THE newly elected Labour government has come to power pledging to deliver on infrastructure, pledging houses, transport, and energy projects. But at the same time, they have poured cold water on the idea of major government investment.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves spent the weekend pretending to have just learned about a £20 billion “black hole” in the UK’s finances, and is said to be considering sweeping cuts to make it up.
Labour’s tight fiscal rules also place strict limits on what the government can do, as they aim to have debt falling within five years and day-to-day spending covered by revenues.
So, instead of government, Labour have made no secret of their intention to have private financial institutions bankroll infrastructure spending.
In her Mais lecture in March, Reeves said: “Public investment is one important lever available to governments … but it is only one lever, and it must be used judiciously.”
She argued that Labour would instead deliver “investment through partnership between strategic government and enterprising business”.
Reading between the lines, that looks a lot like a return to the private finance initiative (PFI) schemes used so heavily by the last UK Labour government.
But the taxpayer is still being made to foot the bill for those schemes today.
READ MORE: 'Lie and pretend': Disbelief as Labour claim Tories 'covered up' £20bn funding hole
A 2018 report from the National Audit Office found that around £60bn in private investment had funded more than 700 PFI schemes – and concluded that the taxpayer would have paid out some £199bn by the time all the contracts end in the 2040s.
And in 2019, the Institute for Public Policy Research warned that the public purse would have paid out a total of £80bn through English NHS PFI schemes which cost just £13bn of private capital.
The sky-high costs come over time, but in the immediate present the government is able to keep any spending off their books.
This huge benefit for the government comes at a severe cost to the taxpayer, with public bodies having gone bankrupt under the weight of PFI repayments.
READ MORE: Scottish lords cost millions – yet some work fewer than one day in 10
Over the next week, The National’s top team of reporters will be looking at every aspect of the PFI scandal, from their pros and cons to the key figures to warnings for the future.
We’ll be speaking to experts and politicians to understand exactly where PFI went wrong, and why Labour could be set to return to the model.
Our series has launched today with a look at just what PFI schemes are, their pros and cons, and why we’re talking about them now.
It is only thanks to the support of our subscribers that we are able to work on in-depth series like this, getting ahead of what the Labour government is planning to bring you all the key facts.
So please enjoy the hard work we have put into our latest series, and make up your own mind as to whether Labour should be using PFI-style schemes again.
Thank you.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel