Data (Use and Access) Bill: Motion to insist on disagreement to LA49 and make (a) to (e) in lieu
304
Ayes
—
189
Noes
Passed · Government won
153 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 10 June 2025 to override a House of Lords amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, passing a government motion to insist on its disagreement with Lords Amendment 49 and substitute a set of alternative provisions in its place. The vote passed by 304 ayes to 189 noes. The division was the latest exchange in a prolonged "ping-pong" process (the back-and-forth between the two chambers when they disagree on legislation) between the Commons and the Lords over the scope of data-sharing powers in the Bill. The vote concerns one of the most contested elements of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which governs how public bodies and private organisations may share, access and use personal data. Lords Amendment 49, which the government has repeatedly sought to remove or replace, would have placed stronger restrictions on the circumstances under which government bodies could access and share citizens' data, strengthening privacy safeguards relative to the government's preferred approach. The government's replacement provisions, labelled (a) to (e) in lieu, represent its own framing of the boundaries around data sharing, which ministers argue are sufficient while enabling broader use of data for public services and economic purposes. Critics argue the Lords' version offered more robust protections for individual privacy and civil liberties. The political divide in this vote was sharp and largely followed party lines. Labour MPs, including those sitting under the Labour and Co-operative Party label, voted almost unanimously in favour of the government position, providing the winning margin. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, the Greens and the Democratic Unionist Party all voted against, forming an unusual cross-party alliance in support of the Lords' position. One Liberal Democrat MP voted with the government. Among independents, three voted aye and nine voted no. There was one Labour MP who voted against the government. The result continued a pattern visible across several related divisions since May 2025, in which the government has consistently prevailed in the Commons while the Lords has repeatedly returned amendments seeking stronger privacy provisions.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's approach of replacing the Lords' copyright/AI amendment with looser commitments (a statement and a draft Bill) rather than binding legislation, arguing enforcement of copyright is a matter for rights-holders not government
Voting No meant
Support the Lords' stronger amendment requiring greater transparency and protections for copyright owners whose intellectual property is used to train AI models, backed by those wanting a firm legislative timeline
493 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 153 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
273
1
88
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
95
21
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
1
57
14
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
3
9
1
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
8
1
Reform UKWhipped No
0
5
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
—
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
1
1
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
Insisted the Bill does not change copyright law; acknowledged Lords concerns but argued transparency must be negotiated between AI and creative sectors through established processes, not legislated immediately; defended accelerated reporting and parliamentary working group as evidence of listening.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,970 words) →
Criticized Government for creating policy uncertainty via consultation with stated preferred option; demanded legislative commitment on transparency rather than further reviews and working groups; argued only legislation will restore creative industry confidence.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (908 words) →
Rejected Government amendments as distraction tactics; called for meaningful compromise with transparency at its heart; supported Lords amendment requiring draft Bill on copyright transparency; urged Government to explore regulatory powers for urgent protections.SNP · Voted no · Read full speech (1,462 words) →
Acknowledged Bill's importance for data adequacy but emphasized creative industries face existential threat from AI; cited concrete economic losses to photographers, illustrators, and authors; argued nine-month assessment insufficient given urgency of problem.Liberal Democrats · Voted no · Read full speech (818 words) →
Characterized Government approach as haphazard and chaotic; warned working group repeats failed stakeholder dialogue from previous Parliament; accused Government of gaslighting MPs and pitting creatives against AI; dismissed amendments as can-kicking distraction.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,124 words) →
Welcomed Government engagement and inclusion of creative/tech sectors in working groups; stressed need for sector-specific commercial licensing models not one-size-fits-all; urged clarity on whether Government seeks copyright reform or transparency measures around copyright.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (987 words) →
Objected to late Friday email to Select Committee chairs about working group as disrespectful to Parliament; emphasized scrutiny and policymaking must be separate; sought clearer process for parliamentary involvement.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (150 words) →
Welcomed Government's expedited process and leverage of both Houses; framed issue as national emergency requiring UK to pioneer trusted AI solutions; urged urgency to maintain competitive advantage and global leadership position.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (662 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0