MPs slate private finance initiative for high cost and lack of visibility

James Moore
Friday 19 August 2011 10:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

An influential committee of MPs launched a stinging attack on private finance initiatives yesterday, claiming they offered taxpayers "poor value for money" and calling for debts built up from the schemes to be brought on to Britain's balance sheet.

An analysis by the Treasury Select Committee said that, as a result of the credit crisis, most PFI ventures – including many new schools and hospitals – were now hugely inefficient, with the cost of paying off a debt under PFI of £1bn equivalent to paying off a direct government debt of £1.7bn.

The average cost of capital for even a low-risk PFI project was more than 8 per cent – twice that of government gilts, the report said. The MPs said they had not "seen any convincing evidence that savings and efficiencies during the lifetime of PFI projects offset the significantly higher cost of finance".

Bringing PFI debt on to the state's balance sheet would add billions of pounds to the national debt and potentially put at risk the UK's prized AAA credit rating.

But Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chairman of the committee, said: "PFI means getting something now and paying later. Any Whitehall department could be excused for becoming addicted to that. We cannot carry on as we are, expecting the next generation of taxpayers to pick up the tab. PFI should only be used where we can show clear benefits for the taxpayer."

Mr Tyrie called on the Treasury to "remove any perverse incentives unrelated to value for money by ensuring that PFI is not used to circumvent departmental budget limits".

PFI projects have not only been attacked for their ultimate cost to the public purse but for saddling schools and hospitals with billions of pounds of debts and huge interest bills they can ill afford at a time of financial austerity.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in