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 Hemming 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

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express. Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25). I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting. Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong. It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk cra

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here . This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in