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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…