So we're finally getting a Supreme Court built ina rennovated Midlesex Guildhall in parliament Square. Kier group won the cash cow and, reading the press reelase it sounds like it's being done under a rather crappy PFI. It says, "Estimated figures released today indicate the costs for establishing a Supreme Court are £56.9m in set up-costs. This is made up of £36.7m of renovation costs which will be paid for by an annual lease charge of £2.1m over 30 years. Both these amounts are within the original estimates. The additional £20.2m covers professional adviser fees, programme team costs, furniture, IT services and library costs."Hmmm... £36.7 + £20.2m = £56.9m. True. But, we're paying for it all over 30 years at £2.1m which is actually £63m, add on the £20.2m and that's £83.2m. You have to resepct the sneaky use of language in the press release though. The way they talk about the "estimated set up-cost" as £56.9m, whilst concealing the real cost in the sums.
But lets not forget that because we're only leasing the building on preferential terms for 30 years what we actually have at the end is.... sod all. Our illustrious Lord Chancellor may wax lyrical about how the "highest court in the land should be open, accessible and independent", but when the lease is up it might not be.
2 comments:
Oliver Heald's comments cover the point quite well!
“The Supreme Court will consist of the same people as the current Law Lords. They will simply be sitting in a building less than 300 yards away.
“This move will cost a staggering £100 million in set-up costs and an extra £6million a year in running costs.
“Lord Falconer has clearly learnt nothing from his attempt to run the Millennium Dome.”
Most people prefer to buy than rent, why does HMG do the opposite?
Is it so that it can throw money at unscrupulous landlords?
Post a Comment