Residential Leaseholders and Interim Fire Safety Costs

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) in highlighting the concerns arising in the debate.

Given the circumstances, I want to concentrate on two areas. The first is cladding on tall buildings. I congratulate the Government on securing funding to help to remediate that cladding, but the problem is that the cost of removing cladding on tall buildings is often dwarfed by the cost of the fire safety measures that must also be implemented. It is quite clear, as things stand, that leaseholders will be saddled with the costs of the fire safety measures that are required, as well as the costs of the cladding. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would respond to the issue of what exactly is included in the remediation of cladding. At the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there was some confusion when it was suggested that external areas that are not involved in the cladding, such as different balconies, will now be included in the grant scheme.

The other problem is that we are now told that once a fire assessment takes place, the remediation grants will not be available unless leaseholders sign up to fixing the fire safety issues as well, but those involve eye-watering sums of money. The arrangements, of course, are complex. I think we all agree leaseholders should not have to pay for the remediation, but the issue then is who should. I take the view that the taxpayer should not pay for it. The developers, building owners and indeed suppliers of materials should pay for the fire safety remediation, as well as the remediation of unsafe cladding. There is no doubt that the testing regime was unfit for purpose at the time in question, but emerging evidence from the Grenfell inquiry suggests that manufacturers deliberately decided to use the position on testing to cheat on the system. If so, they should be forced to carry out the remediation at their cost.

Equally, there is the challenge of insurance, mortgages and the values of the properties that are affected. Clearly, at the moment, leaseholders cannot be expected to wait for the introduction of the building safety Bill. It will take more than two years for it to come into operation, and leaseholders cannot wait. We need clarity on the point that the fees and costs will be picked up and that the leaseholders will not have to pay them. We also know that it will take an extended period to carry out the works.

I will rest my remarks there. I hope that we will get a response from the Minister on exactly what the scheme covers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

In a moment, I will call Dame Margaret Hodge. The speaker after her has withdrawn, so then we will go to Hilary Benn.

Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Bob Blackman

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As he represents a farming constituency, he will appreciate perhaps more than many Members that farmers take a very close interest in where their livestock ends up. They take the view that if they bend over backwards to ensure that their reared animals have a good quality of life, and that they are looked after to the very high standards that we enforce in this country, their lives should not be ended inappropriately with inappropriate slaughter. He will know that farmers are very concerned that their livestock ends up being slaughtered in an appropriate way.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend referred originally to the question of pain and suffering for the animal. Is he aware of any laboratory experiments or any scientific evidence whatever that point to the fact that shechita is cruel and unacceptable? The shechita community clearly believe that it is the most humane method of slaughtering animals, and of course, if the animal is damaged in any way, shape or form, it would not be kosher meat.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I have a great deal of respect for the shechita position. The shochetim who slaughter under the shechita provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has described, might be miscategorised as mad axemen running around with knives slaughtering animals by cutting their throats. They are not like that. They have to go through a very intensive training programme that lasts at least three years. They have to be calm, and the animal has to be calm when the slaughter is about to take place. A surgically sharp knife is used, and I have to say that a strong case can be made that an animal meeting its death in that calm environment with a trained professional may meet a better end—“happy” is the wrong word—than an animal that is pushed through mass production abattoirs, where animals are bumping into each other, mis-stunning takes place and there is a lot of distress and noise because of the need for mass-produced meat in this country.

The shechita community can make a good case, but I contend that they are not making it strongly enough, and that there is work for them to do to convince the Government of the merits of their case. They are also going against an overwhelming tide of opinion in this country which is against the non-stun slaughter of meat. I respect the Jewish point of view—please do not get me wrong on that—but they need to make their case rather better.

There was an interesting letter in last week’s Jewish Chronicle, of which I happen to be a weekly reader, from, presumably, a Jewish correspondent from Lancaster, who said:

“The rabbinical interpretation has been made that the blood should be removed by drainage through a severed artery. And that is carried out by cutting the throat. However, I cannot see why having the animal anaesthetised, before its throat is cut, in any way detracts from the original biblical injunction not to consume animal blood.

Perhaps a rabbi can explain where I am wrong.

Is there really any religious reason that shechita might not include stunning of the cattle before their throats are cut?”

I suggest that elements of the Jewish community do not quite understand where Shechita UK and other organisations are coming from.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Bob Blackman

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

rose—

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

What a delicious choice! I call Mr Philip Hollobone.

Tobacco Products (Plain Packaging)

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman]

I do not agree with banning tobacco completely. If people want to put a cigarette in their mouth, light it and kill themselves, they make that choice as conscious adults. My concern is for young children who begin smoking before they realise the dangers; they then cannot quit, because they are addicted. The tobacco industry’s aim in its packaging is to encourage more people to start.

Tobacco packaging should be made as unattractive as possible. It should never again be used to try to recruit new addicts and new victims, particularly among the young. Standardised packaging is an inevitable and welcome step forward in tobacco control. I predict that it will come sooner or later, and on this side of the argument, the sooner the better. If not now, when? I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister making the Government’s position clear so that we know what it is. If they then refuse to introduce a debate in the House, we will.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. The speeches from the Front Benches will start no later than 10.40, so we have 50 minutes remaining. Hon. Members have the right to take interventions, but the fewer there are, the better the chances of all hon. Members being able to speak, which is my sole objective this morning. I call Nick Smith.