---

St. Bartholomew's Hospital

: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly, there is a financial case, but, none the less, as he has rightly pointed out, even that begins to fall when the facts of the matter are put into place. He also touched on demand. Demand is very prevalent in the parts of London that I represent and that are represented by the three hon. Ladies who have spoken and the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), who has not. It is estimated that there will be some 300,000 new residents in the Thames Gateway and a further 100,000 in Tower Hamlets. That is based on the Government's figures for population increase in the east of London. At a time of such planned population increase and with the average age of many local residents rising substantially, the decision to put Barts under threat seems short-sighted in the extreme. There is no need for us to shake our heads; we need to get together and put the wheels of this PFI back on the rails. I am cheered by the fact that so many Members on the Government Benches are present today. I understand that they will be making their feelings plain to the Prime Minister in a meeting later tonight with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), who was the very Minister who announced the saving of Barts in 1998. I am under no illusions. As an Opposition Member of Parliament there is only so much that I can do. Perhaps I can raise the profile of the issue, but, ultimately, it is for Government Back Benchers to have their say. I hope that it will be clear to the Minister that there is a unity of purpose among all of us who represent this vibrant part of the capital. The operation of the PFI is causing great grief. It may be expensive, but it is the only funding option in town for our hospitals today. The failure of this PFI in health care, alongside the recent breakdown in the major development in St. Mary's hospital, Paddington, may prove the thin end of the wedge. Other contracts, such as the one operating at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich, will bring trepidation to those who are relying on the future success of PFI programmes nationwide for their health care. In my previous debate in 2002, I made the point to the then Minister that we must have an eye on the decades to come rather than simply on the past. I appreciate that one could talk about the historic importance of Barts, going back almost 900 years, but if we look at the future, even in the past four years the Government have developed quite detailed plans to build many more homes in the Thames Gateway, especially for key workers who will be servicing central London day by day. Obviously, we have also won the Olympics bid in the past seven months. Whatever increase finally occurs, the east end of London, as one of the poorest communities in England—it is the poorer areas where the highest rates of heart disease and cancer occur, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury pointed out—deserves more investment in medical care, not less. It is painful to report the Government's intention to turn their back on the population of the east end of London. The case for redeveloping Barts and all its services has been made a long time ago and it is now a matter of the Government finding the money and letting that project blossom. Some people may wish to talk up the importance of cardiac and cancer care at Barts, but I want to talk about maintaining the viability of all the hospital's current operations and their importance both locally and nationally. Four years ago, in the light of the attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, I challenged a health Minister on what would happen should a major terrorist incident occur in the City and the importance that Barts and the London would undoubtedly play in the care of the injured. Tragically, such an event came to pass on 7 July last year. I should like to quote again from Alastair Wilson's letter. He said:"““On 7 July thirty major incident trained doctors and paramedics were transported to the sites of the explosions; trauma teams were assembled from all over the Trust to treat the awful shrapnel injuries and amputations caused by the bombs—we drew on all our expertise, including our cancer and cardiac colleagues from Bart's many of whom work also at the Royal London because of their interest in trauma care””." Those same people now feel desperately let down by a Government who only seven months ago were happy to bathe in the public's approval of our front-line health care professionals by stressing how their investment had led to such capability in the face of those terrible terrorist incidents. Alastair Wilson's words, and those of his colleagues, speak far more eloquently than anything that I can manage about the importance of Barts and the Royal London acting in concert. After decades of under-investment in local medical infrastructure, I believe that the people who live and work in the City and the east end of London deserve the centres of clinical excellence and medical care that they were promised. We will all continue fighting to ensure that we achieve them in the years ahead.