Editing Private finance initiative (section)

===Analysis===
A study by [[HM Treasury]] in July 2003 was supportive, showing that the only deals in its sample which were over budget were those where the public sector changed its mind after deciding what it wanted and from whom it wanted it.<ref>{{Citation| title = PFI - Meeting The Challenge| publisher = [[HM Treasury]]| url = http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/}}</ref>

A later report by the [[National Audit Office (United Kingdom)|National Audit Office]] in 2009 found that 69 per cent of PFI construction projects between 2003 and 2008 were delivered on time and 65 per cent were delivered at the contracted price.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/private_finance_projects.aspx|title=Private Finance Projects|publisher=National Audit Office|access-date=30 September 2012}}</ref>

However, a report by the National Audit Office in 2011 was much more critical, finding that the use of PFI "has the effect of increasing the cost of finance for public investments relative to what would be available to the government if it borrowed on its own account" and "the price of finance is significantly higher with a PFI."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtreasy/1146/114608.htm|title=Conclusions and recommendations|publisher=House of Commons|year=2011|access-date=30 September 2012}}</ref>

An article in ''[[The Economist]]'' reports that:

{{blockquote|Getting the private sector to build and run prisons has brought tangible benefits. One is speed: private jails are built in as little as two years, rather than the seven that they used to take when the government did the building. Running costs are lower too, mainly because staff are paid a quarter less than in the public sector (though senior managers are paid more) and get fewer benefits.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/13962456?story_id=E1_TPJGNQVG|access-date=2011-05-09|title=Private prisons: Criminal enterprises | newspaper = The Economist|date=2009-07-02}}</ref>}}

On the other hand, Monbiot argues that the specifications of many public infrastructure projects have been distorted to increase their profitability for PFI contractors.<ref name="bwry"/>

PFI projects allowed the [[Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)|Ministry of Defence]] to gain many useful resources "''on a shoestring''"; PFI deals were signed for barracks, headquarters buildings, training for pilots and sailors, and an [[Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft|aerial refuelling service]], amongst other things.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/8527469?story_id=E1_RVNSQGJ|access-date=2011-05-09|title=Defence spending: Under PFIre | newspaper = The Economist|date=2011-05-09}}</ref>

Individuals have speculated that some PFI projects have been shoddily specified and executed. For example, in 2005 a confidential government report condemned the PFI-funded Newsam Centre at [[Seacroft Hospital]] for jeopardising the lives of 300 patients and staff. The Newsam Centre is for people with lifelong learning difficulties and the mentally ill. The report said that there were shortcomings "in each of the five key areas of documentation, design, construction, operation and management" at the hospital, which cost £47m. Between 2001 and 2005 there were four patient suicides, including one which was left undiscovered for four days in an out-of-order bathroom. The coroner said that Leeds Mental Health Teaching NHS Trust, which is responsible for the facility, had failed to keep patients under proper observation. The government report said that the design and construction of the building did not meet the requirements for a facility for mental patients. The building has curving corridors which make patient observation and quick evacuation difficult. The report said that the building also constituted a fire hazard, as it was constructed without proper fire protection materials in the wall and floor joints. In addition, mattresses and chairs used below-standard fire-retardant materials. Patients were allowed to smoke in rooms where they could not be easily observed. The fire-safety manual was described as "very poor", and the fire-safety procedure consisted of a post-it note marked "to be provided by the Trust". The report concluded that "every section of the fire safety code" had been breached.<ref name="pplr">{{Citation| last = Hencke| first = David| title = Private Finance Hospital 'Putting Lives at Risk'| newspaper = The Guardian| date = 17 June 2005| url = https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/17/publicservices.politics| location=London}}</ref>

On the other hand, the building of two new PFI Police Stations on behalf of Kent Police serving the Medway area and the North Kent area (Gravesend and Dartford) is credited as a successful PFI project. Supporters say that the new buildings take into account the modern needs of the police better than the 60s/70s building, and that another advantage is that the old buildings can be sold for income or redeveloped into the police estate.<ref name="Flagship Police HQ Formally Open">{{cite news | title = Flagship Police HQ Formally Open | publisher = BBC | date = 28 May 2008 | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7424254.stm}}</ref>