2.45 pm - 4 pm on 3 July 1997 at House of Commons - Committee Room 7
Present: Charles Clarke, (?) Doyle, Liz Trimble(?)
David Cane, Rachel Ripley, Paul Linstead, Shirley Clayton, Carol Stevenson, Ingo Wagenleicht(?), Roy Malmaly(?), Dave Raffee, Elizabeth Wallace, Sue Wright, Geoff Clayton, Amanda Williams, Simone Chinowitz, June Farrow, Gordon Dean, Brenda Hartley, Stephen Hartley, Patrick Sapr(?), David Cannon (notes)
Mr Clarke handed round copies of the letter he expected the Evening News to publish that day.
Matters discussed:
1. Mr Clarke's representation of his constituents
a. General unhappiness with the way he has presented the case to the government
b. Will Mr Clarke attend a public meeting?
c. Why have we had to come to see him instead of him coming to see us?
d. Why on 13 June did his office say a constituent could not see him for four weeks?
e. Why is Baroness Jay under the impression that the public welcomes this hospital? It doesn't appear that the minister listens. Will Mr Clarke inform her that she is mistaken?
f. Elected on a mandate to keep the hospital in Norwich - feel we have been sold down the river
g. Suggestion that he is a career politician, very intent on making a mark - not much interest in Norwich South.
h. Query why he can't get his point over to the minister
i. Will Mr Clarke speak in Commons about Colney?
RESPONSE: I'm meeting you because you asked me to. I met Denise within 10 days. I have explained the situation fully and openly. I have held constituency surgeries. I have talked to a number of people. I have been available. Sorry about the length of time to see me - takes time to get procedures up and running.
I would not circle the N&N. Not prepared to do it. Misleading to suggest there was a serious possibility of redevelopment at N&N.
In favour of city centre site - quite clear about that.
Review - far better to have a rapid review, but clear that it would not change anything - it would be misleading.
Personally spoken to Jay, Milburn and Dobson. They are aware that there is not consent in Norwich South - overwhelming majority want the hospital in the city centre. Ministers understand that.
NHS argues that there was a process, but overall environmental implications were not a factor - I want to ensure that they are in future.
My action is to try and secure the future of the health of the people of Norwich.
Politicians fill particular posts - not necessary to have particular expertise
ATTENDING A PUBLIC MEETING: I would not attend a KOHIN rally. I would consider an information meeting [not organised by KOHIN(?)]
SPEAKING IN COMMONS: Already spoken. Will speak again but will not take a different line.
2. The City Council's desire to meet Mr Dobson
a. Will Mr Dobson meet them?
b. What is Mr Clarke doing about it?
RESPONSE: There is a possibility that the minister will meet them
3. The contract and alleged compensation
a. Who signed it? By what power did they sign it?
b. Doubt that the contract is legally binding - make public the evidence so that legal advice can be sought
c. Need to make public supporting documentation so that legal advice can be sought
d. What legal advice has the government sought, or have they relied on N&N lawyers?
e. One partner to PFI scheme has already backed out, doesn't that alter things?
f. Need to renegotiate and put on priority footing
g. Can we have the contract put on hold? - upgrade existing hospital and renegotiate new hospital at a later date.
h. Why PFI? - not asking for brand new hospital - just redevelopment
i. Issue of vires - Dartford scheme - had to be dealt with by primary legislation
j. Baroness Jay evasive about compensation - says it is a matter for negotiation
k. What are the total costs over 60 years?
l. Mr Clarke says the contract is non-transferable, but what efforts have been made to try and transfer it?
RESPONSE: The legal advice is set out in the letter from the Health Authority and the Trust to me (Denise has a copy). Opinion that the Trust might be open to claims - costs to date + loss of profits over 60 years - potentially 10's or 100's of £ millions.
Legal power to sign by 1990 Act - gives NHS Trusts power to enter into contracts. DoH does not believe that NHS Trusts do not have the power to enter into PFI contracts. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell is the only bank which does not take this view. Queens' speech said a bill would 'clarify the law'.
Is this legal power right? Very clear advice, although accept that there are other legal opinions. Can fight it out in court. Recommend that City Council take legal advice. Julian Swainson (?) dealing with that - do not wish to prevent them. My view is that the advice is unlikely to differ.
I know a large number of people don't like PFI. I have spoken to Simon Hughes - very clear that Lib Dems oppose - not my view. My view is that PFI is necessary.
Ultimately can assemble another PFI contract, but the current one is based around Colney. People pressing very hard for PFI funding (43 projects). Prioritising - 6-10 will be built - will be announced 3.30 pm today (written answer?). All costing £30/40/50 million.
Alan Milburn - hard decisions. Can't ring-fence Norwich money - would have to start from scratch.
Reason PFI go for green field sites - easy to build there.
My view is that it should be in the city centre.
Cannot extend the life of the hospital more than 10 - 15 years. Decisions have to be taken now.
The agreement has been signed - no possibility of changing it.
The KOHIN campaign is misleading people that the hospital can be built in the city
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this is like a neighbour dispute - people have to argue their side.
It is fine to take another legal opinion. I have made available the advice from civil servants.
It is true I'm an outsider, but hospital concerns raised from the outset.
TOTAL COSTS to taxpayer over 60 years: Happy to pursue specifically. Contact not released because of commercial confidentiality.
Public money only available for minor projects - all major projects PFI
REVIEW: The best process would have been a formal review, but the effect of that review would have been to delay it. [Amanda handed a letter over]
PROCESS: The ideology of the department is that a proper process was followed. I don't accept that. Environmental considerations and effective evacuation of city centre create a different environment.
Whole process deeply flawed. Profoundly agree it was deeply flawed. page 9 criteria [what doc?] no environmental considerations.
JUDICIAL REVIEW: Legal processes correct at the time.
The issue is the policy and the process:
- Procedures completely flawed - my central view
But procedures of the time followed correctly
- Process they are supposed to follow is inadequate
PRE-ELECTION KNOWLEDGE: Knew about PFI - general nature. DoH PFI unit unable to answer (I was just a member of the public). Engaged Dorrell in letter. No one on the front bench had information.
Important that we look to the future - common ground
4. Retrospective legislation
a. Mr Clarke says the government will not pass retrospective legislation to overturn the contract, - yet NHS (Private Finance Bill) clause 1(6) gives retrospective legality to Colney hospital
RESPONSE: PFI Bill not required to make contracts legal retrospectively (law already allows them) - just clarification of the law.
5. Options open to constituents
a. Government has failed us. Either have to take direct action or get bogged down in legal wrangles.
No response.
A copy of these notes was given to Mr Clarke on 11 July 1997.
To date no comments or corrections have been received
Reflections after the meeting
The essential ingredients of the PFI contract are:
a) identifying a source of finance
b) identifying a site
c) confirming that income is available and that investment will be rewarded.
All three have been done, but surely the site is of minor importance. The money has been identified and the income is guaranteed, so why can't the site be changed?
The government doesn't seem to have taken this on board