I WAS delighted to read in your newspaper last week that at long last there is to be a major investment in schools in Bromsgrove. Everyone in the town will obviously welcome this as all pupils should have access to the best possible education within their own home town.

This project is to be paid for through a Private Finance Initiative (PFI). What your article did not make clear are the implications of this method of funding for the people of Bromsgrove, both now and for the next 30 years.

Worcestershire County Council had no choice but to accept the PFI method of paying for this scheme. It is Government policy. But there is a lot wrong with it.

The money will be raised by private companies on the open market. Governments, both Labour and Tory, like this method of raising funds because it means the Government does not have to borrow the money itself, which makes its balance sheet look healthier. The problem for Worcestershire is that the private companies, naturally, want to make a large profit for their shareholders, so it ends up costing more, much more.

In addition, the bigger the project, the more profit is made for the private builders. This explains why South Bromsgrove High School, for instance, is included. The original building, which won a design award, is not much more than 30 years old. Since then the school has had a new technology block, a new sports hall, new classrooms, a major refit of its laboratories and massive improvements to the entrance area. Are we to believe that, after little more than 10 years, these buildings are no longer fit for purpose? If so, heads should roll. The truth is that this school is included just to make the contract big enough.

The money raised has to be paid back by the Government, with interest. As your article says, this will take place over the next 30 years. It will end up costing many times the original cost of the building. To see the crippling effect that these repayments can have, you need look no further than the debt that comes with the PFI built Worcester Hospital. At the end of 30 years the schools will finally belong to WCC. But we will all have paid many times the original cost.

In addition, we should look at the other costs to Bromsgrove. Teachers and governors will have to spend an enormous amount of time getting the details of the contract right. Because, if they get it wrong or do not get what the pupils need, we will be stuck with the consequences for the next 30 years.

The contractors will benefit in other ways too. They could well pick up the school meals' contract, the cleaning contract and contract for the managing supply teachers etc. How much say are the head teachers and governors, let alone the parents, going to get in the running of these new schools? Will conditions of employment for all employees be guaranteed?

Yes, Bromsgrove needs money spending on the fabric of its schools, but the unnecessary extra costs of this way of doing it will burden Council Tax payers for a generation or more.

Ann Holmes

Bromsgrove