THE use of private finance initiatives to fund buildings such as schools and hospitals in Scotland has been branded Labour’s “toxic legacy”.
Jim Eadie, the SNP candidate who is standing for re-election as MSP for Edinburgh South, said PFI contracts did not represent good value for money and were not stringent enough to allow private companies to be held to account.
Eadie, who has been a vocal critic of private finance schemes, said: “PFI is Labour’s toxic legacy in terms of what it has meant for the taxpayers – it has meant the hiving of NHS and education valuable resources which should be invested in vital public services.”
He pointed to the examples of the Edinburgh schools programme, which had capital costs of around £337 million, but the taxpayer’s repayments will cost around £1.2 billion and Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, which cost £180m to build but will add up to £1.4bn in repayments.
The use of private finance was vastly expanded under New Labour, in what was labelled public private partnerships (PPP), with both Tony Blair and then chancellor Gordon Brown enthusiastically embracing the idea.
Figures from the Treasury show 14 out of 80 projects which still have active contracts in Scotland were tendered were implemented before 1997, the year Blair came to power.
In Scotland, Jack McConnell was also a proponent of PFI when First Minister and clashed with unions over the issue.
The Treasury figures show 34 out of the 80 projects were tendered for between 2001 and 2007, when McConnell was First Minister.
A total of 47 PFI contracts were put out to tender between 1999 and 2006, when the Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition was in power at Holyrood.
However the Liberal Democrats said their party had led arguments at Westminster to try to persuade Brown to move away from his policy of PFI being the “only game in town” for capital investment.
A Scottish Liberal Democrat spokesman said: "The narrow Treasury rules meant that the Scottish Executive's hands were tied on capital investment.”
The use of private finance for public infrastructure is still ongoing in Scotland. The SNP ended the use of PFI and PPP contracts in 2007, but introduced a “non profit-distributing” (NPD) model. This still relies on co-operation between the public and private sector, but the SNP says it is more cost effective and there is a cap on the profits private companies can make.
Figures show there are 25 NPD projects currently under construction. Four are up and running, including Aberdeen Community Health and Care Village, which cost £15.6m to build and will cost £48.9m over 25 years; Forres, Woodside and Tain Health Centres, which have a capital cost of £13.6m and a lifetime cost of £43.9m; Inverness College which cost £45m to build and involves £137.2m of running costs over 25 years and Alford Academy, which has a capital cost of £18.4m, with unitary charges totalling £62.5m.
Mark Hellowell, senior lecturer in social policy at Edinburgh University, said: “The SNP government has been reasonably enthusiastic about using PFI, albeit not on an ideological basis but on a very practical basis – there isn’t really a plan B because of the constitutional settlement, and also because governments everywhere have limited capacity to borrow in the current financial environment.”
A spokesman for the SNP said the PFI contracts signed on Labour's watch were “incredibly bad deals”.
He said: “The SNP introduced our Non-Profit Distributing model, which eliminates the uncapped profits associated with the traditional PFI model and limits returns to a reasonable rate. Labour should stop trying to wash their hands of this and face up to the multi-billion pound legacy of debt they have left."
A spokesman for Scottish Labour said the issues which has emerged around the Edinburgh schools was a “construction problem, not a contract problem.”
He added: “Of course there's always debate about using private finance for public projects. It's odd that Nicola Sturgeon is talking in party political terms about this given that she promised to end PFI but continues to use it to this very day."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel