Letter: PFI too dear?
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: You report "Mandelson under fire on bonuses" (report, 17 September) on the decision of the TUC conference to oppose the Private Finance Initiative. This decision follows John Prescott's comments at the TUC regarding PFI earlier in the week.
Specifically, Prescott argued that PFI is essential to allow more money to be allocated for health and education. In fact, and on the basis that the Government generally allocates all the spare cash it has to health and education, the use of PFI reduces the amount available for health and education. This is because PFI is a more expensive way for the public sector to acquire the use of assets, as compared with the public sector borrowing funds and buying the assets direct.
Take the case of a PFI project to provide the public sector with the use of an asset with an estimated economic life of 20 years. Over the 20-year period, the PFI investor has to recover the capital cost of the asset, and earn a return on the net funds invested. While the details of return enjoyed on PFI contracts must - on the grounds of commercial confidentially - remain secret, it is reported that at least one City PFI fund manager is offering returns of up to 15 per cent per annum to investors. By contrast, the public sector can currently borrow via a 20 year gilt at around 5 per cent per annum. Treasury figures suggest that the value of assets procured for the use of the public sector in the years 1997/98 to 2000/01 will total about pounds 12bn.
Assuming an average rate of return for PFI investors of just 10 per cent per annum, then for every pounds 10bn net assets in use under PFI at any one time, the cost to the taxpayer is pounds 500m per annum higher than if the assets had been acquired by the public sector directly. This effectively represents money diverted from hard-pressed education and health budgets in the long run.
The Treasury might like to reflect on this every time a new PFI contract is signed.
MC FITZPATRICK
Head of Economics
Chantrey Wellacott
London WC1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments