Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


New quango to run public-private projects

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 December 2007
THE Scottish Government's plans to replace the controversial private-finance initiative (PFI) were last night condemned as "window-dressing".
John Swinney, the finance secretary, yesterday published details of the new Scottish Futures Trust (SFT), which the SNP promised during the election would replace the PFI schemes which have generated large profits for private contractors.

Last nig
ht, however, opponents of the new method of paying for large infrastructure projects – which could be used to fund the new Forth bridge – rounded on the SNP's plans.

The SFT would be a private limited company which operates a "public-interest ethos", according to the consultation document published by Mr Swinney yesterday.

This would provide "greater flexibility" and harness "commercial know-how" as the new company built projects such as hospitals, schools, roads and social housing.

Mr Swinney said: "By making non-profit distributing organisations the core of the public-private partnerships, we can remove the element of PFI that delivered the most extreme and unwarranted profits."

The SNP made ending the PFI a key element of its May manifesto, highlighting projects like the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.

According to recently published figures, the ERI is expected to see more than £1 billion repaid, despite costing less than £200 million to build.

As well as construction, PPP (public-private partnership) costs also cover maintenance over the period of the contract – often about 25-30 years.

According to the details published yesterday, the SFT's holding company would represent a range of Scottish public-sector interest and be responsible for appointing the SFT management board.

Its key functions will be providing finance to those who provide public services as well as other related financial services at a cheaper cost through bulk of demand.

The aim of the new trust will be to provide a better deal for taxpayers, but will still involve the use of private-finance markets to help fund large projects.

Mr Swinney added: "The Scottish Government believes there is a more effective way of funding vital public infrastructure than traditional, costly PFI."

Last night, however, the Unison union, which has led a long-running campaign against PFI and public-private partnerships, said the proposals would just create a "huge private company to run Scottish PFI schemes".

Dave Watson, the union's organiser in charge of policy said: "UNISON is obviously in favour of any improvement on PFI/PPP, but an initial glance suggests that what is being proposed is mainly window-dressing, and looks nothing like what the SNP promised in their Scottish Futures Trust policy document.

"Non-profit distribution models retain higher borrowing costs, private profit is still taken out of public services at the contractor level and the so-called risk-transfer costs still apply, all leading to the profiteering and inflexibility inherent in PFI.

"We are sceptical that a private company such as the proposed Scottish Futures Trust can have a genuine public-interest ethos. It may not take a profit, but the banks and the private firms it contracts to run our services certainly will. "

The plans won only a lukewarm welcome from business. Iain McMillan, CBI Scotland's director, said: "We welcome the apparent change of heart in funding model from the SNP, and the acceptance that the private sector will remain involved in developing infrastructure and providing services throughout the whole lifetime of projects.

"However, it remains to be seen whether the proposed non-profit distributing model, and creation of a new quango, will actually add value, let alone provide real incentives for delivering higher-quality services and better value for money."

Current PFI schemes will not be scrapped by the Scottish Government, with the SFT aiming to be a more attractive alternative.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 December 2007 10:12 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Quango state
 
1

Incandescent,

21/12/2007 01:59:04
erm, you stated yoy have no loyalty to Labour?
2

Incandescent,

21/12/2007 02:01:45
How about me worrying myself sick everytime my wife did a night shift at ERI because Consort would charge her 10 quid to park in the car park overnight? She had to park in a nearby housing estate and walk a "footpath" (in reality a disused railway line). You are not qualified to talk on every article you read.
3

Incandescent,

21/12/2007 02:03:10
Comment, even.
4

Incandescent,

21/12/2007 02:05:50
Awesome, really, your ready access to any stats that support the Labour administrations policy, yet you proclaim you have no allegiance. Nonsense! (as opposed to "a nonsense", because I resist the notion that a concept can suddenly become a noun.)
5

walter,

21/12/2007 03:14:00
I am still waiting for the heat from the bonfire to reach me.
6

Navvy,

21/12/2007 03:44:36
Another Quango -Just what we need

And this from a government pledged to ................ oh well plus ca change
7

Stephen101,

What does Wendi have to say? 21/12/2007 08:36:11
With Wendy being such an expert on financial matters, I would have thought she would have had views on this.

Why has she not been asked? Give her a chance to show her big brain in action.

The fact that she compulsively divides every large sum of money by 950 to give an answer of so many 'donations'.

'Donation' is not a unit of currency Wendi!
8

Stephen101,

Costing for sleaze 21/12/2007 08:52:33
AM2 refers to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.

When the sums for a PFI are completed, how do you factor in the bribes and backhanders as well as the consequences? It is well known they had to be paid to what were Labour officials at the time to get the ERI show on the road. Much of that made its way through the coffers of various psuedo 'community' organisations in Craigmillar and beyond.

What this means is 1. The person paying the 'fee' has to recover it in the contract price, and even worse 2. because they will have guarantees of success they can go well over the 'real' price.

Beyond the ERI job, we only have to look at Colin Dalrymple (Depute Director of Education and friend of Elizabeth Maginnis) being caught feeding information to a contractor on schools PFI jobs. Of course no insider whistleblower, it was the contractor who cliped.

And we never got the full explanation why Mrs Doig changed her view overnight from one contractor to another more expensive one for the Scottish Parliament building.

If we cut sleaze out of public contracts, we could probably reduce the real costs by up to 20%.

Maybe AM2 you should chase that avenue but it would mean getting out to talk to people and take you away from the world of Google. You might find that a step too far.
9

Logie Almond,

21/12/2007 09:36:51
Thought they were getting rid of Quangos?
10

Boy Wonder,

21/12/2007 09:57:26
Tell me when will they be gone
All those quango, quango, quangos
You know they fill us full of ire
And we want a big quango bonfire!

When will they get rid of them?
All those quango, quango, quangos
They do not mean so much to me
But they get paid most handsomely ...

They tell us how we should live
And expect us to give and give
They say they can show us the way
But all they want is higher pay!

No, I can´t wait a moment more
Get shot of these quango, quango, quangos
Please throw the members of them out
And do bot care if they all pout

They tell us how we should live
And expect us to give and give
They say they can show us the way
But all they want is higher pay!

Noooo ... we can´t take it any more
We dn't want no quango, quango, quangos
We know we have some great desire
For a mighty quango bonfire

Oh, no more quangos for us please
Cos we know they're full of sleaze ...

11

antifa,

21/12/2007 10:12:19
This is a total u-turn - on first blush the new model appears to make even less sense than standard PFI.

AM2 - "reliance on a public-interest ethos without a profit motive to my mind runs counter to human nature."

Don't worry - there'll be plenty of profit made from this minor variation of the Tory-NuLab model.
12

Kobi.,

21/12/2007 12:56:44
#3

"How about me worrying myself sick everytime my wife did a night shift at ERI because Consort would charge her 10 quid to park in the car park overnight? She had to park in a nearby housing estate and walk a "footpath" (in reality a disused railway line)."

My recollection is that the City Council imposed as a condition of planning consent that parking charges at that level be levied. The development was being built on the green belt, and the Council did not want workers there to drive to work.
13

antifa,

21/12/2007 14:08:47
AM2 - about 60% of the total to be paid (which is well in excess of £1bn in fact) relates to the repayment of principal and interest payments. The ERI was and is a really dreadful deal - the level of risk transfer was so meagre that it wasn't even recorded as being off balance sheet. It is one of a handful of deals that are on the government's books. Meanwhile, real rates of return to investors are over 30% - absolutely enormous, ridiculous really. The SNP's proposals will lead to lower rates than this, but still involve very high financing costs relative to public procurement. What the SNP should be doing is asking Westminster to loosen the capital constraints. If your regulatory regime is forcing you to do stupid things, then change the regulatory regime, don't blunder on regardless.
14

JW119,

21/12/2007 14:35:39
Agree with #1, reporting on this article in terms of saying it cost £200m to build but repaying over £1bn is ridiculous. Reporting like that is what creates the whole negative attitude to PFI.

I agree it is far from perfect but does anyone actually believe even half of the buildings provided in the past 5-10 years would have been built if PFI was shelved. I think not.

#18 Have you considered the alternatives to the new ERI? I must admit i'm not fully aware of the details behind it but 1) if not PFI, would the public sector have funded such a large new hospital? i think not 2) therefore the trust would have remained in the non fit for purpose conditions at a number of sites 3) these sites would have cost huge sums to maintain/refurbish, and as a VfM case has presumably found it would have been less Value for Money to procure conventially. Its all very well talking about the figures the PFI is costing but if this was compared against the base case of continuing as is or providing through another procurement method there would not be such negative publicity around PFI. Yes it costs but so does any sort of procurement of this size especially when assets are being maintained for 25 years or more.

I don't think the costs would be as high for remaining in the buildings they were in previously but i'd bet in 25 years they would have unsafe to use because the public sector would fail to maintain the buildings.
15

antifa,

21/12/2007 14:49:23
JW119 - thanks for the response. On points 1 and 2: private financing is no different to public financing -both create a debt. The question is: which creates the least debt, and I think you will find that public finance is much cheaper. The fiscal advantage that PFI offers both the Scottish government and Gordon Brown is a function of silly acocunting rules. Such rules don't effect the underlying economics, however: if PFI is less productively efficient than public procurement (which it is) then it shouldn't be used as it will cost more in the long term. On your Point 3: PFI VfM appraisals are widely known to be a sham: even one National Audit Office official described them as 'pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo'. They are subjective and biased exercises undertaken in a context in which public financing (the supposed comparator) is in reality a non-option due to capital constraints.
16

JW119,

21/12/2007 15:14:42
antifa - true it would create a debt, a debt that both Conservative and Labour Governments have both agreed they would not be willing to enter into to upset economic stability.

If the buildings/services created through PFI were delivered through public procurement a significant number of hospitals, schools etc would have been closed down for health and safety reasons before the public purse got round to replacing them.

Given that the general public are demanding higher quality services this is a method of delivering higher quality services through higher quality buildings. There is also an emphasis on maintaining buildings which unfortunately has been sadly lacking previously and why the public sector asset stock has deterioated so badly, the first budget to be cut in any public sector organisation is the maintenance budget.

I work in the public sector and my experience is different from yourself. Productivity of the public sector is sadly lacking significantly behind the private sector. Both parties could learn a lot from each other.

re the VfM appraisals i don't disagree they can (and quite often are) a sham however the costs involved are not as significantly different as made out if an accurate comparison was made, i am disappointed that this is not reflected in any reporting on this topic.

PFI is here to stay in one form of another,and the public sector needs to focus on performing better in negotiating these contracts rather than complaining about being ripped off.
17

Charles Lamb,

21/12/2007 18:49:07
Unusually intelligent and sensible comments. What happened to proud Doonhammer, Ayrshire Scot, Wendy Wetness in a Puddle, Addison de Witt and his alter ego Los Angeles Edinburgh, Karin M, I'm not Really Here and all the other fruitcakes?

Long lunch at the SNP Communication Department no doubt with only teetootalers like Incandescent and Stephen 101 left to mind the shop.



18

Kobi.,

21/12/2007 20:05:22
#20

"On points 1 and 2: private financing is no different to public financing -both create a debt. The question is: which creates the least debt, and I think you will find that public finance is much cheaper"

Sorry, but you are not making the correct comparison. Without PFI, hardly any of these new buildings in the NHS would have been built. The history of the NHS teaches us that large scale capital projects are sacrificed by politicians for short term revenue expenditure which can produce a result now, whereas the capital programme produces a result years in the future, to the benefit of some other politician on power.

Which creates the least debt? No replacement buildings at all is the answer.
19

TSynicto the core,

Saltireland 22/12/2007 13:13:17
PFI - Profit For Investors.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.