oh dear: PFI schemes 'to cost NHS £53bn'

[hyperD]

HMG use PFI to keep debt off the balance of payments. Imagine how much worse they would be without PFI.

HMG use PFI to keep debt off the balance of payments. Imagine how much tax we're going to have to give to pay for it all.

[wendigo100]

HMG use PFI to keep debt off the balance of payments. Imagine how much worse they would be without PFI.

[Stan]

Yes this is one of the main problems, if you are a PFI school/hospital you have to go through the company in the contract even if they are charging you £300 to change a lightbulb.

[BoredBloke]

"Actually, I think it does matter who started it as the problem with this PFI convey belt is that once you start using it for projects it is difficult to get off."

The point I was making was a bad idea is a bad idea - It doesn't matter who suggested the idea, if it is bad then it is bad. So because the Tories proposed a bad idea in 1992, does that mean that NL cannot be held accountable for using it in 2006?

So effectively what you are saying is that to build x number of hospitals it will cost £8bln. To run them for the next 30 years will cost another £46bln. Presumably that is just the maintenance of the hospital and its other running costs - not the costs associated with treating the patients since that is a NHS cost.

I heard an example where a a PFI trust wanted a white board moving from one wall to the other in the same office. They were quoted over £2k to move it and a further £50 per year to maintain it

[tim123]

It doesn't actually matter who suggested the initial idea. It matters who gave the go ahead for a particular scheme and the terms, conditions and costs associated with it. £56bln does not seem a fair price to pay for an investment of £8bln.

Actually, I think it does matter who started it as the problem with this PFI convey belt is that once you start using it for projects it is difficult to get off. But that's a long explaination that I don't have time for.

But back to the 8 bil v 56 bil discussion. This is an apples and oranges comparison (or rather an apples and oranges plus pag to put them in plus salary for person who carries the bag comparison).

The 8 bil is only the cost of building the building. The 56 bil is the cost of building it, plus the total cost of running it for 30 years. Its just political spin.

tim

[BoredBloke]

It doesn't actually matter who suggested the initial idea. It matters who gave the go ahead for a particular scheme and the terms, conditions and costs associated with it. £56bln does not seem a fair price to pay for an investment of £8bln.

[hyperD]

Although the Tories started this controversial system in 1992 under Major, the scale of PFI projects in the Health & Education sector undertaken by liebour since 1997 has increased enormously and is now having a serious impact on Public Service Budgets.

[tim123]

What annoys me most about all this politicking over PFI, is that it was the bloody Tories who were the first to recommend using it.

They will, no doubt, decide that it is a good thing after all should they get back in to power any time soon (like during the rest of my working life)

Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle.

tim

[BoredBloke]

In years to come this shower of sh1te we have in charge will be seen in their true light. When we are paying for thier mistakes and lies way off into the future.

[Mordac]

Actually you're right. I couldn't be arsed to read the whole article and thought they were talking about the NPfIT as well. That's another £15bn or so on top. We won't be able to afford all those wars soon.

[wendigo100]

And Accidenture still walked away. Where's all the fecking money going then?

I didn't know they had walked away from construction as well. I thought it was just NPfIT.

[Mordac]

MF = MarillionFan. Did an NHS contract. Writes reports. Smells a bit.

[Keitel]

PFI schemes 'to cost NHS £53bn'

The NHS will pay private companies £53bn for private finance initiative hospitals worth only £8bn, the Conservatives have revealed.

The figures emerged in a response to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.

Under PFI, a private company builds a hospital and then collects "rent" from the NHS for around 30 years.

The government said the comparison was misleading, as the total cost includes cleaning and buildings maintenance.

It says the flagship PFI policy means the private sector bears the risk and cost of building new hospitals.

But unions said PFI schemes were "expensive, inflexible and adding to financial burdens".

There are 58 NHS PFI schemes already open with another 30 under construction.

Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "Six years ago, Labour promised the biggest ever hospital building programme in the history of the NHS.

"Now, they say they do not want care to be provided in hospitals after all.

"It is perverse that, with hospitals around the country now suffering cutbacks and closures, over 80 NHS organisations are locked into long-term contracts for the building of large hospitals that we have no idea whether the NHS will actually need."

He added: "While there is a key need for private sector investment in the NHS, Gordon Brown has failed to recognise that 30-year-long PFI contracts are often at odds with the Government's concept of competition between hospitals.

"The extra costs of £45bn are completely unjustifiable in the context of an NHS under intolerable financial pressure."

He added: "Every hospital I talk to wants the freedom to structure its borrowing projects as they wish. For all too many, PFI has turned into a straitjacket."

A Department of Health spokesman said comparing PFI capital construction value and full-life costs was like comparing "chalk and cheese".

---------

They will need to hire MF to redo all their reports to fit those 10 digit numbers

Who are MF? Is this an abbreviation for MotherF cuk ers ?

[Mordac]

And Accidenture still walked away. Where's all the fecking money going then?

[AtW]

PFI schemes 'to cost NHS £53bn'

The NHS will pay private companies £53bn for private finance initiative hospitals worth only £8bn, the Conservatives have revealed.

The figures emerged in a response to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.

Under PFI, a private company builds a hospital and then collects "rent" from the NHS for around 30 years.

The government said the comparison was misleading, as the total cost includes cleaning and buildings maintenance.

It says the flagship PFI policy means the private sector bears the risk and cost of building new hospitals.

But unions said PFI schemes were "expensive, inflexible and adding to financial burdens".

There are 58 NHS PFI schemes already open with another 30 under construction.

Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "Six years ago, Labour promised the biggest ever hospital building programme in the history of the NHS.

"Now, they say they do not want care to be provided in hospitals after all.

"It is perverse that, with hospitals around the country now suffering cutbacks and closures, over 80 NHS organisations are locked into long-term contracts for the building of large hospitals that we have no idea whether the NHS will actually need."

He added: "While there is a key need for private sector investment in the NHS, Gordon Brown has failed to recognise that 30-year-long PFI contracts are often at odds with the Government's concept of competition between hospitals.

"The extra costs of £45bn are completely unjustifiable in the context of an NHS under intolerable financial pressure."

He added: "Every hospital I talk to wants the freedom to structure its borrowing projects as they wish. For all too many, PFI has turned into a straitjacket."

A Department of Health spokesman said comparing PFI capital construction value and full-life costs was like comparing "chalk and cheese".

---------

They will need to hire MF to redo all their reports to fit those 10 digit numbers