PFI remains controversial: there is still a lack of consensus on whether PFI provides value for money. Supporters of the scheme argue that PFI has fared better than public procurement in general, whilst critics state that PFI contracts are inflexible and there is significant scope for making savings in projects through refinancing where private finance has already been used (or not using it at all going forward). A Guardian/IMC poll in 2002 showed that 63% voted for a moratorium on new PFI projects, while 9% stated they should be stopped altogether.14 A poll conducted in Scotland in 2007 showed similar results: the most popular policy in the poll- "ensure that all state schools and hospitals are built and run by public bodies rather than private companies" - received a mean score of 8.1 out of 10. 15

However, PFI projects can provide value for money providing that the benefits outweigh the costs faced.

The initial justification for PFI was to allow greater amounts of investment to take place.16 In 2006, however, HM Treasury published guidance on PFI, highlighting the focus on PFIs creating value for money:

PFI should only be pursued where it represents VfM in procurement. VfM is defined as the optimum combination of whole-of-life costs and quality (or fitness for purpose) of the good or service to meet the user's requirements. VfM is not the choice of goods and services based on the lowest cost bid.17

Reports by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the NAO have questioned the use of PFI, and whether it offers value for money. In 2012, HM Treasury stated that it acknowledged the limitations of PFI, and that it felt PFI had:

[…] led to sub-optimal value for money in some projects.18

Additionally, HM Treasury have stated that the accounting treatment and budgetary frameworks that were in place meant that incentives were present, unconnected to value for money, for PFI to be used. As a result, this weakened the assessment of the "optimal delivery route", and consequently, PFI was used for unsuitable projects, therefore failing to provide value for money: 19

In 2011, the Treasury committee stated the following, further highlighting the questions about the value for money provided by PFI:

We have not seen evidence to suggest that this inefficient method of financing has been offset by the perceived benefits of PFI from increased risk transfer… We do not believe that PFI can be relied upon to provide good value for money without substantial reform.20

PFI remains controversial: strong arguments are presented both for and against the use of PFIs