Skip to main content

Another body blow for P3 privatization. But this Zombie keeps getting up...

Just when I thought the authorities couldn't possibly  find any more problems with public private partnerships (P3s) in Britain, another revelation comes along.  This time from the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.  Here's the Guardian's account of the latest P3 (or, as the Brits call it, "PFI") scandal,  Investors 'using tax havens to cash in on PFI contracts':


City investors have made bumper profits from taxpayers by buying up the contracts for schools and hospitals funded through the private finance initiative and taking the proceeds offshore, the public accounts committee warned on Thursday.  "They're milking the PFI system for profit," Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, told the Guardian, accusing Treasury officials of being "dreadfully complacent" about tackling the issue.

... in a highly critical report, the cross-party committee says the PFI became "the only game in town" after 1997, and Whitehall officials failed to ensure the taxpayer was getting value for money. In particular, the committee criticises the Treasury for assuming PFI contractors would pay tax, when many are based in offshore tax havens. 

Stella Creasy, a Labour MP on the committee who has tabled a series of parliamentary questions about the taxation of PFI firms, said: "There is tax out there that the British taxpayer is owed and the Treasury is doing nothing to get it back." She warned that the Treasury was still banking on receiving tax revenues from the 61 projects in the pipeline. 

Dave Prentis, general secretary of the public sector union Unison, said: "It is a disgrace that many of the PFI investors are registered offshore for tax purposes. They are literally ripping the taxpayer off twice, and making huge profits in the process. It is time to ditch PFI once and for all."

Some of the 700-plus projects have changed hands several times since their inception, often making healthy gains for the original contractors. The accounts committee said: "We suspect that initial investors are able to make excessive profits from selling PFI shares, yet we lack the information to know for sure."

The committee calls for the controversial scheme to be brought within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, so that the public can judge whether they are getting value for money and contractors can no longer hide behind commercial confidentiality....

In the appendix to the report, the PAC identifies 91 PFI projects held in overseas tax havens, including 33 owned by HSBC Infrastructure, an offshoot of the high- street bank, based in Guernsey. (My emphasis throughout - Doug)
Innisfree, one of the largest investors in PFI, told the committee that 72% of its shares were held by investors based in Guernsey.  With a 30% share, Innisfree is part of the consortium that won a massive P3 hospital bid in Montreal. (I expect to hear more from them.) 

How much profit these corporations are protecting from taxation is unknown as "commercial confidentiality" protects this, along with much else.  Despite all the problems, Ontario continues to march in Britain's P3 footsteps, with plans for many more P3 hospitals.   Here's the Guardian cartoon:

PFI cartoon by Dave Simonds
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Huge cuts in public sector wages predicted

The Ontario Financial Accountability Office (FAO)   says  that, with inflation, real wages in the public sector will decline 11.3% over the three year period  2021/2 - 2023/4 .  This would radically deepen the trend towards lower wages during the last ten years.   The FAO reports that since 2011, the average annual salary for the Ontario public sector employees (defined here as employees of schools, colleges, provincial government, provincial agencies, and hospitals) has increased by $10,385   -- or 1.6 per cent on average annually.  This is the lowest increase of all the sectors and lower than inflation, which averaged 1.8 per cent per year. Over the ten years that would be about a 2% pay cut.   The FAO reports that wage settlements were the lowest in the provincial public sector over the last decade:   Hospital Wages Especially Challenged: The FAO predicts hospital wages will increase even less than in the public sector  -- just ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Too many public sector workers in Ontario?

Opponents of public services often try to portray the public sector as having grown disproportionately.  In fact, since 1976, the number of public sector employees has not quite kept pace with the population. In 1976, the number of public sector employees in Ontario  as reported by Statistics Canada averaged 830,800.  By 2012, the number had increased to 1,330,700 -- a 60.2% increase.  That sounds like significant growth -- true. But the population has increased  from 8,413,779 in 1976 to 13,505,900 in 2012, a 60.5% increase.   In other words, population growth has run slightly ahead of the growth in public sector employment.     In 1976, close to 10% of the population worked in the public sector.  It stayed pretty much this way until the Mike Harris government came to power when it dipped below 9%.  It returned close to the historical range in the last six years or so, declining in 2012 to below the 1976 averag...
16 comments
Read more

Are health care administrative expenses out of control in Ontario?

The Progressive Conservative government has justified its health restructuring plans with the claim that administrative expenses are much higher in Ontario than in Canada.  When introducing the reforms, health minister Christine Elliott  claimed , “Over the last five years, Ontario has spent 30% more than the Canadian average in administrative expenses on its health care system.”   Elliott did not indicate her source of information. Presumably, however, the Progressive Conservatives are referring to the CIHI simplified and user friendly “ Your Health System ” graphs. Those graphs show “administrative expenses” in Ontario at 5.8% in Ontario while it is 4.5% in Canada.   This CIHI measure is actually fairly narrowly defined. It is the percentage of “the legal entity’s” total expenses associated with the administrative, finance, human resources and communications functional centres. However “the legal entity” used for this estimate is [1] only...
Post a Comment
Read more