Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
The shadow chancellor recently pledged that Labour would bring existing private finance initiative (PFI) contracts ‘back in-house’ if they are elected. Philip Vernon, partner at Ashurst, explains the proposals and their potential implications.
This article was first published on LexisPSL Construction. Click here for a free trial.
The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, announced in a speech at the Labour Party conference in Brighton on 25 September 2017 that ‘the scandal of the PFI, launched by John Major, has resulted in huge long-term costs for taxpayers while handing out
enormous profits to some companies’. He promised that Labour would ‘rip up’ PFI and, in addition to Jeremy Corbyn’s previous pledge not to sign any new PFI deals, Labour would ‘bring existing PFI contracts back in-house’.
Mr McDonnell also said that if Labour came to power ‘the government would intervene immediately to ensure that companies in tax havens can’t invest in PFI projects and their profits can’t be hidden from HMRC’.
This initial soundbite was tempered somewhat by the Labour Party press release which followed Mr McDonnell’s speech and which appeared to be somewhat less radical, stating ‘Labour will review all PFI contracts and, if necessary, take over
outstanding contracts and bring them back in-house, while ensuring NHS trusts, local councils and others do not lose out and there is no detriment to services or staff’.
A Labour spokesman said that shareholders in PFI companies would be compensated by swapping their shares for government bonds and ‘Parliament will assess the appropriate level of compensation at the point at which contracts are brought back in-house’.
In reality, it might be that only a relatively small proportion of PFI contracts would be brought back into public ownership under a Labour government. In an interview with the BBC on the day after Mr McDonnell’s speech, the shadow health secretary,
Jon Ashworth, addressed PFI contracts in the healthcare sector, saying ‘NHS experts generally accept that it’s only a handful which are causing hospital trusts across the country a significant problem, but let’s look at every single
one in detail’.
Whether Labour’s proposals are achievable would depend on where across the spectrum of possible outcomes outlined above Labour ultimately land.
If Labour’s proposals turned out to involve a review of all existing PFI contracts based on their then current terms, in order to assess whether termination of any of them presented better value of money than continuation, then that would look relatively
simple to achieve.
Indeed, the current government has been reviewing the value for money of PFI, looking at ways in which savings could be made and, if appropriate, considering terminating PFI projects where it makes sense to do so. HM Treasury issued a policy note in June
2015 which set out the budgeting, accounting and fiscal implications of a voluntary termination of a PFI contract by the procuring authority. It expected ‘the incidence of voluntary terminations of PFI arrangements to be low, due to affordability
challenges and the requirement to be able to demonstrate value for money for the public sector as a whole’.
On the other hand, if Labour’s proposals turned out to involve the introduction of new legislation to change the terms of PFI contracts by statute, providing for termination with reduced compensation, then this would be more complicated. For example,
the suggestion by a Labour Party spokesperson that ‘Parliament will assess the appropriate level of compensation’ raises the possibility that something other than full contractual compensation may be contemplated.
This would require primary legislation to be passed and it is likely that any new legislation which sought to adjust the compensation payable under current PFI contracts would face a number of challenges. In the first instance, the standard terms of PFI
contracts provide both for a clear level of compensation to be payable for public sector ‘voluntary termination’ and for compensation to be paid by the public authority if legislation is introduced which discriminates against PFI. While
new legislation might seek to sidestep or override these provisions, this in itself is likely to give rise to wider potential areas of challenge.
For example, legislation that has the effect of cancelling contractual and other legal rights under PFI structures would likely give rise to claims being advanced before UK courts based not only on breach of contract/legitimate expectation grounds, but
also potentially under the Human Rights Act 1998 (in relation to the right to protection of property contained within the European Convention on Human Rights).
Where investors in PFI structures are non-UK entities or individuals, claims could be brought against the UK under the 100-plus investment treaties which the UK has entered into with foreign states. Foreign investors with the benefit of investment treaty
coverage could sue on the basis of expropriation under public international law, with such claims being heard before arbitral tribunals and with any resulting awards being directly enforceable against the UK under international law, with no appeal
process available to the UK. We note that Jeremy Corbyn described this process as ‘supranational and unaccountable’ in the context of EU transatlantic trade agreement discussions in 2015.
Consideration would also need to be given to the impact of Brexit. The current status of Brexit negotiations means that we can only guess at the potential impact.
There are many large UK (and international) construction companies with interests in PFI projects, both through having signed construction contracts with the project companies which are established to enter into PFI contracts with public authorities and
through direct investment in those project companies. We focus here on their interest as construction contractor, rather than as investor (see question below for the impact on investors).
The immediate impact of wholesale termination of PFI contracts on construction contractors would be more limited than for investors. There would be a relatively small proportion of PFI contracts on which construction works had not yet completed and, in
any case, construction contractors are generally paid for works on a monthly basis (using the private finance provided by senior debt providers and investors).
Upon voluntary termination by the public sector during the construction phase, a construction contractor would generally have a claim for breakage costs (including some compensation for lost profits), but the public sector might well take the view that
it would make sense to use its collateral agreement with the construction contractor to continue to use the construction contractor to complete the works outside the PFI structure (unless there were problems with the current construction process).
Looking further forward, the wider impact on the construction industry of curtailing PFI arrangements depends upon the ability of the government to finance the continuing and substantial need for infrastructure investment in the UK, which itself depends
upon the state of the public finances.
There are wider commercial, financial and political implications if Labour’s proposals were to result in the wholesale termination of PFI contracts (with reduced compensation), including:
The Labour Party proposal on PFI contracts forms part of a wider set of proposed nationalisations by Labour, which have raised questions over the impact they could have on the confidence of international investors in the UK. John McDonnell himself has
stated that he plans to carry out scenario planning for crises which could follow an election victory. One of the scenarios to consider is a flight of capital from the UK with a run on sterling. As Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, said
in his recent (June 2017) Mansion House speech, ‘the UK relies on the kindness of strangers’ to fund its current account deficit.
They were well received by many of those attending the Labour Party conference but less well received by many of Britain’s business groups, as well as those active in the PFI market.
The Confederation of British Industry’s director general, Carolyn Fairbairn, said the policy could send investors ‘running for the hills’ and that ‘the shadow chancellor’s vision of massive state intervention is the wrong
plan at the wrong time. It raises a warning flag over the British economy at a critical time for our country’s future.’
The director general of the British Chamber of Commerce, Adam Marshall, echoed these views, adding ‘with the UK’s departure from the EU on the horizon, businesses will be concerned by the shadow chancellor’s proposals for widespread
and deep intervention across the economy. Proposals to nationalise key industries would put business investment in the deep freeze at precisely the time that it is needed most’.
However, given the clarifications that followed John McDonnell’s initial comments, it may well be that Labour’s policy to ‘review all PFI contracts and, if necessary, take over outstanding contracts and bring them back in-house’
will not actually result in a step change from current government policy. Only time will tell.
Interviewed by Alex Heshmaty. The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
For more information on PFI contracts, see LexisPSL Construction subtopic: PFI/PF2.
0330 161 1234