Difference between revisions of "Government Procurement"

From WikiCorporates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Public-Private Partnership (PPP))
m (Public-Private Partnership (PPP))
Line 20: Line 20:
 
* {{tc|red|BankWatch}}, https://bankwatch.org/public-private-partnerships
 
* {{tc|red|BankWatch}}, https://bankwatch.org/public-private-partnerships
 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public%E2%80%93private_partnership W:Categ:Public-private-partnership], (ToDo: Suss which MPs are involved in this scam)
 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public%E2%80%93private_partnership W:Categ:Public-private-partnership], (ToDo: Suss which MPs are involved in this scam)
* Great timeline and overview up to Feb.2017 here: https://jubileedebt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/The-Uks-PPPs-disaster-web.pdf
+
* Great timeline and overview up to Feb.2017 here. Also goes into the financial commodification: https://jubileedebt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/The-Uks-PPPs-disaster-web.pdf
 
{{Src|news|date=Mar.20.2018|title=Auditors expose the failure of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and slam EU’s support.|quote=The [[European Court of Auditors]] today slammed PPPs, stating that they were "not always effectively managed and did not provide adequate value-for-money". The report recommends that "the Commission and the Member States should not promote a more intensive and widespread use of PPPs until the issues identified in this report are addressed, in particular, increasing assurance that the choice of the PPP option is the one that provides most-value-for-money". Maria Jose Romero, Policy and Advocacy Manager at the [[European Network on Debt and Development]] (Eurodad) said: "We strongly welcome this report. The failings of PPPs have been clear for many years yet govts and institutions like the EU and [[World Bank]] go on promoting them. More than 150 organisations from around the world signed onto a campaign manifesto in Oct.2017 calling for the World Bank and similar bodies to stop promoting PPPs. Maria Jose said: "We have seen numerous scandals across Europe associated with PPPs which have done huge damage to some public sectors. Even worse, we have seen the same happen in some of the poorest countries in the world where govts have been advised to take on risky and expensive projects and have paid a high price". Xavier Sol, Director of [[Counter Balance]], added "This critical report comes as a reality check: a more cautious approach towards PPPs is needed as they are not a silver bullet. It raises doubts about the blind focus on PPPs promoted by the [[European Commission]] and its financial arm the [[European Investment Bank]] – which has supported several of the weak projects audited by the Court.|website=[[Eurodad]]|url=http://www.eurodad.org/ECA-report-reaction}}
 
{{Src|news|date=Mar.20.2018|title=Auditors expose the failure of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and slam EU’s support.|quote=The [[European Court of Auditors]] today slammed PPPs, stating that they were "not always effectively managed and did not provide adequate value-for-money". The report recommends that "the Commission and the Member States should not promote a more intensive and widespread use of PPPs until the issues identified in this report are addressed, in particular, increasing assurance that the choice of the PPP option is the one that provides most-value-for-money". Maria Jose Romero, Policy and Advocacy Manager at the [[European Network on Debt and Development]] (Eurodad) said: "We strongly welcome this report. The failings of PPPs have been clear for many years yet govts and institutions like the EU and [[World Bank]] go on promoting them. More than 150 organisations from around the world signed onto a campaign manifesto in Oct.2017 calling for the World Bank and similar bodies to stop promoting PPPs. Maria Jose said: "We have seen numerous scandals across Europe associated with PPPs which have done huge damage to some public sectors. Even worse, we have seen the same happen in some of the poorest countries in the world where govts have been advised to take on risky and expensive projects and have paid a high price". Xavier Sol, Director of [[Counter Balance]], added "This critical report comes as a reality check: a more cautious approach towards PPPs is needed as they are not a silver bullet. It raises doubts about the blind focus on PPPs promoted by the [[European Commission]] and its financial arm the [[European Investment Bank]] – which has supported several of the weak projects audited by the Court.|website=[[Eurodad]]|url=http://www.eurodad.org/ECA-report-reaction}}
 
{{Src|news|date=Mar.16.2018|title=The fiscal costs of PPPs in the spotlight.|quote=PPPs are increasingly being promoted as a way to finance development projects. To pave the way for PPPs, donor govts and financial institutions, led by the [[World Bank Group]], have set up multiple donor initiatives to promote changes in national regulatory frameworks, to provide advice and to finance PPP projects. The cost of financing for PPP projects is typically higher than for public sector works. In the case of the United Kingdom (UK), a 2015 review by the UK’s National Audit Office found ‘that the effective interest rate of all private finance deals (7%-8%) is double that of all govt borrowing (3%-4%)’ The costs of PPPs result not just from explicit liabilities, but also from non-transparent contingent liabilities. In addition, PPPs often suffer from a lack of transparency and limited public scrutiny. Taken together, these factors tend to result in a heavy fiscal burden that undermines, in the medium and long term, the State’s capacity to support other services. Finally, many govts record the costs of PPPs in financial statements and budgets in a way that creates a false incentive for using PPPs. Current accounting practices allow govts to keep the costs and liabilities of PPPs off-balance sheet, and thus to circumvent budgetary constraints. However, shifting public debt to govt-guaranteed debt does not reduce gov'tal debt liabilities. Rather, it obscures accountability and hinders scrutiny by parliamentarians and the public. in 2017, Eurodad joined more than 150 organisations in launching a PPP Manifesto. The World Bank has been playing a leading role in incentivising PPPs by providing advice and financing to change national laws and to structure PPP projects.|website=Eurodad|name=Maria Romero|url=http://www.eurodad.org/fiscal-cost-PPPs}}
 
{{Src|news|date=Mar.16.2018|title=The fiscal costs of PPPs in the spotlight.|quote=PPPs are increasingly being promoted as a way to finance development projects. To pave the way for PPPs, donor govts and financial institutions, led by the [[World Bank Group]], have set up multiple donor initiatives to promote changes in national regulatory frameworks, to provide advice and to finance PPP projects. The cost of financing for PPP projects is typically higher than for public sector works. In the case of the United Kingdom (UK), a 2015 review by the UK’s National Audit Office found ‘that the effective interest rate of all private finance deals (7%-8%) is double that of all govt borrowing (3%-4%)’ The costs of PPPs result not just from explicit liabilities, but also from non-transparent contingent liabilities. In addition, PPPs often suffer from a lack of transparency and limited public scrutiny. Taken together, these factors tend to result in a heavy fiscal burden that undermines, in the medium and long term, the State’s capacity to support other services. Finally, many govts record the costs of PPPs in financial statements and budgets in a way that creates a false incentive for using PPPs. Current accounting practices allow govts to keep the costs and liabilities of PPPs off-balance sheet, and thus to circumvent budgetary constraints. However, shifting public debt to govt-guaranteed debt does not reduce gov'tal debt liabilities. Rather, it obscures accountability and hinders scrutiny by parliamentarians and the public. in 2017, Eurodad joined more than 150 organisations in launching a PPP Manifesto. The World Bank has been playing a leading role in incentivising PPPs by providing advice and financing to change national laws and to structure PPP projects.|website=Eurodad|name=Maria Romero|url=http://www.eurodad.org/fiscal-cost-PPPs}}

Revision as of 06:27, 21 March 2018

Note to me: This is probably going to be just a category. Should it be "Public Procurement"?

Public Procurement

Goods + Services


Public-Private Partnership (PPP)

W:Categ:Public-private-partnership, (ToDo: Suss which MPs are involved in this scam)

  • Mar.20.2018: Auditors expose the failure of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and slam EU’s support. The European Court of Auditors today slammed PPPs, stating that they were "not always effectively managed and did not provide adequate value-for-money". The report recommends that "the Commission and the Member States should not promote a more intensive and widespread use of PPPs until the issues identified in this report are addressed, in particular, increasing assurance that the choice of the PPP option is the one that provides most-value-for-money". Maria Jose Romero, Policy and Advocacy Manager at the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad) said: "We strongly welcome this report. The failings of PPPs have been clear for many years yet govts and institutions like the EU and World Bank go on promoting them. More than 150 organisations from around the world signed onto a campaign manifesto in Oct.2017 calling for the World Bank and similar bodies to stop promoting PPPs. Maria Jose said: "We have seen numerous scandals across Europe associated with PPPs which have done huge damage to some public sectors. Even worse, we have seen the same happen in some of the poorest countries in the world where govts have been advised to take on risky and expensive projects and have paid a high price". Xavier Sol, Director of Counter Balance, added "This critical report comes as a reality check: a more cautious approach towards PPPs is needed as they are not a silver bullet. It raises doubts about the blind focus on PPPs promoted by the European Commission and its financial arm the European Investment Bank – which has supported several of the weak projects audited by the Court. Eurodad.
  • Mar.16.2018: The fiscal costs of PPPs in the spotlight. PPPs are increasingly being promoted as a way to finance development projects. To pave the way for PPPs, donor govts and financial institutions, led by the World Bank Group, have set up multiple donor initiatives to promote changes in national regulatory frameworks, to provide advice and to finance PPP projects. The cost of financing for PPP projects is typically higher than for public sector works. In the case of the United Kingdom (UK), a 2015 review by the UK’s National Audit Office found ‘that the effective interest rate of all private finance deals (7%-8%) is double that of all govt borrowing (3%-4%)’ The costs of PPPs result not just from explicit liabilities, but also from non-transparent contingent liabilities. In addition, PPPs often suffer from a lack of transparency and limited public scrutiny. Taken together, these factors tend to result in a heavy fiscal burden that undermines, in the medium and long term, the State’s capacity to support other services. Finally, many govts record the costs of PPPs in financial statements and budgets in a way that creates a false incentive for using PPPs. Current accounting practices allow govts to keep the costs and liabilities of PPPs off-balance sheet, and thus to circumvent budgetary constraints. However, shifting public debt to govt-guaranteed debt does not reduce gov'tal debt liabilities. Rather, it obscures accountability and hinders scrutiny by parliamentarians and the public. in 2017, Eurodad joined more than 150 organisations in launching a PPP Manifesto. The World Bank has been playing a leading role in incentivising PPPs by providing advice and financing to change national laws and to structure PPP projects. Maria Romero, Eurodad.
  • Mar.2015: Why PPPs don't work: The many advantanges of the public alternative. This report provides a background to Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), shows how PPPs are being promoted, outlines the major problems of PPPs, evaluates PPPs and outlines a public alternative. PSIRU, David Hall
  • ToDO: go through this, it looks excellent.
  • Jan.2015: Exposing the myths around Public-Private Partnerships A PSIRU briefing for EPSU. This briefing highlights the financial and operational problems that have occurred with PPPs in the UK and in countries across Europe. PSIRU, Jane Lethbridge

Private Finance Initiative (PFI)

Panorama: PFI Scan (2013)
  1. Private Finance Initiative 1 (PFI1): W:Private finance initiative, Another Angry Voice
  2. Private Finance Initiative 2 (PFI2), W:Private finance initiative#PFII2, Intro to PF2
  • Feb.19.2018: PFI firms to get £4.8bn from schools by 2020, study shows. Schools will have paid £4.8bn to private finance initiative operators by 2020, generating an estimated £270m of profits for the companies from taxpayer money, analysis has revealed. The study bolstered calls for a windfall tax on the PFI firms that build and run schools, with the figures also showing that they will have cashed £60m in corporation tax cuts, including £27m in the 4 years to 2020. The profits for PFI firms involved in schools will equal about a fifth of the extra £1.3bn given to schools in govt funding last year, according to research by the Centre for Health and the Public Interest (CHPI) thinktank. The slashing of corporation tax in the years since the majority of education PFI deals were signed has provided a windfall for the companies involved. Kevin Courtney, the joint general secretary of the National Education Union, said the sums were "shocking, particularly in the context of the huge real-terms cuts to school funding". Stella Creasy: "It is horrifying to think that nearly £1 in every £4 the govt claims it's giving to schools in extra funding is going out the door and into the pockets of PFI companies instead as profit”. The Guardian, Jessica Elgot
  • Jan.31.2018: Brexit could fuel PFI comeback. The purveyors of PFI, or Public Private Partnerships as they became, were wise to its limitations even back then. They could also see that public opinion was sceptical about buying new buildings, new homes for soldiers and even air traffic control systems on extremely long "never-never contracts". There were two big problems with PFI: to qualify for PFI status there had to be a so-called "genuine transfer of risk" to the private sector. This was supposed to mean that contracts could be priced more effectively and that the govt or client would only pay for the outcomes, without the headache of making those happen. The NAO confirmed last week "buy now, pay later" generates no financial benefit for the taxpayer. All of this fervent transfer of risk meant that the govt and local authorities were awarding contracts, increasingly, on cost only. Lowest bid won. There must be a new model for public procurement. But even under Corbyn there has to be a role for the private sector in providing infrastructure. The New European, Angela Jameson
  • Jan.25.2018: Private Eye just masterfully exposed the ridiculous reality of Tory cronyism. PFIs are essentially scams used by govts to finance infrastructure projects by borrowing money from private companies. The deals left the incumbent govt looking good in the short term, because PFIs allowed them to keep the borrowing off the balance sheet, but they burdened future govts with the cost of paying off the exorbitant amount of interest attached to such schemes. {more...} Evolve Politics, J.D. McGregor
  • Jan.22.2018: It's not just Carillion. The whole privatisation myth has been exposed. Across Britain, councils have been forced into costly and ineffective PFI contracts. Many have broken free. The Guardian, Polly Toynbee
  • Jan.21.2018: Carillion collapse. Chris Williamson MP explaining timeline of PFI. Video, '
  • Jan.20.2018: This author criticises those who criticise PFI for not having done their homework - whilst seeming not having done his own. Contracts explicitly protect lender's contribution - that's why Carillion will cost taxpayer money and can't control that. (see also rest of thread) Twitter, @StellaCreasy
  • Jan.19.2018: Carillion crisis has dug up usual PFI myths and "anti-economics". The idea that, because the govt can borrow money cheaply, it has an advantage over the private sector is a myth. The Telegraph, Philip Booth
  • Jan.18.2018: Taxpayers to foot £200bn bill for PFI contracts – audit office. Cost of privately financing projects ‘can be 40% higher’ than using public money. The National Audit Office reports that taxpayers will be forced to hand over ca. £200bn to contractors under FFI deals for 25 years. The Guardian, Rajeev Syal
  • Jan.18.2018: @JohnRentoul and @GeorgeMonbiot discussing PFI quite pissily. Downloaded, see /Audio/PFI-George-Monbiot-and-John-Rentoul.2018.01.18.ogg Twitter, @JohnRentoul
  • Jan.17.2018: The fundamental flaw in PFI can be overcome by People’s QE. x Tax Research UK, x
  • May.19.2016: PFI is a Failed Treasury Policy. We can’t afford a Treasury "Solution". Excellent overview of how PFI came into being. Bella Caledonia, Joel Benjamin
  • Apr.11.2016: [{{{6}}} Edinburgh's 17 closed PFI schools may have to be rebuilt.] The National Andrew Learmonth , http://www.thenational.scot/news/14902627.Edinburgh_s_17_closed_PFI_schools_may_have_to_be_rebuilt/
  • Aug.26.2015: Labour must clean up the mess it made with PFI, and save the health service. We have a duty to implement the democratic will of our party and remove the toxic burden of PFI from our NHS. The Guardian, Jeremy Corbyn

Conflicts of Interest

Crown representatives, appointed to police public sector suppliers such as Carillion on behalf of the taxpayer, face potential conflicts of interest. Several hold external directorships and one is a Tory donor.[1]

Articles / Links

2018

  • Jan.24.2018: Carillion, The Big 4 and RBS. (Video). In the second interview for Real Media, financial journalist Ian Fraser examines the relationships between Carillion, RBS bank, and the "Big 4" financial consultancies. Ian Fraser is the author of "Shredded: Inside RBS – the bank that broke Britain". Real Media, 'Video Interview'
  • Jan.22.2018: RBS: Small Business Abattoir - Ian Fraser (Video). In this interview, Fraser discusses RBS' Global Restructuring Group following a parliamentary debate – the unit is accused of crushing and asset stripping small businesses on an industrial scale. Real Media, 'Video Interview'
  • Jan.22.2018: PFI Committed Fraud On The People, says Sir Howard Davies, Chairman of RBS - A Leading Participant in PFI (Video). RBS was one of the ‘biggest players in PFI, and Davies has formerly held positions as head of City regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), and head of the Audit Commission. Davies failed to raise PFIs as an issue during tenure at either of these regulatory roles. Real Media, 'Video interview'
  • Jan.17.2018: Let Customers Hang Themselves. RBS Internal Memo published by Treasury Select Committee. An internal RBS tip sheet to make money from small businesses in distress was published by the Treasury Select Committee today, ahead of a Parliamentary debate and a hearing with the CEO and other executives at the end of the month. (download the document) Real Media, Kam Sandhu
  • Jan.16.2018: Financial Regulator Failed Whistleblower It Named to RBS and Denied Breach, says new decision. The City Watchdog should apologise to a whistleblower it named to the Royal Bank of Scotland, according to a review by the Complaints Commission today. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) named Mark Wright, an RBS employee and whistleblower, after he approached them with a query in 2013. Real Media, '
  • Jan.21.2018: Carillion and the RBS 'hang themselves'. Memo proves it's all over for neoliberalism. After RBS had been bailed out with taxpayers' money, it ruthlessly exploited small businesses who were suffering from the post-crash recession it had helped create. Current RBS chairman Sir Howard Davies, says that the Public Finance Initiative was a "fraud on the people" and he should know because RBS was one of the biggest names in PFI in the noughties. It is how business has learned to behave in the era of what some have called "turbo-capitalism" – the unregulated, low-tax, bandit capitalism of the last 35 years. It is not just public sector outsourcing but the entire neoliberal policy – religion almost – of privatisation that has been exposed. The Herald, Ian Macwhirter
  • Jan.21.2018: Presumption that govt contracts should go to private firms is wrong. Jon Ashworth explains that outsourcing of govt contracts, whether tied to PFI deals or not, leads to firms making their profit by cutting staff wages and conditions – which ultimately leads to a poorer service. (Video) Vox Political, Mike Sivier

2017

2016

2015

2014

References

  1. ^ Labour alleges conflict of interest in oversight of private suppliers. The Guardian, Dan Sabbagh, Kevin Rawlinson, Jan.21.2018