TAXPAYERS will spend £199 billion bailing out hundreds of PFI projects across the UK, according to the government’s spending watchdog.
In a new report the National Audit Office says that the glut of new schools and hospitals and other infrastructure projects funded through deals between the government, local authority and private companies, will end up costing between 40 and 70 per cent more than those funded by government cash.
There are currently over 700 operational PFI deals in the UK — with 82 in Scotland. In total the taxpayer hands over £10.3bn a year, and will do so until some point in the 2040s.
The way PFI works is that private companies fund the construction of facilities like hospitals, schools and roads, and the taxpayer then pays it back by handing money for debt repayment, financing costs, maintenance and any other services provided, over a period of 30 or 40 years.
For the government it means new projects are “off the balance sheet”, meaning that they don’t count against public sector borrowing rules.
The government reduced its use of PFI after the 2008 financial crisis, as the cost of private finance soared.
There’s also been increasing public and political scepticism of the model.
In Scotland, they were replaced by the Non-Profit Distributing model (NPD) which, while broadly similar to PFI, caps the return private sector firms can take, and sees any profits made returned to the public purse.
The Treasury followed suit with their version of NPD, PFI2.
But in their report, the NAO says government departments are now “trapped” in schemes that they can’t abandon.
It adds that there is little evidence the projects funded in the manner have ever represented value for money: “We have been unable to identify a robust evaluation of the actual performance of private finance at a project or programme level.”
The report comes after Carillion went into liquidation earlier this week — many of its contracts were governed by PFI.
Introduced by John Major in 1992, the schemes were hugely backed by the Labour government. Of the PFI payments made last year, 85 per cent stem from decisions made more than ten years ago when Gordon Brown was in No 10 and, before that, in the Treasury.
The former prime minister has previously defended the use of private investment, saying new infrastructure projects across Britain would have been impossible without PFI.
Labour MP Meg Hillier, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons, said the government needed to rethink how major projects were funded: “After 25 years of PFI, there is still little evidence that it delivers enough benefit to offset the additional costs of borrowing money privately.
“Many local bodies are now shackled to inflexible PFI contracts that are exorbitantly expensive to change.”
She added: “We need more investment in our schools and hospitals but if we get the contracts wrong, taxpayers pay the price.”
A government spokesman said: “We have reformed how we manage PFI contracts, and through PF2 have created a model which improves transparency and offers better value for money. Taxpayer money is protected through PFI and PF2 as the risks of construction and long-term maintenance of a project are transferred to the private sector.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel