Of every pound spent by the Government on building hospitals since 1997, 85p has been spent in Labour constituencies.

New figures show that constituencies held by Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs have missed out on Labour’s hospital-building programme. Of 46 hospitals built by Labour since it came to power, 33 are in seats that are held by Labour MPs, Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, established through a question in Parliament.

Before the 2005 general election, when most of the decisions were made, 36 of the new hospitals were in seats held by Labour MPs, with only 8 being built in the constituencies of Conservative MPs.

The total capital value of the new hospitals is £4.1 billion, of which £3.5 billion (85p in every £1) has gone to Labour areas.

Yesterday the Government announced that it is to spend £50 million on community hospitals and supersurgeries. All but one of the ten schemes for new or refurbished community hospitals is in a Labour-held constituency. The exception is Hornsey, held by a Lib Dem.

Mr Lansley said: “Four in every five of Labour’s new hospitals have been built in the constituencies of their own MPs. Meanwhile, ministers are holding secret meetings with Labour Party officials to target up to 60 hospital cutbacks on the constituencies of Conservative and Lib Dem MPs.

“These figures confirm what we suspected when Patricia Hewitt went against the advice of health experts and ordered a hospital to be built in a Labour constituency in South London.

“Last year Patricia Hewitt launched a policy dictating that care should be provided at home and not in hospitals. Patients in Conservative and Lib Dem areas will be wondering why it is their hospitals that have to close, while patients in Labour areas benefit from virtually all the spending Labour is committing to new hospitals.”

Labour holds 54 per cent of the constituencies in England, so the balance of spending is disproportionate.

The Department of Health denies any political interference. It says that bids for local hospitals come from local NHS, and are not dictated centrally by ministers. Patient need, not party politics, determines spending.

Labour also represents many disadvantaged areas, where the health needs are greater. Allocation of NHS resources is designed to reflect health needs, though it does so rather imprecisely. So spending heavily in Labour areas is evidence not of political interference but of need, ministers argue.

But while they may defend a preponderance of spending on acute hospitals in Labour areas simply on the ground that many big hospitals are located in cities — where Labour dominates — the same defence can hardly be used of community hospitals, which are more often found in rural areas.

Steve Webb, the former Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said: “All of us would favour a needs-based approach to providing health-care. But such an overwhelming bias in favour of one party makes it impossible to believe that it is entirely about need.”

Times Recommends

• An officer and a gentle woman
• Dame Helen Mirren is worthy of the Epidaurus
• Foods that can help to prevent swine flu