St Bartholomew's Hospital
Ms Diane Abbott: It was eight years ago that the people of the east end and Londoners generally fought a tremendous struggle to save Barts hospital. The proposals then came from a Conservative Government, and we were proud that a Labour Minister for Health was able to announce that he would save Barts. It is therefore with deep sadness that I rise to contemplate yet another threat to the future and viability of Barts and the Royal London.
To remind hon. Members who were not here eight years ago, the argument then, in the light of the Tomlinson review, was that there was too much medical provision in London: it was over-resourced with hospitals and health care, and that that was why Barts had to close. It is sad indeed to have to revisit those arguments. However, as colleagues will remind the Chamber, there are pockets of poverty in inner London as bad as anywhere in Britain.
Taking a slide rule or a tape measure to the number of hospitals within the M25 and arguing that London is overprovided misses other factors, such as the high number of refugees with endemic health problems and the logistical problems in London. It is easy to take a ruler and stretch it across a map from Stoke Newington to the Royal London hospital and ask, "Why do these people need Barts when they can go somewhere else in London?" People should try joining a mother with a push chair and a couple of children on the three buses that it takes to get from parts of my constituency to the Royal London to understand how ludicrous that position is. Eight years ago we fought with Ministers about that slide-rule, accountants' approach to medical care. That approach did not consider the need and the endemic problems—including the understating of the population in London by the census and other statisticians, and the poor housing—yet, on the basis of accountancy rules, said that we had too much health care. However, we are now revisiting the issue.
As I said, Barts is not the closest hospital to my constituency. However, although Homerton hospital has an excellent reputation and is one of the leading hospitals in London, Barts has a special place in the hearts of Londoners, not only because it has been there for so long but because of the high standard of care that Londoners, particularly in the east end, have grown accustomed to receiving there.
Emily Thornberry : Taking the slide-rule approach to consider the future of Barts for a moment, does my hon. Friend appreciate that the current price of the cardiac and cancer care services that Barts provides for the east end and north of London is some £16 million? If Barts were redeveloped under the private finance initiative, that would be £20 million—an additional £4 million. To uncouple Barts from the London PFI would not make a dramatic difference, given the amount of money that we are using in any event. I would suggest that we need not turn our back on the PFI, even under the slide-rule test.
Ms Abbott : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Even under the rules of cold-hearted accountants, it does not make sense to decouple the development at Barts from the bigger PFI, which includes the Royal London.
Meg Hillier : Given that north-west London has five hospitals specialising in heart problems, does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that my constituents and hers should also have access to a good heart hospital in the east end?
Ms Abbott : 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 commands 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?
Miss Anne Begg (in the Chair): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that this is a half-hour debate and we have to allow the Minister time to reply. She already has less than 10 minutes to do so. If the hon. Lady can wind up her remarks now, I should be most grateful.
Ms Abbott : I would not dream of not allowing the Minister time to reply.
The review of the Barts and The London PFI at this late stage makes no financial sense. It makes no health care sense. It makes no political sense. I can assure the Minister that the issue goes beyond party loyalties, and that all concerned and involved MPs in London will unite to fight the latest threat to Barts.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jane Kennedy) : It is a pleasure to be debating this subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing the debate about the future of Barts. I accept that it is a subject of worry not only to his constituents but, as demonstrated by the presence here of his hon. Friends and my hon. Friends, clearly one of great interest to them. I have been following the debate in the local media, too. I acknowledge up front the role played by Barts and the Royal London in the emergency that faced London last year. No one who watched those events without the great sadness and horror that we all shared could have anything other than admiration for the way in which the staff responded in the circumstances.
I also say up front that there are no plans to close St. Bartholomew's hospital. Barts is renowned internationally for its medical and nursing excellence. It was founded in 1123, well before the creation of the NHS. Today, it provides a range of specialities from a 388-bed facility.
back ⇢