Government defeated for third time in Lords over copyright protection against AI
Peers have inflicted a heavy defeat on the Government for the third time over copyright protections for the creative industries against artificial intelligence (AI).
It came as the upper chamber joined artists and musicians, including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, in speaking out against AI companies using copyrighted work without permission.
The House of Lords supported by 287 votes to 118, majority 169, an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, adding a commitment to introduce transparency requirements, aiming to ensure copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by who.
Peers backed independent crossbencher Baroness Beeban Kidron's transparency amendments at report stage of the Bill, which were later voted down by MPs.
The unelected house supported her again during the first round of so-called ping-pong and now again in the second round of ping-pong, with the majority increasing each time.
Among the 287 to vote in favour of her amendment on Monday were 18 Labour peers, including former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson, now known as Lord Watson of Wyre Forest. PA Media Baroness Beeban Kidron (Joshua Bratt/ PA credit).
The Government has said it will address copyright issues as a whole after the more than 11,500 responses to its consultation on the impact of AI have been reviewed, rather than in what it has branded 'piecemeal' legislation.
Lady Kidron, who directed the second film in the Bridget Jones series, rounded on the Government, accusing them of being 'turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley'.
She said: 'The Government have got it wrong. They have been turned by the sweet whisperings of Silicon Valley, who have stolen – and continue to steal every day we take no action – the UK's extraordinary, beautiful and valuable creative output.
'Silicon Valley have persuaded the Government that it is easier for them to redefine theft than make them pay for what they stole.
'If the Government continues on its current intransigent path, we will begin to see the corrosion of our powerful industry, fundamental to country and democracy. It will be a tragedy and it's entirely avoidable.'
The online safety campaigner explained that her new amendment accepts that the Government's consultation and report will be the mechanism by which transparency measures will be introduced, and gives the Government free rein on enforcement procedures.
However, it does require the Government to ensure clear, relevant and accessible information be provided to copyright holders so they can identify the use of their copyrighted work, and that legislation to be brought forward within six months of the Government's report being published, 18 months from the Bill's passing.
Lady Kidron told peers: 'If the Government is not willing to accept a time-limited outcome of its own report, we must ask again if the report is simply a political gesture to push tackling widespread theft of UK copyright into the long grass.
'Because failing to accept a timeline in the real world means starving UK industries of the transparency they need to survive.' PA Media Baroness Dame Floella Benjamin backed the amendment(Jordan Pettitt/PA).
She insisted that UK copyright law as it stands is unenforceable, because 'what you can't see you can't enforce', and that without her amendment it will be years before the issue is legislated on, by which time the creative industry will be 'in tatters'.
Former BBC children's TV presenter and Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Floella Benjamin backed the amendment, saying it would 'secure our children's future and not sell them down the river', assuring them that 'their creativity will not be stolen'.
In a nod to Sir Elton's comments on the issue, former Labour deputy leader and UK Music chairman Lord Watson said: 'It's a little bit funny this feeling inside that I rise to support Baroness Kidron's amendment today, an amendment that my front bench so clearly opposes.
'But my lords, I'm still standing. I'm still standing because I do not yet believe that ministers have heard the clarion cry from our country's creators that they need more from this Bill.' PA Media Lord Tom Watson echoed the words of Sir Elton John as he supported the amendment (Lucy North/PA).
Also backing the amendment was former EastEnders actor and Labour peer Lord Michael Cashman, who recalled character actress Claire Davenport cherishing the royalty cheques she would receive by rubbing them on her 'ample bosom' and saying: 'Now, I can eat'.
Responding, technology minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch insisted that transparency 'cannot be considered in isolation' and that the issue of copyright is 'too important a topic to rush'.
She said: 'Alongside transparency, we must also consider licensing, the remuneration of rights holders, and the role of technical solutions and any other number of issues relating to copyright and AI. This is why we consulted on all of these topics.
'We must also keep in mind that any solution adopted by the UK must reflect the global nature of copyright, the creative sector and AI development. We cannot ring-fence the UK away from the rest of the world.' PA Media Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said the debate was about 'finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors' (Ian Nicholson/PA).
She added: 'This is a policy decision with many moving parts. Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others.'
The minister told peers: 'We are all on the same side here. We all want to see a way forward that protects our creative industries while supporting everyone in the UK to develop and benefit from AI.
'This isn't about Silicon Valley, it's about finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors. We have to find a solution that protects both sectors.'
Earlier, peers ended their stand-off on two other amendments, one designed to require public authorities to record sex data based on biological sex, and another to change the definition of scientific research, which critics argued gave AI companies a 'powerful exemption' to reuse data without consent.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
40 minutes ago
- ITV News
Protesters raise environmental fears as wait continues for Sizewell C funding announcement
Hundreds of people voiced their concerns over the multi-billion pound Sizewell C nuclear power station on the Suffolk coastline ahead of an expected announcement from the Government. The rally on Sizewell Beach on Saturday, organised by Stop Sizewell C and Together Against Sizewell C, included speeches from campaigners against the major project including Greenpeace members, and musical performances. The peaceful protest ended with the 300-strong crowd walking to the Sizewell complex and tying ribbons with messages, emphasising people's concerns, to the gates. Plans for Sizewell C were given the go ahead by the then Chancellor in November 2022 but the funding is yet to be approved by the Government, although an announcement on the project is expected in Labour's Spending Review on Wednesday 11 June. Construction has already started for the nuclear site and surrounding infrastructure on the Suffolk coast which will sit next to the Sizewell B plant, and has already been given £250m in local funding. Once it is operational, it is expected to contribute £40m a year to the local economy and employ 900 people in skilled jobs, according to a Sizewell C spokesperson. But many people fear the environmental impact of Sizewell C and believe it will destroy the area. Jenny Kirtley, from Together Against Sizewell C, said: "You've only got to look around the area and see the devastation that's happened. I've been fighting this for 12 years. We knew it would be bad but we didn't know it would be so devastating. I mean a whole area is changing before our very eyes and it's heartbreaking. "There are a huge mountains of earth everywhere and of course the wildlife is suffering. The deers don't know where to go. They're rambling around everywhere. The birds are leaving their nests. "It's all very well saying it's going to create thousands of jobs but who's going to work in the supermarkets the care homes the restaurants you know this is a small area. "We've got six thousand people living around here so where are people going to live? We know rents are going sky high so it's going to get worse and it's going to be a real problem." Alison Downes, from Stop Sizewell C, also believed the project would be a waste of tax-payers money and there were better options to provide renewable energy. She said: "We've always had people behind us in the local area. I think a lot of new people have woken up and seen the destruction that's been caused by the project. They are now feeling the same the same sense of outrage that we do. "Sizewell C is too slow, risky and expensive to be the solution to our climate urgency. This is the wrong type of reactor. It's in the wrong place on an eroding coastline so we are here to express our outrage about size we see." The outrage rally, which was the third of it's kind, was also a tribute to Pete Wilkinson - a former chairman of Together Against Sizewell C, who died in January 2025. His daughters Emily and Amy Wilkinson, were at the event and spoke about their father and the rally. Emily Wilkinson, 29, said: "Dad was such a fantastic human being. He was a passionate and courageous man who spent his entire life fighting whatever he saw is wrong. That's what drove him in life. He saw the beauty in the planet and fought for it every single time." The Government said Sizewell C would be "an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and net zero, while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs and supporting our energy independence beyond 2030". A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: "Nuclear power has the potential to boost our supply of secure homegrown power and generate major investment nationwide.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Britain's debt is a threat to national security
Our sky high debt is a threat to our national security. This year, the cost of servicing our debt will be almost double what we are spending on defence. And in today's turbulent world, the fiscal buffer to cushion us from shocks is paper thin. The smallest tap could shatter our economic credibility. The Prime Minister has made defence and security the organising principle of his government. Given that, putting our debt on a downward path should be his government's priority. It isn't. Debt will be higher at the end of the Parliament than today. And with global government debt already around $100 trillion, and Donald Trump about to increase that by a further $2.4 trillion, who will buy our debt – and at what price? Last year, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee raised a red flag that UK debt risks becoming unsustainable unless tough decisions are taken in this Parliament. We set out a choice: taxes would have to rise, or the state would have to do less. Being cross-party, we did not opine on which option was best. The Government has taken tough decisions – but in my mind the wrong ones. Taxes are rising to record highs. The Chancellor said last year that her strategy would deliver growth, and that she would not come back for more tax. But the growth forecast has been halved, and further tax hikes are on the cards. Meanwhile, pressure to spend more on defence is going to increase. At the upcoming Nato summit, nations are likely to be asked to commit to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence – double Labour's current commitment. So what is to be done? We need to confront the other option: the state should do less. The Government rightly says that the relentless rise in welfare spending is 'unsustainable'. Spending on disability and incapacity benefits alone is more than on defence. But having announced that action would be taken to curb the growth in the welfare budget, the Prime Minister is now blinking in the face of opposition. The Government – and the nation – cannot afford ministers losing their nerve to keep a lid on spending. The bond vigilantes have saddled up and are on the prowl. Nor can the Chancellor tax her way out of the debt quagmire: to do so would risk us entering into a doom loop of ever lower growth and ever higher debt. If defence and security is the organising principle of government, the Chancellor must set out a credible plan to stop debt's relentless rise and bring it down from today's giddying heights. Not doing so risks economic catastrophe – and our national security.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to.
