Q121 Mr Bacon: That is what I am interested in.
Mr Stewart: That is not equivalent to the debt.
Q122 Mr Bacon: Right, so the debt is something different?
Mr Stewart: The debt relates to the capital element so the unitary charges include payments for soft services.
Q123 Mr Bacon: You brilliantly bring me on to my next question because presumably therefore, to take an example on your website, the MoD building is £439 million capital value in there. Last time I looked last year it said £300 million and something, so quite how it has gone up I do not know, but, anyway, the National Audit Office Report said £746 million was the value of the contract and the difference which is quite significance is accounted for --- sorry I am getting mixed up, it is not £458 million it is £370 million, the difference between the £439 million on your website which says capital value and the £746 million referred to in the National Audit Office Report where it says the price of the 30-year deal is £746.1 million, that difference of £448 million is accounted for by what, just the soft services-I am sorry it is £307 million, the difference of £307 million is accounted for by what?
Mr Stewart: You have the advantage of figures which I am not familiar with. I am afraid I do not know all the figures in our database. I can give you a note on that if you would like.
Q124 Mr Bacon: It puzzles me that here we have the National Audit Office itself saying that the value of this deal-and, Sir John, you will remember the MoD building very well, you did a big Report on it-and it was £746 million, the number stuck in my head very clearly, and yet your website says that the value of this deal at least the capital value (you wrote down the words capital value) is £439 million.
Mr Stewart: I suspect the difference between the two figures is the lower figure is the capital and the higher figure is the unitary charge, but I do not know, I am guessing.
Q125 Mr Bacon: £746 million is that upon which the unitary charge is based, presumably, is it not?
Mr Stewart: I am sorry, I am just not familiar with this project.
Q126 Mr Bacon: I am running out of time but I would just like to ask one other question, if I may very briefly, and that relates to the Libra project. On your website it says £38.9 million, that is the capital value of that project. We knew when the National Audit Office published its Report on 29 January 2003 that the Government had spent £390 million on it. Last June Alex Allan told us that it has now gone up by another £98 million so it is now £487 million. The difference between £487 million and what you have got on there of £38.9, that is my £448 million. Where did that £448 million go?
Mr Stewart: Again I am afraid I am not familiar with that project. What I would just point out is that our database was something that we created three to four years ago. We rely on information received by departments and local authorities. We rely on them providing that voluntarily. We are not required to forensically examine that information. We provide it as the best information we can produce and it is helpful to both public sector and private sector alike. We do not give a 100% guarantee that the data is all correct. It has a different nature to the data that is supplied for the Red Book. It is designed to be helpful to the market rather than, as I said, we do not go to the nth degree to get it 100% accurate.
Mr Kingman: I do not want to interrupt but I think I may be able to answer your question on the MoD building, if that would be useful. We coffered this in the letter that I sent to the Chairman following the last hearing and there were two figures, one was £746 million and one was £345 million. Both those figures are correct. The £345 million is the capital value and the £746 million is the net present value of the unitary charge payments.
Q127 Mr Bacon: Yes, but the unitary charge payments over the life of the project reflect the cost of servicing the PFI in total, do they not, including the cost of constructing the thing.
Mr Stewart: And providing services so that the building is available over the lifetime of the contract with whatever services are in the contract, so it is not right to equate that simply with borrowing.
Q128 Mr Bacon: Of course the cost, as we know, is more like £2.3 billion the MoD will actually pay. It was £2.5 billion, it seems to have come down to £2.3 billion now, so it is interesting the capital value is so much lower. Is it possible, Mr Kingman, you will know roughly what my question is from the transcript about this total debt therefrom. I would rather rely on the Treasury website than the Partnerships UK one, if you can send us a note giving us a more accurate rendition of my rather quickly calculated number and then explain --- what was the date to?
Mr Pocklington: 2031-32.
Q129Mr Bacon: Is it possible you could first do it up to 2031 as far as it goes and then explain in total how much there is beyond that accounted for by whatever contracts there are that for some reason or other run longer than that?
Mr Kingman: We will certainly do our best. I am not sure there is anything very useful we will be able to say about the period beyond 2031-32.
Mr Bacon: I am looking for a number that probably is in the region of £150 billion to £160 billion, by the sound of it, but I would like a more accurate one and some assessment from you of where you think it might be going after on that, so if you add the two together you would get a total public sector liability.
Q130 Chairman: Under your own rules you will agree to do that within two weeks. I think that concludes our hearing. These are poor Reports and given that we are in front of supposedly the brightest minds in the Civil Service we have not found your performance very reassuring. We last looked at this four years ago and found that PFI deals were slow and cumbersome and as such posed a threat to taxpayers' money. Since then we are seeing departments persistently underestimating the cost of launching PFI deals, adviser costs alone have soared to 75% more than expected, a third of all deals went through major changes with only one bidder left at the table. We think there has been a lot of foot-dragging on the part of departments and, as we have found out today and seen in this Report, PFI deals are lasting about three years, wasting, as I say, tens of millions of pounds. So we will issue another Report and, Mr Kingman, when we return to this again in four years' time we hope to see a lot more progress because PFI was supposed to be the glad, confident morning of contracting services in the public sector. It may be a good idea, and we are not competent to make policy on this issue, but it seems there have been enormous wasted opportunities and we the taxpayer are paying the price. You may make a final comment if you wish.
Mr Kingman: I would only add, Chairman, that we too hope and indeed expect, as and when we appear in front of you next time, to be able to show that there has been more progress.
Chairman: Thank you very much.