Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Caroline Dinenage
My right hon. Friend makes a very good observation, but the fact is that so much content has already been scraped. Crawlers are all over the intellectual property of so many of our creators, writers and publishers—so much so that we are almost in a position where we are shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Nevertheless, we need to do what we can legislatively to get to a better place on this issue.
New clause 2 would simply require anyone operating web crawlers for training and developing AI models to comply with copyright law. It is self-evident and incontrovertible that AI developers looking to deploy their systems in the UK should comply with UK law, but they often claim that copyright is not very clear. I would argue that it is perfectly clear; it is just that sometimes they do not like it. It is a failure to abide by the law that is creating lawsuits around the world. The new clause would require all those marketing their AI models in the UK to abide by our gold-standard copyright regime, which is the basis that underpins our thriving creative industries.
New clause 3 would require web crawler operations and AI developers to disclose the who, what, why, and when crawlers are being used. It also requires them to use different crawlers for different purposes and to ensure that rights holders are not punished for blocking them. A joint hearing of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee heard how publishers are being targeted by thousands of web crawlers with the intention of scraping content to sell to AI developers. We heard that many, if not most, web crawlers are not abiding by current opt-out protocols—robots.txt, for example. To put it another way, some developers of large language models are buying data scraped by third-party tech companies, in contravention of robots.txt protocols, to evade accusations of foul play. All this does is undermine existing licensing and divert revenues that should be returning to our creative industries and news media sector. New clause 3 would provide transparency over who is scraping copyrighted works and give creators the ability to assert and enforce their rights.
New clause 4 would require AI developers to be transparent about what data is going into their AI models. Transparency is fundamental to this debate. It is what we should all be focusing on. We are already behind the drag curve on this. California has introduced transparency requirements, and no one can say that the developers are fleeing silicon valley just yet.
New clause 20, tabled by the official Opposition, also addresses transparency. It would protect the AI sector from legal action by enabling both sides to come to the table and get a fair deal. A core part of this new clause is the requirement on the Secretary of State to commit to a plan to help support creators where their copyright has been used in AI by requiring a degree of transparency.
New clause 5 would provide the means by which we could enforce the rules. It would give the Information Commissioner the power to investigate, assess and sanction bad actors. It would also entitle rights holders to recover damages for any losses suffered, and to injunctive relief. Part of the reason why rights holders are so concerned is that the vast majority of creators do not have deep enough pockets to take on AI developers. How can they take on billion-dollar big tech companies when those companies have the best lawyers that money can buy, who can bog cases down in legislation and red tape? Rights holders need a way of enforcing their rights that is accessible, practical and fair.
The Government’s AI and copyright consultation says that it wants to ensure
“a clear legal basis for AI training with copyright material”.
That is what the new clauses that I have spoken to would deliver. Together they refute the tech sector’s claims of legal uncertainty, while providing transparency and enforcement capabilities for creators.
Ultimately, transparency is the main barrier to greater collaboration between AI developers and creators. Notwithstanding some of the unambitious Government amendments, the Opposition’s amendments would provide the long-overdue redress to protect our creative industries by requiring transparency and a widening of the scope of those who are subject to copyright laws.
The amendments would protect our professional creators and journalists, preserve the pipeline of young people looking to make a career in these sectors themselves, and cement the UK as a genuine creative industries superpower, maintaining our advantage in the field of monetising intellectual property. One day we may make a commercial advantage out of the fact that we are the place where companies can set up ethical AI companies—we could be the envy of the world.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support the Bill and speak to new clauses 22 and 23 tabled in my name. The measures in the Bill will unlock the power of data to grow the economy, to improve public services and make people’s lives easier. By modernising the way in which consumers and businesses can safely share data, the Bill will boost the economy by an estimated £10 billion over the next decade. The Bill will also make our public services more efficient and effective, saving our frontline workers from millions of hours of bureaucracy every year, which they can use to focus on keeping us safe and healthy.
Telegraph Poles: Birmingham
Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks 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
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered telegraph poles in Birmingham.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I want to thank him, as I know he has been working extremely hard on the issue by meeting MPs and working with the industry and regulators. The installation of telegraph poles is an issue that has been landing in the inboxes of MPs across the House and from across the country. In view of that, I hope he does not mind my summoning him to Westminster Hall to take more questions.
I pay tribute to the many constituents I have worked with on the issue over the past two years, including the residents of Vernon Road, Montague Road in Edgbaston, Chad Road, Clarendon Road, Gravel Bank in Bartley Green, and Perrott’s Folly near the Waterworks tower. In particular, I pay tribute to the campaigning of my constituent Lizzy Jordan, who has left no stone unturned in trying to engage with the provider, Brsk, about which I will say more in a moment. Lizzy and our local residents have been a powerhouse. Last year, we managed to convince Brsk to move a pole in front of Perrott’s Folly and the Waterworks tower. This has a huge significance to our heritage, as the towers inspired JRR Tolkien in “The Lord of the Rings”.
We have been pushing Brsk to do right by the residents in our area, but it is exhausting work. Over the past two years, I have engaged with, sent numerous emails to and met Brsk’s west midlands representatives. I joined a resident-led protest against Brsk installing poles outside Perrott’s Folly in my North Edgbaston ward. I have convened and attended a meeting between residents and Brsk about Vernon Road, Clarendon Road and Montague Road. I have written to the last Government and this on several occasions, and submitted evidence ahead of MPs’ roundtables on the issue. I have raised my concerns with Ofcom through letters, and I continue to support my constituents with casework. I think we all agree that it should not take a well-organised community campaign and an active local MP to get a provider to meet its statutory duties, and that is why I have called today’s debate.
I want to say that I and the vast majority of my constituents support the roll-out of new broadband infrastructure. The importance of improving broadband speeds and access to the internet should not be underestimated. Nearly all aspects of our everyday lives —education, work, communication, entertainment—are made possible by the continuous expansion and upgrading of telecoms networks. There are significant digital dark spots in my constituency, such as in North Edgbaston and parts of Harborne, Quinton, Edgbaston and Bartley Green especially. In several areas, superfast broadband coverage is among the worst 10% of areas in the UK. According to recently published House of Commons Library data, 3.8% of lines across my constituency do not even have 10 megabits per second download speeds, with notable clusters of poor coverage in the most deprived areas, such as Bartley Green, and I have asked Brsk to focus on that area.
I am not quick to forget how damaging the pandemic was for many of our children. Particularly in deprived areas with poor connections, we were unable to access remote learning. I and the vast majority of my constituents understand that the roll-out will provide a boost to our economy and set Britain up for the rest of this digital century. This infrastructure will provide opportunities and lower prices, and it can improve people’s lives, but there are ways of going about it. First, we should focus on areas that do not have coverage, not those that do.
As the Minister has himself acknowledged, while the majority of providers are trying to do right by local people by making efforts to consult and not put up poles, some providers in my constituency such as Brsk have occasionally behaved like cowboys by not using existing infrastructure, failing to consult residents with the adequate 28 days’ notice, failing to observe the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requirements to ensure that pathways are clear and accessible until they are told to do so, failing to secure the right council permits for works, and putting up poles everywhere as the only means to address coverage. Given that Brsk’s business is communications, it is ironic how poor it has been at communicating with its stakeholders. The crux of the issue is that such companies are not exploring alternatives to poles or using existing infrastructure when they can. To give some of many examples—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. The debate may now continue until 5.08 pm.
Preet Kaur Gill
The crux of the issue is that these companies are not exploring alternatives to poles or using existing infrastructure when they can. I will give some of many examples. Freedom of information requests to our local council revealed that Brsk did not need to put up poles on Clarendon Road in my constituency, because it could have utilised existing ducts—but it did so anyway, ignoring that fact. Vernon Road is another example; BT installed full-fibre to St Paul’s school for girls at that location without any requirement for poles, yet a constituent came to my surgery on Friday to tell me that another pole had gone up, with a notice on the council’s planning portal appearing only after the pole had been erected. That is even after the Minister’s meeting with Brsk.
I have met Brsk and exchanged exhaustive correspondence on these issues. What has struck me in my dealings with the firm is the lack of policy or strategy for work in my constituency. Poles are supposed to be a last resort, but even where they are not needed, like on Vernon Road, several go up anyway. There are now four on that road. Frequently, when issues are raised, they are not listened to. I asked Brsk for a map of where it is planning to roll out poles in my constituency, and it could not give me one. There is either a plan that it will not share or there really is no strategic focus on where the infrastructure is needed.
My constituents have had similar experiences. An elderly constituent wrote to me earlier this year, deeply worried that a Brsk telegraph pole on an adjoining road, installed less than a metre from her back garden fence, was so close that it could easily provide burglars with access to her property. She told me she lives in perpetual fear that her house could be broken into. More importantly, that was avoidable. Had Brsk simply made an effort to engage first with residents about changes in their community, she would not have been left in that situation.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. She makes a powerful point on behalf of her constituents. In my constituency, we have a similar situation in Stourport-on-Severn, where firms are using permitted development rights in areas where residents are not even allowed to put up a garden fence because of planning approvals. Does she agree that it is a cynical attempt by many of these providers to build an infrastructure that provides capital value that can be sold on? That is less to do with delivering full-fibre broadband than with making money in the short term for those operators.
Preet Kaur Gill
I thank the hon. Member for that important point about the business model. There are alternative ways to implement the infrastructure. In areas like his, this activity does not respect the environment, heritage or planning laws, and we end up with poles erected. Some of them do not even have any lines going through them, which just goes to show that the existing infrastructure meant there was no need for that, but, as he says, it is clearly quite a lucrative business model to sell on the new infrastructure.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. We had similar issues with Brsk when it went on to an unadopted road in a conservation area and started erecting poles. My constituents, Dr Carole McKeown —the secretary for Reddings and Amesbury Road residents association—and her neighbour came to see me. Following the intervention of the Minister, Brsk has agreed to remove the poles, but the point remains that the consultation with and notification of the residents did not happen. These are not isolated incidents. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be tougher action against companies that go about their business without any adherence to the code of conduct?
Preet Kaur Gill
I know that the Minister, in summing up, will address that point, because he has been proactive in meeting the regulator and the companies tasked with installing this infrastructure. He has already given them a clear indication of where the Government will go next if they do not adhere to the code. I also know that he has met Brsk since the previous debate on the issue; I thank him for that.
I was interested to read confirmation that Brsk now has guaranteed access to BT Openreach infrastructure to install broadband lines underground, so why is it not doing so? It is not its business model—that is why it is not doing it. I would be interested to learn from the Minister when that was agreed, because Brsk has not been taking advantage of that in my constituency to date.
Some providers are much better at this. I want to ensure that not everybody is painted with the same brush. There are some very good providers. Last year, broadband infrastructure carried out by Pipeline Utilities on behalf of Grain Connect left Willow Avenue in my constituency with some dreadful retarmacking, as well as broken and cracked paving slabs. When I wrote to the organisation about this, it confirmed that the site was inspected, and agreed to replace and relay the broken paving slabs and tarmac. That is exactly how we should be proceeding.
My experience with Brsk has been very different. Repeatedly, it will arrive in an area to erect new broadband infrastructure poles without properly consulting residents or me. We have seen that behaviour on Vernon Road, Clarendon Road, Chad Road and Stirling Road. The company’s idea of consultation appears to be to put up a notice stating its intention to put up another pole—in some cases, with little to no consultation period. Sometimes, I am told, a notice has not gone up at all, despite my best efforts and those of my constituents to raise concerns about the siting of the poles. We have been ignored. This means that the infrastructure ends up causing issues that could have been foreseen or avoided if there were proper consultation.
Poles have been erected in the middle of pavements, obstructing prams, wheelchairs and people with mobility issues. There have been attempts to erect unsightly poles in front of listed buildings, instead of exploring other options. Some roads are being peppered with poles, even when we are told they are a last resort. It is time for stronger action. Clearly, Brsk is not heeding Government advice.
As we all know, since the rules were changed by the previous Government in 2016, there is no requirement for planning permission for poles up to 15 metres in height, and there is no legal requirement for consultation with local residents and businesses. Good practice asks telecoms communications operators to notify the council of their intention to install a pole, as well as to advertise their development proposal within the vicinity of the site, usually via a site notice, but in reality there is no real opportunity to object to an installation. There needs to be a strategy that targets areas of need and uses existing infrastructure.
We are all familiar with the fact that the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 require that, among other things, operators must share apparatus where possible, and use underground rather than overground lines where they can—yet that is not happening in practice. I know roads where as many as five or six poles have been erected. It is ugly, disruptive and excessive, and it impacts on house prices.
As these issues are a matter for the regulator, Ofcom, I seek the Minister’s clarification on what monitoring of these requirements is being carried out to ensure that network providers collaborate and share network infrastructure, and what action Ofcom has been taking against providers who have been found to not comply. When I wrote to Ofcom, it said its role is
“limited to enforcement of the Regulations”
and that, under those,
“operators have significant flexibility…to put up their own poles.”
I know that the Minister has been looking at a revision of the code of practice. We would be grateful if he could say more on that. I also welcome that he has stated that he reserves the right to change the law in this area.
It strikes me that stronger adherence to the regulations on sharing infrastructure is one of those rare examples where stronger regulation will actually save companies and consumers money. Surely it is cheaper for companies to co-ordinate with one another over the sharing of infrastructure than to erect new poles every time they need a new node for their network. It is baffling and frustrating that providers such as Brsk have not been more proactive in anticipating the concerns of the public before Ofcom has had to get involved. Fundamentally, my constituents of Birmingham Edgbaston are asking for respect: respect to influence decisions, and to ensure that broadband infrastructure is implemented in a way that respects their local environment, heritage and public interest.
I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on work to amend and strengthen the code of practice, so that operators respond to and engage in good faith with residents. I would also be keen to hear the outcome of his recent engagement with Brsk, having shared with him my experience of dealing with it, and to understand what more we can do to ensure that providers work together to share infrastructure, and that the requirements under the 2003 regulations are adhered to and enforced. I thank the Minister for his attention and look forward to working with him.
Telegraph Poles: Planning Permission
Preet Kaur Gill Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I know that a number of colleagues have experienced similar problems in their constituencies to those I will be raising, and I will try to accommodate interventions.
I welcome the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), to his place. I am sure hon. Members from all parties welcomed his statement in July:
“We fully understand people’s concerns about the excessive deployment of telegraph poles, and are urgently considering options to address this.”
As time is short, I will focus on the current absence of a requirement to consult residents under the legislative and regulatory regime that Ministers have inherited. This is not about being against telegraph poles, nor is it about being against the roll-out of fast broadband. New infrastructure is vital in a society that is increasingly dependent on fast and reliable internet services. However, surely it is wrong that when poles are sited inappropriately, recourse for residents is advisory only, and, in many cases, completely lacking in practice.
Official statistics suggest that in my Birmingham Northfield constituency, almost 99% of residents have access to superfast broadband. I know that Ministers have some scepticism about the accuracy of those figures, but it is undeniable that broadband coverage is better than in neighbouring rural areas, yet urban areas are the current focus for the roll-out. The case for the changes in 2013 that established the current permitted development regime focused almost exclusively on the need to extend superfast broadband to rural areas and new-build estates. Little to no consideration appears to have been given to how the legislation would impact already built-up, urban areas. The consequences are now being seen in south Birmingham, as some residents are left to accommodate poles that are unwanted, unneeded and obtrusive.
Preet Kaur Gill
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and it is much needed. As he said, many of our constituents already have excellent broadband, so telegraph poles should be strategically prioritised in rural areas. In one of my streets alone, there are five poles. I have previously asked the Government how many poles they think is acceptable. Does he agree that this is not the way that providers should behave?
Laurence Turner
I know that my hon. Friend has been doing extensive work on this issue. There are similar problems in my Birmingham Northfield constituency, and I would be sympathetic to having different approaches in rural, semi-rural and built-up urban areas, precisely because of the issues she raises.