---

St. Bartholomew's Hospital

: That is right, but I do not want to take the argument forward on the basis of comparison, because that is what got us into trouble in the Tomlinson review. I want to take the argument forward on the basis of need, and the need for the services that Barts produces is real and quantifiable. Barts holds a special affection in the hearts of Londoners. They were promised that it would be saved and that they would have world-class cardiac facilities on that site. I cannot believe that my Government intend to go back on that promise now. If, at the last minute, there is an attempt to decouple the Barts part of the PFI from the general redevelopment of London, that will cost the taxpayer money. Skanska, the approved developer, could walk away with £100 million in compensation. What sense does that make? I understand from Ministers that they are asking for the review at the last minute because the decision was made four years ago and things have changed in four years. Let me tell them that there are not fewer people; there are not fewer ill people nor are there fewer people suffering from heart disease and cancer in my constituency than there were four years ago. What do they believe has become so much better about health outcomes in the east end that they can justify throwing away £100 million of taxpayers' money on compensation to a developer at the last minute?