PFI becomes less private

 

The chancellor is changing the private finance initiative (PFI) to make it more public and less private.

The last government financed the building and maintenance of vast numbers of schools, hospitals and other expensive investments by asking the private sector to bear the big costs, in return for regular payments from the public sector.

But the Treasury under George Osborne became concerned that huge long-term liabilities were being created for taxpayers - and that lousy negotiation by civil servants was allowing private companies to make huge windfall profits.

So in the Autumn Statement on Wednesday George Osborne will unveil what will be called Private Finance 2 (PF2) - which will involve the public sector taking stakes of up to 49% in individual private finance projects (20% stakes are likely to be typical) and appointing a director to the boards of each project.

This is to ensure that the taxpayer gets a share of any profits from the deal.

The BBC's Robert Peston: Private companies have made excessive profits

Other innovations will be that each private finance project will have to publish its financial performance every year and the Treasury will publish a running total of taxpayers' cumulative private finance liabilities - to allay concerns that these liabilities are becoming unaffordable.

Also there will be an attempt to speed up the signing of deals, or the procurement process - which can take up to five years at the moment - by setting an 18-month deadline (at which point, any public sector money allocated to the project would be reallocated).

Contracts under PF2 are also supposed to be smaller, simpler and less leveraged (they will involve less debt finance).

So they will no longer include what is known as soft facilities management, or contracts for catering, cleaning, security and IT.

And in the past a typical PFI deal would be funded to the tune of 90% by debt, but that debt proportion will fall to 80%.

If these reforms are designed to make the contracts less speculative, the Treasury has resisted pressure to change contracts to explicitly penalise those investors who sell their PFI projects early to generate vast profits.

The Treasury thought about introducing clauses that would have explicitly punished those investors who trade their PFI stakes before the expiry of contracts but feared these investors would have increased what they charge to be involved in the first place.

Also, in a separate but linked initiative, the Treasury has renegotiated existing PFI deals to find £2.5bn of savings over the lifetime of the contracts - which is £1bn more than it originally hoped.

In today's money, future PFI liabilities for taxpayers are £144bn, according to the Office for National Statistics.

 
Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

How Scotland can avoid a credit crunch

Bankers tell me that George Osborne, Mark Carney and Alex Salmond can ward off a serious credit crunch in Scotland if Scots vote for independence

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +24

    Comment number 21.

    Brown and Blair bragged so much about all the money they were spending on schools and hospitals in our country, when in truth they were simply lumbering the taxpayer with hugely expensive and bloated deals from which they could not escape for 30 or more years.

    It is interesting to note how many of these deals were in fact to the considerable benefit of companies run by their pals.

  • rate this
    +22

    Comment number 16.

    I don't think it's entirely fair to blame Labour here. PFI started out in John Major's Tory government in 1992 and the idea was, at the time, condemned by Labour.

    After the Tories gave birth to this monster, Labour fattened it up until it was a bloated teenager. Now PFI is 20 years old, it thinks its found a get rich quick scheme (PF2), and so will continued to spend. Will they not learn?

  • rate this
    +20

    Comment number 63.

    Can we stop all this party political mud slinging?

    Both main parties were complicit in this. It was a an abject failure because it threw public money at private businesses.

    You can't blame public inefficiency, incompetant civil servants or even greedy contractors. This was the action of ideological 'business friendly' politicians.

    All main parties need to fix this.

  • rate this
    +19

    Comment number 34.

    "Buy now pay later" !!!

    Unless you are a politician.
    Then it's "Get elected now, pay later"

  • rate this
    +17

    Comment number 10.

    So, jobs for the boys AND huge windfalls for well-connected private companies.

    How exactly will having a member of the board nominated by the state going to do anything about long terms contracts which are agree UPFRONT and give huge profits to private companies!?

    No, this is all about creating exceptionally well paid board membership positions for politically nominated people: jobs for the boys

 

Comments 5 of 173

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.