Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Article: Can we fix it? PPPs can . . .

Options
  • 06-11-2011 11:16pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭


    The construction industry needs a serious boost and the public-private partnership model might just be the way to give it the kick it needs – but who will take the first step to recovery?

    THEY WERE ONCE hailed as the pioneering way to plug the infrastructure deficit; a means of getting roads, schools, prisons and hospitals built without burning a hole in the State’s bank account. But with the advent of the banking and fiscal crisis, public-private partnerships have become unviable, with flagship projects postponed and other contracts stalled. So are PPPs off the table for good, or could this funding model eventually serve as an economic stimulus that helps Ireland play catch up once again?

    No major public-private partnership (PPP) infrastructure project has secured funding since the advent of the financial crisis three years ago, the Department of Transport recently said, while a database used by the last government to monitor PPP projects, ppp.gov.ie, has not been updated since March 2010.

    Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar identified the problem when he postponed the PPP for the Metro West line between Ballymun and Tallaght earlier this year: PPPs in Ireland have been undermined by a double funding bind. The reluctance of the international debt funding market to stump up the cash to finance projects in Ireland has come at a time when the exchequer is unable or unwilling to make a contribution of its own.

    It has been “extremely quiet”, confirms Michael Flynn, a partner at Deloitte who specialises in PPPs. The banks are focused on deleveraging rather than lending and the 20-year-plus time horizon on a typical PPP project just isn’t in their interest when sovereign risks are high.

    But though the scarcity of capital is putting the kibosh on large-scale transport projects, Flynn believes that smaller PPP bundles for projects such as schools, in the order of €50-€60 million, are “certainly bankable, with one or two banks” – they just require the go-ahead from Government. This echoes the view of the National Development Finance Agency – the agency charged with an advisory role on all PPPs. It believes that projects with relatively low funding requirements retain an interest for the debt and equity funding markets.

    There is, according to Flynn, “a level of interest” overseas in Irish PPP projects – despite “the odd hiccup”, there have been many successful roads schemes that have served as a good precedent. However, from the contractor’s point of view, any deals done in the current environment would need to have simpler structures than some of the PPP business models favoured in the past, he says.

    Even “bite-sized deals” are easier said than done, however, at a time when Ireland’s capital spending budget is seen as a more suitable target for cuts than current spending (though there are plenty of people, from business groups to fans of using capital programmes for economic stimulus, who will be attempting to persuade the Government otherwise).

    A document prepared for Varadkar’s department starkly blamed the failure of the National Roads Authority to finalise negotiations in the Gort to Tuam motorway bypass on “concern in the capital markets regarding Ireland’s overall financial situation”. But Ireland’s current failure to meet the minimum sovereign credit rating requirements of international banks is by no means a permanent problem, says Shane Lyons, director at PricewaterhouseCoopers’ corporate finance division.

    “The capital markets see the Irish credit risk declining – bond yields and CDS spreads are coming down. The capital markets are really saying that Ireland is getting on the right track, and if this is sustained, eventually the ratings agencies are likely to follow,” says Lyons. “But the Government still needs to have an actual spending programme.”

    Are PPPs in the best interest of taxpayers? At the end of 2010, the State had an outstanding commitment of almost €4.3 billion to some 37 projects already in place, covering roads, schools and medical projects. Some €1.9 billion has already been spent. However, the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General published in September noted that estimates were unavailable for future PPP commitments where contracts had not been signed because of the complexities involved, including the cost of borrowing. It also noted that just three PPPs reached contract stage last year.

    Some old-style road schemes were badly affected by timing issues. The National Roads Authority estimates that it will be obliged to compensate the operators of the M3 motorway in Co Meath and the N18 Limerick tunnel next year because traffic volumes have failed to meet “traffic-related guarantees” included in the original agreements. The private sector companies involved are also bearing losses as a result of these over-optimistic projections.

    This form of contract is now gone, says Mary Dunne, a partner and legal expert in PPPs at Byrne Wallace. It has been replaced with a more standard contract whereby the private bidder pays for the design and construction of the project and the State pays a monthly payment, “almost like a mortgage”. There are penalties for the contractor if they fail to maintain the roads, but traffic forecasts have been taken out of the equation, and it’s the financiers that have called a halt.

    “Eight years ago, the banks were willing to take that kind of risk on population projections, but now they won’t,” says Dunne. The risk the banks are now mulling is whether or not the Irish Government will make its repayments. At the moment, they’re shying away.

    “It’s a confidence issue. There’s a lack of confidence,” she says. One London-based syndicate on the verge of financing a “cookie-cutter” Irish roads PPP walked away earlier this year “just for absolute confidence reasons”, she says. “If solid London banks that have funded loads of these projects are getting cold feet, then it’s a real line in the sand.”

    Like Flynn and Lyons, Dunne sees the financiers returning once this confidence issue in Irish sovereign debt is resolved. For global private equity funds, a deal with a central government department in Ireland should still be worth a look. “A lot of the guys I’m dealing with are sniffing around Poland and Croatia at the moment,” says Dunne. “The companies are in a frenzy to see what comes out of Croatia, and Croatia is much less solid than we are, and it hasn’t got the experience.”

    PPPs can be treated as off-balance sheet expenditure by the Government, which during belt-tightening times makes them an easier commitment than an upfront outlay. But the accounting treatment may artificially heighten the benefits of some projects – a recent report by the UK’s Treasury Select Committee argued that stricter criteria were needed to govern its private finance initiative programme. “PFI means getting something now and paying later. Any Whitehall department could be excused for becoming addicted to that,” said the committee’s chairman Andrew Tyrie MP. In other words, the ability of governments to use the model to keep projects off-balance sheet skews the incentive away from traditional procurement methods, which might be more efficient.

    But many of the original attractions of PPPs for the construction of public infrastructure still remain, in theory. They were attractive because they allowed the costs of an investment to be spread over the lifetime of assets such as roads, rail-tracks or ports, thereby allowing large-scale projects of economic value to be brought forward.

    Lamenting that “too many separate departments” are responsible for PPPs, a report produced by business group Ibec and accountants KPMG in March called for the establishment of a specific National Infrastructure Authority to identify projects and take responsibility for funding strategies. This, it said, would prevent delays in planning and at the pre-procurement stage. The report also complained of a lack of clear visibility on pipeline projects, which it said was needed “in order to attract and maintain interest from international banks and investors in Irish PPP projects”.

    Supporters of the funding model have also pointed out that experience and skills gained by Irish construction contractors during the good times have allowed them to become profitable exporters, as they win bids for partnerships in markets such as the UK and Poland. Construction group Sisk is the leading light in this category. Almost half of its turnover now comes from Britain as a result of its involvement in the London 2012 Olympic athletes’ village and a section of the UK capital’s crossrail tunnel.

    They have been helped by standardised models of PPP contracts across the world, says Dunne, and she should know – she drafted the template PPP for Ireland. Based “95 per cent” on the UK’s PFI model, similar contracts are now used in other markets. “Irish contractors are completely familiar with them. There’s nothing to stop an Irish contractor bidding for a PPP in Canada or Australia or anywhere,” says Dunne.

    Lyons describes PPPs as “one form of procurement”; part of the Government’s toolkit. “I wouldn’t espouse PPPs in every circumstance, but it has successfully delivered a big proportion of our national motorway network and is also making a significant contribution in the education sector.”

    Despite the current squeeze on both public and private participation in PPPs, it seems clear that major projects such as Metro North and the Dart Underground won’t happen in the future unless the model becomes workable again. Or as Varadkar put it bluntly in May: “If PPPs are not a runner, then loads of these big projects are gone.”

    The fate of the not-so-big projects is even less clear.

    Link


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Absolutely not. The current PPP scheme and is effectively a state subsidy of the private sector. There's also zero risk when you look at the M3 model. Why should the State have to provide a guarantee of traffic? Let the road operator predict the traffic flows.

    We've had a lot of PPP builds in the country and to be frank, I'm unimpressed with the quality. Sure we have a motorway network that is vastly superior to the old routes but still not great when compared with m-ways builds in, say, the UK.

    In the end the taxpayer is still paying, sometimes in an around about fashion, so why not go the old route of fixed price bids that are ruthlessly enforced in the interests of the taxpayer?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    i dont agree. We have three high quality EMPTY motorways serving the south, (where two would have done). They are of a very high quality as far as I can see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,433 ✭✭✭donkey balls


    Ah sure dont we live in a great little country were if a private company does not make a profit or meet a certain volume of traffic the govt will step in and throw them a few quid,:rolleyes:And if these companies make a profit will they give the govt a % of the profits some how I don,t think so.
    I mean what fcuking idiots sign off on contracts like this I heard last week that the Limerick tunnel operators want to increase the charge for HGV to use the tunnel only in Ireland when companies are struggling to break even and you have a PPP company wanting to increase charges.
    And as Brian d said that M ways in the UK are way better you can travel from London to either Glasgow or Edinburgh without having to use a toll road,Yet if someone was to travel from Belfast to either limerick or Cork they would end up going through three tolls, that's the legacy Dempsey has left with every major road out of dublin with a toll on it while he sits back on all those pensions he aquired over the years.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    corktina wrote: »
    i dont agree. We have three high quality EMPTY motorways serving the south, (where two would have done). They are of a very high quality as far as I can see.

    ...yeah, I'd regard the quality of Irish motorways as generally very good - hardly a pothole - something you wouldn't take for granted in countries like Belgium or France (at least in the 1990's anyway). Was on the M3 from Clonee to Navan earlier in the year and between that and the AP-7 from Cartagena to Mazarron in Spain, they're the best stretches of motorway I've ever seen. I would rarely ever exceed 120kph, but in a 1.2 Micra on the M3, I was over 130kph (to my shock) before I knew it - that's how good the road is - obviously, I eased back to the 120kph limit. BTW, there's one small pothole in the Lucan Bypass Westbound - otherwise, surface is very good like most parts of the M50 (Ballymount is obviously the weak link there). My sister finds it very difficult to keep to 120kph (130kph feels comfortable) on the M8 to Cork for the most part - again, shows you how good the road is. My parents say the M9 is even better.

    If Irish motorways seriously don't measure up, then the continent must have improved ten fold since the 1990's - I remember all those dangerous short slips in France and the appalling road surfaces of Belgium - I also remember the joke of the Northern main road in Luxembourg (plenty of motorways around the city though) - it was much worse than the main roads our motorways replaced - it was just village after village with hardly any open road - I think this route is now motorway thank god.

    Regards!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,724 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    BrianD wrote: »
    Absolutely not. The current PPP scheme and is effectively a state subsidy of the private sector. There's also zero risk when you look at the M3 model. Why should the State have to provide a guarantee of traffic? Let the road operator predict the traffic flows.

    We've had a lot of PPP builds in the country and to be frank, I'm unimpressed with the quality. Sure we have a motorway network that is vastly superior to the old routes but still not great when compared with m-ways builds in, say, the UK.

    In the end the taxpayer is still paying, sometimes in an around about fashion, so why not go the old route of fixed price bids that are ruthlessly enforced in the interests of the taxpayer?
    In the end the taxpayer pays, true, but the choice is pay over 20-30 years or pay the whole lot up front. The fact is we couldnt have the infrastructure we currently have without PPPs because we cant fund such projects from the capital budget. I dont think PPPs themselves are the problem, rather the number and nature of the contracts taken on. PPPs can be dangerous because they are off the balance sheet but can affect finances in the future so it is not wise to take too many on, especially with the current situation we find ourselves in. MN and DU should continue as PPPs because the scale of the projects and incorporating operation, maintenance and rolling stock purchase into the contract makes sense. People expect to pay for each rail journey whereas people generally dont like tolls so rail are more suited to PPP concession contracts which can pay for themselves.

    As for those complaining about the tolls, drive on the continent and you'll know all about tolls. Anyway, that is largely irrelevant as you cant compare tolls without comparing funding mechanisms and tax structures also.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,774 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    You can call it a state subsidy if you like, but it isn't, because the State is just making a payment for work done or service provided. There is nothing new about the State buying services.

    Whether they got a good deal is another matter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    Dunnes Stores doesn't sell you bread on a basis that you pay a certain amount and then the balance if you remember to eat it before it goes stale. Politicians like to pretend PPPs are a panacea but the reality is that these companies are answerable to shareholders - they are not charities.

    Contracts can be written two ways. Either the PPP company gets a low risk contract but has to accept a low rate of return or a high rate of return with no compensation if the business plan doesn't pan out. Plainly in the case of the roads where extra payments were made the presumption is that the first sort of contract was written.

    However what is also clear to me in observing PPPs is that government seems to have terrible legal advice (where poorly drafted contracts give lots of latitude for overruns etc), have fear of the courts (in part because of lack of confidence in the prior draughtsmanship) and thus settle rather than face down the PPP operator but also make irrational decisions based on people with a bully pulpit. How good does the decision to give NTR an upfront payment of 488m Euro for Westlink at the top of the market look now? What if that half billion had been spent on improved public transport in west Dublin instead?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,253 ✭✭✭markpb


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    In the end the taxpayer pays, true, but the choice is pay over 20-30 years or pay the whole lot up front. The fact is we couldnt have the infrastructure we currently have without PPPs because we cant fund such projects from the capital budget.

    That's not true. The government could have borrowed the extra money required to build the roads themselves and paid back the debt over 20-30 years. The only differences between PPP and debt is that the money you've borrowed (one way or another) doesn't show up as debt on the balance sheet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    markpb wrote: »
    That's not true. The government could have borrowed the extra money required to build the roads themselves and paid back the debt over 20-30 years. The only differences between PPP and debt is that the money you've borrowed (one way or another) doesn't show up as debt on the balance sheet.
    But keeping it off balance sheet was the point, so the European Commission didn't complain about Ireland's borrowing breaching Euro Stability Pact rules.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭LaFlammeRouge


    markpb wrote: »
    That's not true. The government could have borrowed the extra money required to build the roads themselves and paid back the debt over 20-30 years. The only differences between PPP and debt is that the money you've borrowed (one way or another) doesn't show up as debt on the balance sheet.


    The private partner has to pay maintenance costs of the project.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    markpb wrote: »
    That's not true. The government could have borrowed the extra money required to build the roads themselves and paid back the debt over 20-30 years. The only differences between PPP and debt is that the money you've borrowed (one way or another) doesn't show up as debt on the balance sheet.

    As they used to say on Bullseye.....IN ONE!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,253 ✭✭✭markpb


    The private partner has to pay maintenance costs of the project.

    Not necessarily. In most cases, out of DBMO contracts we tendered build and maintain together but it's by no means a requirement.


Advertisement