LETTER : Give private finance a chance
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.Sir: Andrew Marr ("A public finance scandal in the making", 11 April) must know that governments all over the world are recognising the use of private finance as the only way they will be able to deliver the social and economic infrastructure their people expect.
He says that PFI may cost the taxpayer more than "ordinary public spending". What does he mean? Are the millions spent annually on maintaining and running badly designed and under-specified schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and office blocks paid for by the taxpayer over the last 30 years "ordinary"? Are the rents paid annually to the private sector by government for the doubtful privilege of maintaining and insuring yet more of these kinds of buildings "ordinary public expenditure"?
Of course they are, although some of us would call them extraordinary too. The initial cost of a building is but a small part of the cost of maintaining it and running it during its lifetime, and looking back, to say 1970, or whenever we could agree was the heyday of "ordinary public spending", surely no one would agree that the cheapest capital cost always delivers the best value for money. These buildings are proving expensive to maintain and wasteful to run.
A government is not a better government because it owns buildings, any more than any business is a better business because it owns an office or a factory. Governments (and businesses) use buildings, but an increasing number of people in both sectors think it is better for others to manage them and be responsible for the risks of ownership, allowing occupiers to get on with the main purpose of their existence.
The PFI is based on a good idea. It is an idea which should (and in time, will) be just as attractive to the private sector as it is to government. It offers a better way of getting things done and spreading risk more fairly. If the responsibility for managing an asset throughout its life is placed squarely with the person who designed it, the investment which follows is likely to be better designed, easier to maintain and more efficient in its use. Why don't we give it a try? At least it gives us a chance of replacing all those horrors we built in the 1960s and 1970s.
Andrew Russell
Chairman, PFI Forum
The Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors
London SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments