the PFI Bombshell? http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2008/11/w
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 1:04 PM Subject: The PFI Bombshell?
The PFI Bombshell?
The whole point of PFI, if you believe the hype, is to deliver public service by shifting the risk to the private sector and then have the Government simply rent back the delivered project for a specified length of time at a premium rate to reward the private consortium for taking the risk.
So, why is it that no one has yet mentioned in the press that three of the key financial backers in the private consortiums are HBOS, Abbey National and RBS? That's significant because they are all institutions that are now partly in 'public ownership' thanks to an injection of £50 billion in recapitalisation.
That means that the Government is not only propping them up, but it is also paying them premium rent for projects it got them to build and rewarding them for taking a risk that it is itself now liable for. In fact, the Government is now paying the banks to take a risk which they are no longer taking because all the risk is back in the hands of the Government as a significant, powerful and influential shareholder.
We're not talking about small picking either, they are over 600 signed PFI agreements that the Government has made, and quite a few of them are backed by the banks that the Government has pushed itself to bankruptcy to hold up. Now put this in context with new accounting rules that will be introduced in April 2009 to make PFI be "on balance sheet". At this point, assuming the Government do it, the books will be laid open and potentially the economy will crash even further. If at this point the scale of the debt is revealed formally, then there is every potential that the Government could default on its payments to the banks for PFI (both the ones it has part ownership of and the ones that it doesn't); if one of those banks was then to collapse, what would happen to the schools, hospitals, defence installations, transport projects and all other manner of PFIs that have been agreed?
Seems to me that we might not just have a "tax bombshell" coming but rather a "PFI bombshell" that could cripple the country in a way not seen for a generation.
UPDATE: The bringing of the PFI debt on to the balance sheet in April would be a very good reason to hold a snap election before the roof falls in. No?
House of Commons Session 2005 - 06
Publications on the internet
Standing Committee Debates
Draft Stormont Estate (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
Column Number: 1First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairman:
Mr. Peter Atkinson
†Chapman, Ben (Wirral, South) (Lab)
†Coaker, Mr. Vernon (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Fraser, Mr. Christopher (South-West Norfolk) (Con)
†Gilroy, Linda (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op)
†Holloway, Mr. Adam (Gravesham) (Con)
Keeley, Barbara (Worsley) (Lab)
†McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol, East) (Lab)
†Mallaber, Judy (Amber Valley) (Lab)
†Milburn, Mr. Alan (Darlington) (Lab)
†Öpik, Lembit (Montgomeryshire) (LD)
†Osborne, Sandra (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
†Robertson, Mr. Laurence (Tewkesbury) (Con)
†Rosindell, Andrew (Romford) (Con)
†Smith, Angela E. (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland)
Wallace, Mr. Ben (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con)
†Waltho, Lynda (Stourbridge) (Lab)
†Wilson, Sammy (East Antrim) (DUP)
Fiona McLean, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 3Monday 13 February 2006
[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]
Draft Stormont Estate (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela E. Smith): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Stormont Estate (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.
It is a pleasure to be before you, Mr. Atkinson. I have served under your chairmanship a number of times and I know that you are always fair in your deliberations.
A draft of the order was laid before the House on 23 January 2006. Its purpose is to remove in part restrictions that prevent the Government from selling or disposing of the land and buildings in the Stormont estate that comprise the 1933 conveyance. The order's main provision empowers the Government to dispose of all or part of the land and buildings designated by a statutory rule. The statutory rule, which specifies the part of the estate from which the trust restrictions will be removed, was included in the public consultation and has been available to hon. Members.
The legislative change is to allow some Government office buildings on the Stormont estate to be included in a private finance initiative contract for the wider Government office estate. The buildings concerned did not exist when the trust was applied in 1933. The PFI contract will be the delivery mechanism for Workplace 2010, which is the major reform programme in Northern Ireland to update and improve the working environment of the civil service estate. Much of the estate, including the buildings at Stormont, is in very poor condition and needs significant investment to bring it up to standard. That programme will tackle the urgent accommodation problems and at the same time create a unique opportunity to reduce considerably the size of the estate and improve its efficiency. That is entirely in line with the Gershon and Lyons reviews nationally, facilitating modernisation in a way that safeguards funding for priority front-line services.
I need to make it clear, however, that Parliament Buildings, Stormont Castle and Stormont House are specifically excluded from the effects of the order. That means that they will continue to be subject to the trust conditions and will remain within the public domain.
Column Number: 4
In summary, the order will allow the refurbishment and rationalisation of some very poor-quality office accommodation on the Stormont estate.4.32 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Atkinson.
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the order. It states that Parliament Buildings, Stormont Castle and Stormont House are not included, which was one of the initial concerns. I know that one or two other hon. Members have a number of questions. My only question relates to an issue that was referred to in the House of Lords debate. Will the money saved by the order remain in the Province and be an addition to the block grant? Perhaps the Minister could confirm that when she winds up the debate, but I have no objection to the order.
4.33 pm
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): I welcome the assurances that the Minister has given in respect of the historic buildings and the parkland on the Stormont estate. Many of the concerns that people initially had about the order revolved around both those aspects of the estate. Considerable money has gone into improving public access to the parkland, and of course there is a historical attachment to many of the older buildings on the estate. That said, I would like to ask the Minister some questions about the land that it is proposed will be sold off.
First, over the years—I am not saying that this has happened in recent years, although some of it has—the parkland has been diminished by the fact that, for example, some of it has had reinforcing placed on the grass and is now used for overspill car parking very close to Castle Buildings. Also, around some of the buildings are a number of annexes. They are mostly fairly shabby sheds, some of which are no longer in use, but those areas were, at one stage, part of the parkland. I would like the Minister to indicate whether those areas will be included in the sale.
My second point is about value for money. A figure of £200 million has been suggested, but no contract has yet been signed and it is difficult to produce transparency in such contracts. One of the best examples is the sale of more than 600 Inland Revenue buildings across the UK. It was impossible to find out rent and service charges, because the agreements were commercial ones that the Government and the private sector believed should remain confidential. We do not have a contract; the figure of £200 million is being bandied around, but we probably do not have the wherewithal to measure whether such savings have been made once the contract is signed. Will the Minister indicate how that figure has been arrived at?
Thirdly, on what basis will the land to be disposed of be valued? Will it be done as part of the tender process, will there be evaluation of the land and
Column Number: 5
properties by the Valuation and Lands Agency, or will it be left to the market? If the value of the land is purely a market consideration, the time at which it goes to the market will determine its value. That will have long-term implications on the cost to the Northern Ireland civil service of the pay-back over the 20-year period.There is another issue on which we need some assurance. The Minister will be well aware of the degree of change that is proposed by the review of public administration and other initiatives designed to reduce the size of the Government sector, and particularly of bureaucracy, in Northern Ireland. That will require some flexibility. Will she outline what flexibility will be built into the contracts? Will the Northern Ireland civil service be tied into a contract that leases buildings and may be appropriate now, but might not be in 20 years' time, especially if the aim of trying to cut down the load of bureaucracy in Northern Ireland is achieved?
There has been considerable pressure for some dispersal of civil service jobs, which means that the existing building infrastructure may not be the same as is required in a number of years. My constituency does not have any major Government buildings, yet the roads out of it are congested every morning with people travelling to civil service jobs in the centre of Belfast or in Dundonald. In the interests of sustainability, if there is to be a dispersal of buildings, what flexibility will the Minister build in to the contract?
Finally, I wish to raise the issue of the effect on employees. I understand that the draft order is part of the Government's initiative not only to replace buildings but to change the location of some activities of government in Northern Ireland. That will have a considerable effect on employees. It may also have an effect on the composition of employment in the civil service. As parliamentary answers have demonstrated, there is considerable under-representation of people from the Unionist community. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be full consultation? What plans has she to ensure that those affected by any relocation are not inconvenienced too much?
By and large, if this proves to be value for money and leads to money for front-line services, it is to be welcomed. However, we do not know whether all the savings will remain in Northern Ireland or will simply be taken from the block grant. Many questions have not been answered and were not answered in the consultation process. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances this afternoon.
4.41 pm
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): May I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Atkinson? You find me in maudlin mood today. I am slightly surprised that others are not feeling the same about this order. I thank the Minister for publishing the consultation feedback; it has been very helpful. After reading the responses to the consultation I am concerned that the
Column Number: 6
Government are continuing to press ahead with this order. None of the responses supported the principle of a private funding initiative arrangement to fund such a scheme. Indeed, several of the responses, including those from the First Division Association, a union that represents many of the managers and professionals in the civil service to whom the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has just referred, and those from the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, which represents all non-industrial staff in the Northern Ireland civil service, expressed grave reservations about the scheme.The hon. Member for East Antrim also mentioned value for money. One of the concerns that has been expressed, which I share, is whether public finance initiatives will provide value for money. The cost of the proposed PFI scheme is estimated at £1 billion over the 20-year period of the contract. That equates to a commitment of £50 million per year, which Departments will have to fund directly from existing departmental budgets to meet the rental costs for the buildings that are currently owned by the civil service and the public. If I understand the order correctly and what it enables the Government to do, as with all PFI projects, the taxpayer is being asked to fund what really amounts to guaranteed profits for private sector companies. Can the Minister please explain why she believes that the scheme is the best option in terms of value for money?
I also have doubts about whether such an arrangement is flexible enough. A PFI contract for the Stormont estate would result in the Northern Ireland civil service being required to occupy fully the office accommodation for the duration of the 20-year contract, or have I missed something? I accept that the order exempts some properties, but would not the likely restrictions that would come with the PFI scheme prevent movement of certain Departments or offices outside the Belfast area? Should not the civil service retain its own ability to manage accommodation requirements in the future?
I stress that this PFI contract will probably mean the loss of flexibility to deal with relocation and transfer issues that may arise as a consequence of future reorganisations of Departments under devolution—but not just that. The Government have often said that they want to decentralise offices. The order seems utterly to contradict that stated principle, as it locks the civil service into the use of existing accommodation for a long time to come. Can the Minister explain how that can be reconciled with a firm commitment that the Government have given under the review of public administration that equality and targeting social need—TSN, to use the shorthand—considerations will and can be applied to the future location and dispersal of all civil and public service jobs? Surely tying the civil service to the PFI accommodation for 20 years directly contradicts that commitment?
I was also worried to discover in the response from the FDA that 64.3 per cent. of its workers felt that they had not been informed about the impact of the Workplace 2010 project. Does that not seriously undermine the project itself and the validity of the
Column Number: 7
consultation that took place? The FDA further stated that it asked its members whether they had been able to highlight concerns about the project in their Departments, and almost four out of five felt that they had not been given the opportunity to do so. That is a disturbing state of affairs. What does the Minister propose to do in order to ensure that the employees who are affected by the project are properly engaged with it?I am deeply unhappy with the order. I hope that the Minister can reassure me, either by clarifying any misunderstanding of mine about its intent, or explaining why, despite our experiences of PFI and value for money on the mainland of the United Kingdom, the Government nevertheless intend to press ahead with it on the pretence that it provides value for money. Unless the Minister can clarify those matters, I cannot support the proposal.
4.45 pm
Angela E. Smith: I am grateful to hon. Members for their comments and I shall do my best to address their concerns. I hate it when the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) is unhappy and I shall do my best to enlighten him during the debate.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) asked for an assurance that any moneys gained as a result of not spending additional sums on the upkeep and refurbishment of the buildings will stay in Northern Ireland. Yes, it is anticipated that all moneys and any transactions will remain part of the Northern Ireland block. Also, any money not spent on maintaining and refurbishing buildings is money that is then available to be spent in Northern Ireland on other public sector priorities.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised some concerns about feedback from FDA and NIPSA and lack of support on the consultation process. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that there was a full consultation process. We sought responses to the consultation from almost 300 bodies and a rush of five responded, two of which were from the trade unions that he mentioned. It would be wrong to say that there was no support for the order; the responses we received showed that there was not a great deal of opposition to it.
There is, and will continue to be, full consultation with all those affected, especially the civil service unions. I can give a commitment that full mechanisms are in place for that consultation, which will be adhered to in the appropriate way. Issues such as the scope, space standards and human resource elements of the contract are part of the discussions on mechanisms that are already in place, which we have fully adhered to.
The hon. Members for East Antrim and for Montgomeryshire were anxious about the contract's flexibility. Once a contract has been signed there is no flexibility within it, but the point was made that if the contract were signed and the PFI arrangements proceeded, there would be no flexibility to move civil
Column Number: 8
servants or for dispersal. That perhaps misunderstands the nature of the matter. We are not talking about the entire civil service estate under this PFI; it is one phase—one small part of it. We need to ensure that the buildings are fit for purpose for our staff and that they are decent places to work, and at present we cannot guarantee that in all cases. The reason for the programme is to ensure flexibility within the civil service estate for the future. The issue of dispersal has been fully considered. The order will not put a constraint on dispersal for the future, but for the next 20 years it will ensure that the buildings are brought up to standard for the staff who work in them.The hon. Members for East Antrim and Montgomeryshire asked us to guarantee the best deal for the taxpayer. The Government would not be introducing the initiative if we did not consider that it was the best deal for the taxpayer. The hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned the Revenue and Customs STEPS programme. There were difficulties with that programme at the beginning but the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have now given it a clean bill of health. Another prime example is the Department for Work and Pensions. A very experienced team of advisers, which has an excellent track record on these kinds of deals, has been working on that project, and we are confident that our approach is the best way forward to achieve value for money for the taxpayer.
I was asked for assurances on how the estimated £200 million savings were arrived at. A crisp analysis of the outline business case clearly showed that PFI was the preferred option, and I assure hon. Members that it gives the taxpayer value for money.
Lembit Öpik: I cannot accept that argument. When in opposition, the Minister's party opposed PFI because her colleagues quite rightly argued that it means selling off something that one owns and then renting it back for more over the long term. Although I accept that, in the short term, it is possible to realise some assets by turning them into liquid assets and producing a short-term cash advantage, the Minister needs to explain why, instead of doing what most people do, which is to buy a house and then pay off the cost of buying it, the Northern Ireland Office wants to sell off property that it owns and then rent it back from the new owners. I simply cannot see the logic.
Angela E. Smith: The hon. Gentleman probably is not aware of the different kinds of contract. We have looked in considerable detail into the contract that will be taken forward. We need to bring the buildings up to the standard that I would expect for buildings in which our civil servants work. To do that is expensive. The best option for the taxpayer and our civil servants is to have a PFI arrangement to ensure that money can be spent. The measure goes much wider than the sale and the lease-back that he implied. We are talking about life-cycle maintenance and services for the lifetime of the contract. I assure hon. Members that we would not put this measure forward if we were not confident that it offered value for money for the taxpayer.
Column Number: 9The hon. Member for East Antrim asked about the rateable value and the valuation that will be undertaken. We are working closely with the Valuation and Lands Agency to ensure the appropriate valuation and we will make that information available as soon as we can. He raised another point about equality. There has already been an initial equality screening exercise. A full equality impact assessment is currently being prepared.
Sammy Wilson: I do not share the scepticism of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire regarding PFI schemes, because there are appropriate times to use them, but on the basis of the business case and given the uncertainties, will the Minister explain how the figure of £200 million has been reached in the absence of the receipt of any tenders?
Column Number: 10Angela E. Smith: Although the tenders have not yet been received, the outline business case indicates the kinds of contract that the Government would prefer. On the basis of the kind of contract that we would seek to enter into, those are the kind of savings that could be realised.
I hope that I have dealt with the queries raised by hon. Members and that they will give their full support to the measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Stormont Estate (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.
Committee rose at seven minutes to Five o'clock.
===============
I have recently sent this out to elizabeth beckett.. AnneQuite a lot of "Crown Land" is being sold off, I wanted to know why. This is one from Northern Ireland, does it make any sense to you? Anne (All in attachment)Lembit Öpik: I cannot accept that argument. When in opposition, the Minister's party opposed PFI because her colleagues quite rightly argued that it means selling off something that one owns and then renting it back for more over the long term. Although I accept that, in the short term, it is possible to realise some assets by turning them into liquid assets and producing a short-term cash advantage, the Minister needs to explain why, instead of doing what most people do, which is to buy a house and then pay off the cost of buying it, the Northern Ireland Office wants to sell off property that it owns and then rent it back from the new owners. I simply cannot see the logic.The debate is here rather than open Attachment.PFI/PPP Contracts
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many private finance initiative and public private
27 Nov 2006 : Column 363W
partnership contracts with his Department and its agencies have been won by Halliburton or its subsidiaries in each year since 1997; what the terms were of each contract; and if he will make a statement. [101227]Mr. Ingram: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 4 April 2005, Official Report, column 1114W. Since then the Ministry of Defence has let a third private finance initiative (PFI) contract and no public private partnership contracts with subsidiaries of Halliburton.
In April 2006 a contract for project Allenby/Connaught was signed with Aspire Defence a consortium comprising the UK element of the Halliburton subsidiary KBR and Carillion. The contract is for the redevelopment of army facilities at Aldershot, Tidworth, Bulford, Warminster, Larkhill and Perham Down. It involves the rebuild, refurbishment, management and operation of facilities in the largest accommodation PFI project the Ministry of Defence has ever undertaken. Service delivery under the contract commenced on 10 July 2006. The 35-year PFI contract is worth, in whole life cost terms, approximately £8 billion (excluding VAT).
Private Finance Initiative
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list private finance initiative projects which have been refinanced in each year since 1997; and what the value of each project was; [46033]
(2) how many private finance initiative projects were subject to refinancing in 2005; what the refinancing gain was in each case; and how much of this gain the relevant government body received through (a) a lump sum and (b) a reduction in the unitary charge. [46035]
John Healey: The table shows all recorded refinancings of PFI projects since 1997 and the value of each project.
There were five PFI projects, subject to refinancing in 2005. The following list shows the date the refinancing closed, the amount of the gain and the authority's share:
London borough of Tower Hamlets Groups Schools, 8 March 2005, no refinancing gain, no authority share.
Nottingham Tram, 10 November 2005, the outcome of the Authority's negotiations on gain share is yet to be confirmed.
Greater Manchester Police Authority, 22 December 2005, total refinancing gain £1.02 million, total authority share £0.607 million.
Additionally, the BBC White City project was not concluded under a PFI structural framework, but shares many similar characteristics.
BBC White City, 23 March 2005, total refinancing gain £90 million. Total authority gains £62.00 million.
The list shows the refinancing gain in each case and produces a total refinancing gain of £93.42 million of which £63.329 million was for the public sector.
Information regarding how much gain the relevant government body received through a lump sum, or reduction in unitary charge, is not collated centrally.
Refinancings completed as of 25 January 2006
Notes:
1. This is a list of UK-wide local and central government completed refinancings notified to PUK
2. The code referred to is a voluntary code of conduct on the sharing of refinancing gains on PFI projects, introduced in 2002.
26 Jan 2006 : Column 2263W***********************************************************Constitutional Affairs 7.2.2007.
Departmental Fixed Assets
Mr. Francois: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs which fixed assets her Department sold for more than £10,000 in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06; and what the (i) sale value, (ii) purchaser and (iii) date of sale was of each asset. [110796]
Bridget Prentice: The information requested is as follows.
Asset Sale proceeds (£) Purchaser Date of sale
The PFI is the most successful and prolific form of PPP to date, and is used to deliver services only after rigourous assessment has shown that it will provide better value for money compared to traditional public sector investment.Investments through PFI contracts currently represent circa 10-15% of total investment in public services in any one year and in total 725 projects had been signed by September 2005.
PFI allows the public sector to contract with the private sector to provide quality services on a long-term basis, typically 25-30 years, so as to take advantage of private sector infrastructure delivery and service management skills, incentivised by having private finance at risk.
The private sector takes on the responsibility for providing a public service against an agreed specification of required outputs prepared by the public sector.
The private sector carries the responsibility and risks for designing, financing, enhancing or constructing, maintaining and operating the infrastructure assets to deliver the public service in accordance with the public sector's output specification.
The public sector typically pays for the project through a series of performance or throughput related payments, which cover service delivery and return on investment. Central Government may provide payment support to the public sector through grants and other financial mechanisms.
http://production.investis.com/balfourbeattyppp/what/pfidefinition/
http://uk.ask.com/web?q=pfi+contracts&qsrc=999&l=dis&siteid=41439050
Talking Billions in this one-read and brouse
http://www.statscom.org.uk/C_1061.aspx
Final on that didn'#t quite make it.
National Audit Office Press Notice
The termination of the PFI Contract for the National Physical Laboratory
THIS STATEMENT IS NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR BROADCAST BEFORE 0001 HOURS ON WEDNESDAY 10 MAY 2006
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General
HC 1044 2005-2006
10 May 2006
ISBN: 0102937699
Price: £10.75
Full Report (1140 KB)
The Department for Trade and Industry successfully transferred risk in the PFI contract to build and manage new facilities for the National Physical Laboratory and protected the taxpayer from bearing the majority of the costs of the project’s problems. Delays during the construction of the new facilities meant that the DTI did not secure the full benefits it wanted, when it wanted them. The DTI, however, prevented the construction problems from affecting the quality of scientific research. A National Audit Office report published today finds that the fundamental reason for the problems was that the original private sector design of the new buildings was deficient and a modified PFI procurement process might have avoided this.
In July 1998 the DTI and Laser, a special purpose company jointly owned by Serco Group plc and John Laing plc, signed a PFI contract for new facilities for the National Physical Laboratory, the UK’s national standards laboratory for measurement of physical properties such as time, length and mass. Laser sub-contracted the design and build of the new facilities to John Laing Construction Limited.
Laser’s sub-contractor had problems meeting the stringent specifications for temperature and noise levels within the laboratories. These and other problems caused delays averaging over two years for each construction phase. Laser solved many of the problems but a shortage of cash and its concern that it faced a financially open-ended design issue led it to propose early termination of the contract. The DTI agreed to the proposal and the parties terminated the contract in December 2004.
This is the first termination of a major PFI contract in which there were serious deficiencies in contractor performance. The project should have been finished in 2001; it is now not expected to be finished until 2007. So far progress with the remedial and outstanding works is on schedule and within budget.
The NAO found that the risks to the project could have been reduced in advance. Before agreeing to the contract, the DTI did not resolve its concerns about Laser’s design because it believed that Laser would surmount them and it wanted to stay true to the principles of PFI. Following the award of the contract, the DTI did not impose a design solution on Laser, despite continuing concerns about the Laser’s design. This was because the DTI wanted to ensure that responsibility for delivering buildings that met its specification would remain unambiguously with Laser.
The contract and the way it was managed by the DTI were effective in transferring risk to the private sector. This means that, while the public sector has lost some of the benefits from the use of the buildings, it has not borne the full cost of making good deficiencies in them. The DTI has also avoided the problems of the project affecting the quality of scientific research at the National Physical Laboratory.
By the time the project is complete the DTI’s total investment in the new facilities will be about £140 million. This compares with an estimate of around £130 million for the total capital investment in the project at the time of contract signature. The private sector reported that it incurred a loss of at least £100 million during the construction of the new facilities.
Sir John Bourn, the head of the National Audit Office, said today:
"The Department for Trade and Industry handled the termination of the contract well. But different handling of the project by all parties at the early stages might well have avoided the problems which led to the termination." END
What if these firms go bust? Is this why the banks that have loaned the firms money-have they? do they? I don't know. I doubt it has helped ease the Credit Crunch.
XXXXXXXXXX A
Posts
