Appendix 3 Survey results by department compared with the earlier PAC survey

Alan Williams' MP survey (2000) and NAO Survey (2002)

Main survey responses by department

 

 

Alan Williams' MP survey 2000

NAO survey 2002

Department

Responses

Sharing mechanism

Responses

Sharing mechanism

 

 

Number of project

% of projects

 

Number of project

% of projects

Department of Health

18

9

50

35

20

57

Ministry of Defence

30

9

30

28

8

28

Department for Education and Skills (formerly DfEE)

3

0

 

13

12

92

Department for Transport. (formerly part of DETR and DTLR)

21

2

10

11

4

36

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (formerly part of DETR and DTLR)

-

-

-

3

1

33

Home Office 

15

(including 
HM Prison Service)

0

8

1

12

 

HM Prison Service

(see above)

 

 

9

1

11

Lord Chancellor's Department

6

3

50

7

3

43

Inland Revenue

0

 

 

6

1

16

Department for Work and Pensions (formerly DSS and DfEE and DTLR)

1

1

100

4

119

25

Department of Trade and Industry

3

0

 

3

0

 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

3

0

 

3

0

 

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

1

0

 

2

0

 

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (formally MAFF)

1

0

 

2

1

50

UK Passport Agency

0

 

 

1

0

 

Her Majesty's Treasury

1

1

100

1

1

100

Customs and Excise

0

 

 

1

0

 

National Savings and Investments

0

 

 

1

20

 

Office of Government Commerce

0

 

 

1

021

 

Wales

2

0

24

-

-

-

Total:

105

0

24

139

54

39

NOTES

1.  The data analysed in the survey by Alan Williams MP was based on responses to Parliamentary Questions in 2000 asking departments to report all PFI contracts which had been let, whether the contracts had been subject to a refinancing and whether the contract had an arrangement to share refinancing gains. The NAO survey in 2002 asked more extensive questions (see Appendix 2), included contracts let since the Alan Williams survey but excluded any contracts with a capital value less than £10 million (as these are unlikely to yield significant refinancing gains).

2.  The NHS responses to the Alan Williams survey were restricted to projects with a capital value of at least £25 million.

3.  Following the change in audit arrangements regarding the devolved regions, the NAO survey in 2002 did not include Wales.

4.  This is the percentage of all contracts responding to the NAO survey which had mechanisms to share refinancing gains. As set out in Figure 12 on page 25, 91 per cent of contracts let since June 2001 had mechanisms to share refinancing gains. The overall percentage is only 39 per cent because most contracts let at the time of the survey had been let before June 2000 and as set out in Figure 12 only 26 per cent of these contracts had mechanisms to share refinancing gains. In the intervening period (the year to June 2001) the percentage had risen to 54 per cent.




___________________________________________________________________
19  The PRIME project does not have a specific mechanism for sharing refinancing gains and thus we have excluded it from this column. However, it does have a mechanism for sharing windfall gains and profits which may include refinancing benefits and thus was included in the results from Alan Williams' survey.

20  National Savings and Investments is financed internally by the contractor and therefore refinancing is not an issue.
21  This is a very early PFI contract let before the formation of the OGC but now managed by the OGC.