InfrastructureNov 23 2017

Concerns over PFI remain unjust

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Concerns over PFI remain unjust

Private investment in infrastructure has been in the news following comments by John McDonnell, the Labour Party shadow chancellor, that Labour wanted to bring Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) projects “back in-house”.

This sceptical attitude towards PFIs has not always been prevalent. The last Labour government signed more than 600 contracts between 1997 and 2010 and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition encouraged pension funds to invest in infrastructure projects on the basis that private capital could deliver benefits to the public sector.

Not fit for purpose

However, critics have said PFIs are not fit for purpose and do not represent value for money for the taxpayer. These criticisms ignore the advantages that come from private sector investment.  

The PFI model ensures that the private sector bears the risk that the associated facility – for example, a school, road or hospital – is built on time and on budget and is maintained for the duration of the contract – usually 20-plus years. The private sector’s reward for taking on this risk is a steady, inflation-linked, availability-based revenue stream with penalties for shortcomings set out in the contracts. 

These incentive mechanisms mean that the private sector is accountable throughout the term of a contract until the keys are handed back to the public sector. Many early PFI contracts are nearing the time of handback, which comes with criteria concerning the required condition of the asset. 

Rather than taking short cuts or profit stripping, this fosters responsible investment practices. Experienced and proactive asset managers, employed by contractors and fund managers, work with all the stakeholders to deliver the infrastructure to the contractually required standard.

It is also worth noting that PFIs have become cheaper for governments. As with all fledgling industries, early PFI contracts were relatively more expensive. 

However, a strong pipeline of projects from 1997 to 2010 resulted in healthy competition among contractors and investors. Better understanding ofrisk, with most assets built on time and on budget, has meant the PFI sector attracted more private sector participants. This competition has driven down the cost of new projects for the public purse.

Where Britain led, other markets have followed. The public-private partnership model has been adopted as an efficient method to accelerate the procurement of new infrastructure in countries such as Canada and Australia. The Netherlands is using the model to provide capital investment in infrastructure and Colombia is currently procuring a  network of about 40 toll road projects.

Key points

  • The Labour Party said that, if elected into government, it would bring public-private partnerships  “back in-house”. 
  • Contract termination would result in payment of compensation to existing investors. 
  • Cautious investors have favoured UK investments.

Despite global endorsement of the public-private partnership model, thereis increasing political discussion in the UK about the prospect of terminating some of these projects early. However, this would put benefits that the public sector and taxpayers enjoy in jeopardy and could also adversely impact the government’s relationship with the private sector in the long term. 

Contract termination, which could take years to implement, would result in payment of compensation to existing investors in line with contractual terms and the transfer of risk back to the public sector. The cost of maintenance and periodic major refurbishments would be incurred and the potential variability of these costs would be borne by the taxpayer. 

The typical investor, which such disruptive actions could impact, is one who is seeking access to the long-term returns and good inflation protection that infrastructure investment can provide. The investors in UK-listed infrastructure funds are predominantly pension funds and investors through personal pensions, Isas or wealth managers – all seeking to match inflation-linked liabilities. 

Cautious investors

Cautious investors have favoured UK investments, as opposed to other markets, because they have faith that a UK government would not retrospectively change the rules or penalise a whole industry. The potential for adverse government intervention creates uncertainty; the consequence being curtailment of inward investment and an increase in investor return requirements. This could hamper Britain’s ability to renew dilapidated infrastructure efficiently.

In the short term, investors competing to deliver transportation projects – such as the Lower Thames Crossing or the A303 Stonehenge project – could reflect the additional risk in their bids and increase cost assumptions. In the longer term, it could put at risk an effective response to the challenges identified by the independent National Infrastructure Commission of relieving congestion, creating capacity and reducing carbon emissions.

It is trust in the public sector that drives the private sector to take on the risks associated with investing in public infrastructure. Contractors and private investors use careful planning, disciplined management and good governance to deliver projects to the standard expected by public sector clients. As an alternative to the nationalisation proposal, politicians have the opportunity to continue harnessing this private sector expertise and capital to renew the UK’s ageing infrastructure for future generations.

Harry Seekings is director, infrastructure, of InfraRed Capital Partners