FactCheck: Does PFI offer the taxpayer value for money?
The claim
“We are using PFI to ensure value for money and that the public interest and public services are properly protected when we increase public investment.”
Gordon Brown, The Times, September 26, 2002
Cathy Newman checks it out
When the Private Finance Initiative ends up costing one hospital more than £300 to change a light bulb, clearly something’s not right.
Now Channel 4 News understands the Treasury has had enough. George Osborne is hoping costly PFI deals can be unpicked, potentially saving up to £1bn for the public purse.
He’s sending a Swat team of accountants and lawyers into the Queen’s Hospital in Romford, Essex, where a rebuilding programme which originally cost £261m will end up costing the taxpayer more than three times that, with interest payments alone totalling £20m a year.
If money can be saved there, the experiment will be repeated across the public sector.
So contrary to Gordon Brown’s claims that the PFI was “value for money”, is it really – as it was once nicknamed – “perfidious financial idiocy”?
The background
The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was dreamt up by Lord Lamont in 1992 as a way of getting the private sector to build and run big public projects – like the Channel Tunnel rail link and the Jubilee Line underground extension – which would then be rented back to the state over several decades.
But within two years, the then-Shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown had enthusiastically embraced the idea, claiming: “We have stolen a march on the Tories”.
Under complex deals, the projects would be carried out by private contractors, who’d own the structure for up to 35 years. The public sector body – such as the NHS or the MoD – paid the contractors annual interest, as well as paying off the capital sum and maintenance. PFI charges are also indexed to inflation, so when – as now – inflation increases, so does the cost of many of the deals.
Lord Lamont argues that Labour has abused the PFI, which, he told The Spectator, “was only for ventures like new bridges or toll roads, never for ordinary public spending”.
The analysis
In the first five years of the scheme, £2.2bn was spent on the 628 major PFI deals under the Tories – on projects such as non-combat vehicles for the Royal Air Force, or infrastructure such as the driverless Docklands Light Railway in London. In the next five years under New Labour, spending climbed to £14.2bn, research by The Spectator found.
In Labour’s 1997 Manifesto, the party promised to “overcome the problems that have plagued the PFI at a national level”, and in May 1997 it gave the go-ahead to 73 hospital building schemes by publishing a Bill that removed the legal issues surrounding the NHS doing deals with private companies.
The University of Edinburgh’s Professor Allyson Pollock found recently that between 1997 and 2009, 101 of the 135 new NHS hospitals built were paid for under PFI – using 90 per cent of the £12.2bn committed under successive building programmes. The aggregate of all PFI repayments in 2009-10 was £42.79bn.
During that time, Mr Brown fought back at union wrath and at doctors who dubbed PFI “perfidious financial idiocy”.
Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said in 2002: “The government is relentlessly pursuing a policy that wastes money, wastes time, and failed any objective test of value for money. It cannot be right that during a period of unprecedented public investment huge profits are going into private pockets.”
The union backlash prompted a charm offensive from Mr Brown and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. The latter insisted the public had “nothing to be scared of…they are just a different way of providing a public service”.
Their tenacity paid off in one crucial respect: big public building projects were by and large delivered on time and on budget.
A 2009 report by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that 69 per cent of PFI construction projects between 2003 and 2008 were delivered on time and 65 per cent were delivered at the contracted price.
However, Mr Brown also told BBC Radio 4 back in 2002: “I’ve got evidence that we are achieving value for money”; citing 25 independent reports by the National Audit Office (NAO) under which every major project was examined.
The NAO checked its archives for FactCheck today and drew “a bit of a blank”. “There certainly wasn’t a compendium of reports done,” a spokeswoman said, adding that in any case the verdict was more likely to be mixed on PFI being value for money.
FactCheck found 19 independent reports on PFI published by the NAO before September 2002, when Mr Brown’s article was published.
Professor Pollock’s report, published in the BMJ, argues that NHS contracts alone are not good value, and worse – are endangering patient care.
Since 1991 all NHS trusts have had to pay a charge on NHS buildings and equipment to the Treasury, which averages around 6 per cent of income. But NHS trusts with PFI contracts may spend up to a vast 18.6 per cent of their annual income paying off private contractors, according to Professor Pollock.
Latest NAO figures put the total capital value of all PFI projects in England – there were more than 500 in 2009 – at around £28bn.
The Daily Telegraph meanwhile used Freedom of Information requests to show that more than 900 schemes have been completed with a total capital value of £56bn – yet the amount the taxpayer will have to repay currently stands at £229bn due to accumulated interest.
Take the Princess Royal University Hospital in Bromley in Kent, for example: it cost the contractor £118m to build, but the final bill for the taxpayer will be £1.2 bn.
Earlier this month, a hospital trust in County Durham was the first to opt for a “voluntary termination” of its PFI contract, paying £18m upfront to get out of the contract 23 years early, in order to save £14m. You can hardly blame them.
Cathy Newman’s verdict
Visit Queen’s Hospital in Romford – as I did today – and it’s hard not to be impressed by the architecture, with its ingenious lay-out and airy atrium.
But while the building has won awards for architectural excellence, there are no prizes for the financing of the deal, which like a host of similar PFI projects are now becoming a burden on the public purse.
It’s not just the interest payments, but also the cost of services provided by the private sector.
Apart from the legendary light bulb, a PFI school found it had to pay £300 to install a single plug socket.
What started as a neat idea to get big business to help fund public building schemes has ended up allowing some in the private sector to enrich themselves at the expense of the state.
Gordon Brown wouldn’t even need to reach for his calculator in his Kirkcaldy study to know that’s no value for money.


There are 25 comments on this post
This is so one sided. How would the public sector have found the money to build new hospitals, schools etc? If they’d have borrowed the money they’d have also had massive interest charges. At the end of the a 25 year contract the public sector will receive a building so well maintained it will be in virtually the same state as when it was built, As for the £300 a lightbulb anecdotes, so outdated. Standard contract provisions removed this risk years ago.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Perhaps you deliberately miss the point of the criticism Zoe?
Yes, The Taxpayer will be getting relatively new for old after 25 years of paying for it but the amount of money being siphoned off to line the pockets of the very few PFI Contractor Firms set up to deliver these projects and maintain them is absolutely shocking.
County Durham NHS Trust paying £18m to ‘save’ £14m for an NHS Hospital is extortion and that £4m given to the PFI Contractor now is money that is now not availble for funding the nurses and doctors who are more important and more deserving.
The problem is that the Labour Government saw the short term ‘political advantage’ being to ‘spin’ delivery on their promise of public sector infrastructure improvements but they ignored the long term pain that the cost of these PFI contracts will create as it is not only the current taxpayers who will be out of pocket paying for this extortionate costs but taxpayers who will be being born in the next 10 years too.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Zoe, you’re joking of course?. I work in these buildings, fitting LCD Tv’s and digital sinage for the trusts. Most of the walls will not take the brackest and Tv’s, the trusts have to “board out” the walls with 22mm MDF board to support the gear we fit. The walls are so flimsy you would not have anything like them in your home.
Oh, and by the way, 2 weeks ago a ward sister who needed to have a “whiteboard” measuring 600mm x 400mm moved to an adjacent wall, so that we could fit a peice of equipment in it’s place was actually told the ward/trust would have to pay Sodexo, (their PFI estates contractor) £300 for the work… we did it for her, took 3.5 minutes and 2 woodscrews and 2 5mm plastic rawlplugs….
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I completely agree with our comments. In any project there are only four variables: time,money; resource; and quality. PFI addresses these basic principles. The Public Sector invariably overuns in terms of time which equates to money yet we seldom hear this articulated by commentators. As early as 1996 the NAO published a Report highlighting this point. Moreover the operating contract is subject to EU procurement rules, so £300 light bulbs rest firmly with the Public Sector procurement officer who faied in his/her duty of Value for Money
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Charles, are you saying that it is OK for a private company to rip off the state if someone doesn’t notice it? That if I can tuck away £300 light bulbs in the small print, then that’s just business?
So no morality in business, especially when dealing with things like hospitals and schools, just get whatever you can?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It’s not one sided. The interest rates on loans to governments (triple AAA credit rating) are far lower than the annual PFI charges – and PFI debts, while hidden off the balance sheet (a mere accounting fiddle) actually cost 70% more to pay back than loans do.Funding from taxation would also be cheaper.
The parliamentary Treasury Select Committee’s report on PFIs in August found that
“Investment could be increased in the long run, …if government capital investment were used instead of PFI. The average cost of capital for a low risk PFI project is over 8%, double that of government gilts. Analysis commissioned by the Committee suggests that paying off a PFI debt of £1bn may cost taxpayers the same as paying off a direct government debt of £1.7bn. ”
You can also read analyses by Professor Allyson Pollock and dozens of other experts on health service finance – PFIs are a massive rip off and the most expensive way to fund any construction project. The only benefits are to the big firms heading the PFI consortia and the people going through the revolving doors between government , civil service and those big firms – plus big parties getting donations from big firms.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Maybe I’m not as stupid as I thought I was. I could never understand how repaying the cost of building, plus interest plus service charges and a profit to the private company, could ever be anything more than an expensive way to do anything. It seems I was right.
This also gives the lie to those who claim that the Blair-Brown New Labour government was socialist. They were as hooked in with big business as any tories.
Blair was an out and out capitalist as his private dealings have shown.
Brown, I guess, just thought he was being clever and would get credit for all the hospitals etc being built and that as the payments were spread over many years and the public might not get to hear about the £300+ light bulbs, we might never realise what a dumb deal he’d pulled.
And on those light bulbs. Don’t you just love the way companies have no shame about ripping off society? Of course, with all their profits, they can afford private health care so it doesn’t matter to them if the NHS is robbed blind. They should be prosecuted for fraud.
The more we see the reality of capitalism in action, the more rotten it appears.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I totally agree with the report. PFI is poor value for money. The amount of money that the tax payer is paying the private contractors is just unacceptable. Imagine if the gorvenment had paid the cost for the building (like they paid the bankers) by the end of the contract (35 yrs) they would have made the profit. Poor judgement for which we have to pay.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Zoe 15 February 2011 at 7:40 pm
This is so one sided. How would the public sector have found the money to build new hospitals, schools etc?
Well, if it is one-sided, and I do not accept that it is, then that would provide a little balance following the 13 years of selective use of “facts” by Gordon Brown to justify the PFI rip-off. The standard of negotiation of Government contracts, including NHS and school PFI projects has contributed to Britain’s gross over-spend of its limited income, particularly since the pyrrhic victory of WWII. That has been compounded by the hugely unrealistic promises of “cradle to grave” provision of medical services, unfunded public service pensions and the final, huge coffin-nail the NHS. Without personal, ring-fenced accounts to cover lifetime services, old age in Britain will in my view be even more bleak than it is today. The system is failing and now we are broke unlikely to be saveable, other than by intelligent privatisation and financing, but we have already seen that is most unlikely to happen as a result of GB’s other triumphs which blasted many high income UK jobs overseas. Those who do not have to will not stick around to pay…
Like or Dislike:
0
0
PFI payments cover running, maintenance and often soft services, so comparing lifetime payments to building costs alone is poor journalism. That said, many (early) PFIs were contracted to be very favourable to the supplier, so government-wide pressure to reclaim the excess profitably is a good idea if it can be done – a contract is a contract!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The justification for PFI was always that it avoided increasing the public sector borrowing requirement. The govt would have got preferential interest rates had they done the work themselves or less commonly could have issued special bonds for the work, but I believe the record on NHS project delivery is poor. Oversight under Labor seems to have been very slack
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cathy,
Right from the start PFI was NEVER “a neat idea.” It was merely a device to steal essential services and make money on them, plus yet another attempt to strip away local democratic control in favour of large companies who have no expertise whatever in, for instance, health and education. These functions were carried out previously by non-profit making local bodies.
PFI companies then developed “a market” for selling on “their” assets. These still operate.
The root of this is of course the funding source and how it is democratically controlled and distributed. The previous structure, very far from perfect, at least had a social goal – not a profit goal. It was far superior to the spiv barrow boy economics of PFI and the gangsters who steal our health and education.
Moreover, design-and-build has the contractor/developer in control of the whole process. Therefore, in most cases, design decisions are made solely on the grounds of profit, not actual social usefulness or expertise. You can confirm this with architect studios who have become little more than a drafting office for spiv contractors.
So well done, yet again.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I do think the NAO should carry out a proper independent review of PFI. For a factcheck this is a little low on facts. The problem with it is that you have to balance the probably greater likelihood that expensive capital projects would be delivered on time and to cost against the fact that the private sector contractors would aim to make profits at least commensurate with the riskiness of the project – and if the civil servants were green enough, to make somewhat larger profits. I imagine there are examples of both good and bad value for money. Unfortunately, the previous government felt it had to run to catch up with the previous period of minimal capital investment in our public infrastructure without raising taxes significantly. Thus devises like this were over-used and there are bound to be good examples where PFI has fallen flat on its face.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m not sure if the first comment is serious or not. But it seems to be, so:
The Public sector would have found the money by arranging finance via the Government through the issue of gilts – paying a tiny fraction of the interest Private companies have to pay due to their higher risk category.
I agree about the implied poor state the buildings would be in if left to unreliable politicians to fund it’s maintenance. However,a legal requirement to look after public structures can be enshrined in law.
“Standard contract provisions removed this years ago” Did they really? Are you sure? When was that then? Does anyone know of any statutes that now prevent this?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cathy
Could you please do a factcheck comparison on this accusation trotted out that a number of local government officials are earning more than the Prime Minister?
While it may be true in strictly salary terms, I would like to see the comparison include the perks such as houses with staff, pensions, expenses, payment and expenses after office as well as in. As far as I can see the PM has to spend little of his salary on the usual day to day living, unlike council executives.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
the hospital planning and design could have been better at saving cost through replication and standardisation. Leading with pfi groups was not as smart as having financing aa a support service and the lead issue.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What infuriates me about PFI was the constant claim by Brown that they were spending all the money on schools and hospitals -clearly they weren’t. They were doing the same sort of deals that were done to get the carriers built on the Clyde, ie very expensive and almost impossible to get out of. What’s worse it was done for political reasons.Why doesn’t this get more exposure in the media?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
if a projection of the future 40 years is made for the different infrastructure for power, rail, water and roads and further hospital and school buildings are added the scale is equivalent to the gross domestic product. Better coordination, prioritisng and planning is required to ensure projects are sequenced. The 90s issue was there were no funds to spend hence pfi was the means used. It used all the legal and financial specialists from the north sea project finance work. Much of this work for pfi was common to projects and could have been reused at lower cost. The uk for the power sector now has to borrow over 200billion for Power stations and grids which are life expired and need to be renewed. The same financial position exists as in the 90s and the work to reduce costs is needed. Hopefully we will learn how to make savings a second time around.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Interesting and timely piece, thanks. Please do more.
PFIs were clearly, at best, a naive compromise to appease doubts about whether or not a Labour government were ‘friendly’ to the private sector. (Or is it me who is naive?)
How beneficial is it to the UK economy if a private minority profiteer such excessive amounts from the public purse, while employing a largely insecure workforce on temporary rolling contracts?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Gordon Brown used PFI as a means of keeping government borrowing off the UK’s balance sheet. He could then claim he was being financially ‘prudent’ by artificially lowering the UK’s debt to GDP ratio. Who would begrudge few billion pounds on such a large ego?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oliver – after all this correspondence, you’ve finally hit the nail on the head. GB both as Chancellor and PM was more than willing to borrow to “deliver projects”. But as you rightly state, he also wanted this to be “off balance sheet”. He showed this again in the privatisation of the London Underground. Ken Livingstone wanted to use the “New York City” model and issue bonds. GB vetoed that and got his way, and in due course, one of the companies running the Tube went bust. GB has retreated to Kirkaldy, but the mountain of debt he created will weigh us and our children down for decades.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I work for one of the PFI contractors as a maintenance engineer…When ward sisters and the like complain about the quotes they receive for small jobs like whiteboards etc, I take matters in my own hand and do it for nothing and don’t tell my employer who would surely sack me if they found out..
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Actually Charles I thought resource was money? I am guessing you are a Private Sector Project worker and note your spelling of “failed” unfortunately this underlines one of the many problems when contracting to the Private Sector – they do things as cheaply as possible at great cost to quality.
Tell the Hatfield train crash victims that they benefited from the private company Railtrack’s adjustments to quality of maintenance of the track!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
As far as the private sector is concerned, the risk they take on has to be transposed into profit, the financial penalties for non performance under PFI contracts are astronomical and private companies can ‘lose their shirts’ unlike the public sector where poor performance equates to a new position within the civil service. The private sector have the incentive to ensure the building functions well for the term of he contract, PFI maybe an expensive procurement avenue but leaving major construction projects to Civil servants may cost more in the long term. More-so these procurement deals are driven by the government, they are the client and need to know what they are buying and what they are paying for.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
PFI & PPP can work, however many projects are inflexible and offer poor value with excessive profits being made by some providers. In this case we should tax these excessive profits.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24445
Like or Dislike:
0
0