Skip to main content

British Tories recognize P3 failure (but not the solution)

After repeated British reports revealing failure  of public private partnerships (P3s) for public infrastructure projects, the British Chancellor has announced a fundamental review of the government's use of P3s (or, as the Brits call them, PFIs) .  

A recent House of Commons Committee report put the cost of capital for a typical PFI project at 8%, which is double the government rate of around 4%.  And for capital intensive projects like new hospital buildings, that adds up to a whole lot of extra cost for the public to swallow.  

Chancellor George Osborne said  “We have consistently voiced concerns about the misuse of PFI in the past and we have already taken steps to reduce costs and improve transparency...We want a new delivery model which draws on private sector innovation but at a lower cost to the taxpayer and with better value for public services.”

The Financial Times suggests that the government wants more "direct" private sector investment in public infrastructure, possibly through pension plans  Instead of banks financing these projects for decades through a mixture of debt and equity, banks would finance projects only until building was complete. 

This would reduce the period of time that the public is stuck covering the high cost of bank borrowing.  Pension plans (or other "direct" investors) would then buy out the debt, once construction was complete, and hold on to it for good long time.  

Of course, the public is still going to have to pay a profit to those "direct" investors for many years.

The financial crisis is driving up the costs of private sector P3 borrowing and even conservative governments are beginning to look for alternatives.  But, even in the face of failure, they are unwilling to give it up completely.

Likely, government authorities in Canada are coming up with all sort of inventive plans to deal with the crisis of private finance of P3s too.  They just aren't telling the public.    

We'll see what the British Tories come up with....

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…