Q131 Chair: Is it your view, is it the NAO view, that there is a potential there for some money back to the taxpayer out of that?
Amyas Morse: Perhaps I can put that a different way. Because people aren't doing these trades for fun, therefore I'm assuming that they're doing it to realise gain. Therefore, if you were able to establish that there is a pattern of systematically realising gains through trading equity as well as refinancing debt, you would imagine there might be a case, and I gather already from what Andrew Hudson has said that it has been considered, of saying, "We want to capture some of that gain from private-"
Q132 Chair: Do you agree with that, Mr Hudson?
Andrew Hudson: It's clearly something that we keep an eye on. Charles Lloyd has explained the reasons why Government policy so far has been not to seek to intervene in that particular bit of the market. If we can say any more, then we will let you have a note.
Q133 Chair: Just to pursue that, at present there is no review taking place that would suggest that, in the equity market in PFIs, we would look to the Government recouping some benefit from the profits made?
Andrew Hudson: We work on it in the sense that we keep an eye on how this market is working.
Q134 Chair: But that's very vague, isn't it?
Andrew Hudson: It's not a review as such. There is no review as such going on at the moment.
Q135 Mr Bacon: Mr Hudson, do you keep an eye on who the owners are? Do you know who all the owners are of these assets that are providing public services?
Andrew Hudson: We do.
Charles Lloyd: Yes, we do.
Q136 Mr Bacon: So you wouldn't have North Korea buying one of our hospitals without our knowing about it?
Charles Lloyd: We don't try and manage through the contract who the owners are.
Q137 Mr Bacon: I'm talking about after the initial construction phase and possibly any refinancing. I'm talking about whether, in the secondary market, once the asset has been sold and perhaps sold again-and the C&AG said that he was aware of 150 or so such transactions-and perhaps sold again two or three times further, do you, at each stage, up to and including the most recent owner, know who the owner is?
Charles Lloyd: We know who the owners are. Other than in a very small subset of sensitive defence contracts, the contracts don't contain arrangements precluding certain categories of people from owning that equity.
Q138 Ian Swales: Can I just ask, because I think we need to move on to the end, just one specific question, because I think that there's quite a bit of confusion about policy. In March this year, a new hospital was announced for the area between Stockton and Hartlepool, costing £460 million. The Trust was told it would be funded directly by the Department of Health. Does that make any sense to you?
Andrew Hudson: There will always be a judgment; there's always been a mixed economy, if you like, in terms of some facilities in different sectors being provided through public money, some through PFI. That's a judgment as to what's appropriate in each case.
Q139 Ian Swales: Why would a £460 million hospital suddenly be funded by the Treasury, as opposed to PFI, which I understood was the normal way of doing these things?
Andrew Hudson: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that particular example, but it would be a judgment based on the availability of public finance and a value for money judgment.
Q140 Chair: Why don't we get a note on that one?
Andy Rose: I think it's fair to agree with the NAO. The NAO suggests there should never be an assumption that PFI is value for money, and I think that has always been Treasury's view; that there is no assumption. I don't think the default situation is it should be PFI-