out their investment in these schools that are part of this problem, especially when this investment is supposed to be providing aid.

The Guardian published an article this weekend that focuses on the UK’s current position on this issue.

“The Department for International Development (DfID) has given millions of pounds to low-fee private schools (LFPS) in countries around the world, including Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana and Pakistan. It believes the money can help improve the educational prospects of children in places where public-sector schools are poor or lacking.

But the funding, some of it channelled through DfID’s private investment arm, CDC, has proved controversial. Among those that have received UK taxpayer cash are the private school chain Bridge International Academies (BIA) which has also been the recipient of money from Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.”

Bridge International Academies runs low-cost schools with the UK investing £12.3 in the company. Last year a World Bank watchdog, the Compliance Adviser Ombudsman (CAO) investigated BIA’s operations in Kenya and found allegations of human rights abuses, poor working conditions, discrimination, lack of transparency and intimidation, as well as concerns about pay, health and safety and sanitation.

At the time the DFID said they would investigate the situation, something which they are continuing to work on with the WBG. But this should be a sign that the policy of DFID investing aid money in Public Private Partnerships can can lead to situations like this. PPPs and their lack of accountability and transparency have led to fee-paying schools with questionable quality popping up in countries which need to fight for free and universal education.

Linda Oduor-Noah, project manager at East African Campaign for Human Rights commented “We have heard first-hand from other investors that they are keenly awaiting the outcome of the investigation,”she said. “I would like Bridge to respect human rights and I think that no for-profit entity should masquerade as having social agenda, when at the end of the day profit drives all decision making. People involved in the provision of public goods should never endeavour to make profit off the poor.” Bridge Schools have had a researcher arrested and have lobbied the investigation of the issues of their schools. The reseracher they arrested, Curtis Riep made the recommendation to not fund Bridge Schools as they neglect legal standards while driving profit, a clear case of a PPP that starts with an altrustic goal that become consumed by profit margins as time goes on.

As a private company they have produced research and press releases justifying the existence of PPPs that come off as strange and potentially misleading PR moves. In one report produced by BIA about the British public’s support and approval of Privately provided education in foreign countries, they say that over half of people are in support of these type of schools. They’ve done the same for the public opinon of USA citizens, but the reports use leading questions that doesn’t show any transparency of what these private schools actually are like.

These reports don’t talk about the actual work they do, but just dress up some market research, that makes it look like people are in favor of this, but It’s hard to say that the every-man on the street in any English speaking country has enough information to make a valid assessment of the issues surrounding privatization of education in Africa. With statistics that look good, they can claim that people approve of what they do without shedding much light on it at all or twisting figures and claims. They asked people if a social enterprise company like them should run schools that cost parents about $7 US dollars a month, in countries where there is a lack of other schools. Of course this sounds like a great idea when you think about what that amount of money means to you, but this is without mentioning that $7 can be a huge amount of a persons income in these countries. The teachers at these Schools work up to 65 hours per week and only take away $100 per month. In Kenya, sending three children to a Bridge school is estimated to represent almost a third of the monthly income of families living on $1.25 (94p) a day, according to a joint study by Kenya National Union of Teachers and Education International, a federation representing 32 million teachers and support staff. Instead of spending time

The European investment bank financed Bridge International Academies Ltd (BIA) through an equity fund, who became involved in a controversial PPP educational project in Liberia. Indeed, the Liberian government outsourced the lion share of its public pre-primary and primary schools to BIA, but the process was not competitive, local communities were not properly consulted, and there was not full transparency.

This is just one of many providing this form of private-for-profit education, PPPs in Africa that provide public services in a way that makes it harder to make people accountable when they can’t meet standards that they promised. The issues is that many countries can’t offer a full education system alone without some reform of the corruption within their society, in places like Liberia the education system has been broken for years. Private alternatives are marginally better for learning outcomes, but still fail students on basic human rights and protections from abuse.

The steps that the World Bank group have taken are great and hopefully open up a conversation about how to ensure the education in the global south can thrive and not be used as a tool to drive profit. But this is an issue that should be closely watched. While our government uses PPPs to provide part of our education infrastructure with mixed results, handing a contract over to private companies to overhaul a whole system in places like the Global South edges out what the ultimate aim should be in these places – quality universal free education for all children.

This article was initially posted on our Medium.com blog.

Spread the word...

The post British aid money should not be spent on building Bridge private schools appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

Some of the world’s poorest countries are facing health and economic crisis unlike what we have seen here. By cancelling the upcoming debt payments owed by these countries, it would be the best way to free up existing public revenue to support their people and not be burdened with debt that rises unsustainably over the next few years of recovery.

The IMF and the World Bank have called for debt payments by the poorest countries to other governments to be suspended, but with the effects of the pandemic likely to last for years, delaying rather than cancelling payments won’t solve the problem. 

Cancellation also needs to apply to all creditors, including bilateral, multilateral and private lenders, to ensure freed-up money goes to support the pandemic response, and not to pay off other debts.

Anne Funnemark Campaign director of Jubilee Scotland, said: “Millions of people in some of the world’s poorest countries are facing devastating health, social and economic crises as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Permanently cancelling upcoming debt payments owed by these countries would be the fastest way to free up existing public resources to tackle this unprecedented crisis and to save lives.

“The suspension on debt payments called for by the IMF and World Bank will fall short of this goal if it doesn’t apply to all lenders, and only postpones payments. Full cancellation of all external debt payments is critical, along with emergency finance that doesn’t add to debt burdens. This must be followed up with a more comprehensive and long-term approach to debt crisis resolution.”

As well as a cancellation of debt service, up to an additional US$ 73.1 billion of emergency finance will be needed to help low income economies as they respond to the crisis in 2020. This must be provided through grants, rather than loans, to stop recipient countries getting even deeper into debt. Addressing the long-term debt pressures on developing countries also requires decision-makers finally agreeing reforms to the international system for dealing with sovereign debt restructuring, once the acute Covid-19 crisis has passed. 

A joint letter– signed by Jubilee Scotland – will be sent to governments and their representatives at the IMF and World Bank today. It calls for:

• The permanent cancellation of all external debt payments due in 2020 by developing countries, with no accrual of interest and charges and no penalties. 
• The provision of additional, fresh emergency finance that does not create more debt.
• Debt cancellation and new financing to be provided free of demands for market-friendly and austerity-focused policy reforms in developing countries.
• Measures to be put in place to protect developing countries from lawsuits when ceasing 2020 debt payments.
• A process under UN auspices to be agreed in the longer term, to support systematic, timely, and fair restructuring of sovereign debt.

Spread the word...

The post Jubilee Scotland signs on to new debt jubilee to tackle COVID-19 in the Global South. appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

—–

Written by Helen Mercer: Jubilee Scotland launch 29^th January 2020

There is a strong tendency among campaigners on PFI to see the problems with which we are all familiar – the high cost of finance, poor construction, excessive profits – as stemming from factors such as woolly thinking, incompetence, corruption, fraud, lack of transparency and weak monitoring. I argue first that while such factors may exist they are not the root causes: the problems with PPPs are systemic and structural in an environment deliberately created by governments.

A simple and curtailed history of PFI

1. By the 1990s Britain faced a pent up demand for renewed infrastructure. The IMF loan of 1976 agreed by the Labour government lead to major cuts in public expenditure, continued into the 1980s. By the 1990s major maintenance problems in public infrastructure were apparent, and often the preferred solution was to demolish the entire building and start afresh.

Pent up demand for investment in public infrastructure

2. However by the 1990s public authorities’ traditional access to public borrowing was limited by the Maastricht Treaty and its successors, together with severe unilateral targets adopted by Gordon Brown on levels of government debt and budget deficits. Central government has various tools to secure cheap borrowing rates, but these were no longer available to public authorities to address their infrastructure backlogs.

PFI BECAME THE ‘ONLY GAME IN TOWN’

3. Governments therefore gave the private sector a free hand in providing much needed public investment. Capital markets had been deregulated. Investors were seeking profitable outlets and Government was a willing tool in opening up the state sector as a source of profit. It passed legislation guaranteeing payments on PFI deals and offered special PFI subsidies to public bodies to ensure they could afford to pay the private premiums.

PROFITABLE INVESTMENT WAS UNDERWRITTEN BY GOVERNMENT

4. Public authorities were left to deal with predatory private investors and lenders. In forcing them down the PFI route the government deliberately set up a situation of asymmetric information. All the knowledge and experience was on the side of the private investors and lenders, on the public side was a urgent need for what only they could offer.

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES WERE SENT NAKED AMONG WOLVES

PFI schemes also became a key driver of the outsourcing of public services, as privately provided servicing and maintenance of the PFI building became part of the PFI contract. (This has not been the case for the variants PF2 and NPD/Hub projects but has re-appeared in the Mutual Investment Model (MIM’s) The PFI mix was a toxic one of heavy debt, outsourced servicing, together with a lack of control over the contractors themselves.

This mix of factors shows that the failings of PFI cannot be characterised as unintended or unfortunate. The solutions therefore cannot lie just in FOI requests, or judicial review or tax adjustments. These activities provide publicity and additional knowledge and are therefore useful in campaigning, but such actions cannot be paraded as solutions.

Hence the economic history of PFI shows a systemic, in-built purposeful failure in which even personal or corporate corruption, assuming it can be proven, is of minor importance in understanding the root of the problems. This picture of the system, the environment within which PFIs have developed needs to be complemented by considering the way PFI contracts are structured.

The structure of PFI contracts

To describe the structures set up through PFI and similar projects is again to broach a large and complex area so I want to focus on just one key point element – the role of the company which signs the contract with the public authority – the Special Purpose Vehicle or SPV.

It is the SPV which, in return for an annual payment, secures all sources of finance, pays building contractors and, where relevant, the service providers. They are private companies, whose shares are owned by private investors increasingly infrastructure investment funds, such as HICL, Dalmore Capital, Standard Aberdeen, 3i, Innisfree, Semperian.

The diagram shows an SPV sitting like a spider at the centre of a web of contracts – the primary contract with the public authority and then the various contracts with lenders and with the contractors.

The role of the SPV is effectively to pump public money to various private actors and most importantly to the shareholders themselves. The shareholders extend 10% of the finance needed for the project and their loan carries interest rates usually of around 10-15% and is one of the reasons why PFI is so expensive. In addition as shareholders they are entitled to dividends and these accrue from any difference between what the public body pays the SPV (in debt, payment for services etc) and the monies owed by the SPV to lenders, builders and service providers. In the case of the Scottish Non-Profit PFIs any such surplus does not accrue to investors.

The position of the SPV is the main reason why buyouts as the solution are to PFI are bound to be unsatisfactory. A buyout involves the public authority effectively ending a commercial contract under commercial terms, and as a result penalty clauses must kick in and investors and others will be compensated for the loss of anticipated earnings. They walk off with a lump sum from the public purse.

Solution: nationalise the SPVs as a way to end PFIs

It was recognition of the structural features of PFIs that prompted campaigners to look at the idea of nationalising the SPVs. It is not a buyout because no PFI contract is cancelled or ended: instead ownership of the SPV passes to the government and hence the parties to the main PFI contract are both publicly owned a situation which immediately opens new spaces for restructuring the relationship.

This has two effects which reverse the systemic problems referred to in the first part of this talk. First, control over the terms of borrowing returns to central government which can renegotiate debt with all the lenders. Secondly, the public authorities regain control over all the other contracts, including receiving the profits which had previously accrued to the owners of the SPV. Research with Dexter Whitfield has indicated that, using data up to March 2018, the elimination of SPV profits would reduce the costs to public authorities of their annual payments to the SPV by £1.4bn per year.ⁱ

Afterword

Many plans are being developed for publicly financed and provided infrastructure. However the question remains of how to deal with the toxic legacy we have inherited – from PFIs, PF2s, NPD/Hubs and now MIMs? The question cannot be continually ducked: nationalising SPVs is one option that merits serious consideration.

Read more about this in Nationalising Special Purpose Vehicles to end PFI: a discussion of the
costs and benefits.

The solution is in fact much more detailed than the outline provided in this talk and the full paper considers levels of compensation and the need to honour outstanding debts. It also considers the further changes that need to be made to move towards publicly financed infrastructure and insourced services.

Spread the word...

The post The economic history of PFI – as a guide on how to end it appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

Presentation by Dexter Whitfield, European Services Strategy Unit, to meeting ‘Rethinking Private Financing of Scottish Public Projects’ at the Scottish Parliament on 29 January 2020, organised by Jubilee Scotland and chaired by Neil Findlay, MSP.

I welcome the refreshing straight-talking report on NDP and hub PPP contracts from Audit Scotland this week. I strongly recommend that the Scottish Parliament, local authorities and public bodies immediately adopt six strategies for public infrastructure projects in Scotland.

1 – Increase direct public investment in public infrastructure and stop all planned Mutual Investment Model projects

The Government should take the opportunity to increase direct public investment in infrastructure in the current period of low interest rates.

Planned MIM projects and those that have been approved with options appraisal and business cases, but yet not commenced the start of the contractual procurement process, should be stopped. The Scottish Government should support the local authorities and public bodies in arranging direct public investment for these projects.

The Mutual Investment Model (MIM) allows the public sector to invest up to 20% of the risk capital in project companies and to meet the private investment classification (off public sector balance sheet). However, the public sector, in effect, becomes a commercial partner with the private sector in sharing all the risks and rewards. This significantly deepens the degree of privatisation, extends the scope of secondary market trading in PPP equity and the takeover or merger of infrastructure funds (Whitfield 2016 and 2017b).

2 – Scotland should adopt a new public design/finance and operate model

This would have three objectives, to integrate the design and construction process, to reduce the cost of construction and to minimise the risk of delays. Two examples illustrate how these objectives can be achieved.

The UK’s Integrated Project Insurance (IPI) offers a guaranteed maximum price and protection against defects underwritten by insurance. A project alliance is formed with a Gain/Pain Share agreement under IPI in which all members of the project Alliance share in risk and reward. It was recently successfully piloted at Dudley College. The target outturn construction cost of £9.83m was agreed and exceeded by only 1.8%. The client share of the additional cost was only 0.34% of the target cost. The building was ready for occupation as planned at the start of the 2017/18 academic year.

Construction Management At Risk (CMAR) has been widely used in many US states for public building, transportation and utility projects. The client selects an architect who commences the design and later selects the construction manager/contractor, based on qualifications and track record, before the design stage is completed. The architect and construction manager work together in the final stage of the design process. The construction manager/contractor gives the client a guaranteed maximum price and coordinates all the subcontracted work. This process strengthens coordination, enhances transparency, delivers efficiencies and minimises delays (Whitfield, 2020).

3 – Local authorities and public bodies should intensify the monitoring of PPPs to identify defaults and poor performance.

Monitoring of PPP projects has often been inadequate due to inadequate monitoring staffing levels being included in business cases and contracts and over-reliance on self-monitoring by the private sector. Local authorities should now intensify contract monitoring focusing on all aspects of the quality of performance and other contractual requirements. This information should be reported to relevant committees and publicly disclosed.

Local authorities should also establish contract reviews where defaults and poor performance have been significant or systemic. They should draw on evidence from service users, community and tenants organisations and trade unions. There remains considerable scope for local authorities and public bodies to consider terminating operational PPP service contracts and return provision in-house. Where defaults and poor performance are evidenced and remain after the issue of contractual warnings by the authority, termination without compensation is a viable and legal option. In some cases a contractor has withdrawn from a contract on technical or operational grounds. There have been 27 PPP contract terminations and 12 buyouts in the UK to date (Whitfield, 2020).

4 – Establish a comprehensive and rigorous Economic, Social, Equality and Environmental Cost Benefit Analysis methodology

This should be mandatory for all infrastructure projects in Scotland. The Scottish Government should also require comprehensive and rigorous impact assessments to identify the positive and negative economic, employment, equality and environmental consequences of projects and to identify where and what form of mitigation action is required.

The quality of impact assessment is reliant on assessment of the impact on inputs, processes, outputs, equity and outcomes to establish cause and effect and the use of a counterfactual (the situation that would exist if the project did not proceed). Furthermore, employment impacts must include a full analysis of current jobs, terms and conditions, health and safety and equality practices and planned changes.

5 – The Scottish Parliament and local authorities should oppose the sale of equity in PPPs

The average annual rate of return on the sale of equity in PPP projects was 28.7% (based on a significant data sample) at the end of 2016 with acquisition mainly by offshore infrastructure funds in tax havens (Whitfield, 2017b). This evidence is in sharp contrast with the expected 12%-15% rate of return contained in PPP business cases or contract documentation.

The scale of equity transactions and offshoring to tax havens is very significant. “A total of 87.5% of Scotland’s PFI/PPP education projects (280 out of 320 schools) are currently partly or wholly owned by offshore tax haven funds. Nearly half the schools had 100% of their equity owned offshore” (Table 11, Whitfield, 2016). The NDP and MIM models in effect lock-in and legitimate public sector investment in PPP projects and the secondary market.

Whilst the sale of equity is legally permissible, there is a very strong case that it should be opposed on political economy and ethical grounds.

6 – Challenge the trend of Scottish pension fund investment in PPPs

There are direct links between Scottish public sector pension fund investments, offshore tax havens and shares in NPD and hub companies. At least four Scottish pension funds have investments in offshore infrastructure funds with stakes in NPD and hub projects. Glasgow City Council, on behalf of Strathclyde Pension Fund, has had a £30m investment in the Equitix Fund IV LP since 2016 which was extended by further £50m investment in the Equitix Fund V LP, managed by Equitix GP 5 Limited (Guernsey).

Edinburgh City Council, on behalf of Lothian Pension Fund and Lothian Buses Pension Fund and the Falkirk Council Pension Fund have investments in the Equitix Fund II LP. Equitix Ltd is one of the largest UK PPP companies and although a registered UK company it is owned by Tetragon Financial Group Limited and registered offshore in Guernsey (Whitfield, 2018).

The targeted 10% annual rate of return of these investments is not in the public interest because it ramps up the cost of public infrastructure. Likewise, public sector investments in NDP and MIM projects feed potential gains in the secondary market which may only cover the cost of risky investment in other PPP projects.

I believe these policies are essential in developing a genuine public alternative to PPPs in Scotland.

References

Whitfield, D. (2016) The financial commodification of public infrastructure: The growth of offshore PFI/PPP

secondary market infrastructure funds, ESSU Research Report No. 8,

https://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/financial-commodification-public-infrastructure.pdf

Whitfield, D. (2017a) PFI/PPP Buyouts, Bailouts, Terminations and Major Problem Contracts, ESSU Research

Report No. 9,

https://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/pfi-ppp-buyouts-bailouts-and-terminations.pdf

Whitfield, D. (2017b) PPP profiteering and Offshoring: New Evidence, PPP Equity Database 1998-2016 (UK), ESSU Research Report No.10,

https://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PPP-profiteering-Offshoring-New-Evidence.pdf

Whitfield, D. (2018) Ownership and Offshoring of NPD and Hub Projects: Scottish Futures Trust, May,
https://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SFT-Offshoring-report.pdf

Whitfield, D, (2020) Public Alternative to the Privatisation of Life, Spokesman Books, Nottingham.

Spread the word...

The post Dexter Whitfield recommends that Holyrood stops all MIM projects appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

I don’t know what you were up to this Tuesday 11 June 2013 but I was demonstrating in front of the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. Well, almost. Because despite long negotiations with the police, we never made it through to the entrance of the building where the TEDGlobal Conference was taking place. No, we were not trying to get there without paying the £6000 admittance fee. We were rather chanting our opposition to George Papandreou giving a speech in the first session of the conference.

“Papandreou, who’s that?”, you ask. Well, you know, the former Prime Minister of Greece, elected in 2009 who served a two-year premiership during which time he was supposed to put an end to austerity measures. “Oh, so that’s why he was invited. To tell attendees how he managed that.”, you naively assume. Well, not exactly. By the way, I thought you were aware of the dreadful current situation in Greece! Mr. Papandreou “drew lessons from the Greek crisis”. I assume the many Greeks who took part to the protest were perfectly able to do that. “We know the lessons from the crisis firsthand. We don’t need lectures from the bosses”, their banner read [1].

Let us imagine anyway how George Papandreou’s speech sounded like.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. I understand you are expecting me to draw lessons from the Greek crisis. When I came into office in 2009, I inherited a fair amount of debt, to say the least. After meetings with my European colleagues and elected – but mostly non-elected – officials, I got convinced that the best way to tackle the Greek debt and deficit was to get the country into deep recession. The best way to achieve such a result was of course to implement austerity measures, designed in agreement with the Troika, that is the European Central Bank (ECB), the International Fund (IMF) and the people of Greece. I’m kidding, I meant the European Commission (EC).

Of course it did not matter whether or not the same people who had voted me in agreed with these measures. They were quite opposed to it by the way. As soon as we started reducing the minimum wage and pensions, cutting public spending, privatising and making civil servants redundant, they responded by organising massive protests and general strikes. I had a ready-to-use solution though. It was not the first time such policies were imposed against the will of the people. I could count on the IMF’s decades-old experience with Third World countries and on my own country’s history for that matter [2]. Now, if you find yourself faced with opposition, do not slow down the process and keep going. Ideally you would even buy state of the art military equipment and show no mercy for the protesters. Do not forget to criminalise workers’ ability to defend their rights. Naomi Klein calls this efficient combination the “shock doctrine”. In the end, your opponents should grow tired and look powerlessly at the social fabric of the country being ripped apart [3].

How can you assess my success? Not only Greece fell into a deep recession, it is now also facing a humanitarian crisis. Thanks to widespread poverty, people can no longer afford medication, to heat their home, to go to the hospital or to send their children to school. 21% of people now live in poverty and 62% of young people are unemployed. But it is the price they pay for the collapse of the international financial system, bank bail-outs, speculation, the euro and the failure of the successive Greek governments to implement a fair and effective tax system. As you know, “we’re all in this together”. In addition, we cannot be expected to cut on military expenditures, this money goes into the pockets of French and German military industries. So, in addition to reduction in wages for those lucky enough to have a job, we decided to sell out water, energy and railways and to increases taxes, for everyone. Isn’t it a brilliant idea? We ask the average population to pay more with less money. Hence the rise in the number of people committing suicide and the rise of the far right .

 I am happy to announce that Golden Dawn had Members of Parliament elected in the last elections. With massive support for the party within the police, racially motivated violence can go on with impunity. You can also add to my record that life expectancy is due to fall and the Greek debt to go up this year. Let’s be honest, the point of all that was not really to reduce it anyway. [4]“

Fair enough Mr. Papandreou. Now, I know most countries in Europe are tempted to follow suit. However, in a democracy, you should take people’s opinion into account before you go ahead with measures which seriously undermine human rights. If the only way you found to pay back the debt is to cut on healthcare and education and to increase poverty, then it certainly means it is unpayable. As such, it should not be repaid. All the more that if a debt audit is to publicly uncover where the debt came from, who benefited from it and whether and how it should be repaid. Should the Greek people pay for the 108 billion euro required to bail out the banks for instance? Finally, if force has to be employed to push the austerity measures through, this is another indication that the debt is illegitimate. Illegitimate debt actually builds on the concept of odious debt, presented for the first time in 1927 by an economist called Alexander Sack. Odious debt is also based on three prerequisites. First the loan has to be received by a government without the approval and knowledge of the people. Secondly the loan is not spent on activities beneficial to the people and finally the lenders know of this situation. Ironically, this concept has been used several times by the United States to repudiate debt, most recently in Iraq. That the members of the Paris Club asked for the concept not to be officially mentioned was not a reason not to appeal to the concept. Instead Mr. Papandreou, you gave up the sovereignty of Greece and defaulted on the Greek people.

You did not get out of the building Mr. Papandreou in spite of us chanting “Papandreou get out! We know what you’re all about: cuts, job losses, money for the bosses!”.

 You cannot deny you – and your successors – implemented the cuts and the job losses. As to the “money for the bosses”, two examples will speak for themselves: the national lottery was privatised despite the fact that it was highly profitable and one gold mine in the north of the country was sold for £9.5 million whereas it is believed to have gold and copper worth £8 billion. Other leaders showed more boldness than this though.

Some governments have refused to pay the debt. Countries such as Ecuador, Argentina or more recently Iceland defaulted, audited their debts or insisted their own terms for repayments. In Argentina, it took the President having to flee in helicopter under popular pressure. Not surprisingly, these countries all fare better than Greece, Spain or Portugal. Ecuador even went further and passed a constitution which prohibits the socialisation of private debts. Beforehand, an audit reviewing all debt contracts from 1956 to 2006, had proven the debt was odious, illegitimate and unconstitutional. During the 1980s and 1990s, Ecuador had spent 50% of its budget on debt repayments and 4% on healthcare. Rafael Correa, elected in 2006, decided debt repayments would no longer prevail on life. Thus, Ecuador declared the cessation of payment for 70% of Ecuador’s debt in bonds. But I guess you were not really willing to go against the neo-liberal agenda. People are though. They are prepared to take to the street. They already have in Scotland to call for the bedroom tax to be axed and it is no surprise people here were keen to hold you accountable Mr. Papandreou. It is not worth putting the blame on Brussels and financial markets [5], you also share some responsibility.

[1] Helen Walters, “Protesting Papandreou: Anti-auterity demonstrators at TEDGlobal 2013?, TED  Blog.

[2]  Katerina Kitidi and Aris Hatzistefanou, Debtocracy, 2011

[3] Nick Dearden, “Nick Dearden blogs from debt campaigner delegation to Greece”, Jubilee Debt Campaign.

[4] Nick Dearden, “Nick Dearden blogs from debt campaigner delegation to Greece”, Jubilee Debt Campaign.

[5] Helen Walters, “The failure of leadership in politics: George Papandreou at TEDGlobal 2013?, TED Blog.

Spread the word...

The post Illegitimate Greek Debt appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

If Malawi had received its debt relief with no hidden reductions and cuts, it would have had $101 million extra per annum free in its budget (the UK, in comparison, gave $180 million in 2006: SID, table 16.2). What it has really had is less impressive even than this. At best Malawi’s debt relief amounts to nothing more than a marginal adjustment to its domestic debt interest bill; at worst it amounts to less than nothing.

In September 2006 Malawi completed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries process. Goodall Gondwe set out his intention to use the money saved specifically for the benefit of the poor. “Mr Speaker, Sir, and Honourable Members”, he stated, “during the budget review in March, it was proposed to spend these debt relief resources on those social activities that would benefit the poorer segment of the population.” (2007/8 Budget Statement, para. 48 – link now broken.)

But this appears to be impossible, since the terms and conditions of the debt relief Malawi received actually reduce the amount of money available for “the poorer segment”.

Gondwe’s 2007/8 Budget Speech explains that the overall debt stock was reduced from $3.0 billion to $0.5 billion, leading to saving in interest and capital repayments of $101 million in 2007/8; however, Malawi had been receiving $36 million per annum since the year 2000 in interim debt relief; so extra value provided by debt relief in 2006 was around $65 million per annum

However, a large proportion of this new debt relief money was provided under the terms of the deal agreed at the G8 Summit in Scotland in 2005: and under these terms, countries receiving debt relief also get a cut-back in the amount of development loans they receive from the World Bank. One of the terms of the debt relief deal for Malawi was that its World Bank funding would be reduced by $27 million per annum (this is, apparently, because the US won out over the UK during the 2005 G8 Summit debt relief negotiations: download article here). Now, the World Bank provides money to Malawi, it says, specifically to help with reducing poverty; given this, it seems fair to say that this $27 million per annum reduction is money that would have been, and now is not, available to benefit the “poorer segment”.

Malawi has – or had, in 2006 – huge domestic debts; this is because the government under Muluzi shored up its budgets by borrowing large amounts from Malawian and Malawi-resident businesses. An agreement was made with the IMF that a large proportion of the money saved through getting debt relief in 2006 would be directed towards reducing domestic debt. This agreement, set out in the 2006 Article IV Consultation(para. 22) ringfences $26 million per annum for the Malawian budget, and directs the the remainder to reducing domestic debt.

This means that only $26 million per annum is available for spending specifically on projects that benefit “the poorer segment of the population”. But we have already seen that the World Bank is reducing the money available for reducing poverty by $27 million per annum So Malawi had less, not more, money available for spending against poverty as a result of getting debt relief.

Certainly, by reducing domestic debt, the Malawi government will have a lower domestic debt interest bill to pay, and this will improve its financial situation overall. The IMF Article IV consultation says it will reduce domestic debt by 1.4% GDP; I have not tried to calculate the significance of this for the annual domestic debt interest bill. However, the claim made by governments and NGOs alike, was that debt relief money would go directly to pro-poor spending. “The debt relief to be provided as a result of reaching completion point will provide a great push to Malawi’s poverty reduction efforts”, said Michael Baxter, World Bank country director for Malawi.

This is a tremendous overstatement. If Malawi had received debt relief without these underlying conditions, it would have made less difference than an ungenerous donor. As it is, the debt relief will result in less money available specifically for “pro-poor” spending, but with some circumstantial reduction in the pressure of the domestic debt interest bill.

Debt relief is a noble cause: but delivered in this form it is vitiated.

Jubilee Scotland

Spread the word...

The post Malawi’s debt relief enigma appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

I had noticed throughout the speaker tour that the more confrontational and technical his interlocutors, the more Ardi rose to the challenge, and this meeting was no exception. He refused to be intimidated by the plutocratic architecture of Canary Wharf – ‘the elevator is speaking to us’ he remarked with a smile as we disembarked on the 13th floor of Exchange Tower – and repeatedly brought the discussion back to the core concerns of our campaign.

Ardi stressed the difficulty the people of Indonesia had in finding their feet when around 60% of their taxes went to debt repayments. He did not beg, but stressed the growth of a strong grass-roots movement in his country that was increasingly pushing the Indonesian government to de-recognise it’s illegitimate debts. Within this context I suggested that the Jubilee ‘Lift the Lid’ campaign, with its emphasis on an international and multilateral consensus on odious debts, was worthy of their serious attention.

It’s difficult to gauge how much of this serious attention we got. Certainly the meeting room was stuffed with officials of some seniority, including the CEO – Patrick Crawford. We encountered some of the usual red herrings – including the obligatory statement that it is pointless for the UK to clean up its own act when China behaves in the way it does. We were also told that standards had improved in the last few years, and that no new deals are being made to Indonesia.

While these last statements are possibly true, they are impossible to verify as long as so many ECGD-backed deals remain shrouded in commercial confidentiality. And while it felt exciting to expose this most business-minded of departments to the views of a campaigner from the Global South, it will clearly to be difficult for our campaign to make headway while the accounts of this secretive organisation remain closed to the public. To lift the lid, in other words, it may first be necessary to open the books.

Spread the word...

The post Jubilee Scotland and Jubilee Debt Campaign meet the ECGD appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.