Letters: The cost of PFIs

Maeve Riley
Sunday 25 July 1999 18:02 EDT
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.

Sir: Michael Ball (letter, 20 July) points out that the Private Finance Initiative was made to appear cheaper than the public sector scheme, for Pimlico School, because it intended to build more houses on part of the land acquired.

In Coventry, PFI funding for our new hospital appeared cheaper only because the publicly-funded alternative had to add a "pretend" interest rate of six per cent.

The Government has been role-playing the private financier since 1990, and charging hospitals six per cent per annum of the value of their buildings and contents. However, this six per cent circulates back to the hospitals from general health revenue, paid by the Government to health authorities.

Under PFI the six per cent leaves the health system as real interest on real debts. What's more, the hospitals so far using PFI have seen this rise in practice to between 12 and 18 per cent.

We pay for this additional cost of financing PFI through our taxes. However, as the health trust does the borrowing, the Government can claim it has reduced its own debts.

The increased costs are now part of what the Government gives the health authorities for all health costs - it becomes part of the Government's "increased spending on health care" - ie, a good thing.

MAEVE RILEY

Earlsdon, Coventry

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