Written evidence submitted by Lisa Smeaton
I write as a member of the public. I have had grave
concerns about the use of PFI since its inception. My concerns
are wide-ranging and include the following key points:
1. The use of PFI appears to be a government
"credit-card" where expenditure can be put despite it
being an expensive form of borrowing particularly in the current
climate and consequently offers very poor value for money to the
tax payer.
2. PFI also is "off the books". I think
this is a foolish and unprofessional way for a Government to operate
its finances. It is used to avoid this debt showing on deficient
figures. It seems ludicrous to make substantial cuts in all areas
of government in the current climate and at the same time to continue
using PFI because it "hides" the debt.
3. PFI represents a millstone around the necks
of the children of this country who will be forced to pay off
this debt for years to come.
4. Politicians may feel that PFI means that risk
is shared and construction costs reduced but, I can assure you,
that construction companies are far more financially savvy than
most politicians and profit will be made, in the long term, via
maintenance and leasing. Of course construction companies must
be given the opportunity to make a profit but it would be far
more sensible for these companies to be allowed to make their
profit during the construction of a hospital/school etc not in
some complicated, long term arrangement. In the current climate,
with less industrial projects taking place, it would actually
be easier for the government to achieve very good value for money
in traditional contractual arrangements due to competition between
contractors.
5. Both Mr Osborne and Mr Cable made very clear
statements about the use of PFI during the election including
comments such as a "discredited" mode (Osborne) and
"a dishonest system of accounting, designed to hide taxpayers'
liabilities" (Cable). Given those comments I think it would
be entirely acceptable for the public to imagine that the use
of PFI would have been substantially changed and/or discontinued
particularly given Mr Osborne and Mr Cable's role in Government.
To find that the Government has now approved 61 PFI projects in
less than 12 months is truly a disgrace and again demonstrates
why the general public have so little confidence or respect for
politicians.
I would be grateful if my comments could be taken
into consideration.
April 2011
| 
