PFI plan could keep debts off NHS trusts' balance sheets

New accountancy rules will add significant debts to NHS balance sheets

New accountancy rules will add significant debts to NHS balance sheets

NHS trusts may hand their private finance initiative hospitals over to specially created charities to avoid reporting PFI debts on their balance sheets, HSJ has learned.

The controversial plans would involve trusts ceding control of the hospitals to a third party.

They follow the Treasury's decision to adopt new international accountancy rules from next April which will see up to £16bn of debt added to NHS balance sheets as PFI liabilities are made transparent.

"The asset is supposed to come back to the taxpayer at the end of the contract"


The Department of Health is concerned that adopting the rules could put NHS trusts in deficit. It has estimated an otherwise financially healthy trust may take 10 years to recover from the change.

Innovative structures

Greg McIntosh, a director of accountants KPMG, said some trusts were looking at "innovative structures" that would allow them to avoid accounting for PFI liabilities on balance sheets.

The options being explored centre on the so-called "residual" of the PFI deal - the value of the hospital building or asset at the end of the PFI contract, typically 30 years.

Under the new international financial reporting standards, PFI assets and their associated debts must come onto an NHS balance sheet if the NHS body is in control of the building and will own it at the end of the contract.

Mr McIntosh said: "It's very difficult to get around the control test. So the only way is to give up control of the residual. Some trusts are looking at setting up a special vehicle to perhaps dispose of the asset to a charitable trust."

He said KPMG did not necessarily endorse such a structure, but was aware several NHS bodies were exploring the possibility. The step could be difficult legally as statute implies that NHS estates should be owned by NHS trusts.

Off the balance sheet

Ernst & Young partner Amin Mawji was also aware that NHS organisations were seeking advice on using charities to avoid bringing PFIs onto their balance sheet. "The difficulty is that they change the economic substance of what you have," he said. "But if the trust is willing to forego the financial benefits of retaining the residual value, then it can achieve an off balance sheet treatment."

But Mr Mawji said that these discussions were "premature" as the DH and foundation trust regulator Monitor were yet to issue guidance as to how or whether the accountancy change would affect the way NHS bodies were rated.

The proposal has met criticism from those concerned at the prospect of trusts not controlling their hospitals. Public accounts committee member Richard Bacon MP (Con) said: "If this is done purely to dodge the new rules it could create all kinds of undesirable and unintended consequences. PFI has always been a funny kind of ownership, but the asset is supposed to come back to the taxpayer at the end of the contract."

Unison head of health Karen Jennings said: "These hospitals have been paid for by the taxpayer and should be owned by the NHS and accountable to the public."

NHS Confederation policy director Nigel Edwards said: "It would be odd for the trusts not to have control over the hospital. The purpose of the accounting rules are to make it clear who is responsible for these buildings, not to subvert the rules with a workaround."

True independence

For the strategy to work, auditors and the Charity Commission would need to be satisfied that the charity was truly independent and not just an NHS trust subsidiary.

Last year the Charity Commission rejected an application for a charity set up to help Salisbury foundation trust circumvent its cap on private patient income.

Monitor chief operating officer Stephen Hay said the regulator may give a foundation trust moving a PFI onto its balance sheet a more adverse risk rating. That could change the amount the trust could borrow under the regulator's prudential borrowing code. It will consult on possible changes to its risk ratings and borrowing code this year.

Mr Hay said it saw the rule as changing accounting methods rather than the amount of cash a foundation had.

Trusts have conflicting advice on whether putting PFIs on the balance sheet would make them liable to a 3.5 per cent capital charge.

A DH spokeswoman said the department was not aware of plans to set up charities. She said: "Such a move would raise a number of technical and legal issues which would have to be carefully considered."

See Trusts survey the wreckage as PFI hospitals begin to crumble


Please note: In order to post a response you need to be registered on the site. You can register here.

Reader Response

OK - PFI is tricks with mirrors, but it's not fraudulent and without it there are a lot of new buildings we wouldn't have. On the whole - although it's going to cost a lot - I have to accept it being better than the alternative of keeping the old dirty hospital buildings.

But the idea of donating assets to a Charity is surprising. I was always given to believe that charitable donations from public money was expressly forbidden.

My understanding is that the last financial crisis in the NHS came about because all NHS Trusts were required to pay off historical debt within the same financial year - and accounts were revised so that Trusts which had been in balance suddenly weren't.
In spite of this, most PCTs and Trusts managed to do it.
Is it co-incidence that first the rules are changed to allow private companies to take over NHS Trusts in financial difficulties - and then the accounting rules are changed to make sure that all Trusts with PFI commitments ( a policy which has had strong Labour support) are likely to be in this situation?
It does sometimes seem that this government believes in "If at first you don't suceed, try, try and try again!"

Keeping PFI off the balance sheet is simply fraudulent. We have seen the efforts to which government has gone to allow unaffordable borrowing with Northern Rock and the stamp duty holiday for cheap homes; I fail to understand why it is so essential to cover up what is exactly the same - borrowing at an interest rate above base rate that is tied in for unacceptable terms of 30-35 years. it is tiem to get honest; however, with the parallel issue reported today of potential bail-outs for bust trusts this sets an appalling example for debtors - never mind the debt - we will make it easier for you all to borrow more than you can afford.

From an economic perspective this is madness!

It is interesting to see the keepers of the hen-coops trying to stop the chickens coming home to roost. Is this the fowling equivalent of bolting stable doors after the horses have gone?