Skip to main content

Selling bonds -- a cheaper alternative to P3s

As noted earlier, the British government is reviewing its use of public private partnerships (P3s, or, as the British call them, PFIs) for the development of public infrastructure like new hospital buildings.  The government now says it's the ‘end of PFI as we know it’.   

Unfortunately,  they seem to be more interested in simply pulling pension plans and foreign money into the PFI vortex.

The PFI advisor to the British House of Commons Treasury Select Committee, Mark Hellowell waded in to this mess earlier this week. Instead of wrapping pension plans into PFIs, he points to a cheaper way to involve pension plans in infrastructure.
"The Treasury is currently pulling its hair out trying to find ways of bringing pension funds into infrastructure investment. But the cheapest way to do this is, of course, to sell bonds to them.  They will currently buy them at a real interest rate of something like minus 3% – not bad for projects that will put people into work in the short-term and increase the economy’s productive potential in the medium and long term."
The cheaper way, it seems, is pretty much the traditional public sector model for public infrastructure. Not PFI.

Moreover, Hellowell notes government  "officials want to find a way of transferring some risk back into the public sector to ‘credit enhance’ the deals, allowing associated bond issues to achieve the triple-A rating that institutional investors require."
"The challenge, which has eluded successive governments, is to do this while maintaining PFI’s ‘fiscal advantage’ – its ability to allow investment to occur without the related borrowing showing up on the headline measures of government deficit and debt. This, after all, is the reason successive governments have found the PFI so irresistible. While the balance sheet benefit of PFI must be retained, there is a political imperative for change – even if it’s only a change of acronym."
In other words, the government wants to transfer risk back to the public even while they keep the massive PFI debts off the public books.  

There's a word for that isn't there?


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…