PFI costs spiral after funds agreed
The majority of signed-off housing public finance initiative projects have suffered significant cost increases and all have been delayed, according to a National Audit Office report.
The report, which criticises the Communities and Local Government department for failing to assess projects for value for money, found 21 out of 25 schemes required significant extra government funding prior to contract signature.
A total of 12 schemes saw cost increases above estimates in the initial business cases of more than 100 per cent.
Two schemes, the Street Properties project to refurbish 4,000 properties in Islington, and Manchester’s Miles Platting scheme to refurbish 1,500 homes, both cost more than £160 million, compared to less than £60 million outlined in their business cases.
The NAO report says the CLG failed to evaluate housing investment models or collect data to demonstrate that PFI was better value for money than other options for improving stock, including stock transfer or creating an arm’s-length management organisation.
The report also says local authorities and contractors had expressed concern about whether the CLG and the Homes and Communities Agency had the expertise among its staff to work on PFI, although it acknowledges steps have now been taken to address the issue.
The CLG told the NAO the main reason for underestimating costs in early rounds was that housing was a new PFI sector and therefore ‘experience did not exist’, states the report.
Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said the CLG should now carry out an evaluation of the value for money of the programme.
‘The department should assess, as a matter of priority, whether its current and planned PFI projects are delivering value for money,’ he said.
‘It should at the same time, assess all its past projects.
‘This assessment should be based on hard numbers as well as qualitative factors.’
Housing minister Grant Shapps said: ‘This report is further independent evidence of the failure of the previous government to demonstrate value for money for the taxpayer.
‘We can and must do better. Housing PFI plays a useful role in improving existing homes and providing new homes in areas of housing need, but we also have a responsibility to ensure every pound we spend is spent wisely because of the huge deficit in public finances we have inherited.’
Mr Shapps said the CLG will look in the autumn spending review at whether housing PFI offers value for money.
The government earlier this month announced a withdrawal of £160 million of unspent PFI credits as part of plans to reduce the budget deficit.
A CLG spokesperson said the decision will not affect projects already underway.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment





Readers' comments (4)
Michael Read | 25/06/2010 3:21 pm
Islington's PFI, a contract now majority owned by Lloyds Bank, is currrently under investigation by a team of council auditors and PWC.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 26/06/2010 0:55 am
Indeed they are. The whole show has been a contractors feeding frenzy. The PFI experiment in Islington has been a spectacular failure of maladministration with dodgy dealings all round. The Chief Executive legged it just after the auditors were appointed so that says something in itself. PwC are delivering a verbal report to the Council on Monday. Can't wait for the finished product. Neither can Private Eye...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28/06/2010 8:42 am
More post rationalisation .
Almo wasn't even an option when these schemes were initiated/instigated.
When Almo's were eventually proposed the govt target for funding was 'only' £5k per unit!
Stock transfer only happens if tenants back it. Then there is the issue of gap funding for schemes like these. which I seem to recall an ex deputy pm announced the principle of providing in around about 2002/3, and then more than two years passed before bids could be made against a resource pot!!
Then of course these were capped/limited in funds per unit as best figures per unit came from whole stock transfers.
A time machine might help some people to get real
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 28/06/2010 11:07 pm
"Almo wasn't even an option when these schemes were initiated/instigated."
Err....excuse me? I really don't think so.
http://www.almos.org.uk/almos
"Arms length management organisations (ALMOs) have led a revolution in the management of council housing since they were first established in 2002"
http://www.partnersislington.net/standard_1.aspx?id=11:34233
"The PFI1 scheme in Islington was the first Housing PFI in the country to get underway and has been running since April 2003"
So ALMOs had already been created when the first PFI scheme went live.
No need for a time machine then. Just some basic internet research. Are we getting real enough for you yet?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment