| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Rail Network
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many coaches are operating on the rail network; and how many are projected to be in operation in 2005. [28562]
Mr. Spellar: There are approximately 10,000 vehicles currently in operation on the national rail network. It is anticipated that, after taking into account those coaches which must be withdrawn from service, there will be in the region of 10,500 vehicles in operation by 2005.
There are to date 2,218 confirmed orders for new coaches to replace older stock before 2005.
Selby Rail Crash
Mr. Grogan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding the application made by North Yorkshire Police Authority under the Bellwin scheme to cover its costs associated with the Selby rail crash. [33740]
Mr. Raynsford: I have received a request from North Yorkshire Police Authority for assistance under the Bellwin scheme with the exceptional costs they incurred in connection with the Selby rail crash. I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of North Yorkshire Police Authority given the exceptional nature of the costs incurred by the authority following the rail crash. A scheme will, therefore be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold, which the authority incurred in dealing with the rail crash.
Strategic Rail Plan
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether public investment in the Railways under the 10-year plan includes the public sector contribution to projected payments to Railtrack in Control Period 2. [32945]
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Network grants to Railtrack, and its successor company, are classified as public investment support. The proportion of the renewals investment programme that is unsupported by grant is classified as private investment.
Railtrack
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total (a) loan facility and (b) working capital facility drawn down by the Railtrack Administrator under the commercial loan agreement is. [32938]
5 Feb 2002 : Column 836W
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 4 February 2002]: £1,492,017,636 has been drawn down from the loan facility. Nothing has been drawn down from the working capital facility.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the additional money originally announced on 14 January for the railways includes the additional funding for Railtrack brought forward from Control Period 3 into Control Period 2. [32937]
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 30 January 2002, Official Report, column 322W.
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 9W, on Railtrack, for whom the assessment of cash-flow from assets was conducted; why his Department conducted an assessment of the cash-flows provided by assets from Railtrack, but no assessment of the direct value of assets in (i) Railtrack plc and (ii) Railtrack Group; and if he will make a statement. [32694]
Mr. Jamieson: I refer the hon. Member to previous replies given to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 31W, 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 496W, and 3 December 2001, Official Report, column 22W.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether Railtrack needed to raise more money during the current financial year than was envisaged in its business plan. [32741]
Mr. Spellar: The evidence to the High Court on 7 October 2001 demonstrated that Railtrack plc was, or was soon likely to become, unable to meet its existing debts. On that basis it could not raise the money envisaged in its business plan.
TREASURY
Treasury Building PFI Deal
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total costs involved in the Exchequer Partnership bond issue for the Treasury Building PFI deal were including total fees paid to banks, professional advisers and others, showing for each amount paid the (a) payer and (b) payee. [32214]
Mr. Andrew Smith: The information is as follows:
(i) Fees paid by EP up to and including financial close (May 2000), as shown in the financial model, were:
5 Feb 2002 : Column 837W
(ii) Fees paid by HMT up to and including financial close were:
| £ million | ||
|---|---|---|
| GTMS | Project management and technical advice | 0.462 |
| Berwin Leighton | Legal advice | 1.355 |
| Dresdner Kleinwort Benson | Financial advice | 0.645 |
| Cecil Denny Highton | Advice on accommodation requirements | 0.101 |
| C. B. Hillier Parker | Specialist property-related advice | 0.013 |
| Roger Preston & Partners | Mechanical and electrical engineering advice | 0.043 |
| Willis Corroon | Insurance advice | 0.006 |
| PricewaterhouseCoopers | Accountancy advice | 0.012 |
| Total | 2.637 |
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total (a) refurbishment and (b) operating costs are of the Treasury building, broken down by the principal cost headings used. [32210]
Ruth Kelly: As at financial close (5 May 2000), the total projected costs to the start of operations are:
| Total | ||
|---|---|---|
| Funding requirement | £ million | Percentage |
| Net VAT paid/(received) | 0.115 | 0.1 |
| Construction cost | 118.659 | 84.2 |
| Pre-operating costs | 7.578 | 5.4 |
| Senior debt service reserve | 4.392 | 3.1 |
| Change in law reserve | 2.419 | 1.7 |
| Cash | 0.608 | 0.4 |
| Interest and fees: | 0.800 | 0.6 |
| Mezzanine Debt Bond (net of interest received) | 6.394 | 4.5 |
| Total | 140.965 | 100.0 |
The annual service costs payable to EP form part of the single Unitary Payment payable by HMT. These costs are expressed in March 1999 prices and are subject to indexation:
| £000 | |
|---|---|
| Hard services(9) | 1,504 |
| Soft services(10) | 1,930 |
| Total services | 3,434 |
| Capital charges | 10,603 |
| Total unitary payment | 14,037 |
(9) Includes M&E systems, building fabric, fire and safety systems, security hardware.
(10) Includes cleaning and waste management, security personnel, Help Desk.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the 10 years prior to the Treasury Building PFI deal, how much the Treasury has paid in annual rent for the Treasury Building. [32207]
5 Feb 2002 : Column 838W
Ruth Kelly: Figures for the years up to 1995–96 are not readily available. Figures for later years are in an answer I am giving to the hon. Member today.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions have been made about inflation in the Treasury Building PFI deal. [32204]
Ruth Kelly: The base case assumption was a constant 2.5 per cent. annual increase in the RPI all items index.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discount rate was used for the Treasury Building PFI deal; and, using this discount rate, what the total net present cost is of the annual unitary payments over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal. [32215]
Ruth Kelly: The total net present cost of the annual unitary payments over the lifetime of the deal is £169.3 million, discounted at 6 per cent. in real terms and assuming 2.5 per cent. inflation.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the terms of the Treasury Building PFI deal, who owns the freehold of the Treasury Building. [32212]
Mr. Andrew Smith: The building remains a Crown freehold throughout the term of the deal. Exchequer Partnership plc will be granted a head lease for the whole site on completion of the refurbishment of the Treasury accommodation at the west end of the summer. They will then grant the Treasury a sub-lease for our accommodation for the thirty-five year operating period. Once the eastern end is refurbished, Exchequer Partnership will grant similar sub-leases to the tenants there.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total capital sum involved in the Treasury Building PFI deal was, broken down by (a) equity and (b) the different layers of debt. [32213]
Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows:
| Total | ||
|---|---|---|
| £ million | Percentage | |
| Ordinary Shares | 0.500 | 0.4 |
| Shareholder Loan Stock | 6.425 | 4.5 |
| Mezzanine Debt | 6.250 | 4.4 |
| Bond | 127.790 | 90.7 |
| Total | 140.965 | 100.0 |
Note:
The equity comprises the ordinary shares and the shareholder loan stock, a total of £6.925 million, or 4.9 per cent. of the total funding.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total annual operating costs were for the Treasury Building in each of the four years prior to the Treasury building PFI deal, broken down by (a) cleaning, (b) security, (c) electricity, (d) water, (e) gas, (f) non- domestic rates, (g) basic maintenance, (h) exceptional maintenance and (i) other significant operating cost items. [32209]
Ruth Kelly: The Treasury building is a Crown freehold so has not been subject to conventional rents. For the four years prior to the PFI deal a capital charge (an intra- Government transfer payment) has been payable on the Treasury building. The Treasury has another building—
5 Feb 2002 : Column 839W
Allington Towers (AT) in Victoria street—which is a leasehold building so subject to rental payments to a landlord. The intention is to surrender the Allington Towers lease when the staff there have moved into the refurbished Treasury building this summer. While the
5 Feb 2002 : Column 840W
refurbishment of the west end of the Treasury building is going ahead, some two thirds of our staff remain in the east end of the building while the remaining third are housed at Allington Towers. The total costs of running the two buildings are set out in the table.
| 1996–97 | 1997–98 | 1998–99 | 1999–2000 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Items included in unitary payment: | ||||
| Rent/capital charge | 4.71 | 4.91 | 4.69 | 6.62 |
| Cleaning/security/maintenance | 2.1 | 3.03 | 2.62 | 2.21 |
| Items not included in the unitary payment: | ||||
| Rates, utilities' costs, copying, furniture and fittings | 3.114 | 2.861 | 2.897 | 2.985 |
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury Building PFI deal ends, how much at current prices he estimates the Treasury will pay in annual rent. [32208]
Ruth Kelly: At the end of the PFI deal in 2037 ownership of the building reverts to the Treasury. We then have a choice whether to negotiate a new deal with Exchequer Partnership, or another supplier, or to take responsibility for running the building ourselves once again.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the total amount of cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal would have been if the discount rate had been (a) 3.50 per cent., (b) 3.75 per cent., (c) 4.00 per cent., (d) 4.25 per cent., (e) 4.50 per cent., (f) 4.75 per cent., (g) 5.00 per cent. and (h) 5.50 per cent. [32201]
Ruth Kelly: Under current Treasury guidance to Departments on the carrying out of investment appraisals (the "Green Book") the discount rate to be used is 6 per cent. in real terms. Were the guidance to be changed in the future, other parts of the methodology might also vary. So simply changing one variable, in this case the discount rate, is not valid.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the total amount of cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal assuming no inflation. [32200]
Ruth Kelly: The Unitary Payment (UP) is set at £14.037 million per annum in March 1999 prices, to be indexed annually by the RPI. Assuming no inflation, therefore, the Treasury would pay £491.3 million over the 35 year contract term.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of issue of the Exchequer Partnership bond for the Treasury Building PFI deal, what the total extra cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal would have been for every change of 0.1 per cent. in the bond spread. [32202]
Ruth Kelly: The total additional payment over the lifetime of the project would have been £6.568 million per 0.1 per cent. increase in the bond spread. The NPC impact of a 0.1 per cent. increase is £1.329 million (discounted at 6 per cent. real), and the annual increase in the Unitary Payment would have been £110,00 as at 31 March 1999.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates the bond spread of the Exchequer Partnership bond issued for the Treasury Building PFI deal would have had to widen before the project had become unviable. [32203]
Ruth Kelly: The contract with EP provided for a cap of £14.2 million on the Unitary Payment (i.e £13.981 at the time the contract was signed in August 1999) if funding was subsequently secured through the bond route. If the cap had been exceeded, then it would have been for the Treasury to decide whether a new, higher figure would still have provided good value for money.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer using the Treasury's inflation assumptions for the Treasury Building PFI deal, what he estimates the total amount of cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership will be over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal. [32205]
Ruth Kelly: £838.154 million. This equates to £169.3 million in net present cost terms, discounted at 6 per cent. in real terms and assuming 2.5 per cent. inflation.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the total amount of cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership will be over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal assuming a constant inflation rate of (a) 2.00 per cent., (b) 2.25 per cent., (c) 2.50 per cent., (d) 2.75 per cent., (e) 3.00 per cent., (f) 4.00 per cent. and (g) 5.00 per cent. [32206]
Ruth Kelly: These calculations have no bearing on the value for money assessment since the project appraisal is conducted in real terms.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the total net present cost of the annual unitary payments by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal would have been if the discount rate had been (a) 3.50 per cent., (b) 3.75 per cent., (c) 4.00 per cent., (d) 4.25 per cent., (e) 4.50 per cent., (f) 4.75 per cent., (g) 5.00 per cent. and (h) 5.50 per cent. [32216]
Ruth Kelly: Under current Treasury guidance to Departments on the carrying out of investment appraisals (the "Green Book") the discount rate to be used is 6 per cent. in real terms. Were the guidance to be changed in the future, other parts of the methodology might also vary. So simply changing one variable, in this case the discount rate, is not valid.
5 Feb 2002 : Column 841W
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the (a) gross and (b) net proceeds were from the Exchequer Partnership Bond issue. [32211]
Ruth Kelly: The gross proceeds were £127.790 million and the net proceeds £123.639 million.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |