Proceeding contribution from Mark Field (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 24 January 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
St. Bartholomew's Hospital
: I agree entirely, and the hon. Lady might not appreciate that the Westminster side of my constituency has had a similar problem with the Paddington health campus in relation to St. Mary's, Paddington. Great amounts of money have been spent, as has been well documented, and £100 million will be lost if this private finance initiative project does not go ahead because Skandia has already expended that money, which is ring-fenced from its point of view. As the hon. Lady says, it is inexplicable that a review is taking place at this stage. It makes no sense financially, apart from the other problems to which I referred and shall continue to refer during the rest of my speech. Barts is internationally renowned for medical excellence. Institutionally, it is equally well-known throughout the nation. I would not mind betting that if we asked people anywhere in the United Kingdom to name a hospital other than their own local general hospital, Barts would be mentioned more than any other. I am afraid to say that it has only been in the 58 years since the nationalised health service came into being that the future of England's oldest hospital has been threatened. I said at the outset that introducing this debate gives me no pleasure. After five years of representing the Cities of London and Westminster constituency, I am completely at a loss to understand, just as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) was a moment ago, the Government's strategy for the provision of health care in central and east London. Judging from my own postbag and discussions with the many health professionals in my constituency, others share that incomprehension. In a letter published in the Evening Standard last week, Alistair Wilson, the accident and emergency clinical director of the Barts and The London NHS Trust, put the case on the broken promises to Barts and the London succinctly. He highlighted the crucial capacity offered by the two hospitals during the 7 July bombings last year. One of those bombings took place on the edge of my constituency, by Aldgate tube station. He also wrote about the expectations of what Barts and the London will do when the next terrorist strike occurs—we pray to God that that will not happen any time soon—or indeed during the London Olympics in six years' time. The nation is united in its support for Barts as a hospital and as a national treasure. Last week, I met Professor Charles Hinds, who spent his entire medical career at Barts, to discuss the critical importance of the PFI project to the future of the hospital. Without PFI, Barts probably has no future as a medical institution. There has already been huge investment in the new breast cancer centre in the west wing of Barts, which was predicated on the fully-fledged PFI taking place. Without the revenue from a cardiac and cancer care centre at Barts, the entire business case for the PFI, and the work of the Royal London in relation to cancer and heart care, seems to fail.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 441 c396WH
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Buildings City of London Cancer Hospitals Health services Finance Greater London Heart diseases Essex Private finance initiative Reviews St Bartholomew's Hospital Accident and emergency departments Thames Gateway Barts and The London NHS Trust Skanska Royal London Hospital
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 23:03:38 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294106
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294106
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_294106