This report, from the National Audit Office (HCP 71, session 2010-11, ISBN 9780102965285), looks at PFI in Housing. The use of PFI by local authorities to improve housing, usually in areas with a high need for housing and where the stock condition is particularly poor, has had a measure of success, but risks to value for money of the programme have not been managed. In the context of this programme, PFI has been a flexible and useful funding route for local authorities to improve existing housing and build new stock. However, the majority of projects required significant increases in central funding prior to contract signature and all have suffered delays. Twenty one of the 25 projects which have been signed to date have experienced cost increases, with 12 of these over 100 per cent. All signed projects, for which the NAO was able to obtain data, were delayed, on average by 2 years and 6 months. For early projects this was partly because PFI was new to the housing sector and the Department for Communities and Local Government had to develop its understanding of stock condition issues. Also, the Department's management for early projects was also weak and under-resourced. While the capital cost of PFI housing projects is similar to other developments, the Department's evaluation to date has not taken account of the full costs. Procurement also tends to take more time, which can increase procurement and tender costs for local authorities and bidders.

The Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government (the Departments) are responsible for sizeable portfolios of PFI projects covering hospitals and social housing. By April 2009 there were 76 operational PFI hospitals in England and over 13,000 homes had been built or refurbished through PFI. The letting of contracts and the responsibility for managing them is devolved to NHS Trusts and local authorities. The Departments are responsible for overseeing their PFI programmes and reporting to the public and Parliament on value for money. The Committee can find no clear and explicit justification and evaluation for the use of PFI in terms of its value for money. In many cases local authorities and Trusts chose the PFI route because the Departments offered no realistic funding alternative. Other concerns are central government's failure to use the market leverage that comes from overseeing multiple contracts, and the lack of robust central data to support effective programme management. It is clear that the implementation of PFI projects could be improved. Many PFI housing procurements have taken very much longer, and cost a great deal more, than originally planned. On hospitals, most are receiving the services expected at the point contracts were signed and are generally being well managed. There are, however, wide and unexplained variations in the cost of hospital support services, such as cleaning, catering and portering. Departments are not using their own buying power to leverage gains for the taxpayer.