Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this important debate. This is a subject of huge concern to anyone who works in the creative industries. I have been contacted by many people in my constituency who are concerned about how the future will impact them and their work. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for visual arts and artists, and we are looking at this issue closely to ensure that artists’ copyright is fully protected.

AI can provide many opportunities across many industries. Indeed, we have already seen AI images grace the cover of magazines and AI artwork sold at auction. However, it also comes with challenges, such as how we can ensure sustainable growth while safeguarding the value of people’s artistic work. Artists and creatives rightly have significant concerns about how AI could negatively impact their work, future opportunities and copyright. The breakneck speed at which AI is developing means that there is a widening skills gap, with people playing catch-up to ensure that their work remains relevant and current.

The role of Government in this emerging sector is crucial. Consent, control and remuneration for intellectual property must be at the heart of how the Government manage AI development. To prevent exploitation, we must ensure that the onus of protecting rights and intellectual property is not placed on rights holders. There are huge growth opportunities across the creative industries, worth billions to our economy. Our legal frameworks for AI and copyright must support artists and creatives to facilitate the protection of their intellectual property. Rights holders must be able to make nuanced decisions about the potential use of their work through standardised systems and be fairly compensated for that use. It is the role of Government to ensure that copyright is protective and enforced, so let us do that.

Telegraph Poles: Planning Permission

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. He highlights issues that are common across the wider region and, I suspect, the country. I will come on to some of the regulatory changes that could be made, but it is important to recognise that there was a requirement for companies to share infrastructure wherever possible. However, I will discuss some of the cases in my constituency where that clearly is not happening.

I want to draw attention to some of the problems in my constituency. I recently attended a residents’ meeting in a street in Birmingham Northfield called Pineview, a quiet cul-de-sac that is set back from a busy road. The community is close-knit, and over the years, the residents have invested their time and a considerable amount of money to ensure the upkeep of the area. They have lived with underground telecommunications infrastructure, which serves different operators, and they have experienced a positive service. However, residents report that four telegraph poles were installed on the road last year, starting early in the day and finishing late at night, with intrusive spotlights to facilitate the work. There was very limited community engagement, despite the residents taking up the company Brsk’s suggestion that a petition be collected. That was done, but to no effect.

I also draw attention to Lovell Close in Weoley. It is another small cul-de-sac, with only half a dozen houses and narrow pavements, but activities by two competing companies are now causing obstruction for residents and users of an adjoining public park. The hope that the infrastructure would be shared is not being observed in practice, and there are ongoing problems with pavement parking across south Birmingham. I know that Transport Ministers are looking separately at this issue, but the fact is that the combination of pavement parking and the loss of pavement space to poles has created obstructions and pinch points. This is a particular problem for those with prams and mobility scooters.

There are also problems in the Bournville conservation area, which I discussed recently with the Bournville Village Trust. I place on record my thanks for the local representations that have been made to me in advance of this debate by Councillors Esther Rai, Miranda Perks and Jamie Tennant in my constituency, and Liz Clements and Fred Grindrod in the neighbouring ward of Bournville and Cotteridge. I also want to mention the work done on this issue by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill)—as she said, she is addressing the same problems in her constituency—and my other constituency neighbour, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). As a Front Bencher, he is unable to speak in this debate, but I know that he is addressing the same problems and has written to Ofcom on this matter.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

In Stourbridge in the west midlands, we face similar problems with the same company, which is causing havoc. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the legislation was passed in 2013, yet in 2024, we are still waiting for the full roll-out of ultrafast broadband. Although I appreciate what he says about our current adequate speeds, they could be much faster. When I was recently in Ukraine, I experienced far better internet connectivity than I do in central London or Stourbridge town centre. Our European neighbours are enjoying much faster broadband while we languish behind, and Stourbridge residents have been left at the mercy of these third-party companies—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady might like to sit while I am standing. I have previously told Members that interventions should be short and spontaneous. It is not an opportunity to read out a pre-prepared speech. If she wanted to speak in this debate, she could have asked permission from both the Minister and the Member in charge, and that would have been acceptable.