Division · No. 210Tuesday, 3 June 2025Commons Digital and Technology

Motion to Disagree with the Lords in their Amendment 49F (Data Use and Access Bill)

317
Ayes
185
Noes
Passed · Government won
143 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 3 June 2025 to disagree with Lords Amendment 49F to the Data Use and Access Bill, rejecting a change the House of Lords had made to the legislation. The motion passed by 317 votes to 185, with the government's position prevailing. This vote was part of the ongoing parliamentary process known as ping-pong, in which a bill passes back and forth between the Commons and the Lords when the two chambers cannot agree on its final wording. **Why it matters:** The Data Use and Access Bill governs how data can be collected, shared, and used across public and private sectors in the UK. Amendment 49F represented the Lords' attempt to modify the government's proposed framework for data access or protection, and by voting to disagree with it, the Commons maintained the government's preferred version of those provisions. The outcome has practical implications for organisations that handle personal data, for public bodies that seek to share information across services, and for individuals whose data is processed under the rules the bill establishes. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative members provided 317 of the ayes, with just one Labour member voting against the government. Every Conservative (94), Liberal Democrat (66), and other opposition party member who voted did so against the government's position, including Greens, Reform UK, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, and the SNP. There were no notable cross-party alliances in favour of the government. This was the latest in a series of clashes over the bill's data provisions, following earlier disagreements on related amendments in May 2025, with a further Commons vote on related Lords amendments following on 10 June 2025.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's version of the Data Use and Access Bill by rejecting the Lords' Amendment 49F
Voting No meant
Support retaining the Lords' Amendment 49F in the Data Use and Access Bill
§ 01Who voted how.502 voting members · 143 absent
Aye318No188DID NOT VOTE · 143

502 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 143 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
287
1
74
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
94
22
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
66
6
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
1
5
7
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
3
6
Reform UKWhipped No
0
4
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
3
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
Your Party
0
0
1
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Chris BryantOpposedRhondda and Ogmore
Opposes amendment 49F as unconstitutionally binding future parliaments and duplicating existing transparency commitments; argues the government must legislate comprehensively rather than piecemeal on copyright and AI.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,154 words)
Dame Caroline DinenageSupportiveGosport
Supports the amendment as a modest request to give creative industries reassurance within a clear timeframe; criticises government claims of listening while resisting concrete action.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (461 words)
Dr Ben SpencerSupportiveRunnymede and Weybridge
Opposes the government position, arguing Lords amendments are an opportunity not a nuisance; the government has lost the argument and must compromise to address creative industry concerns.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (736 words)
Victoria CollinsSupportiveHarpenden and Berkhamsted
Strongly supports amendment 49F to ensure transparency and protect creators from AI exploitation; argues time for reflection is over and real action must happen now.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (974 words)
Sir Julian SmithSupportiveSkipton and Ripon
Supports the amendment as a modest compromise that respects both chambers; argues creatives face existential threat and need guaranteed timely action from government.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (885 words)
Pete WishartSupportivePerth and Kinross-shire
Praises Lords persistence and supports the amendment; criticises government for inventing obstacles rather than compromising; advocates for swift, comprehensive action to protect cultural heritage.Scottish National Party · Voted no · Read full speech (846 words)
Polly BillingtonNeutralEast Thanet
Supports government but references historical precedent (Napster clause in Digital Economy Act) suggesting government should give itself power to act once evidence of problems emerges.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (223 words)
James FrithSupportiveBury North
Praises ministerial engagement and supports ensuring both creative and tech sectors participate equally in working groups to avoid breakdown.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (131 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0