Watchdog probes Springbank baron over nuclear firm meeting
The paper stated that Lord Duncan of Springbank helped Terrestrial Energy secure a meeting in 2023 with Andrew Bowie, then the UK nuclear minister.
READ MORE:
Lord Duncan, who has also served as a junior climate minister, has been an adviser to Terrestrial Energy since 2020.
The company is developing a new type of nuclear reactor it claims can be built more quickly and cheaply than traditional power stations.
Although Lord Duncan has not received a salary for the role, he has been granted share options—allowing him to buy company shares at a preferential rate if the business becomes profitable.
Documents released under freedom of information legislation show that, in 2023, Lord Duncan forwarded a letter from Terrestrial Energy's chief executive, Simon Irish, to Mr Bowie.
In the letter, Mr Irish requested a meeting with the minister to introduce himself and brief him on the firm's products. He noted that, alongside a partner, the company had 'applied for a grant from [the] UK's nuclear fuel fund programme'.
In his accompanying email, Lord Duncan wrote: 'Sorry this letter has taken so long to get to you … The chap in question is in town week commencing 1 May, if you have any availability. I realise it's short notice but I thought it might be better than a Zoom. Good to see your youngster bobbing up on my timeline beaming away merrily. Please pass on my best wishes to [name redacted].'
A Whitehall official later replied confirming that Mr Bowie 'would be pleased' to meet Mr Irish and asked for his contact details.
The House of Lords Commissioners for Standards' website confirms that Lord Duncan is under investigation for a 'potential breach' of paragraph 9(d) of the 12th edition of the House of Lords Code of Conduct, which states that "Members must not seek to profit from membership of the House by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services."
Responding to the Guardian last month, Lord Duncan denied breaching any rules, describing the meeting as a 'continuation of the dialogue' between Terrestrial Energy and the UK Government.
'In forwarding on this letter to Andrew Bowie, I was introducing a representative from a company already known to the government and with whom the representatives of the government had met previously,' he said.
Lord Duncan added that he had not received any additional share options or remuneration since 2020. 'Such options in private companies have no value when granted, and only have prospective value on an exit, which is entirely uncertain, and may be many years after the grant.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why Lords are striking a blow for creative industries over new AI bill
Strange to say but a government with a Commons majority of 156 is somehow in danger of losing one of its more important pieces of legislation. The Data (Use and Access) Bill is commonly called the 'data bill' or ' AI bill' because it is central to the regulation of the new world of artificial intelligence; indeed, it is the first act of parliament specifically designed to deal with it. After breezing its way through the Commons, it has encountered unexpectedly stiff resistance in the House of Lords. Peers have five times rejected parts of the bill, and unless the government is prepared to compromise, the AI bill will have to be abandoned. Why is the AI bill in trouble? There are a lot of complicated parliamentary shenanigans involved, but at issue is the right of artists, creatives, authors – and, indeed, journalists – to own and make a living out of their work. Elton John, Kate Bush, Damon Albarn, Dua Lipa and Paul McCartney are just a few members of a formidable coalition of interests who want to stop AI giants 'scraping' their work, undermining their livelihoods, and potentially killing the whole sector. It's the biggest change to the law in copyright and intellectual property in generations, effectively abolishing royalties, and hasn't really been subjected to the kind of national debate that it merits. The artists, writers and musicians have found a doughty defender in Beeban Kidron, a film director (Bridget Jones) who's been leading the guerrilla warfare in the upper chamber. As a lead character, she's been compelling. What do the Lords rebels want? A relatively modest amendment to the bill that would subject AI companies to copyright rules and make them declare when and what material they are using for their own commercial purposes: a duty of transparency. Thus, copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by whom. How determined are the rebels? Very. In the words of Baroness Kidron: 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the House widespread theft. We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both Houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Why won't the government give way? It has offered concessions, but ministers maintain the new law does not weaken copyright law; creatives, who have the most to lose, beg to differ. Obviously, the government is anxious not to lose a whole piece of legislation that also covers, for example: a data preservation process supporting bereaved parents; new offences for intimate image deepfake abuse; smart data schemes such as open banking; and a framework for research into online safety. AI is also an important driver of economic growth. More than that, the government has been trying to tread a middle path between the more restrictive European approach and the American policy of laissez-faire. If Britain annoys the Americans, who lead in the sector, it might spoil the trade deal and relations more widely. Can't the government just force it through? Not easily. The deadlock between the Commons and Lords is such that either the bill gets amended to the satisfaction of both sides, or it cannot go forward for final readings and ultimately royal assent. This resistance by the Lords is exceptional and called 'double insistence', arising from the fact that the bill originated in the Lords rather than the Commons. (It must have been assumed to be less controversial.) But in the end, the government could get its way by invoking the Parliament Act, which trumps anything. The new law would be delayed, but the rebels might lose their cause by refusing to compromise. What is likely to happen? A compromise – but with further Lords reform in the way, the rebel peers may feel they have nothing to lose. By delaying the bill, they would force ministers to think again and allow the campaign by Elton John and his formidable creative forces to regroup and build more momentum – the issue still lacks much salience with the public. Either way, it has been tough on the personable Peter Kyle, secretary of state for science, innovation and technology.
Wales Online
10 hours ago
- Wales Online
Elton John says ‘we will not back down' in awards speech addressing AI concerns
Elton John says 'we will not back down' in awards speech addressing AI concerns The Government has repeatedly rejected changes to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, proposed by the House of Lords, aimed at strengthening protections for the creative sector Sir Elton John said "we will not back down" in an awards speech where he pleaded with the UK Government to "do the right thing" by strengthening copyright protections when artificial intelligence (AI) models learn from creatives' content. The Government has repeatedly rejected changes to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, proposed by the House of Lords, aimed at strengthening protections for the creative sector. Peers have attempted to amend the Bill by 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. Veteran rock singer Sir Elton, 78, who picked up the Creators' Champion Award at Billboard's Global Power Players Event on Wednesday, is among hundreds of creatives who have raised concerns over AI companies using copyrighted work without permission. In an Instagram post he thanked the US magazine for the award and said: "Supporting the next generation of British artists is one of the major driving forces in my life. "As everyone in that room was aware, the Data Bill is currently looming over our industries and the future livelihood of all artists. It is an existential issue. Article continues below "Earlier this evening, the Government was defeated for an unprecedented fifth time by the House of Lords who have backed the crucial amendment to the Bill. "I am now calling on the Government to do the right thing and get transparency added to the Bill. "Administration of copyright must be transparent. And it must have an artist's full permission. These two principles are the bedrock of our industry. They must be included in the data Bill as a backstop. "Let's be clear – we want to work with the Government. We are not anti AI. We are not anti big tech. We are not against Labour. We want a solution that brings all parties together in a way that's transparent, fair and allows artists to maintain control of their work. "We will not let the Government forget their promise to support our creative industries. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning. "Thank you, Billboard. And thank you Baroness Kidron and The House of Lords for standing up for our world-beating artists, journalists, playwrights, designers and authors." Article continues below The prolonged impasse and the conduct of proceedings at Westminster now threatens the future of the whole Bill and its measures, including a crackdown on deepfake porn abuse.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Ministers offer concessions on AI and copyright to avoid fifth Lords defeat
Ministers have offered a series of last-minute concessions on copyright protections in an effort to avoid a fifth defeat in the House of Lords which could threaten the progress of a key bill. The data bill faces the prospect of being shelved amid a tense standoff over plans to allow AI companies to use copyrighted material to train their models. In a letter to all peers late on Tuesday night, the government offered further concessions in an effort to stave off another defeat. Maggie Jones, the Lords minister for the digital economy and online safety, said the government would commit to publishing further technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation and do so within nine months instead of 12. Jones wrote that ministers intended to move as quickly as possible in this important area and that the amendments would be laid on Wednesday afternoon. 'A number of noble Lords have voiced concerns during ping-pong that the government is not listening. This is simply not the case,' she said, reiterating that ministers regretted the way they had gone about the changes. Jones stressed that the data bill was expected to generate £10bn of economic benefit by updating data protection law and that it would improve online safety, including by strengthening powers to ask social media companies to preserve data following the death of a child. The bill has been used by Beeban Kidron, the award-winning film director and cross-bench peer, as a vehicle to oppose the government's proposed changes to copyright law. The government's concessions are intended to fulfil changes requested by Kidron. Kidron is preparing to table another amendment to the bill on Wednesday morning. If she puts forward the same amendment which the Commons stripped out of the bill on Tuesday, and the Lords vote for it, it would put parliament in double insistence territory. This means the Commons and Lords cannot reach agreement over legislation. In this scenario, under parliamentary convention, the bill would fall unless ministers accept the rebel amendment. This is extremely rare but not without precedent – it happened to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill 1997–98 – and the government could find potential ways to avoid it. Kidron said: 'It is in the gift of the government to accept the amendment, or put something meaningful in its place. They have failed to listen to the Lords, they have failed to listen to the creative sector, they have failed to listen to their own backbenchers. 'I have always been willing to find a route through this, but you have to ask why they feel unable to protect UK interests, and why they are giving away the country's riches and jobs, without ensuring they have the regulatory tools necessary to negotiate a settlement. Ministers keep saying fair: what is not fair is letting one sector steal from another.' Under the government's proposals, AI companies would be allowed to train their models using copyrighted work without permission unless the owner opts out. The plans have been fiercely criticised by creators and publishers including high-profile artists such as Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard. The Lords dealt a fourth defeat to the government on Monday night, with peers voting 242 to 116 to a change that would introduce transparency requirements to force AI companies to publish how they are training their models. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has said he regretted the decision to launch a consultation on changing copyright law with the opt-out system as the 'preferred option'. Campaigners against the changes believe that there is resistance inside Downing Street to making more substantial concessions.
