Skip to main content

Health PFI - Everyone plays "pass the parcel"

PFI has been TINA (There is No Alternative) for some time. There are a lot of games played with PFI.

The first one is that it is basically very expensive compared to traditional procurement. However, if the traditional method is found to be cheaper then PFI cannot be used. Because there is no funding for the traditional method it means that people "make assumptions" [fiddle the figures] to make sure that PFI looks cheaper.

The biggest fiddle comes from multiplying the traditional cost by a multiplier for notional increases in cost. However, the public sector comparator (as it is called) is still adjusted until it fits.

The second one is FRS5. There is a sort of ideological demand for the payments for a PFI project to be more than just leasing a building. Hence you have a demand to transfer the management of a service into the private sector.

This creates a massive conflict. There are two real things about PFI.

The first is that all the effort goes into specifying the project at the start rather than changing it as it goes along. This means the price is fixed, but also the project is fixed. The real problem here is that people often don't know what they want at the start, but then there is no flexibility.

The second is that there are margins needed both to cover tender costs and also all other risks. This really drives the price up.

The calculations for the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich is that the additional annual costs as a result of PFI are £9 million. I commissioned research that found if the same proportion of capital amounts apply to all projects over £10m that were extant by Dec 2004 the total increase in annual costs is £422m - not trivial.

For NHS Foundation Trusts there is an additional complication that arises from the fact that they stand alone from government. Hence any contractor wants the payments to be underwritten by the Department of Health. The Private Finance Unit want to have certainty that the amount payable is "affordable". The Foundation Trust "Monitor", however, does not want to sign any contracts off as affordable. In particular Monitor has also raised concerns about the University of Birmingham NHS FT's PFI Scheme.

This puts us in catch 22 with the responsibility for PFI decisions being passed around Whitehall and Westminster.

The fact is, however, that the government have got us into this mess. Either they stump up the costs for PFI or they stump up the costs for a traditional new hospital. What they cannot do is cancel the new hospital.

They should "bite the bullet" and fund it properly. However, at the moment they are just dithering.

Comments

Bob Piper said…
Strangely, John, I agree with you on PFI. However, as usual you adopt a holier than thou attitude. If Labour has invested far more in the NHS than the Lib Dems even promised to do, which, let's face it, they could be pretty wild about because they knew they would never win, just exactly how would they have "bitten the bullet" and funded it?
john said…
Actually I estimate that the annual additional costs as a result of PFI in the Health Service are around £422 Million.

Just about the cost of a non-pfi UBH
Bob Piper said…
So, that is all the PFI funding in the NHS = 1 hospital. So, have you an answer to where the money was coming from for all of the other hospital buildings given the funding gap in the Lib Dem 1997 and 2001 election pledges?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…