Mr. Burrowes (con): I thank the Prime Minister for that comprehensive answer on his engagements. I am sure that the whole House wishes to associate itself with those words of condolence.
In 1997, the Prime Minister said that there were
“24 hours to save the NHS”.
Why is it that, more than 87,600 hours later, his successor is indicating that there is still a need to save the NHS? Given that Enfield Chase Farm hospital is tomorrow publishing plans to cut maternity and accident and emergency services, is it more or less likely that in the next 24 hours, with a new Prime Minister, local health services will be saved?
The Prime Minister: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as he knows, the proposals for the hospitals in his constituency were reviewed by Sir George Alberti, who is someone who has spent a whole lifetime of service in the national health service. He said:
“Put starkly, it is evident that high quality modern care cannot be provided for all specialties in all three acute hospitals in the area.”
He therefore said specifically that there had to be change. However, that change goes alongside 26 different facilities and schemes, with a value of £1.7 billion, that have opened in the hon. Gentleman’s area, and thousands more staff. Whereas in 1997, people used to wait more than 18 months for their operation—people used to die on waiting lists—now, those waiting lists are at record lows.