Talk:Private finance initiative

Overview

All - after consideration, we believe that we need to do a bit of a revisit of this article. PFI is a definite curate's egg, and I think that we can all go round in circles. May I therefore suggest the following (and I apologise up front for the acronyms):

rohita (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)if you want to revise the article I suggest you insert referenced points of your own without deleting other peoples. You can contrast the various points of view, which as you say include both good and bad (curate's egg).

Technical Overview. PFI is a form of PF, but you'd never guess it from the article. You cannot understand its strengths and weaknesses without getting that point. It explains why roads will work well, as it will for central government buildings, but suffers problems where specification is hard to achieve (eg the LUL PPP's) or where the specification changes every 3-5 years.

rohita (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)clearly the Private finance initiative is a form of private finance, but I'm not sure if that tells us much, least of all about the strengths and weaknesses of PFI. If you want to argue that PFI works better for some forms of infrastructure then please make that point in the relevant sections using clearly referenced sources.

It also provides some context to the points made about cleanliness: most hospital PPP's are heavy on their deductions regime. On average, if 5% of a hospital is unavailable due to safety failures, the 20% performance deduction is sufficently severe for the banks to step in and terminate the PPP, leading to the investor's loss of investment. But we kinow that, don't we.

rohita (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)no, you need to make the case using reputable and clearly referenced sources

You need to also have an idea about on/off balance sheet and what that means.

rohita (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)there is a long and well-referenced section on on/off balance sheet

Finally, the decision to choose PFI vs CP is important (with variations of the PSC). PFI debt is more expensive, yes, we all know that. There's also the transaction costs. The flip sides are efficiency and risk.

rohita (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)arguments to this effect need to be quantified and referenced

Use of political references The article is long on the hypocracy of politicians. Yes, that's what they do. It does not provide evidence. Equally, George Monbiot has a position, as does Allyson Pollock, or the BMA or Unison. We should accept that quoting their position is valid. We should also quote the CBI, PPP Forum and Serco, if they've got something to say. We should not assume blindly that their positions are prima facie correct.

rohita (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)This article doesn't specifically mention the hypocrisy of politicians, however all points are clearly referenced using reputable sources. Please feel free to provide referenced quotes from the other sources you mention.

Use of emperical evidence. Yes, let's include that. The Treasury and NAO have valid points, as are formal surveys. UCL have done some. I am sure that there are more.

rohita (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Ok, please provide references to this studies, and link them to your specific points

Top

Does anyone know why there is such a focus on Hospitals in this article? Many of the “cons” are exampled from the healthcare sector. Is this representative (i.e. are hospital PFIs relatively “worse” than others)? If so, is this an issue that should be mentioned in the article?

Please feel free to add material from other sectors rohita (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made some minor factual and a couple of larger edits. Some of these may need a bit more tidying but I thought it's better to get facts/content right first then worry about structure later. My comments on my changes

1 The description of SPV ownership gave the impression that part ownership by banks is the norm, which is not true. I have weakened the language here to reflect this.

2 I’ve removed the following as it is no longer relevant as bonds are no longer used: “When using corporate bonds, the bonds usually need to receive a rating of BBB- by a credit rating agency (for example Standard & Poor's). BBB- is the lowest investment grade rating, any lower than that and the bond receives speculative or 'junk' status. If a rating of better than BBB- is given then the government is likely to want to renegotiate the deal, to lower the unit price it pays for the service. Any lower than BBB- means that financers would be unlikely to take on the risk. So although bond rating typically affects the cost of borrowing for corporates, in the PFI case it affects the whole viability of the deal. The reason for the banks to participate in the PFI is for it to gain an investment grade rating. A PFI firm will typically go to two of the three main credit rating agencies, sharing details of their financial model, concession contract and capital equipment solution.”

3 I’ve also added a mention of TIFU and EIB as senior lenders, citing the example of Manchester Waste. If anyone can provide references or links that would be great.

4 (SUGGESTION) The quote under “Public Health” that cites deaths in Stoke Mandeville and at Tunbridge Wells seems to be pushing the limits of relevance, and I think should be removed. There is a list of 4 things that the respective PCTs were said to be preoccupied by, at the end of which is “building a PFI hospital”. As this is one of 4 things in the list I’m not sure that the quote is relevant, especially given the strength of the implication that deaths were caused. I’d also point out that building any hospital (PFI or not) would be a distracting activity for a Trust, which makes it less clear whether the intention of James’ words was to blame the nature of PFI or simply the Trusts’ attention being diverted by the building of hospitals.

I think Professor James' remarks are relevant. His statement is that both hospitals were "preoccupied with finance and both were trying to reconfigure services and build a private finance initiative (PFI) hospital.". The contention therefore is that the inevitably complex process of building a hospital is made even more complicated by PFI. Lack of infection control causes death, and The Healthcare Commission said that focus on complex finance had been "at the price" of infection control. rohita (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You may find this interesting http://publicservices.cbi.org.uk/latest_news/00314/ [Barking 12]

5 I have removed the following from the “Employment” section due to no source being cited: The criticism has also been made that, whereas many ordinary staff see their employment conditions worsen under PFI, senior managers may see their incomes improve. If someone knows this to be verifiable, but just can't remember the source, then please feel free to put it back, but it's a little vague so would be better with a source, or better still some numbers.

6 I have changed the on/off balance sheet section to reflect that IFRS are now definitely being brought in (over the next couple of yrs, though I can’t remember the dates).

ESA95 has knocked this into a crooked hat: please blame Europe for this as I'd really like proper accounting of public sector debt: starting with the unfunded public sector pension liability. [barking 12]

Ta (halio 23 Jun 2009)

I question the citation used for the claim that PFIs "provided good value for money overall" given that it indirectly quotes the ONS through the cited article rather than linking directly, the report it quotes is from 2003 (surely there are more recent reports) and the article itself says, in the same paragraph the page is quoting, that the evidence is sparse. Overall it doesn't seem like a particularly well substantiated claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.63.235 (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion November 2004

This new version strikes me as rather POV (pro-PFI), though the old version was probably POV too (anti-PFI). The omission to the FoF report was very naughty. Hope to review this later. Mr. Jones 08:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, this is the problem with Wikipedia, it tries to stick to one version of events when there's often many different points of view. Ideally the pro-PFI and anti-PFI articles would be merged into one and the reader would be allowed to decide for themselves what the truth is.

I think this is an excellent article that really helps get to the nub of the benefits of the PFI. It cant be all bad if the rest of Europe is starting to embrace PPP / PFI.

PFI is an accounting scam to keep down the public borrowing figures. Read the external links. PPP at best (if the purchaser knows what they're doing and truly has the freedom to use other options) is an expensive and/or risky form of purchasing. Rd232 09:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's no riskier than paying the full cost upfront using money that the Treasury has borrowed from the markets.

Treasury borrowing is the cheapest there is, and when paid upfront without any associated long-term service contracts that's the maximum flexibility for the government. By definition, anything else is more expensive and riskier. Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! The article contains the following sentence to demonstrate a benefit of PFIs: "The laboratory continues to operate with the public sector not having to pick up any of the construction cost overrun." But hang on, half a mo, fixed-price construction isn't uniquely a feature of PFI contracts. In fact, is it not the norm? Witness the current Wembley Stadium fiasco. If the government wishes to avoid the risks of construction overrun then surely the obvious route is to tender for a fixed-price contruction contract and once completed, pay the contract off in full. Maybe even make stage payments. The earlier the debt is transferred to the public sector the better. PFI is not about saving money or avoiding risk: it's about avoiding EU budget constraints and putting off the day of reckoning. And while I'm here... what's the logic of employing the same firm to both build and maintain a building? Two different skills surely? And what's the benefit of a very-long-term maintenance contract?

PFI Procurement

How could one explain the PFI procurement route?

Contract Termination

At the end of the contract - either full-term or prematurely due to poor performance - who owns the land? For instance, if the PFI is for a hospital and the contract runs for say 30 years, in the 31st year is there still a hospital or can the PFI company pull it down and build apartment blocks instead? I seem to recall that Private Eye questioned if the government got value for money when selling the land which would suggest that the PFI company has the freehold. (12:08, 21 April 2006)

Government owns the land throughout the contract -- and it really owns the facility too. The private counterparty's postion is more like a lease.

There are really two other questions you are asking, one regarding handback and the other termination. This distinction exists because under most PFI the private sector is making an investment to build or renovate a facility. That investment is comprised of debt and equity. If the private sector manages the facility properly then it should earn revenue (such as a real toll or an availability payment from the government) which it can use to repay debt and provide an equity return. The key point here is that it is the private sector that invests in building the facility, not the government. So if the contract is terminated prematurely and the government takes control of the facility, some compensation must be given to the private. The termination settlement terms are set forth in the contract and typically provide different formulas depending on who/what causes the early termination which may or may not allow the investors to recoup equity with an expected return.

Handback is different. That occurs at the intended end of the contract term, by which time the investors will have been able to earn their return, provided they delivered good service and built a quality facility with few capital or operating overruns (in a PFI the risk of overruns is held by the investors). Typically handback provisions are set forth in the contract. They usually establish a certain condition in which the facility must be turned over -- usually in very good working/renovated condition. There typically is an inspection regime which begins 3-5 years before handback. If the facility is not as it should be, then portions of the year 3-5 payments are escrowed to be used only for rennovations to comply wih the handback requirements.

PFI or Private Finance Initiative is a UK version of what is generally termed a public private partnership. The contract provisions for PFIs have been standardized with some provisions for flexibility depending on the actual nature of the given project. You can read the standardized terms here: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/public_private_partnerships/key_documents/standardised_contracts/ppp_keydocsstand_index.cfm

(69.141.195.247 09:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Financial

The financial section of this article is opaque, has typos, and is out of date (it asserts that bonds are cheaper than bank debt, but that is not currently necessarily the case). I know that the Wikipedia culture is to contribute rewrites in such circumstances, but in the absence of time immediately to hand to do that, I provide this note as a warning not to rely on what is written there.

As for the idea that PFI should be merged with PPP, the first is a kind of the second, but the two are not identical. David Colver 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The cost of this borrowing as a result is higher than normal government borrowing (but cheaper when better management of risks is taken into account)

This strikes me as POV - it is highly controversial whether PFI does actually prove cheaper if including the cost of risk transfer. Entities such as Private Eye claim several examples of where PFI models have proven more expensive than the public sector comparator, but then spurious "risk factors" are added until the PFI scheme becomes cheaper. I'm not saying whether that's true or not, but I do think the assertion that PFI borrowing is cheaper is not factually proven. Afcone (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

I tried to eliminate what seemed to be the most flagrant example of weasel words, replacing "some critics claimed... back-door privatisation" with a firm, verifiable example.

As such, should the (very visible)Weasel Words header still deserve to be there? 78.115.140.232 (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)thrawn_pop

Restructuring Sections

I have reorganised the sections in order to improve clarity and readability. I have tried to separate 'neutral' sections which are largely descriptive in nature from POV sections, which I have now grouped under Support for and Criticism of PFI sections. 'Examples' is intended to be a neutral section under which PFI projects can be listed. Comment on pros and cons can then be made in the appropriate section rohita (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC) rohita

NPOV tag March 2009

Some explanation here of what the specific problems are that motivated its addition would be helpful. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 19:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. NPOV - the remark in the History section "the government is in the "ludicrous" position of having to fund the so-called 'private' finance initiative itself!" is unnecessarily anti-PFI (even without the exclamation mark), particularly as the argument is given word for word in the following quotes. Luckyaxolotl (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

criticism noted. "ludicrous" removed. Are you willing to remove NPOV objection?rohita (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make the NPOV objection, I just noticed that one example and thought I'd throw my two cents in. Luckyaxolotl (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As there are no more specific problems highlighted, I will remove the NPOV banner rohita (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, the removal of NPOV tag was incorrectly marked as a minor edit - my apologies rohita (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

I have reverted Millstream3's recent edit, which I don't think should have been classified as minor. I don't disagree with the use of lower case in the headings, or the deletion of the word PFI from the headings, but I didn't like the re-ordering of the article text. I think it is useful to have the History section at the beginning of the article, as it provides a simple entry-point for the reader. I certainly don't find it useful to have the section 'PFI combines borrowing and operating costs' at the beginning, as like many of the later sections of the article, it is technical. rohita (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the lower case headings, this is as per the manual of style. With regards to structure, you shouldn't have an explanation of what PFI actually is buried at the bottom. Typically, history is less important than a description of what something is. The article needs a quite a severed editing as it is too long (unencyclopaedic) and technical; and these two points would be a good start. Re minor vs major, I don't think improving the structure without affecting the content is major. Grateful if you'd explain what your objection is. It's quite poor courtesy to revert good faith changes without any sort of explanation. Millstream3 (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I am not unhappy with the lower case headings. Regarding courtesy, was the explanation above insufficient? Regarding your changes, I think that they did significantly affect the content, not just the structure. For example, you deleted a number of the headings, which in themselves provided a useful element of explanation. Also, the beginning of an article is important, and putting different material there is a major change, even if that material is transplanted from elsewhere. However, I agree that a succinct definition of PFI at the beginning of the article could be useful, if such a thing could be written. But the article elements you transplanted do not provide such a definition. Regarding your criticism that the article is technical, this is a reflection of the technical nature of PFI, and is not out of place in an encyclopedia. Surely you would expect articles on economic subjects to include technical elements? rohita (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What is PFI?

I just skimmed through the entire article looking to find out what PFI actually is and how it works, and it doesn't seem like this info exists in the article. I believe that above all else, the article should clearly outline how PFI works and how it's different from other systems like BOT (should they be compared?). Many thanks to anyone who has knowledge on the subject and is willing to fulfill my request. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO PFI = BOT + dodgy accounting ... would need some decent sources to put that in the article though! So yes, more of the sort of detail you mention would be good. Rd232 ^talk 01:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I have reorganized the article slightly to make it clearer what PFI actually is, also made many of the headings comply with WP:MOS. I apologize if my lack of knowledge on the subject caused any inaccuracies. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinionated?

'In May 2010, George Osborne announced that the role of the new, "supposedly independent"' - I don't see how the "supposedly independent" quip provides anything toward the article except make it bias in one direction. You could, if you wanted to, find many other quotes that fall on the other side of the fence. Unless I see any good reason for it stay, I reckon it should go. Kavanagh21 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Treasury committee report into PFI funding.

The most recent Treasury select committee hearing into the viability of PFI has not been as supportive of it's value for money as the government (and previous governments) may have hoped particularly in areas of value for money.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtreasy/1146/1146.pdf

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtreasy/1146/1146vw.pdf

There's a fair bit of text and I have not the time nor balls to summarise in a nice wiki friendly paragraph.--Lead holder (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Current issue of Private Eye (1296) also has mention of this report.--Lead holder (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Shadow tolls

Should a reference be made to PFI based road schemes, together with a link to the Shadow tolls article which covers the subject in more detail? PeterEastern (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Value for money

The economist article referred to in the lead actually says "The data to back up the value-for-money claim are sparse. A 2003 survey from the National Audit Office concluded that, broadly speaking, PFI contracts did offer good value for money". Hardly glowing praise.

And... do we know which report they are referring to? The PFI related Audit Office report I found from 2003 'PFI: Construction Performance' states "We did not set out to examine the value for money of the deals. This has been covered by many of our previous PFI reports. Nor did we try to judge how well the construction element would have been performed had the contracts been let using other procurement methods. The positive results of our census do, however, generally compare favourably with the results of other studies which have considered the historical experience of other public sector construction projects."[1].

I notice that a 2011 report by the National Audit Office seems to imply that there had not been a good 'value for money' review done previously. It states: "There has not been a systematic value for money evaluation of operational PFI projects by departments. There is, therefore, insufficient data to demonstrate whether the use of private finance has led to better or worse value for money than other forms of procurement. The NAO calls on the Treasury and departments to identify alternative methods for delivering infrastructure and related facilities services, building on the lessons learnt from PFI, to maximise value for money for government."[2]

A Treasury Select Committee did also report in 2011 saying: "Private Finance Initiative (PFI) funding for new infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, does not provide taxpayers with good value for money and stricter criteria should be introduced to govern its use"[3]

Also.. In 2010 the National Audit office concluded that "The Highways Agency’s PFI contract to widen the M25 could have been better value for money. The slowness with which it was taken forward resulted in higher financing costs, and the Agency was slow to investigate a potentially cheaper alternative to widening."[4]

As such, should the 'value for money' quote in the lead could be reconsidered?

--PeterEastern (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Method of Payment

I am sure the writer knew when he/she wrote "A recent example where this has taken place is the Manchester Waste PFI.", but I don't. I feel sure we should avoid such expressions as 'recent' as they quickly age and become indeterminate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawright12 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity

I'm going to tag this with a NPOV warning. The first statement in the article -- that PFIs are driven "by an increased need for accountability and efficiency for public spending" is supported by citing an article that says no such thing. In 2003 the NAO found that PFI provided good value for money -- as the article states. However, the NAO in 2011 was much more critical, finding that the use of PFI "has the effect of increasing the cost of finance for public investments relative to what would be available to the government if it borrowed on its own account.", and "The price of finance is significantly higher with a PFI." (All at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtreasy/1146/114608.htm). These strongly supportive statements are inappropriate in the introductory paragraph of a wikipedia article where such controversy exists. The Impact section starts with the phrasing "PFI deals are very much more likely to be delivered on time and on budget" and "Many PFI projects have delivered clear benefits.". Yet this isn't true: the language misleads the statistics. A 2009 report by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that 69 per cent of PFI construction projects between 2003 and 2008 were delivered on time and 65 per cent were delivered at the contracted price. (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/private_finance_projects.aspx). Words such as "Very much more likely" do not, to me, correlate with such a low level of improvement; were these conclusions submitted as part of a peer-reviewed paper I was editing, I'd throw them out of hand as over-optimistic.

Additionally, the whole article seems to be written in the following structure: the (presumably original) positive PFI report, followed by counterexamples that directly contradict what we've been told as being generally true. It is schizoid: the original, widely-pro PFI statements are followed immediately by subsequent writers trying to impose balance. This isn't the way objective reporting is supposed to work: the article should be structured with a dispassionate overview of the idea, followed by clear arguments for and against the concept, with the reader left to draw their own conclusions from neutral evidence that should then follow. There are many examples of PFI deals in Britain -- both successful and otherwise. A comprehensive analysis of these should then follow, with general conclusions left to the very end.

163.1.246.64 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some good points here. I have followed these suggestions and put the information above from the NAO reports into the article. I have also restructured as suggested so the mechanics come first and the analysis later. Where editors have good suggestions like this it is best to improve the article rather than just tagging it. Dormskirk (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Captive State

Surprised to find no mention of Captive State by the journalist George Monbiot. It deals specifically with this subject and has been mentioned in UK parliamentary debates on the subject. Would this be an appropriate source to bring into the article? If so I don't mind digging out my copy and taking a look for relevant passages to mention and cite. 81.149.57.143 (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - There was a quote by Monbiot but an editor has removed it three times now in a short space of time. This seems to me to breach WP:3RR. Dormskirk (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Part of the ‘quote’ that you tried to insist on was not in the source, and I’m glad to see you’ve dropped it from your last edit, without acknowledging your error. You’re persisting with an estimate of £5bn. The £5bn figure is in the source, but the last two sentences in the source say the scheme was changed, and that the actual cost of the scheme ‘is not known’. That shows that you are selectively quoting from the source, and that’s not a NPOV. Furthermore, an estimate from 2008 is just not good enough. It’s now 2017. Suggest you address the issue, finally.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I am very happy to agree that part of the quote was not in the source: this was not my error - it was in the article before I made today's edits - and that's why I have dropped it my edit. But that does not justify you removing the £5bn bit (which was a quote) three times without a discussion (and I tried to engage with you on your talk page). Dormskirk (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

By reinstating the part of the quote not in the source, you made it your error. My talk page is not the right place to discuss this. Then and now, you are not ‘engaging’- I’vegiven you the reasons for deletion three times. Try to counter the argument; find another source; or give up trying to justify a bent edit.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi – On the substance of the issue it seems to me clear that a road scheme (the M25 upgrading) which could have cost £478m scheme was going to cost £5bn. I accept that the scheme has subsequently changed but it would have been amazing if it had not done so given the scale of the disparity. I am happy for you to make it clear in the article that the scheme subsequently changed (using the same source). I have already accepted that the other part of the quote (referring to a hospital scheme in Coventry) was not adequately sourced and that you were justified in removing that part. But I still do not accept that you were justified in removing the M25 bit of the quote three times without responding to my attempt to engage with you. I hope that this is now in order and that I can leave it to you to restore the properly sourced (M25 upgrade) section of the text. Dormskirk (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

At one point in time, a campaign group estimated that the scheme was going to cost £5bn and referred to an alternative which would have cost £0.5bn. (The ‘alternative’ was a totally different, much less safe scheme, but that’s OR). The scheme then changed massively, according to the article, and the article finishes by saying the cost of the scheme was not known. In 2008. Clearly a reference in the WP article referring only to the £5bn number cannot stand, because that would be hopelessly slanted. Someone other than me might find something in the article which is balanced enough to remain in the WP article, and notable enough to be worth its space, but I can’t.

My understanding of WP editing etiquette, btw, is that one doesn’t put (or defend) rubbish in a WP article and then try to put the onus on someone else to dig you out of a hole of your own making. If you’ll excuse me mixing my metaphors, then either succeed in making a silk purse out this particular sow’s ear, or be content with its deletion.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

With respect you wanted me justify the quote and I have done so in good faith. You are now in breach of WP:3RR and WP:BRD (you made a bold deletion, I reverted it and I initiated a discussion: there is no provision in WP:BRD that allows the person making the bold edit to delete it a second time, let alone a third time). By the way I certainly do not regard the deleted quote as "rubbish": it is quite right that the potential expenditure of £5bn was exposed. But I can see you have a complete disregard for wikipedia's guidelines and I am not prepared to waste any more time on this. Dormskirk (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. To avoid this sort of waste of time for both of us in future, please note that nowhere have you ‘justified’ the quote. You’ve merely selected a quote and ignored the rest of the source.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

M25

There is no mention at all in the article of the M25 contract. The Campaign for Better Transport was quite outspoken about this project and referred to the award of £5bn M25 PFI contract as showing "appalling judgment" (see article). Given that I have failed "to justify a quote" from this article (see section above) I will leave it to others to see if they can do a better job of it than me. Dormskirk (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

PF2

Suddenly in the article there is a section "PF2" which mentions a review of PFI in 2012 and proposed changes. Then it goes on on state the government would no longer use PF2 after 2018. it doesn't make it clear, is PF2 an updated version of PFI, was this used from 2012-2018, is there anything else which differentiates it from PFI? There is no other mention of PF2 in the article. Capturts (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The Skye Bridge picture

Is there a purpose to the The Skye Bridge photo in this article? Was it funded in some way by PFI? The article doesn't seem to mention this bridge at any point. Capturts (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)