Heritage Assets: London
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
When I stood for election, I promised my constituents that I would be a strong local voice. This debate is at the heart of that promise. The Cities of London and Westminster sit in the heart of our nation’s capital. It may be considered one of a handful of global cities, but to those of us who call it home it is also a group of local villages, with local people who are incredibly proud of their neighbourhood’s history. Whether it is Covent Garden, the square mile, Marylebone, Pimlico, Hyde Park or the west end, heritage matters. Heritage matters for so many reasons, not least because of its significant pull factor for tourism. In London we see that on a magnified scale, with people coming from all over the world to visit our heritage buildings, palaces, iconic sites and parks, and enjoy our cultural offer. Places such as Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey will come into sharp focus later this year with the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla. Right here, the Palace of Westminster, where we sit today, is a UNESCO world heritage site. I can therefore think of no better time for this debate, with this being English Tourism Week.
I recognise the incredible work that my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department is doing to bolster UK tourism, especially since the pandemic. In particular, I applaud the Department’s support for heritage and the arts including, of course, the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, and measures within the tourism recovery plan. I do so in large part because London’s unique appeal lies in its ability for its heritage assets to tell the many stories of a 2,000-year-old city.
In London, our historic buildings are so common that it is easy for us to take them for granted without giving them a second thought, but without protection, those buildings may not be here in the future. That is made clear in Historic England’s annual at-risk register, which highlights the critical health of England’s most valued historic places. For those in the Cities of London and Westminster, such places have huge community importance, from the Buddhist temple in Margaret Street to the former Samaritan Hospital for Women in Marylebone, and the 18th-century church of St Mary Woolnoth in the City of London. Those are valued historic places, many of which, according to Historic England, are at risk of being lost.
In 2022, London had 421 listed buildings, 101 places of worship, 25 archaeological entries, 12 parks and gardens and 72 conservation areas that were at risk of neglect, decay or inappropriate change. Thankfully, many have been rescued thanks to heritage bodies and dedicated teams of volunteers, community groups, charities, owners and local government, all working together. For example, two historic buildings with heritage value were recently under threat in the two cities, but both were saved due to community action that I was delighted to fully support. I speak of Bevis Marks synagogue—the oldest synagogue in continuous use in the United Kingdom—and the historic Simpson’s Tavern in Leadenhall, which is 250 years old and a constant in an ever-changing part of the City of London. Both were under threat, but local people stood up and said no to unfettered development, and yes to heritage.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady, who I spoke to beforehand, for securing this debate. She has said not a word that I do not fully support and see the need for. She is right to say that our heritage assets are historic and need to be retained and protected, and that can happen only through funding. She also referred to tourism. Our tourism goes across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we can all benefit. I encourage people to come to London for their holidays, and I am sure she encourages people to come to my constituency of Strangford for holidays. Whenever she comes, I suggest that she goes and visits Scrabo tower, an historic building that has been retained for two or three hundred years. It overlooks Strangford lough, and whenever I go home on the plane on a Thursday night—I usually head home then, but now it will be tomorrow morning—I see Scrabo tower and I know I am coming home, and it always does my heart good.
Nickie Aiken
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As he knows, I have visited Strangford several times and I plan to do so in the near future. It is a great and beloved place that is part of the United Kingdom.
We cannot rely solely on community action to protect our cultural assets. There are cases where local people and local government really make an effort to ensure we look after heritage assets—we saw that with the site of Smithfield market, which has been in place since the 14th century. It is now to be the home of the Museum of London, which is moving. The development plans pay a lot of attention to preserving the historic fabric of London for future generations, and I pay tribute to that. I appreciate that not everyone is happy to lose the meat market at Smithfield, but there are cases where development can be done well to create a new offer for the next generation.
There are also cases where people are still fighting to save their heritage. I share the concerns of Barbican residents about proposals to knock down and redevelop the former home of the Museum of London and Bastion House, and replace it with a major office development. I am delighted to work with the Barbican Association and Barbican Quarter Action to ensure local voices are heard by the City of London Corporation, and that these unique and important historic places are saved for community use, and, hopefully, housing. They are functional historic assets that serve their community and add to London’s cultural offer. That is so important, because communities want to see their local heritage thrive.
Yes, concentrating on digital and tech is important for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we cannot afford to lose focus on the conservation of the country’s cultural and historic heritage. Without that emphasis, heritage will be at risk. London is modernising, but tourism figures and local support underline the popularity of the historic landscape. People care passionately about their historic environment. They want to be involved in decisions about their heritage and how we manage change.
A good example of that recently was when constituents, as well as heritage experts and heritage bodies, wrote to me concerned that Westminster City Council was not, in their view, giving enough consideration to the historical significance of Victorian gas-powered lamps in its plans to replace them with LED replicas. There are now very few functioning gas lamps left in Westminster. Each, in its own right, is a work of art and a piece of our history, surviving the Blitz and London’s urban revolution, but not all of them will survive due to the council’s diktat to replace them with LED lamps.
Thankfully, the brilliant London Gasketeers, a fantastic group of locals, are rallying to save these historic lamps. I met the London Gasketeers on Maunsel Street in Westminster to show my solidarity with their cause, along with many locals. Many of those local people had never been part of a campaign before and they were delighted to support the London Gasketeers. The cause gained wide-ranging support: everyone from myself to the president of the GMB union—believe it or not—historians, actors, cabbies, heritage experts and, most importantly, a diverse mix of Westminster residents who care passionately about their local heritage. We have been successful. I pay tribute to the London Gasketeers and I am delighted to see many of them in the Public Gallery this afternoon.
Things like gas lamps might seem trivial to some, but like it or not, they are our material history. People care because Westminster’s heritage belongs to everyone. Such things matter to our overall social landscape, and are so important because London is a city where history and modernity remain intrinsically linked. The same can be said for urban development. Consider Soho, which has always been characterised by its narrow streets that lend it a friendly, human scale. That is part of Soho’s material history. However, the pavement licensing scheme, which might have been a great offer during covid as an emergency lifeline to many local restaurants and bars, could now have a detrimental effect on the historic streetscape if it becomes permanent without any protections in place. That is why I am calling on the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that guidance accompanying the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is clear about the conditions on which licences are granted. It is important that local councils have the flexibility to determine where it is appropriate to have a licence and where it is not.
Beyond the principal argument on access, we need to ensure that our streetscape is consistent with Soho’s conservation area status, respecting Soho’s unique history and character. We must preserve elements of material history and evolve sensitively in places that already have protection, such as Soho’s conservation area, or deserve protection, such as Westminster’s Victorian gas lamps or London’s historic buildings and places.
The preservation of our heritage and cultural assets draws millions of tourists to London every year. A VisitBritain survey found that the vast majority of tourists see Britain as a place where heritage meets vibrancy and modernity. The same can be said of our cultural institutions, as 15% of international tourists attend a play, musical, opera or ballet. I am incredibly proud of the vibrant arts and culture offer in my constituency, much of which can be found in the historic west end, dating back to the 1600s. In fact, according to the Office for National Statistics, 8% of the UK’s art and culture businesses are based in the Cities of London and Westminster—around 2,500 businesses.
There is no doubt that the past few years have been extremely difficult for the arts and culture. The commercial uncertainty of the current climate has not helped. Rising global inflation and consistent train and tube strikes have all had a knock-on effect, hampering the recovery of this £2.4 billion sector. We saw during the pandemic the fragility of the industry. We cannot be complacent; we must protect our cultural assets. After all, heritage and theatre bring in £890 million a year, with more than 16 million people attending London theatres last year.
We need to work with the theatre sector in London to develop a strong UK talent pipeline, through investment in the arts premium and development of the culture education plan. My hope is that will mean that we can make sustainable, evidence-based decisions to conserve our culture and heritage while enabling people to enjoy them. While I am on this point, although London is not part of the new levelling-up agenda per se, it forms the heartbeat of British artists and culture. We risk losing those institutions at our peril. We saw that with Arts Council England’s rash decision to cut funding to the English National Opera, based in the London Coliseum, not far from here. That decision would have seen the loss of a national icon that gave local people so much—not just world-class opera performances but local initiatives such as the ENO’s Breathe programme, which supports people suffering with long covid.
I urge the Minister to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the arts and culture sector, and in particular the west end. We cannot forget the strength of the sector as an entrepreneurial and SME-led economic driver locally, nationally and globally. For those reasons, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on the importance of protecting heritage assets in London.
Since London’s founding in what is now the square mile in the City of London, this has been an ever-changing metropolis. Each generation has added its own personal touch, culminating in a hugely diverse and historic modern city. Now more than ever, it is our duty to ensure that we do not lose what makes London London. Therefore, we must be proactive in protecting our cultural assets, from the west end to the wider historic fabric of London, which is becoming increasingly under threat.
I urge the Minister to reaffirm her commitment to protecting our heritage assets for future generations, and ask that she work with London’s cultural sector to stimulate growth, encourage tourism and safeguard the industry. London’s historic assets are at risk of being lost to history; we cannot allow that happen.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michelle Donelan
We are supporting and accelerating advances in biomedical science and technologies to reduce reliance on animals in research. I pledge to write to the hon. Member with further details on that rather than hold the House up any longer.
This is the power of innovation when we are bold enough to unleash it: we already rank second in the world to the US for the number of quantum companies. On top of that, the quantum technologies mission, which I announced a few weeks ago, dedicates £70 million in this spending review period to accelerate quantum technologies. Building on the success of the 10-year national quantum technologies programme from 2014, the new strategy sets out our vision and plan to further establish the UK as a world leader by 2033. We want these technologies out of the lab and into our lives, because we know what they mean to families and communities in every part of our country.
The same goes for the limitless possibilities before us in the world of artificial intelligence. My vision for an AI-enabled Britain is one where NHS heroes are able to save lives using AI technologies that were unimaginable a few decades ago. I want our police, our transport networks, our climate scientists and many more to be empowered by AI technologies that will make Britain the smartest, healthiest, safest and happiest place to live and work.
Jim Shannon
I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has said, and there are clearly many positives in the Budget, but the British Heart Foundation contacted me to say that cardiac care is time-critical, and that delays to vital tests, procedures and operations can lead to otherwise preventable heart attacks. At the end of January there were 370,000 heart patients waiting for elective care. What will be done to save those people’s lives?
Michelle Donelan
We are talking today about investing in the technologies that can progress our healthcare system and about our use of green technology so we can get to work in a cleaner, greener way. Our technologies can progress our society in so many different ways. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss that in detail, but it might be more of a question for the Department of Health and Social Care.
That is why the Government’s commitment to AI goes much further than just warm words. Over five years ago, we identified AI as one of the four grand challenges in the industrial strategy, investing £1 billion in the AI sector deal in 2019. In 2021, we set out our ambitions in the national AI strategy—ambitions which the AI action plan shows we are determined to deliver. In the last decade, we have also invested over £2.5 billion in AI.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think I am the Duracell bunny; I seem to go on longer than anybody else. I have been here since 25 past 2, so that gives you an idea of how long we have been here, and I will be here for the Adjournment debate as well.
May I begin by thanking the Chancellor for his and his team’s hard work? I do not underestimate the blood and sweat that goes into the decision-making process. Before I highlight the issues on which I would like clarity and further consideration, I want to make it clear that I know there is not a money tree—at least, I am not aware of one—that we can shake to satisfy us all. However, there are needs, and needs must be met.
I am thankful that fuel duty has been frozen. However, it should be remembered that things are still difficult for public transport providers. They are putting prices up, and commuters are feeling the difference. The Chancellor has rightly focused on getting people into work, but we need to make sure work is worth their while.
It is always good to give examples, and a mother came to see me last week to get her driving licence signed. She works two jobs, and she spoke about the expense of all the extras at school. Swimming and trips add up, so she took a second job delivering Chinese meals in the evenings. She relies on her tips to pay for those extras. Women in the UK should not have to work all day and into the evening to provide a basic standard of living. I asked her to look into universal credit as a top-up—we advise people on the benefits to which they are entitled—and she said, “Jim, it’s just too much hassle. I prefer to work and know that what I have is mine, rather than worrying that I will get a bill because I have done something wrong.” It seems wrong to me that those who work the hardest receive no help and are living hand to mouth, afraid to ask for help.
I welcome some of the good things the Government have done, such as the pothole plan, from which the Barnett consequential will help us in Northern Ireland. I also welcome the help for SMEs, which have ingenuity, positivity and ability. SMEs are so important to my constituency.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is in her place, and she knows I am like a dog with a bone on child benefit, but it is important to keep at it. The responses I have received during debates on the child benefit threshold do not satisfy me, and they certainly do not satisfy my struggling constituents. People who work hard for a living, earning not a penny of benefits other than their child benefit payment, do not understand why the threshold has been frozen for 10 years, why it does not include the family income rather than a single income, and why it does not matter whether a family has one child or 10, as others have mentioned. It is not right and cannot be right that the threshold is the same, and with respect, it must be made right.
People who were once comfortable on their wage are now struggling to meet the rising costs of their mortgage, their car payments, their student loan repayments and everything else, but they are afraid to accept a modest pay rise because they are frightened of losing child benefit or having to pay a large tax bill. I know that was never the Government’s intention, and I urge the Minister, for the sake of the squeezed middle class, to allow my constituents to see the benefit of their education and hard work, rather than wondering what the point is of working for all those years only to find themselves struggling. This needs to be changed, and it needs to be changed now.
The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) spoke about health issues, and the British Heart Foundation has contacted me to say that, despite the unwavering efforts of NHS staff, the pandemic has caused huge disruption to every aspect of cardiovascular care. That care is time critical, as delays to vital tests, procedures and operations can lead to preventable heart attacks, avoidable hospital admissions, disability from heart failure or even premature death. At the end of January, 370,000 heart patients were waiting for elective care. My goodness, what a massive number of people—we need to address that. That includes people waiting for echocardiograms, initial appointments with specialists and surgery. The British Heart Foundation has said it is disappointing not to see anything further announced in the Budget to address the urgent NHS backlog challenges. I ask the Minister and the Chancellor to take that on board.
Official NHS England statistics do not go far enough in providing information about sub-specialisms and demographic workforce information, including retirement rates. Planning intelligently for the future is impossible if we do not know where we are today, so I ask the Government to develop a robust, integrated process for collecting, compiling and sharing workforce data at specialty level. Alongside that, the integrated care system planners must be resourced with the appropriate training and support to understand and utilise that information.
I support the BHF in its calls for this funding. I know everyone has a wish list, but my wish is a simple one. It is a cry for investment in the things we need to help the people who slog away, morning, noon and night, for the quality of life that they were able to provide for their children five years ago, whether it is piano lessons or dance lessons. They are stressed and worried, and ultimately they have less money to put into the local economy. The squeezed middle class spends locally, helping the wee shops, dance studios and restaurants nearby. This needs to be addressed, and the Chancellor and the Minister can make the calls that make a difference. Let us make a difference in this Budget for all our people.
Installation of Telecommunications Infrastructure
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It raises an important question: why can we not get this co-ordinated?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward; she brings many important issues to the House, and this is another one. In Northern Ireland we have a clear planning process that involves the councils—in my case, Ards and North Down Borough Council—and the planning department will look at these things. There is also a role for the telecommunications firms. If they put telegraph poles outside anybody’s house, that person has a right to object, if they block their view or car access; it may even block their sightlines. We have community and council involvement, therefore. Does she agree that, to address these issues to the satisfaction of our constituents, about whom she is very concerned, we need either a change in legislation or clarification from the Minister?
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree.
The changes brought in in 2013 were introduced for only five years, but they have now been extended indefinitely, allowing the situation we are all talking about today. I want to concentrate on what this means for my constituents.
Currently, residents in Hull are finding telegraph poles being erected around their properties, and sometimes on their properties, without any consultation process that allows them to raise their concerns. These poles are cheap, cumbersome and impact on the value and aesthetic worth of people’s properties. Poles are often built in close proximity to people’s driveways, in their gardens and outside their windows, often with wires dangling down from house to house in each direction.
One of my constituents has muscular dystrophy and in a few years they may, sadly, need to use a wheelchair. Returning from work one day, she discovered a telegraph pole had been erected outside her front gate, so close that if she ever does need to use a wheelchair to leave her house she will find it very difficult. Another constituent with a disability has had a pole erected in the middle of his driveway, making access to his property more difficult when getting his medication dropped off. An elderly constituent who has lived in their house for 51 years has contacted me, distressed, explaining that they do not want a neighbourhood overrun with telegraph poles. These people do not want to stand in the way of progress or stop people finding broadband that works for them; they just want a say in the place they call home.
It is not just residents who are affected, of course. A business in my community has had a telegraph pole placed on the corner of its commercial property, stopping articulated lorries gaining access to its warehouse, restricting its operations. Understandably, it complained and tried to have the pole moved. However, it was told by the company concerned, Connexin, that it was meeting all its legal requirements and nothing could be done. This is a 20,000 square foot business with a very large loading bay; it is not beyond the wit of man to facilitate an open discussion that would find an adequate position for these telegraph poles, but the company has no legislative obligation to consult so it is not doing so. Instead, it has fallen to my constituent to now have deliveries from around the world brought in on smaller vehicles at an extra cost. The business has been there for 11 years, and Connexin can force the business to change its operations without any consideration completely legally. That is unacceptable.
With no consultation with residents or the local planning authority, there is no consideration of the impact these poles can have on the daily lives of homeowners and the community.
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I will come on to what I think should happen in terms of regulation.
I will talk about telecommunications in Hull, because we are unique and different from the rest of the UK. The Minister may be aware that, historically, we have had only one provider of telephone services and broadband. Since 2007, that company has been known as KCOM, previously Kingston Communications, with the white telephone boxes that we are famous for. For many years, my constituents contacted me because they were concerned that having a monopoly in the city made broadband more expensive compared with having a range of providers. We know how important choice and competition are, even when they are balanced against loyalty to a local company with a long history and lots of local jobs.
Understandably, people in Hull want to welcome new broadband companies. The Government know that, which is why Openreach and BT infrastructure in the rest of the UK has been extended to other service providers in recent years. According to new broadband providers in Hull, however, KCOM has put up barriers that prevent the sharing of the existing network infrastructure with other companies. I recently met Ofcom, which told me that it could not examine the situation with KCOM or even assess whether it was correct unless a formal complaint was received. If access to KCOM’s infrastructure is still a problem for new companies, and Ofcom has next-to-no power to proactively investigate that, we need to look at the regulator’s powers.
At the moment, it appears that there may be problems in getting access to KCOM’s communication network, so individual companies are choosing to put up their own telegraph poles. That means that these outdated infrastructure eyesores seem to be popping up on every street corner, which is upsetting residents who have no power to object or even advise and compromise on their placement. That is happening across Hull, from Kingswood to Endike Lane and Inglemire Lane, which leads to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). He represents Cottingham and has said that he also supports local people being consulted.
In Hull North alone, I have heard from multiple constituents on the Queensway, Tollymore Park, Frensham Close, Bradgate Park, Highgrove Way, Sleightholme Close, Gatwick Garth, Digby Garth, Honley Wood Close, Downhill Drive, Heatherwood Court, Callow Hill Drive, Waterdale, Marydene Drive, Catherine McAuley Close, Ella Street and the Avenues. All have had their lives disrupted and disturbed by what is happening. The lack of power and influence over what happens to their own properties and neighbourhoods is unacceptable.
A mother in my constituency has been told—not asked—that a pole will be erected at the end of her driveway. She describes jumping every time the doorbell detects movement and wondering if people have come to
“ruin our driveway and absolutely terrify my young children”,
who say to her,
“this is our home, not theirs”.
Another constituent says:
“For many years we have wanted the choice of internet provider, but never thought that would be at the expense of telegraph poles littering our neighbourhoods with no sensitivity to placement or consultation with residents”,
but they can do absolutely nothing about it. Even residents who have no intention of using the service that will be introduced by the new infrastructure can do nothing about it.
In Birnam Court in my constituency, every single resident has written to oppose the installation of the telegraph poles and cables, but still they are powerless to stop it. As one Hull resident put it:
“Installers are riding roughshod over residents’ wishes and there is no way to protest.”
So people inevitably complain, but they are told by the company that it has not broken its legal obligations, and that is the end of it. So they complain to Ofcom, and they are told that there is nothing Ofcom can do.
Connexin, the company erecting the telegraph poles that are aggravating most of my constituents, set up in the area a few years ago, stating:
“The people of Hull and the East Riding deserve better from their broadband supplier and every aspect of our new network has been designed with customer experience in mind.”
Parliamentary language is very important, so I will just politely say that that is utter tosh. Connexin is notoriously difficult to get a response from, despite me sending it numerous constituents’ complaints, and it has failed to deal with any of them properly. I finally heard from its offices yesterday, ahead of this debate, to offer to meet me to try and resolve the problem—it is very funny what raising an issue in the House of Commons can do to focus the minds of local companies. This avoidance strategy is completely unacceptable, and I urge anyone who has been affected by the erection of Connexin’s poles to write directly to its chief executive officer, Furqan Alamgir, with their complaints. His email is fa@connexin.co.uk.
Under the Government’s own legislation, the only legal requirement on these network operators is that they notify the local planning authority at least 28 days in advance, and then put up a sign to say that the telegraph pole is coming. That is it. The code of practice accompanying this free-for-all states that operators should initially offer to discuss the application of their proposed network deployment programme with relevant planning authorities, but the local planning authority has no power to stop their plans anyway. Customers and residents are not even considered worth mentioning in the code of practice.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very conscious of the time, and I have got a few more things to say.
I should raise at this point that it is, again, quite opaque whether network operators are actually engaging properly with local authorities about their plans, as the code of practice meekly suggests. If Hull City Council has concerns or believes that the code of practice is not being followed, it can, I understand, complain directly to Ofcom, and then and only then will Ofcom investigate. There is not much teeth to the Government’s guidelines or the code of practice anyway, so it is unlikely that anything would change.
My ask of the Government is simple: repeal the 2013 amendment and make it a statutory requirement for communications network operators to apply for permission to the local planning authority on any proposed installation of telegraph poles, with a requirement for consultation with affected residents before any permissions are issued.
Last week I presented my planning permission for telecommunications telegraph pole installation petition to this House, which had a specific request for the Government to make it a statutory requirement, as I have just set out. I would also like to draw the Minister’s attention to my private Member’s Bill, which would also reform the law.
All the residents who contact me recognise that a modern telecoms infrastructure is needed for mobiles and fast broadband, especially if they want a choice of service providers. They are not being unreasonable or obstructive; all they are asking for is due consideration and common-sense solutions to the placing of new infrastructure.
I just want to put on record my thanks to the local Labour councillors who have been working with me, as they, too, have been inundated with complaints: Councillor Gary Wareing, Councillor Rosie Nicola, Councillor Steve Wilson, Councillor Abby Singh and Councillor Marjorie Brabazon. Although they are local councillors in Hull North, the issue, as the Minister will have heard tonight, goes right across the country. It has been raised from Hull to Bolton to Lincoln to Ipswich and beyond, and to Northern Ireland and to Scotland. My own petition has had hundreds of signatures, and I know that many other Members have similar petitions active at the moment too.
What these telecom firms often lack is local knowledge and some common sense. Local people, through a requirement for consultation, can provide that common sense for these companies free of charge. In the end, it will never be good business sense for these companies to annoy and aggravate local people and businesses that we assume they would welcome as potential customers. But this place clearly has a role in rectifying the mistakes of 2013 and in setting out some ground rules that require these companies to behave as they should, not just as they are allowed to get away with at the moment, and I hope the Minister will agree.
Jim Shannon
In Northern Ireland we welcome the broadband roll-out, which is going exceptionally well due to financial support from the Government. To be helpful and constructive, one of the things that we have done back home, which may help the hon. Lady and others to find a way forward, is that in almost every case the construction firms that are putting in the broadband have put the telecommunications underground, thereby doing away with the visual impact. That is a solution that works across my constituency, where broadband roll-out is quite significant.
Julia Lopez
The hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge just how much progress has been made in Northern Ireland, where there is some of the best connectivity in the United Kingdom. I am proud that we have been able to make that investment, which is making a massive difference to his constituents. I will come to some of the points raised in interventions, which I hope will help hon. Members.
The electronic communications code provides the framework for operators to install infrastructure. Together with accompanying regulations, it sets out the conditions of how infrastructure must be installed in practice. The regulations require operators to share apparatus if possible and to install only the apparatus that they need. Although some of the issues are not entirely unique to Kingston upon Hull, they are particularly problematic there because of the monopolistic position of KCOM that the right hon. Lady raised. There is also a requirement to install lines underground, as has been raised, unless certain conditions apply.
The regulations set out how operators should engage with local planning authorities. They must notify them at least 28 days before installing a pole, to give them time to consider imposing any additional conditions to the proposed installation. They should engage with communities and other interested parties to engage with communities and other interested parties at that stage.
The final legal provision I would like to highlight is that the electronic communication code sets out who can object to and seek the removal of apparatus, and the circumstances in which they can do that. As well as the legal provisions, I draw the right hon. Lady’s attention to the cabinet siting and pole siting code of practice, which was agreed following the changes to legislation that gave greater permitted development rights and best practice for those installations. It encourages operators to site apparatus responsibly and engage proactively with local authorities and communities. I encourage all operators to adhere to that code of practice.
We have big digital ambitions, but we are making sure that we also support local communities along the way. Last year we made it easier for fixed line operators to share the use of existing poles—again, I think that there are some specific issues with KCOM—and underground ducts via provisions in the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. That should help to reduce the need for new infrastructure, including poles, in future. We will carefully monitor the impact of the Act’s provisions as they start to have a real-world effect, as it gained Royal Assent only in December 2022 so it is still fairly early days.
My officials talk to Ofcom regularly about the electronic communications code and other telecoms issues. We are looking closely at how to ensure that all operators are aware of and adhering to their responsibilities under the code. We are also looking at whether steps are needed to educate local authorities on their role in the process, including the ability to escalate issues to Ofcom when needed. I note what the right hon. Lady said about her meeting with Ofcom. I will look into some of the issues that she raised about its stated ability to get further involved.
In addition to that engagement with Ofcom, officials in my Department have held meetings with representatives from KCOM and Connexin, to discuss some of the concerns raised with us about deployment in Hull. In addition, they have met with the local council to understand the issue from its perspective. We cannot interfere with individual commercial arrangements, but I have highlighted the obligations of all operators when deploying poles. Ofcom also regularly reviews the market, and last conducted a review into the Hull telecoms market in October 2021. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for highlighting her concerns. I will ensure that they are relayed to Ofcom. I am pleased to have this chance to update her on the measures already in place, but there may be more that should be done in this area.
Let me turn to the right hon. Lady’s specific proposal to introduce a further layer of bureaucracy into the planning process. We are concerned that that would delay the roll-out of much better infrastructure and could deprive communities and businesses of the connectivity that they need. It will also increase deployment costs, which makes it not cost-effective for operators to deploy in some areas. As I mentioned, that risks creating a digital divide, which we are keen to avoid.
London Zoo Lease
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the lease for London Zoo.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dame Caroline, in this debate on extending the lease for London Zoo. I am pleased to see colleagues, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—no doubt to talk about Londonderry’s zoo, but unfortunately it is London Zoo that we will be talking about—and the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), both of whom have a direct interest. I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), speaking for the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the Minister. I look forward to hearing their contributions.
London Zoo has been a staple tourist attraction since it opened to the general public in 1847—of course, none of us was around at the time. For centuries, tourists have flocked to the 36-acre site in Regent’s Park to get a closer look at some of the world’s most exotic creatures in the oldest scientific zoo in the world. Today, 176 years later, London Zoo continues to be one of London’s most popular attractions, despite covid, welcoming more than 1 million visitors a year, including 80,000 schoolchildren. For many, such a visit provides a unique experience and a unique opportunity to see up close some of the 20,000 animals to which London Zoo is home and to learn more about unique species and species at risk of extinction in the wild.
I am sure Members here today would agree that London Zoo is a childhood memory for many of us, and I vividly remember my first visit—the excitement of seeing in the flesh those huge animals that had previously been confined to the television, which in my case was a black and white. Additionally, over the years, some of London Zoo’s most notable residents are said to have further influenced our childhoods: the likes of Winnie-the-Pooh and Dumbo the elephant originated from the animals of London Zoo.
Recently, I was lucky enough to be welcomed back to London Zoo by Matthew Gould, Vicky Godwin and the team, and I am pleased they are here for today’s debate. Whatever someone’s age, London Zoo is a fantastic day out, and even on a cold January morning, the array of diverse species and educational areas provides a fantastic outing.
London Zoo is run by ZSL—the Zoological Society of London—which is an international conservation society established under royal charter in 1826. The charity is driven by science, and there are 140 scientists working on site to protect species, restore ecosystems, collaborate with communities around the world and inspire positive change for biodiversity. The work they carry out across the globe is led by evidence, and they produce the hugely beneficial data for the Living Planet Index, which is the world’s leading dataset on global wildlife.
London Zoo provides a huge number of benefits, both for local communities and for the animal kingdom at large. Each year, tourists from London, the wider United Kingdom and across the globe visit the zoo. That contributes to the funding for the zoo, but also to the wider United Kingdom economy, as visitors are much more likely to spend money in the surrounding areas, particularly as the zoo is only a stone’s throw from some of London’s many cultural hotspots. Each year, the zoo is responsible for contributing a huge sum—more than £24 million—to the local economy.
Community outreach projects are instrumental within the philosophy of the zoo. On my recent visit, I was impressed by the new garden area, where volunteers with complex needs can spend the day gardening and visiting the animals for much-needed respite and wellbeing. I know that you, Dame Caroline, take a particular interest in that area.
The zoo has also recently implemented a community access scheme to enable those on income support and other benefits to visit for as little as £3. During February half-term alone, more than 50,000 visits were facilitated through that operation. It is essential that everyone, regardless of where they live, has access to nature and outdoor space. I am pleased, therefore, that ZSL is committed to providing access for those who need the extra help, so that no one is left out.
Further, the educational offerings provide a critical supplement to classroom working for many children. Workshops are tailored to cater for all age groups and learning needs, educating children on hugely important topics, including wildlife, conservation, climate change and the impacts of pollution.
The zoo’s research has perhaps benefited animals the most, shaping the future of many previously endangered species. Many animals at risk of extinction have participated in the zoo’s breeding programmes, to ensure that they are saved for future generations. In 2021-22 alone, more than £17.4 million was spent on conservation science and field conservation programmes, with £38.5 million spent on conservation animal care, breeding programmes and conservation translocations. I am pleased that the zoo will, in the coming months, be returning the previously endangered Guam kingfisher into the wild.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. It is entitled “London Zoo Lease”, but we have Belfast Zoo in Northern Ireland, which is doing similar work, with conservation of endangered species at the forefront. It is important that all zoos across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland work together, whether that be London, Belfast or other zoos.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, to ensure that zoos are safe and enable animals to have a good quality of life—today’s zoos are different today from those we had when I was a wee boy, which was not yesterday—improvements must be made regularly, and that needs investment. That is easier to secure when there is long-term potential, rather than an uncertain future. Having the longer lease and the opportunity to expand will be to the advantage of London Zoo, but I believe it will also be to the advantage of all zoos across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which goes to the nub of the issue that I am about to raise. ZSL and Whipsnade Zoo bring animals into the wild in a much more open setting, for them to run free and enjoy the benefits of a much larger area. He is right that zoos in this day and age do not confine animals to small cages, and there is the opportunity for animals to have a much wider spread. It is so important to get investment in zoos and to enable them to operate in such a fashion.
I called this debate because the Crown Estate Act 1961, which we have all no doubt studied in great detail, currently governs the lease of ZSL’s Regent’s Park site. The Act caps the lease at a maximum of 60 years, presenting a number of difficulties, which I will come to shortly. Through this debate and a subsequent change in the law, we hope to extend that maximum lease tenure to 150 years—a 90-year increase. This is not a new ask. Fairly recently, in 2018, a similar Bill was introduced to extend the lease for Kew Gardens, and that is now on the statute books.
At present, with only 60 years on the leasehold, there is a significant impact on the zoo’s ability to raise funds, create new partnerships, expand support programmes for the local community and invest substantially in regeneration of the existing site. What needs to be understood is that many of the buildings on the site are listed. ZSL is not suggesting that it wants to remove those listed buildings; it wants to regenerate them and make them fit for purpose in the current, modern environment.
The zoo’s extremely high running costs, including rising energy bills, of which we are all aware, cannot be compromised on, because it has to sustain climates appropriate for the animals and birdlife in the zoo. Given the zoo’s stature as an organisation—it receives no Government grant aid at all—it is vital that it is able to secure as much funding as possible and to plan for the future. To continue with the 60-year lease would make the zoo financially impossible to sustain and would bring us to a crisis point. I strongly suggest that we should not get to that position.
In 1826, when the zoo was founded, the average life expectancy in this country peaked at about 40. Thus, a 60-year lease was significantly longer than the average life expectancy, and was therefore a reasonable and respectable length. Thankfully, with the advancements in modern science and a better understanding of health and evolution, our average life expectancy has soared, and is now more than double that in the Victorian times, at an average of about 80 years. That makes a 60-year lease redundant. Thus, to tackle the complex challenges facing global wildlife, it is simply not long enough.
The knock-on effects of extending the lease will no doubt transform the site, not only for visitors but for the scientists who do such a brilliant job in the zoo. More certainty on the lease length would enable ZSL to find global investment partners willing to fund the state-of-the-art laboratories and drastically improve the current buildings that act as the animals’ habitat.
There are 140 scientists currently working in dilapidated buildings, which is considerably inhibiting their research. Unsurprisingly, they want modern conditions in which to practise and do their research. Providing new, fully equipped areas where they can conduct those vital studies would benefit not only the public but the animals themselves and other institutions, through the Living Planet Index. Further, London Zoo currently houses 16 species that are extinct in the wild and more than 100 seriously endangered species. Expanding those numbers through space, research and developed understanding, brought about by the leasehold, would prevent us from losing any more of those wonderful creatures.
Normally, when I give speeches in this place, I have a long list of questions for the Minister, but my simple ask today is for her to enable the lease to be extended to 150 years, either by supporting my excellent private Member’s Bill on 24 March or by amending another piece of legislation. When she responds, if she wants to make a short speech and just say yes, that would shorten these proceedings quite considerably.
As I come to the end of my speech and allow other Members to take to the Floor with their insightful comments, I remind colleagues of the important contributions that London Zoo and ZSL have made over the past 200 years. The iconic naturalist, Charles Darwin, conducted many of his studies at the site. Thus, it can be assumed that, without London Zoo’s existence, we would not have a proper understanding of the theory of evolution. Another significant character to come out of the zoo, I am told, is my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin). I am sure that, without his zoological background, his adept manner of dealing with some of the more animal-like behaviour in Parliament would have been very different. Of course, he is now the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, so he has to deal with us all appropriately.
I leave Members with a final thought from the legendary Sir David Attenborough, highlighting further the need for the Crown Estate Act 1961 to be amended to enable a lease extension up to 150 years to ensure the continuation of this renowned establishment:
“ZSL’s work is vital in driving forward a vision of a world where wildlife thrives…from tiny dart frogs to majestic tigers and everything in between.”
Oral Answers to Questions
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can I say how very pleased I am to hear that answer from the hon. Gentleman? I am one who believes very much in the sanctity and importance of marriage. I have been married for 35 years to a long-suffering wife, Sandra. My mum and dad were married for 60 years, and Sandra’s mum and dad were married for 60 years, so we believe in marriage and its importance, as do others in this Chamber. What is the hon. Gentleman able to do to ensure that those having difficulties in marriage can have Relate discussions to ensure that their marriage can last for all their lives?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my friend the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is certainly my hope that churches across the country will be involved in the best possible marriage preparation, but also marriage support, because all of us get into bad habits, including the hon. Gentleman and me, and need little pointers and reminders from time to time.
Genomics and National Security
Jim Shannon Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered genomics and national security.
Alistair Campbell, of course, might be somebody who will wind up at some point. Notwithstanding that minor quibble, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to bring what might be seen by some as a slightly niche subject to the House. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place.
It is worth stating at the outset why I have initiated the debate and what I hope to achieve with it. Let me first accentuate the positives. Genomics is a great British success story and the opportunities for further advancement in the future are phenomenal. In 2003, two years ahead of schedule, the Human Genome Project successfully sequenced the human genome. Since then, genomic research has transformed healthcare. Numerous genomic applications, including non-invasive prenatal genetic testing, DNA-based forensics, genetic disease diagnostics and covid-19 surveillance are now commonplace. Indeed, covid exposed the importance of genomics in monitoring new variants and enabling targeted interventions at a community level. The industry is already worth billions and it will only grow.
But we all know that where there are opportunities, there are also risks—and that is where I want to take the Minister’s attention today. I have been a Minister; he has been a Minister. We all understand that although government can do many great things, it is often clunky and finds difficulties responding when science and technology bring change at a quite bewildering pace, which is exactly what is happening here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate; he is right to underline the issue of risk. Not so long ago I read an article that highlighted the previous existing ties between UK universities and Chinese state-linked companies, about which the US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence had issued a warning. It referred to a
“global collection mechanism for Chinese government genetic databases.”
Does the right hon. Member agree that although it is important to encourage the use of genomics for early intervention and prevention, the national security of information gathered is also of utmost—and perhaps even greater—importance?
Mr Carmichael
Absolutely, and the question of the work in our universities and other research institutions is one to which I will turn in some detail later. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to highlight its importance in this debate.
Consider, though, what happened in recent years in relation to data protection. Regulation of data use was essentially analogue in a world that had gone digital, and it was therefore possible for a company such as Cambridge Analytica to take advantage of poor regulation and to build a business model that was all about the manipulation of opinion.
Genomics is a subject that is often poorly understood outside its own walls. A few years ago, we would have said exactly the same thing about data protection and mass data capture; we simply did not understand the significance of data capture through social media. Well, we understand that better now, and as a consequence we are having to scramble to catch up. If the Minister wants a bit of entertaining bedtime reading in this subject, I recommend Chris Wylie’s book—forgive the vulgarity, but this is the title—“Mindf*ck”. It is about the creation of the Cambridge Analytica model, which used data captured from social media. If we do not learn the lessons of data capture and data protection, we risk the same things happening in genomics and national security.
As a country, we need to ensure that we have a suitable regulatory environment that will protect the gains we have made in the genomics space. That regulation has to protect individual data privacy rights and our national security and economic interests. I believe that our regime falls short in the latter aspect, and it must be made fit for purpose.
We know the positive applications of genomics, and in the coming decade genomics research could lead to breakthrough therapies for hundreds of genetic diseases. It could also create a truly personalised approach to healthcare and enable us to predict the risk of disease at a population level. However, there are also enormously dangerous applications of the technology. Genomic research could be, and in some cases already is being, deployed to widen global health inequalities, curtail human rights, and threaten global peace and stability. There is a spectrum of threat involved, which can range from population engineering to improve “population quality” to genetic extinction technologies in bioweapons.
Genomics is the next frontier in surveillance for repressive regimes such as China, and in 2022, the Citizen Lab found that since 2016 the Chinese Government had been conducting mass DNA campaigns in Tibet and in Xinjiang, as well as a police-led national programme of male DNA collection, to intensify state repression and control.
How are we in the UK mitigating those threats? From Watson and Crick to John Sulston’s vision to map the human genome, applying technology developed by Fred Sanger, the UK has long led the world in this vital research. Still today, our world-leading universities and thriving genomics ecosystem, combined with our continued role in the western alliance, mean that the UK can lead the way in ensuring that genomics is used for the right reasons and in the right way. However, that will continue only if the right decisions are taken now.
More than half our research is a product of international partnerships, and those partnerships need to be based on shared values over the protection of human rights and on reciprocity. The Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure already does important work to protect the integrity of international research collaboration, but we must be more proactive. Our institutions need to get the most out of international scientific collaboration while protecting intellectual property, sensitive research, personal information and, ultimately, our national defence.
Already, it is evidenced that questionable actors are finding a way into the space left by poor regulation, and we risk finding ourselves a few years down the line in the situation we were in some years ago when we had to remove Huawei from the roll-out of the 5G network. Had we acted earlier on Huawei, we would not have had to engineer it out later.
In the field of genomics, more attention needs to be paid to the work of the Chinese gene giant, the BGI Group. BGI is one of a large number of Chinese state-linked companies that have been implicated in the repression of Uyghurs and the forced collection of genetic data. It has a lengthy history of collaboration with the People’s Liberation Army, and is just one example of a company that should not be operating without constraint within our institutions.
The UK relies on the general data protection regulation to regulate the work of groups such as BGI and hopes that genomics firms such as BGI will follow GDPR, rather than the Chinese national security law, but I genuinely question just how likely that is. As the Minister will know, article 7 of the national security law states that
“organisations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts”.
That is a law to which BGI is subject. The BGI Group does not submit itself to independent data security or cyber-security audits, and essentially, we are prepared to take BGI on trust. To me, that feels a little naive.
The US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence noted:
“BGI may be serving…as a global collection mechanism for Chinese government genetic databases”.
It also said that BGI
“poses similar threats in the biotechnology sector as Huawei does in the communications sector.”
In 2020, the US Department of Commerce added Xinjiang Silk Road BGI and Beijing Liuhe BGI—two BGI subsidiaries—to an export blacklist for
“conducting genetic analyses used to further the repression of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities”.
If that is the conclusion of some of our most trusted allies’ agencies, why is the United Kingdom so determined to take a different approach? I fear it may be that we are already further down the road of reliance on companies such as BGI than many in the Government are prepared to acknowledge and admit.
On a point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), a recent Times investigation found that no fewer than 42 universities in the United Kingdom that have links with Chinese institutions connected to the repression of the Uyghurs, espionage, nuclear weapons research or hacking. Many of them have had links with Chinese universities carrying out military work. Twenty-one universities, including Cambridge, Sheffield, Leeds and Queen Mary University of London, are partnered with what is termed “very high-risk Chinese institutions”.
The reach of BGI into key areas of healthcare and scientific research should be of particular concern. Let me contrast the view of the National Counterintelligence and Security Centre in the USA with the answer given recently to a written parliamentary question asked by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), in which Ministers stated that
“the genomics industry is not designated as critical national infrastructure in the UK”.
The truth of the matter is that genomics is playing a role not just in the advancement of science but in economic competition between the UK and our allies on the one hand and competitor states on the other. It is a new front in the defence of the realm.
As far as I am able to tell, there have been no cross-departmental discussions at Cabinet level about the involvement of China and its state-linked companies in the UK genomics and bionomics sector. That has got to change. We need much more proactive work, both within the Government and among the Government, industry and academia. We need to identify potential issues and put in place structures that will protect data privacy and ensure the proper use of genomic research.
If companies such as BGI are not prepared to submit to meaningful compliance audits, we have to stop treating them as if they are trusted partners. At the risk of stating the totally blindingly obvious, once data is shared, we cannot get it back. Although I welcome the Government’s moves last year, including the Trusted Research campaign, led by the CPNI, and the launch of the research collaboration advice team in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, those bodies need to be properly resourced and given proactive mandates to advise and support universities and others engaged in research in this area.
How do we start to turn this situation round within the limits of what is currently available to us? Other things can probably be done with the legislation that is currently going through the House, but what can we do with what is currently available? I suggest to the Minister that the most important step we can take is to bring the genomics industry within the definition of critical national infrastructure. That is defined as:
“Those critical elements of infrastructure (assets, facilities, systems, networks, or processes, and the essential workers who operate and facilitate them), the loss or compromise of which could result in (a) major detrimental impact and the availability, integrity, or delivery of essential services, including those services where integrity, if compromised, could result in significant loss of life or casualties—taking into account significant economic or social impacts; and/or (b) significant impact on national security, national defence, or the functioning of the state.”
It defies belief that genomics is not already included in that definition, and that the Government have apparently not even considered putting it in.
We need to start to scrutinise the work of Chinese genomics firms that are involved in the UK’s health and research sector in the same way that we currently scrutinise firms in areas such as defence technology, telecoms and CCTV surveillance. There must be no trade-off between research success and the promotion of our democratic values and adherence to standards of human rights. Just as the UK Government eventually opted not to allow Huawei access to our 5G critical infrastructure, they must now consider the threats to our national security of allowing BGI and other companies linked to competitor or hostile Governments to access our genomic data.
This is not the sexiest subject that we are going to find, and I suspect that it will not be raised on many doorsteps yet, but consider how the previous exercise in relation to data capture worked out, whereby people understood too late what they had been part of, and the concerns that that raised. This is an opportunity for the Government, just for once, to get ahead of the curve. I would like to hear from the Minister that he understands that and that work is going on within the Government to do exactly that.