HC Deb 19 April 2002 vol 383 cc1245-6W
Mr. Bercow

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price

1998 Preferred Bidder Price Final Contract Price
Greenwich £15,355,000 (annual unitary charge) £17,327,000 (annual unitary charge)1
Calderdale £17,500,000 (annual unitary charge) £14,500,000 (annual unitary charge)2
South Manchester £539,000,000 (total cash flows over 45 years) £519,000,000 (total cash flows over 35 years)
Norfolk and Norwich £28,825,000 (annual unitary charge)3 £35.300,000 (annual unitary charge)
North Durham £14,660,000 (annual unitary charge) £11,960,000 (annual unitary charge)4
1999
South Tees £20,300,000 (annual unitary charge) £21,900,000 (annual unitary charge)5
Swindon and Marlborough £8,575,000 (annual availability charge only)6 £10,914,000 (annual availability charge only)7
Worcester £15,557,000 (annual unitary charge) £18,302,000 (annual unitary charge)8
Hereford £9,471,000 (annual unitary charge) £9.517,000 (annual unitary charge)
King's £6,439,000 (annual availability charge only)9 £7,211,000 annual availability charge only)
2000 (only 4 major schemes signed contracts in 2000)
St George's No change in annual unitary charge between £6.804,000 (annual unitary charge)
preferred bidder stage and final contract price
Leeds Community £9,090,000 (annual unitary charge) £8,130,000 (annual unitary charge)11
Hull and East Yorks £320,000 (annual unitary charge) £1,400,000 (annual unitary charge)11
UCLH Construction price for the 2 phases of the Construction price for the 2 phases of the
development was £153,000,000 development was £225,000,00012
2001 (only 3 major schemes signed contracts in 2001)
West Berkshire £4,019,512 (annual unitary charge) £4,020,000 (annual unitary charge)
Dudley £27,484,000 (annual unitary charge) £25954,000 (annual unitary charge)
West Middlesex £8,595,000 (annual unitary charge) £8,875,000 (annual unitary charge)
1 Final contract price includes interest rate adjustment.
2 Initial proposal was for all new build; this was negotiated by the Trust to be a mix of new build and refurbished buildings, hence the reduction in price.
3 Preferred bidder price for initial specification of 701 beds; final contract price for 809 beds.
4 Sterile services was removed after the preferred bidder stage; the design also underwent some changes.
5 Project underwent considerable service/build variations before contract close.
6 The figures in both columns for Swindon and Marlborough exclude facilities management costs because at preferred bidder stage the range of services to be included in the scheme had not yet been decided.
7 The scheme at preferred bidder stage was for the redevelopment of the existing Princess Margaret Hospital, whilst the charge at financial close is for a new build on a green field site i.e. a completely different type of project. The former had a substantial element of refurbished building and was around 10 per cent smaller.
8 Incorporates addition of 74 beds at Kidderminster and equipment.
9 Includes an adjustment to exclude the benefit of a capital sale receipt of £2.8 million to ensure a like-for-like comparison with final contract price.
10 The reduction was due to negotiations with the bidder, reduction in interest rates of 1.7 per cent and the sale of land which reduced the unitary charge by £492,000 per annum.
11 The scheme cost increased from £3.9 million to £8.1 million due to inclusion of additional facilities and "hard FM" services.
12 Scheme cost increased due to addition of more beds to the scheme following the National Beds Inquiry Report in February 2000.

Mr. Bercow

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Crawley Hospital Energy Management for the Surrey and Sussex Health Care NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49516]

Yvette Cooper

The Crawley scheme was set in April 1999 on a ten-year contract. It is a cost-neutral scheme (i.e. the costs of the scheme are offset by the energy savings generated).

for the five largest PFI contracts let by his Department in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [45591]

Mr. Hutton

[holding answer Monday 25 March]: The information requested is shown in the table (all figures are expressed in cash terms). Attention is drawn to the footnotes to the table as a lot of these early PFI schemes changed in functionality terms after the appointment of the preferred bidder.

The public sector comparator was made and showed the Honeywell Scheme to cost the Trust £400,000 less than pursuing a non-PFI alternative over the life of the scheme.