Of course, if one changes the accounting rules and puts on extra deficits, the deficit will be bigger. In 1997, the Conservative deficit would have been a bit bigger than the one that the Minister quoted, but this Government’s deficit would be massively bigger because, over the following 10 years, there has been a huge surge in pension and PFI liabilities. One reason why it now matters much more that PFI liabilities are not properly accounted for is that their quality has deteriorated. Under the Conservative Administration, when there were not many PFIs, there was a much greater attempt to ensure that there was a genuine transfer of risk to the private sector so that, if the scheme went wrong, the private sector, not the public sector, had to pick up the bill. I do not believe that that is true of the London underground public-private partnership, which constitutes a massively expensive and risky set of arrangements stretching over 30 years. I am not sure that the Government accounts reflect the full consequences of the cost of that scheme.
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
John Redwood
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 23 April 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Finance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c725 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:14:25 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391351
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391351
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391351