Dozens of Labour MPs have urged Chancellor Rachel Reeves to scrap plans to use private finance initiatives (PFIs) to fund NHS buildings, warning that the move would saddle the health service with crippling debt. The lawmakers, including prominent figures such as Cat Eccles, Clive Lewis and Rebecca Long-Bailey, expressed concerns that relying on private capital to build public infrastructure is damaging for trust in government.
The MPs pointed to a history of PFI projects being more expensive than publicly funded options, which has led to 80 NHS trusts paying back over £44 billion since 1997. They argued that using PFIs does not bring new money to the NHS and instead requires future generations of taxpayers to foot the bill.
Critics also claim that PFIs are often used as a way to bypass borrowing rules, amounting to a "fiscal illusion" that can be exploited by governments. A 2017 report by the National Audit Office found that PFI hospitals were 70% more expensive than publicly financed options, suggesting that using private finance for NHS projects is not value for money.
The Labour party's manifesto has long stated that the NHS will always be "publicly owned and publicly funded", and many academics have echoed this sentiment, warning that using private capital to fund public services is a recipe for disaster. More than 50 experts have written to Chancellor Reeves urging her to abandon plans to use PFIs in the NHS.
The government has responded by saying it is exploring new public-private partnership models for taxpayer-funded projects in limited circumstances where they could represent value for money. However, critics argue that this approach would only serve to entrench the use of PFIs and perpetuate a cycle of debt and financial instability in the NHS.
The MPs pointed to a history of PFI projects being more expensive than publicly funded options, which has led to 80 NHS trusts paying back over £44 billion since 1997. They argued that using PFIs does not bring new money to the NHS and instead requires future generations of taxpayers to foot the bill.
Critics also claim that PFIs are often used as a way to bypass borrowing rules, amounting to a "fiscal illusion" that can be exploited by governments. A 2017 report by the National Audit Office found that PFI hospitals were 70% more expensive than publicly financed options, suggesting that using private finance for NHS projects is not value for money.
The Labour party's manifesto has long stated that the NHS will always be "publicly owned and publicly funded", and many academics have echoed this sentiment, warning that using private capital to fund public services is a recipe for disaster. More than 50 experts have written to Chancellor Reeves urging her to abandon plans to use PFIs in the NHS.
The government has responded by saying it is exploring new public-private partnership models for taxpayer-funded projects in limited circumstances where they could represent value for money. However, critics argue that this approach would only serve to entrench the use of PFIs and perpetuate a cycle of debt and financial instability in the NHS.
. We just used good old-fashioned taxpayer money to fund our public services 
. I mean, what's wrong with that? It's not like we're asking for much, just a decent hospital and some basic healthcare 
.
. If it's more expensive to build something privately, why are we paying them to do it? Sounds like a scam to me 
. I swear, these politicians and their love of jargon... Public-private partnerships, fiscal illusions... just use the bloody word " taxpayer" and be done with it 
.
. I'm not saying it's a guarantee that PFIs are bad, but come on, we need to be careful here. The NHS is already struggling as it is, the last thing we need is more debt and financial headaches 
. Let's stick with what works, you know? Publicly owned and publicly funded 
. That's the way to go in my book 
.
I've had friends who've been waiting for years to get treatment because their local hospital was stuck in the Stone Age, so I think the NHS needs all the help it can get. Using private finance doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be saddled with debt forever - what if they're able to recoup some of that money through rents or whatever? 
It's not like we're talking about handing over our house, just our tax dollars 
. They're putting us on the hook for all these PFI deals, and now they're saying we should just partner with private companies again? It's like we learned nothing from the past! I mean, 80 NHS trusts paying back over £44 billion since '97? That's just ridiculous 
. If it's not working out, why are they still trying to push it? It's like we're just perpetuating a cycle of debt and financial instability 
. Can't they just stick to what works? I swear, back in my day...
. Like, we're still paying off the £44 billion from those last few decades... what's wrong with publicly funded options, right? It's not like they're gonna suddenly start printing more money 
. Like, how can that be value for money? Not to mention the NHS is already struggling as it is... do we really need to saddle future generations with debt? 
. I mean, we already know that PFI projects have been more expensive than publicly funded options in the past. And now they're saying it might be better this time? 
I don't think so.
.
? These MPs are right on point, using private finance initiatives to fund NHS buildings is just a recipe for disaster 
. It's like your grandparents used to say "don't put all your eggs in one basket" and that's exactly what's happening with PFIs - the NHS is basically putting all its faith in private capital and it's going to come back to bite us 
. We need to stick with publicly owned and funded, period 
. It's not that hard to understand 
. Can't we just stick with public funding and avoid all this drama? 
. We need to be careful about who we're relying on to fund our public services... can't have the NHS being held hostage by private interests, right? 