Latest news with #HouseOfLords
The Guardian
a day ago
- Business
- 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.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Westminster DOES have a problem with leaks! Parliament's dodgy plumbing failed 1,460 times last year
Parliament's dodgy plumbing failed nearly 1,500 times last year - an average of four leaks per day. Figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request showed there were 1,460 leaks reported in Parliament in 2024. This was down from the 1,524 leaks reported in 2023, but up from the 1,205 leaks reported in 2022. Over the three-year period there were a total of 4,189 incidents across the crumbling Westminster estate. It can also be revealed how Parliament's water costs have risen in recent years, from £232,000 in 2020/21 to £325,000 in 2023/24. Water costs peaked at £383,000 in 2022/23, although the figures for the past few years will have been impacted by the Covid crisis. The pandemic saw many staff - as well as some MPs and peers - stay away from Parliament during lockdown restrictions. The debate over how to restore the crumbling Houses of Parliament has been taking place for years. A multibillion-pound price tag is expected regardless of which option is selected. MPs and peers agreed in 2018 to a plan that would see both the House of Commons and House of Lords move to temporary facilities near the existing site. The 'full decant' would allow for essential repairs and upgrades. But a review of the plans was carried out amid concerns about the cost. Other options include a programme of 'enhanced maintenance improvement', which would involve work being done largely without either House having to move out. Alternatively, a 'continued presence' would see the Lords alone move out. John Marsden, founder of Origin Tech, who submitted the FoI request, said: 'Everyone in Westminster is used to leaks of one kind or another, but structural ones are often far more expensive to repair. 'These figures indicate an ongoing challenge with water infrastructure that risks compounding damage and costs if not addressed. 'Tackling these leaks proactively is a critical step not just in preserving the historic Parliamentary estate, but in minimising avoidable expenditure and ultimately reducing the financial burden on taxpayers.' Origin Tech design technologies that make it easier for the water industry to take action on water waste, leakage and infrastructure integrity. A Parliament spokesperson said: 'Parliament continues to increase its water efficiency with figures up to 2022/23 showing water consumption has fallen by 42.5 per cent since 2008-09. 'We have a rolling programme of proactive maintenance that supports the continued business of Parliament. When issues are identified, we act quickly to address them.'
The Independent
3 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Peers who ‘make great sacrifices' hike their own overnight allowance by a fifth
Peers have awarded themselves an inflation-busting hike in the amount they can claim for overnight stays in London and backed a separate payout for second homes. Members of the unelected chamber, who Parliament heard 'make great sacrifices', waved through the allowance increase of more than a fifth without a vote. Changes made to the remittance system last year enabled peers living outside the capital and attending the House of Lords to claim £100 towards the cost of 'hotels, clubs or similar accommodation' on production of receipts. This was on top of the daily attendance payment that can be claimed of up to £361 and travel expenses. The overnight allowance was automatically uprated in line with inflation to £103 a night and after approval by peers will now swell to £125 – a 21% rise. In a further change to the system, a payment will also be made available to contribute towards other London accommodation costs that may be incurred to attend sittings at Westminster, such as for those who rent or own a property that is not their main address. This has been set at £63 or half the overnight allowance after rounding up. Outlining the proposals in Parliament, Lords leader Baroness Smith of Basildon said the existing overnight rate of £103 'is not a realistic reflection of the cost of hotels across the capital'. As such the House of Lords Commission, on which she sits, recommended this was increased to £125-a-night. Lady Smith added: 'As previously, claims are linked to attending the House on a sitting day, and receipts must be provided.' On the proposed flat-rate allowance for alternative accommodation in London, the Cabinet minister said: 'This will again be tied to attendance in the House, with a robust system of verification. 'For members whose main address is outside London, they would be able to claim £63-per-night to spend at a designated property in Greater London where they stay and are responsible for the costs. 'To claim, peers must have stayed in the property the day before or the day after attending the House, and the finance team will require documentation to support the claim.' Her Conservative counterpart Lord True, who when in Government introduced the overnight allowance last year, said: 'It is always difficult to strike a balance, and I think that the commission… has struck a reasonable balance which will support people who come to this House from all over the country, who wish to work hard on behalf of the House and on behalf of the country.' He added: 'There is a lot of loose talk outside this House about people in this House being lazy and lining their pockets. 'You do not become rich by becoming a member of the House of Lords. Many people here make great sacrifices. 'We should not claim that we are poor or that we are underprivileged, but it is right that the House makes provision to enable those of us who come here to do a hard day's work to enable us to do so in the most reasonable fashion. 'Obviously, there is a duty on us to behave with honesty and clarity, as we all do and will all do, I have no doubt, under these new proposals. I support them.'
BBC News
4 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
The AI copyright standoff continues - with no solution in sight
The fierce battle over artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright - which pits the government against some of the biggest names in the creative industry - returns to the House of Lords on Monday with little sign of a solution in sight.A huge row has kicked off between ministers and peers who back the artists, and shows no sign of abating. It might be about AI but at its heart are very human issues: jobs and highly unusual that neither side has backed down by now or shown any sign of compromise; in fact if anything support for those opposing the government is growing rather than tailing off. This is "unchartered territory", one source in the peers' camp told me. The argument is over how best to balance the demands of two huge industries: the tech and creative sectors. More specifically, it's about the fairest way to allow AI developers access to creative content in order to make better AI tools - without undermining the livelihoods of the people who make that content in the first sparked it is the uninspiringly-titled Data (Use and Access) proposed legislation was broadly expected to finish its long journey through parliament this week and sail off into the law books. Instead, it is currently stuck in limbo, ping-ponging between the House of Lords and the House of bill states that AI developers should have access to all content unless its individual owners choose to opt out. Nearly 300 members of the House of Lords disagree. They think AI firms should be forced to disclose which copyrighted material they use to train their tools, with a view to licensing Nick Clegg, former president of global affairs at Meta, is among those broadly supportive of the bill, arguing that asking permission from all copyright holders would "kill the AI industry in this country". Those against include Baroness Beeban Kidron, a crossbench peer and former film director, best known for making films such as Bridget Jones: The Edge of says ministers would be "knowingly throwing UK designers, artists, authors, musicians, media and nascent AI companies under the bus" if they don't move to protect their output from what she describes as "state sanctioned theft" from a UK industry worth £ asking for an amendment to the bill which includes Technology Secretary Peter Kyle giving a report to the House of Commons about the impact of the new law on the creative industries, three months after it comes into force, if it doesn't change. Mr Kyle also appears to have changed his views about UK copyright once said copyright law was "very certain", now he says it is "not fit for purpose".Perhaps to an extent both those things are Department for Science, Innovation and Technology say that they're carrying out a wider consultation on these issues and will not consider changes to the Bill unless they're completely satisfied that they work for creators. If the "ping pong" between the two Houses continues, there's a small chance the entire bill could be shelved; I'm told it's unlikely but not it does, some other important elements would go along with it, simply because they are part of the same bill. It also includes proposed rules on the rights of bereaved parents to access their children's data if they die, changes to allow NHS trusts to share patient data more easily, and even a 3D underground map of the UK's pipes and cables, aimed at improving the efficiency of roadworks (I told you it was a big bill).There is no easy answer. How did we get here? Here's how it all started. Initially, before AI exploded into our lives, AI developers scraped enormous quantities of content from the internet, arguing that it was in the public domain already and therefore freely available. We are talking about big, mainly US, tech firms here doing the scraping, and not paying for anything they hoovered they used that data to train the same AI tools now used by millions to write copy, create pictures and videos in seconds. These tools can also mimic popular musicians, writers, artists. For example, a recent viral trend saw people merrily sharing AI images generated in the style of the Japanese animation firm Studio founder of that studio meanwhile, had once described the use of AI in animation as "an insult to life itself". Needless to say, he was not a has been a massive backlash from many content creators and owners including household names like Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa. They have argued that taking their work in this way, without consent, credit or payment, amounted to theft. And that artists are now losing work because AI tools can churn out similar content freely and quickly Elton John didn't hold back in a recent interview with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. He argued that the government was on course to "rob young people of their legacy and their income", and described the current administration as "absolute losers".Others though point out that material made by the likes of Sir Elton is available worldwide. And if you make it too hard for AI companies to access it in the UK they'll simply do it elsewhere instead, taking much needed investment and job opportunities with opposing positions, no obvious compromise. Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
The Guardian
29-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Lords watchdog investigates Tory peer over ‘erroneous' travel claims
The House of Lords watchdog has launched an investigation into a Conservative hereditary peer who admitted he 'erroneously' made claims last year for travel expenses he did not incur. He is the fifth peer to face an inquiry after Guardian reporting into the upper house. The Earl of Shrewsbury is being examined for a potential breach of rules after revelations he received reimbursement for mileage for four journeys between his home in Derbyshire and Stafford station, which he cannot have made as he was either in London or Liverpool. Leaked emails and documents obtained under freedom of information legislation also revealed Shrewsbury had used his taxpayer-funded first-class ticket for part of a journey to Liverpool from London to attend a board meeting of a commercial company he advised. The peer, whose full name is Charles Henry John Benedict Crofton Chetwynd Chetwynd-Talbot, wrote 'in jest' in an email to his fellow directors that the 'government pays' for his travel to the meeting. Shrewsbury said earlier this month that he had offered to reimburse the taxpayer for the expenses he had 'erroneously' claimed and any sums that could be due from part of the first-class ticket he had used to attend the board meeting. The Lords commissioners for standards are investigating allegations against three other peers after revelations in the Guardian's Lords debate series: Ian Duncan, a Conservative peer who helped to secure a meeting with a government minister for a Canadian nuclear technology company he was advising. Richard Dannatt, a former head of the army who offered to secure meetings with ministers for undercover Guardian reporters posing as commercial clients wanting to lobby the government. David Evans of Watford, a Labour peer who referred himself to the watchdog after facing cash-for-access questions following undercover filming with Lord Evans. Two weeks ago Iain McNicol, a trade envoy and a former general secretary of the Labour party, was found to have broken the code of conduct by writing to the Treasury to promote a cryptocurrency firm that was paying him. There is also an outstanding inquiry into the Conservative peer Peter Gummer, Lord Chadlington, who is being investigated for the third time by the watchdog. The commissioners are yet to finalise any report into Michelle Mone and her role in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, pending an ongoing investigation by the National Crime Agency. Shrewsbury has previously been the subject of two inquiries by the watchdog, including one into his 'lucrative relationship' with a healthcare firm that paid him £57,000 over two years to lobby ministers and officials. He was suspended from the Lords for nine months for this – the most severe sanction imposed on a peer found to have broken the rules by being paid to lobby. He returned in September 2023 and had the Conservative whip restored in November 2023. The commercial meeting and expenses claims now being scrutinised occurred in January 2024, less than six months after Shrewsbury's suspension ended. Shrewsbury has previously said: 'Whether I was right or wrong, I have asked the finance department to take the amounts which they might believe to be due from both matters from my attendance allowance for April 2025.' He added that he believed he had 'acted in good faith'.
