Skip to main content

P3s don't provide value for money: British House of Commons Treasury Cttee

Public private partnership "funding for new infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, does not provide taxpayers with good value for money," according to the Treasury Select Committee of the British House of Commons.

The Committee found that the capital cost of even a low risk P3 project is over 8%  – double the long-term cost of government borrowing.

Higher borrowing costs since the credit crisis mean that PFI (as the British call P3s)  is now an ‘extremely inefficient’ method of financing projects, according to the Committee. 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.

The Committee also stated it has "not seen any convincing evidence that savings and efficiencies during the lifetime of PFI projects offset the significantly higher cost of finance."

The business publication Health Investor adds that PFI schemes perform poorly in some respects such as design innovation, and  flexibility – something that is of particular concern when it comes to health care projects.

The committee concluded that the widespread use of the model over the last 15 years was because of "significant incentives... which are unrelated to value for money". These include the fact that PFI does not appear in government debt figures, and do not use up limited departmental capital funding, according to Health Investor.

The Conservative Party Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee states the PFI funding mechanism should be used "as sparingly as possible until the value for money and absolute cost problems associated with PFI have been addressed." "We can’t carry on as we are, expecting the next generation of taxpayers to pick up the tab," he added.
 
OCHU and CUPE have long claimed that the supposed benefits of P3 projects (like risk transfer) were overstated and did not make up for the extra costs associated with P3s. 

The Treasury Select Committee also "raises concerns that the current Value for Money appraisal system is biased to favour PFIs," another point long raised by P3 critics in Canada.

The British public sector union UNISON is calling on the government to ditch P3s in its response to the Committee report.  The Treasury Select Committee report is available here.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.





Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 


No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…