Building Safety Bill

Debate between Stuart Andrew and Hilary Benn

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

My door is always open, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise specific cases with me I would be more than happy to take them up and make sure that we get relevant answers for him.

Freeholders and landlords should not be commissioning costly remediation in buildings below 11 metres except in exceptional circumstances, which is where there is no more proportionate option available. They certainly should not be pointing to old EWS assessments to justify those costs. Given the small number of buildings involved, a blanket legislative intervention bringing hundreds of thousands more buildings into scope to deal with an issue affecting just a handful of buildings would be entirely disproportionate. The Government amendments therefore reinstate the definition of “relevant building” as one that is at least 11 metres, or five storeys in height, and contains at least two dwellings.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. In respect of the point that he has just made, have the Government made an estimate of the number of residential buildings below 11 metres where there may be a case for extensive remediation works? I am just trying to follow the logic of the Government’s position. They say that there is not really a problem with buildings below 11 metres, which is why they do want to include them, but if there is not a problem, surely the Government would not be having to do much in respect of those buildings, because there are very few of them—so the Minister says.

[Stuart Andrew]

The issue is the proportionate measures that can be made in those buildings to ensure that they are safe. We want to make sure that we get this right, and we will be continuing to look at all of these. If the building safety regulator assesses that further work needs to be done, or that the Government need to look at what needs to be done, we will absolutely make sure that we do that, and I make that commitment to the House.

Leeds Children’s Heart Surgery Unit

Debate between Stuart Andrew and Hilary Benn

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman makes an absolutely first-class point. Indeed, I think we have all asked the question: why is the review into children’s services being held separately from that into adults’ services? It is bizarre. We know that the surgeons operating on adults are often the same people who operate on children. We have yet to get a sufficient explanation of why the reviews have not been run in tandem, and we expect, or at least hope, that the Independent Reconfiguration Panel will consider that issue.

That brings me on to my next point. I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has decided to refer the decision to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel—that is great news—but it is absolutely crucial that we get the decision right. There is no point in simply reviewing the decision; we want the panel to consider the whole process, right down to the information that was used at the very beginning regarding what the services were like at the different units. That must include the scoring.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I echo other Members’ compliments about the force of the hon. Gentleman’s case. The review, if it is about anything, must be about the right clinical outcomes for children. That is why we are all here. We are all so passionate about the Leeds children’s heart surgery unit, which I have the privilege to represent. Will he confirm that despite the impression that is being given in some quarters, no assessment of the relative clinical effectiveness of the units considered in the review has been undertaken? Does he agree that the independent review must do that, as we all believe that it would lead to the decision being overturned?

[Stuart Andrew]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He makes a clever and important point, because that is the foundation of the decision, and the information either does not exist or is incorrect. I want a root-and-branch review of the decision and all the information that was at the disposal of the Safe and Sustainable review team. I hope we can get an assurance today that the panel will do that.

There are further problems with the decision-making process. The joint committee of primary care trusts is still not disclosing information requested by the joint health and overview scrutiny committee in our area, including the agendas, minutes and reports of several meetings material to the JCPCT decision. There is also no evidence that the joint health and overview scrutiny committee’s report was even discussed by the JCPCT. The JCPCT has refused to disclose the breakdown of the Kennedy scores awarded to each children’s heart surgery unit by the panel. The value of the total scores, which are the supposed measure of quality, could neither be understood nor scrutinised.

I think we all believe that the JCPCT has misused the Kennedy scores. The JCPCT requested not to be shown the breakdown of the Kennedy scores, which raises many questions about the JCPCT’s ability to make an informed decision. The Kennedy scores were not prepared for the purposes of comparing one centre with another, yet a ranking of the units by total score was published. The scores were misused as indicators of quality, even though the scores did not assess units on what most of us would regard as measures of quality, such as clinical effectiveness, safety and patient experience.

The total unit score was given as 401 for Leeds and 425 for Newcastle. Those scores were published with the independent expert panel’s report in 2010. According to the first breakdown of the total scores, however, which was only released after the JCPCT made its decision, the Leeds unit gets 414 points and the Newcastle unit gets 421 points. Despite the enormity of the review, a basic mistake appears to have been made in the calculation. That matters because, in the eyes of the JCPCT, which saw only total scores, the advantage of the Newcastle unit was more than trebled from seven points to 24. When that was pointed out to the JCPCT, a second set of sub-scores was published that still did not add up to the original scores of 401 for Leeds and 425 for Newcastle; it stated that the Leeds unit outscored Newcastle on the core clinical standards used by Professor Kennedy by 347 points to 336. On care quality, Leeds is ahead; Newcastle outscores Leeds only because of the addition of leadership and vision standards, which are non-clinical standards covering IT and business strategy, working practices, and so on, that were developed by commissioners, not clinicians.

When the fact that Leeds outscores Newcastle on core clinical standards was pointed out to the JCPCT by the Yorkshire and Humber joint health and overview scrutiny committee, a third set of sub-scores was published, with the dubious claim that they were the raw Kennedy scores. The scores did add up to the original 401 for Leeds and 425 for Newcastle, but, mystifyingly, they now put Newcastle ahead of Leeds on core clinical standards. It is unclear which of those different sets of scores was used by the JCPCT because they give such different impressions.

The Kennedy scores were subject to a weighting system that disproportionately emphasised certain aspects of the assessment in a way that produced misleading results when used in a comparative process. No explanation was given for the way the weightings were worked out. I could address further issues, but I am aware that other hon. Members want to take part in this debate.

We suggested that the JCPCT’s decision be implemented elsewhere, but that in north-east England, both Leeds and Newcastle remain open and that the decision be delayed until April 2014. That would give an opportunity for patient choice and for parents to consider which centre they want to use, as is their constitutional right. By the end of that period, each centre would have to demonstrate that it is fully compliant with all the standards set by the Safe and Sustainable review. The judicial action brought against the JCPCT by Save Our Surgery might then cease; that would avoid the risk of sinking the review in its entirety. Leeds and Newcastle would have the opportunity to demonstrate their compliance with Safe and Sustainable standards. Less controversial decisions taken by the JCPCT could proceed elsewhere in the country, and the Government would be shown to be listening to the concerns of patients. That would give a clear message from the Department of Health that patient choice comes ahead of professional convenience. We made that suggestion, and it was rejected out of hand in no time at all. It is a sensible proposal for a solution that would allow us the very best services for our children and young people, as evidenced by where people go and what services they want.

Finally, I attended last week’s Westminster Hall debate on the Leicester unit. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) summed up the debate well. There is no point in my trying to come up with a fancier conclusion, so I will do him the honour of quoting what he said:

“The House does itself no great service if it shilly-shallies around process and avoids the question. As Members of Parliament, we must ensure that the question is put…The Secretary of State has the levers of power in this question and he must pull them—he must exercise them—and make a decision…I do not care who made the decision or how the dainty route was created to get to it. We all know that the current decision is wrong and needs to be dealt with.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 188WH.]