I’ve not really had a chance to read the various manifestos that have been festooned upon the masses amid as much pomp, ceremony, media attention and balloons as the parties can muster. I gather Labour’s launch today was hit by a smoke alarm going off, rumours of someone’s ‘pants on fire’ are, as yet, unfounded.
The Lib Dems have pinned much of their election hopes on cash that could be raised from Scottish Water. Money may not grow on trees (as the SNP learned when considering selling off forests) but it might fall out of pipes.
Now, I’m going to try to give this idea the fairest crack of the whip possible, if only to avoid Douglas MacLellan tracking me down and, probably quite fairly, lamping me for being unduly harsh on the Scottish Lib Dems.
So, first of the positives is simply this: it is a relatively new idea. Labour has aped much of the SNP’s policies depriving the electorate of real choice. This suggestion from the Lib Dems provides real choice and is a juicy contribution to the campaign at large.
Second positive is that it is the type of dynamic, ‘outside the box’ solution that Scotland needs to get through this difficult financial period. We don’t have borrowing powers, we don’t have the tax-varying option (yet) and we don’t have an ever-increasing budget. The Tesco Tax has been rebuffed and the parties are circling around Council Tax, sniffing out its potential to close some funding gaps. What else do we have? Well, Scottish Water seems to be right up there as a cash cow so it’s asking to be explored.
Another positive is that companies do this all the time, selling debt on here, factoring debtors there. Who do you think holds your mortage debt? You might want to guess again. The practice has become part and parcel of running an efficient cashflow and if the benefits of early money can exceed the negatives of foregone inflows further into the future, then the approach is worthwhile.
This, to me, is where the Lib Dem plan starts to move into disagreeable PFI territory. Short term gain for long term pain, but I haven’t seen enough detail to make a fair comparison and the little that I can find is maddeningly light on what is actually being proposed. As far as I can make out, the sale of the Scottish Water debt would be covered by a bond issuance (private investors paying cash for guaranteed income over a set period of time) and the difference between the bonds and the debt is £1.5bn. How reliably this is arrived at seems to be anyone’s guess. Certainly my experience (from my current job, in Corporate Finance) is that refinancing is pushing the price of loans up, not down.
So this is neither positive nor negative but…. more detail is desperately required regarding what is being proposed here.
Now, the potential negatives. First up, the proposal states that Scottish Water would be a ‘public benefit corporation’. What does that mean? It sounds nice and fluffy but what sort of public benefit can be left once the debts have been flogged off? My initial suspicion is that there would be a private element to this venture.
Well, thanks to Wikipedia, the best example of an existing pbc are certain NHS Foundation Trusts and the BBC, in all but name at least. That sounds reasonable to me and not so far removed from its current status so a tentative crossing out goes against that worry.
My main concern is that the cost of water in Scotland would increase signifcantly over time in order to satisfy the cost of the private investment (bonds). Caveating the following given my only partial understanding of the proposal, but if you pull out £1.5bn from Scottish Water then you will inevitably have to put it back in at some later date, regardless of what the small print or technical detail says. That is just basic accounting and finance, surely. The Lib Dem proposal is to spend this £1.5bn of money on setting up regional banks (£500m), early intervention (£250m), energy saving (£250m), digital economy (£250m) and a “science nation fund” (£250m). All great ideas, (well, depending on what exactly the “science nation fund” is I suppose) but this cannot be ‘free money’ and it’s important to remember that. This is a cash advance, at a discount, from private investors, and the Effective Interest Rate has to be clear before we embark on this venture, or vote on it for that matter.
Another concern is the fact that the UK Treasury has not looked through the detail of this proposal and there is no guarantee that the amounts raised wouldn’t be simply creamed off the block grant, completely undermining the point of the whole venture.
In short, selling Scottish Water’s debt sounds like an idea that is worthy of further exploration and analysis as the gain may well exceed the pain but the conservative side of me naturally bristles against cashing in on long term considerations for short term benefit and it all just seems a bit too much too soon to be taken too seriously. If only the Lib Dems had checked it out with the Treasury first, it’d seem more plausible.
So, for me, the assumption has to be that this won’t work, certainly not at least until the Lib Dems are able to spell out the detail more clearly.
And they only have four weeks.
#1 by DougtheDug on April 6, 2011 - 6:01 pm
I saw Jeremy Purvis on Newsnight last night talking about the Scottish Water money raising wheeze which will fund all the Lib-Dem manifesto promises. Without the cash cow of selling off Scottish Water debt all the Lib-Dem promises are just a wish-list.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01083sq/Newsnight_Scotland_05_04_2011/
He was asked a reasonable question from Gordon Brewer along the lines of, “As the party of Government have you got written confirmation from Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander (Lib-Dem) and his boss Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne (Conserative) that you can keep the money?”.
In response I’ve never seen such ducking, weaving and avoiding the question in my life from Jeremy Purvis.
I mean, as a party in the UK Government the Lib-Dems have actually got written confirmation from the Treasury that they can keep any Scottish Water money, haven’t they?
#2 by Douglas McLellan on April 6, 2011 - 6:48 pm
Thats a fair analysis, even if my surname was spelt wrong again!
Anyway, the points you raise are similar to the ones I had reading the manifesto last night. I really wish that we had got some kind of clear steer from the Treasury before putting our key manifesto commitments to paper.
There is a need for more details which should have been in either the manifesto or, and this would have been far better, a separate prospectus for the entire Scottish Water proposal.
I dont think that the long term considerations are that important beyond these two points: ‘Is the water safely flowing to where it is needed and then treated once it it is used’ and ‘are the costs to people and companies fair’. I have no real concerns about who does that and why (except every home should get a water meter to measure their water use).
The gain however can be epic (I then typed a Party Political Broadcast for the Scottish Lib Dems listing the benefits of the Scottish Water monies but that was going to far. Suffice to say, I really am pleased with the ambitions shown in this part of the manifesto).
However, if we are to sell the idea to the Scottish people then we need to do far better than Jeremy Purvis did last night on Newsnight Scotland. He was awful.
#3 by aonghas on April 7, 2011 - 9:12 am
I am a bit wary of the stuff they’re proposing to spend it on. “Regional Banks”? sounds like a real money-maker if it needs politicians to push it forward. It’s a worthy-sounding list, but at the same time a bit depressing that the only thing politicians can thing of doing with 1.5Bn is spending it on more stuff rather than paying for all the stuff we’re already borrowing money to pay for. Sigh.
#4 by Douglas McLellan on April 7, 2011 - 10:18 am
Thing is that in Scotland we cant directly repay the UK government debt and debt in Scotland is mostly tied to PFI/PPP contracts which will have early redemption penalties which would cost lots to cancel.
The details of the Regional Banks idea put forward in the manifesto are quite good I thought and bridge the gap between the private sector and structured, appropriate state support.
#5 by Dubbieside on April 6, 2011 - 6:59 pm
Jeff
Margaret and Jim Cuthbert have an article on this in todays Scotsman.
http://news.scotsman.com/holyroodelections/Analysis-This-is-not-right.6746699.jp
#6 by cynicalHighlander on April 6, 2011 - 7:07 pm
Bad idea to sell valuable assets for short term political gain.
Newsnight car crash.
ps. Anyone else getting a virus warning on Caron’s blog?
#7 by Douglas McLellan on April 6, 2011 - 8:01 pm
Why are the assets valuable and where is the short-term political gain?
Where is the value in holding onto Scottish Water as it is?
The Scotsman article is interesting but I cant see where Scottish Water has £50bn in assets. Their own annual accounts show assets of £5.3bn with liabilities of £1.5bn.
The realisation of these assets (i.e the Scottish portion of the £3.7bn) would create a fund that would improve the lives and opportunities for many over a few generations. There is nothing short-term about this idea.
#8 by Jeff on April 6, 2011 - 10:19 pm
“There is nothing short-term about this idea.”
My main challenge to that assertion would involve the bond issue.
Through this bond issue, we would raise billions of pounds (in the short term) that we would have to pay premiums on (in the long term) for x years. Where is the guarantee that the cost of those bonds will be less than the current costs? What happens when the tenure of the bond expires and we have to pay back the capital? Will we have to raise £1.5bn from somewhere else?
At a very basic level, it seems implausible that you can take £1.5bn out of anything to be spent now without it involving a cost later. I’ve not seen the Purvis interview so I’ll see if that’s any clearer.
#9 by Douglas McLellan on April 7, 2011 - 9:47 am
Again, fair and detailed questions! Who are you and what have you done with the real Jeff?
There is no guarantee that the bonds would cost less than the current costs but each year Scottish Water borrows around £200m from the Scottish Government (currently the debt sits at just over £3bn). In 09/10 borrowed £180m repayable over 17 years at 5.83%. It may well be that Scottish Water, with its guaranteed income, will be able to secure bonds more cheaply than those borrowings.
I agree that there will be additional costs that will eventually Scottish Water will need to pay but by moving the organisation out of public hands it will be able to access commercial financial products to help improve efficiencies within the water network which will help improve its overall financial position.
A lot of ifs and buts and maybes and there is a need for more info but I still like the idea.
#10 by Jeff on April 7, 2011 - 11:46 am
5.83% is a horrible rate to be paying, keeping in mind that base rate is 0.5% and this is a public company with guaranteed custom so effectively risk-free. I wonder who signed that off.
It looks on the face of it, to me, that SG has been milking Scottish Water dry to top up its budget (5.83% on £180m = £10m interest a year) so it’s little wonder that there is a refinance option available that will (1) be cost-neutral in the long run and (2) throw up some capital benefit in the short-term.
I’m coming round to it Douglas, I’m coming round….
#11 by Douglas McLellan on April 7, 2011 - 12:50 pm
Thanks Jeff. There are some key questions to be asked and some details that help explain the reasoning behind the idea (such as the annual borrowing the Scottish Water does from the Scottish Government) that have to be better elucidated – both of which are fair points as this is a brand new policy idea.
The knee jerk reaction of some others is a bit disappointing.
#12 by cynicalHighlander on April 6, 2011 - 11:34 pm
An asset is something one needs to survive not a commodity of financial value. The world is running out of access to drinking water and as such its value, not monetary, to society is far greater than anything else. We in Scotland are bordering on not being able to supply everyone all that they need all year round.
The short term gain will be in creating fictional jobs for the the sake of rather than evaluating what are the needs of the wider society in long term.
Then there is the treasury who are rulers on all asset sales.
#13 by aonghas on April 7, 2011 - 8:59 am
I also need food to survive. Nationalise Tesco?
#14 by Douglas McLellan on April 7, 2011 - 9:54 am
I cant recall Scotland getting close to being short of clean fresh water but if you can point me in the direction of information about that situation I would be grateful.
I disagree with the accusation that the proposals for the use of these monies are short-term only. I think that ambitions shown in the Scottish Lib Dem Manifesto show real thought into what the needs of Scottish society are for the longer term.
But yes, the Treasury do need to sign of on this. It should have been asked about this first.
#15 by douglas clark on April 6, 2011 - 8:31 pm
Is this not just selling off the family silver?
#16 by aonghas on April 7, 2011 - 9:01 am
Interesting analogy – the state should hold on to the water companies because they are shiny and nice to take out of the drawer and look at now and again.
Meanwhile the roof is leaking and needs fixed.
#17 by Stuart on April 6, 2011 - 9:50 pm
Thanks for a fair and reasoned post Jeff. Good to hear someone keeping a level head as the rest of us start getting tribal!
I work in renewables and from what I see of it, landowners could make a killing if they negotiate well with developers, or even became developers themselves. This is one thing Scottish Water does have- land. Ok, it wouldn’t raise as much money nearly as quickly as what the Lib Dems are proposing, but surely by engaging with renewable energy developers Scottish Water could realise there assets and get a healthy, guaranteed income?
#18 by Jeff on April 6, 2011 - 10:09 pm
Doesn’t sound unreasonable at all. Not sure if there’s £1.2bn of value in that land though…
#19 by aonghas on April 7, 2011 - 9:03 am
You shouldnt lose sight of the fact that this “land + renewables = money” equation is fuelled by subsidy – ie to use it as a ‘money-making’ wheeze for scottish water is a mirage – the money is coming from taxes taken from elsewhere. It’s a nice scam to make money no doubt, but makes no sense if your aim is the state saving money.
#20 by Stuart on April 7, 2011 - 11:20 am
It isn’t a subsidy. It’s paid for by your bills and it still generates electricity, that’s how most utilities work. The ROCs scheme is a way of getting utilities to be less carbon intensive.
Whitelee windfarm generates approx £34m for Scottish Power every year- I wonder what the landowners are getting for that?
#21 by James on April 6, 2011 - 10:31 pm
Jeff, I wouldn’t be anywhere near as charitable about this. The logic of this proposition, that we’re selling of the debt, is a) doubling down on an existing financial problem, b) exactly the sort of PFI-style short-termism that caused us grief under Gordon Brown, and c) financially illiterate, at least in the presentation, which suggests that the more SW owed, the more we could make off it. As someone said to me on Twitter “I’ve maxed out my credit card. Wanna buy it off me?”. At best it’s expensive refinancing. Oh, and d) it’s the sort of bond issue that the SFT would have made, except it couldn’t – hence the post-2007 difficulties the Nats had with that. And e) even if it does work, it’s a one-off trade of an asset-rich public organisation for a short-term flurry of expenditure. Oh, and f) it’s not explained at all well in the manifesto, which doesn’t even use the word “bond” anywhere. It feels like Jammy Pervs just made it up to be honest.
#22 by Jeff on April 6, 2011 - 10:35 pm
Fair challenges James, though I must admit that I’m still getting my head around it.
And, to be fair, Lib Dem the manifesto does mention “bond”, stating (in relation to Scottish Water):
“Allow the refinancing of its accumulated debt, through a bond issue, so that it can repay at least £1.5 billion of
debt to the Scottish Consolidated Fund and allow this to be reinvested in Scotland’s priorities associated with
economic activity, sustainability and long term investment.”
#23 by James on April 6, 2011 - 10:40 pm
I’m not sure what you’re looking at, but the pdf I’ve got just says:
#24 by Jeff on April 6, 2011 - 10:41 pm
I’m on page 88 (of 89) here:
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/files/SLD2011manifesto.pdf
#25 by James on April 6, 2011 - 10:51 pm
That only goes to page 82 on my screen. Most curious!
#26 by Douglas McLellan on April 7, 2011 - 10:12 am
Ok.
a) No. It would be a new business entity with its own guaranteed income stream. Many businesses use debt to both come into existence and then to finance operational activity. This would not end up on Scotlands balance sheet.
b) No. PFI contracts were weird and hidden from public view and contained stupid things like £1000 costs to change a lightbulb. Thats why they were wrong. The bond market its commercially open and the new Scottish Water would have to publish its accounts. Comparing chalk and cheese.
c) Yes. Well. You may be onto something about the presentation. But I would not buy the credit card from you but I would by the debt from the credit card company and then manage a repayment schedule that is advantageous to me. Scottish Water owes the taxpayer money. This is moving that debt to a different debt holder.
d) I though that the problem was the Scottish Government could not find a way to have the bond issued but not on its balance sheet. This would not be a Scottish Government bond.
e) It really isnt short-term. It just isnt.
f) Get new browser or at least update whatever pdf viewer you are using.
#27 by Gryff on April 6, 2011 - 10:48 pm
This is less like PFI, and more like a mortgage, it would be fairly uncontroversial in the private sector. As such it needs to pass the test for all borrowing, personal and national. Can the money be spent better now than later. If the LD plan can promote growth in the long term, then it is money well spent, if the money is squandered, things will be very awkward come pay back time. It is the national equivalent of taking out a mortgage to fund home improvements, they need to add value to the house.
I do think it would be unfair to expect the commitment to have been checked with the treasury, how much of a scandal would it have caused if civil servants had worked on a party manifesto! If there is a problem, then perhaps this is one that one might reasonably be expected to be fought on a cross party basis? If the treasury is going to stimy any attempts of the SG to innovate to raise funds then that might everyones plans.
#28 by Jeff on April 6, 2011 - 11:02 pm
Thanks for that Gryff, an awful lot of sense in there for my money. I think you make a fair point about checking with the Treasury beforehand; though the Lib Dems should have been better prepared for that rather obvious question.
This is as succinct and as understandable a way of putting it as I’ve read: “It is the national equivalent of taking out a mortgage to fund home improvements, they need to add value to the house.”
As Scotland currently stands, we can save money from not having to spend as much but don’t receive extra income from higher tax receipts (unless tax-varying powers used etc). So will a science fund, early intervention and regional banks save money even if it does boost jobs? Might reduce long term unemployment but the lack of full fiscal autonomy holds this Scottish Water policy back, under the prism of “adding value” to the nation at least.
#29 by DougtheDug on April 6, 2011 - 11:13 pm
I can’t see any problem with checking with the Treasury to see if the Scottish Water debt sell off scheme allows the Scottish Parliament to keep the money.
It’s a simple question of does this come under the rules where the Treasury gets the profit from any capital asset sale or doesn’t it. A yes or no answer is not political as it is simply stating the rules the Treasury works under.
The longer Danny Alexander fails to respond with yes to the scheme the more and more it looks like the Scottish section of the Lib-Dems have been cut adrift and that Danny can’t answer because the answer is no.
#30 by Douglas McLellan on April 7, 2011 - 1:20 am
I agree. Danny Alexander public advised the political parties in Scotland about the tax varying powers issue following the Greens making it clear that they would seek to use the powers.
It would be different if civil servants wrote the manifesto but answering a simple question about if something was allowable/feasible would be allowed.
And Jeremy Purvis should have asked.
#31 by Jeff on April 7, 2011 - 7:35 am
Yes, I can see that too. I suppose I can just picture a redtop headline of “Secret Lib Dem deal to flog off Scottish Water”. Or, more likely, “Water Disgrace” or whatever.
Not sure it was worth the risk of having the rug pulle from under Tavish’s feet. Anyway, if Danny A was a team player he’d be looking into this pronto…
#32 by Gryff on April 7, 2011 - 10:18 am
The ideal would be for the treasury to clarify not only its attitude to this situation, but to set out the principles underlying when it might claw back funds under the block grant. I would be surprised if that is going to happen during the election, whether that is a priority afterwards remains to be seen, but would probably require at least some cross party support.
In the short term, now the manifestos are being released it wouldn’t hurt for the tresury to clarify its position on points in all of them.
The old problem with local tax reform and council tax benefit is the other biggie.
#33 by Allan on April 6, 2011 - 11:44 pm
All very well talking about debt and what kind of ownership this is and income streams and… etc etc… when the real issue should be what kind of impact will it have on the consumers.
From what I have seen above, it will have a negative impact on customers, as the price of water goes up. The privatisation of water down south was a disaster, with price hikes and a drop in the quality of water and a rise in water leekages. At the time as well, this was comprehensively defeated in a Strathclyde wide referendum.
We are in the middle of a recession, the cuts are still to come and no one has any money. This is just adding another bill on the pile for hard pressed families to pay. Sorry, but the Lib Dems have demonstrated with this scheme that they do not live in the real world.
#34 by aonghas on April 7, 2011 - 9:09 am
Actually it looks like non-privatisation of water in Northern Ireland was a complete disaster – needed investment was not made, resulting in their recent complete mess. The same thing didn’t happen in England because the investment had been made over the preceding years. Kneejerk hostility to things not being run by the state is silly.
#35 by Douglas McLellan on April 7, 2011 - 9:13 am
How are water prices set in Scotland just now? Do you really think that Scottish Water do it? Where in the Lib Dem manifesto does it say that the mechanism for how water prices are set would be changed?
#36 by aonghas on April 7, 2011 - 9:20 am
BTW, “Average domestic water charges in Scotland are now comparable with the middle of the range for England”
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/07/18161737/4
So – not a disaster in England, and not a utopia in Scotland.