Talk:Private Finance Initiative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This new version strikes me as rather POV (pro-PFI), though the old version was probably POV too (anti-PFI). The omission to the FoF report was very naughty. Hope to review this later. Mr. Jones 08:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, this is the problem with Wikipedia, it tries to stick to one version of events when there's often many different points of view. Ideally the pro-PFI and anti-PFI articles would be merged into one and the reader would be allowed to decide for themselves what the truth is.

I think this is an excellent article that really helps get to the nub of the benefits of the PFI. It cant be all bad if the rest of Europe is starting to embrace PPP / PFI.

PFI is an accounting scam to keep down the public borrowing figures. Read the external links. PPP at best (if the purchaser knows what they're doing and truly has the freedom to use other options) is an expensive and/or risky form of purchasing. Rd232 09:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's no riskier than paying the full cost upfront using money that the Treasury has borrowed from the markets.

Treasury borrowing is the cheapest there is, and when paid upfront without any associated long-term service contracts that's the maximum flexibility for the government. By definition, anything else is more expensive and riskier. Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! The article contains the following sentence to demonstrate a benefit of PFIs: "The laboratory continues to operate with the public sector not having to pick up any of the construction cost overrun." But hang on, half a mo, fixed-price construction isn't uniquely a feature of PFI contracts. In fact, is it not the norm? Witness the current Wembley Stadium fiasco. If the government wishes to avoid the risks of construction overrun then surely the obvious route is to tender for a fixed-price contruction contract and once completed, pay the contract off in full. Maybe even make stage payments. The earlier the debt is transferred to the public sector the better. PFI is not about saving money or avoiding risk: it's about avoiding EU budget constraints and putting off the day of reckoning. And while I'm here... what's the logic of employing the same firm to both build and maintain a building? Two different skills surely? And what's the benefit of a very-long-term maintenance contract?

[edit] PFI Procurement

How could one explain the PFI procurement route?

[edit] Contract Termination

At the end of the contract - either full-term or prematurely due to poor performance - who owns the land? For instance, if the PFI is for a hospital and the contract runs for say 30 years, in the 31st year is there still a hospital or can the PFI company pull it down and build apartment blocks instead? I seem to recall that Private Eye questioned if the government got value for money when selling the land which would suggest that the PFI company has the freehold. (12:08, 21 April 2006)