Letters: The cost of PFIs
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: The Rev Mike Williams states (letter, 19 July) that "the inescapable fact is that the cost of borrowing money for the private sector is greater than for the Government" and goes on to assert that "if a straight comparison is made of the cost of financing the capital for building new hospitals, the public sector scheme will be better value for money".
Of course the Government can borrow at the cheapest rate since its obligations are backed by the ability to raise taxes and, in the last resort, to print money. The cost of borrowing for a private sector company and the expected return of its shareholders' equity, which together make up the company's cost of financing, reflect the risks that the company runs during the life of a contract under the Private Finance Initiative.
These potential costs are not included in the Government's risk-free rate of borrowing. Instead taxpayers bear these risks.
The purpose of the so-called public sector comparator used in determining value for money in PFI projects is to reflect these risks fully in the evaluation of the Government-funded project against the PFI alternative. It is essential to do a proper like-for-like comparison. There are some risks that the private sector can manage more effectively than the public sector and hence achieve better value for money for the taxpayer.
PETER RATZER
London NW3
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments