Right. So perhaps if it had said “Ltd” after “UK Highways” on the sign, that would have been clearer. It’s a private company being paid – ultimately by us, the public – to look after roads. Fine. Whatever works, assuming it does work. I asked an accountant friend about UK Highways Ltd, and he found a note in its last accounts that said: “The company is a wholly owned subsidiary undertaking of Vercity Management Services Ltd.” And, in turn, a note in Vercity’s last accounts, explaining that its “ultimate parent undertaking and controlling party is Innisfree M&G PPP LP”. Innisfree Ltd being “a fund manager managing a number of private equity infrastructure funds”.
A number of thoughts assail me, not least that I might have been better off not asking the question in the first place. But does it have to be this complicated? For what it’s worth, until someone tells me otherwise, I’m choosing to believe that this somewhat complicated structure results in an outcome beneficial to all, namely reasonable returns for all corporate entities involved, good value for the taxpayer via National Highways, and motorways and major A roads that are kept in tolerably good nick.
