...and more PFIffle

Looks like there's yet another high risk element in the bid for PFI backing for an incinerator. The PFI pot itself is drying up.

The Guardian reports on a leaked NHS memo revealing government warnings of a 'capital desert' in PFI credits for new ventures. As 'none of the banks have any money or are likely to have any for a few years, the absence of a 'plan B' is going to cause a real problem.'

Odd, that. Back in October I asked Mark Bradshaw if there's a 'Plan B' in case his own PFI bid fails. Evidently not. They'd just expect to pay a further £84 million to get the same scheme from taxation - although that scheme is selected solely because it's the one most likely to get bank funding!
.................

While all this PFIffle is going on, the West of England has thoughtfully launched a CONsultation into how best to allocate land to deal with the sub-region's waste.

Option B, with waste management spread over 8 smaller sites - is the one preferred by environmentalists.

WoE makes it very clear that its own choice is for Option C, the one with a big site at Avonmouth that happens to be just the right size for a great big incinerator. And if you doubt their sincerity, judge them by the fact that they've already bid for the cash, months before March 12th deadline for public comment.

PFIffle

The big thing claimed for the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is that it gets local authorities off the hook of putting big money into high risk projects. Instead, the private sector takes on the risks (and as we all know, that's what they're good at!)

Successive governments have been so enthusiastic about this that they give councils and health authorities big incentives to go down the PFI funding route. I suspect it's because it shows up better in the national books if capital funding comes from the private sector - even if, as generally happens, the public finish up paying far more for an inferior product.

Now, it's that risk element that intrigues me. The controversial bid to seek PFI funds for a waste incinerator at Avonmouth should rest on the premise that the private sector bears the investment risk. In practice, the whole choice of preferred technology rests on the fact that the banks won't risk their money on anything else but this sure-fire cash cow - fed by public cash in the form of 25-30 years of contractual gate fees, with penalty clauses for any shortfall in waste delivered. Negligible risk for the banks. Every risk for the public - especially if consumption and waste rates go down, or recycling rates rise. Not to mention the mind-boggling costs of setting up the deals in the first place.

Given, too, that the banks' new found reluctance to lend is now having to be shored up by government guarantees against loss, the whole case for PFI is shown to be doubly flawed - high risks are transferred the public at both local and national level.

We've been set up. Look at it from a council treasurer's viewpoint, and PFI still offers government (i.e the nation's taxpayers') cash to offset against locally raised capital. Attractive, eh? But all it means is that we're paying through taxation for PFI schemes nationwide, instead of just paying locally for local schemes. For councils the choice might look easy - but for individuals we'd all be far better off without PFI. We'd have far better waste disposal too.