As in the past, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has presented a sterling and forthright case in defence of Oldchurch hospital. I know he will agree that it is sad that this is not the first time we have had to defend that excellent hospital, which so many local people support in the most practical way possible—by going there for operations and medical treatment. It seems to me that that is the single most telling and lasting tribute to the hospital. It is sad that, whatever the structure of the health service, we have from time to time to put to Ministers points in defence of the hospital.

My hon. Friend sketched the background very well, and I do not want to be repetitious. However, I should like, in the short time available, to stress the breadth of opposition to this proposal. I shall do so in no particular order. Let me kick off with extracts from a letter from Mr. MacLellan, a senior consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Oldchurch hospital, to the services planning manager of the health authority. I think that the extracts, short though they are, will give the flavour. Mr. MacLellan says: The comments that you have made confirm in my mind the clearly held impression that the statistics prepared in your document 'A Blueprint for Better Health Care' are an attempt to give scientific or pseudo-scientific validation for a completely bogus exercise in health care planning.No objective data has been collected about mortality or morbidity related to the clinical services in Harold Wood or Oldchurch ….While there were representatives of both acute units at the meetings that gave rise to this document, these representatives were not briefed by individual departments within either hospital to speak on their behalf. No representatives of the trauma and orthopaedic service at Oldchurch were present, and since we carry the bulk of the trauma workload for the district it seems extraordinary that you believe yourself to be in any position to make judgments about quality of service at our site as compared with any of the other sites. As that was written by a consultant at the hospital, it might be said to be predictable. As has been said in other contexts over the years, "He would say that, wouldn't he?" Nonetheless, it is worth recording.

I turn now the Barking and Havering family health service authority, which has taken the trouble to submit its own formal comments, such is its concern at the nature of the document. Again, my hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased to know that I intend to be brief. It states: No analysis of the need for secondary care services is provided. The document gives the appearance of a provider not needs led plan, concentrating reasons for change as it does on buildings and management problems. A needs based analysis might have significantly influenced the weighting in favour of a more accessible site in the district. The document did not include an analysis of the impact of the proposals on primary and community care. It is the FHSA opinion that these will be substantial. Under the heading "Conclusion", the document states: The document does not provide information on developments in community support services that will be essential if the services are centralised irrespective of the site. A substantial development is needed to support the existing services. The FHSA is concerned by the lack of analysis of the impact on primary health care services. The planning of a new hospital provides major opportunities to consider the best mix of services that are needed to ensure optimum health of the population. As it rightly says: This cannot be done by looking at the hospital services alone. What we have is an isolated discussion document looking purely at the physical structures, without looking at the way in which health should logically develop over the next 10 years. It is worth highlighting the fact that both the major local authorities in the area—the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London borough of Havering—have produced documents setting out precisely why the document is a bad one. In particular, Havering stresses that, for many people in Havering, let alone in Barking and Dagenham, to site a hospital at Harold Wood at the eastern end of the district health authority can only provide major problems for many of the patients who would need to get there.

Word has reached me during the past couple of days of concern at Oldchurch hospital that there is to be a review by the district health authority of the acute units, and that a possible management restructuring is in the air which, if it proceeds—no consultation is required for that—would produce one overall unit amid great fears that Oldchurch and Rush Green hospitals would be run down, presumably for the general benefit of Harold Wood. That is not the way to proceed.

I ask the Minister not only to deal with our initial fears, but to consider carefully whether a telephone call tomorrow morning to the district health authority, to tell it to desist from this unnecessary, irrelevant and expensive exercise, would not save a considerable sum of money for the health authority.