This support has been evident in official value for money (VfM) assessments that are made as a condition of PFI approval. There is substantial evidence that assessments have reflected a pro-PFI bias by giving the false impression that PFI projects are less costly than traditional procurement alternatives.
The UK parliament has repeatedly questioned the lack of evidence in support of risk transfer and value for money claims. In July 2010, a National Audit Office paper to a House of Lords committee described value for money as "subjective judgements of risk, which can easily be adjusted to show private finance as cheaper."19 The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee described PFI as "probably the most secure projects to which the banks could lend."20 The committee previously expressed concern over high interest rates, returns that contractors earn from PFI projects, and the risks they actually bear.21
Independent researchers, financial watchdogs and parliamentary committees have exposed various irregularities, including manipulation of the discount rate, unfounded claims about public sector costs, and exaggerated claims about PFI savings.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
19 National Audit Office. Private finance projects. Paper for committee of economic affairs. NAO, 2010.
20 House of Commons. PFI construction performance. Select Committee on Public Accounts. Stationery Office, 2002.
21 HM Treasury. Budget 2009: building Britain's future. HC 407. Stationery Office, 2009.