Data (Use and Access) Bill CCLM: motion to insist Commons Amendment 32
371Ayes
98Noes
Carried · majority 273 · Government won180 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 371 · No 98 · DNV 180 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 14 May 2025 to appoint a committee to draw up the Commons' reasons for insisting on its own position against several Lords amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The motion covered Commons Amendment 32, Lords Amendments 43B and 49B, and Commons Amendment 52, all of which had been the subject of disagreement between the two Houses. The vote passed 371 to 98, with the government carrying a comfortable majority. The vote was a procedural step in the "ping-pong" process, the back-and-forth between the Commons and Lords when the two Houses cannot agree on the text of a bill. The specific amendments at issue touched on copyright and AI transparency, areas where the Lords had pushed for stronger protections for the creative sector in relation to how AI systems use copyrighted material. By insisting on its own amendments and rejecting the Lords' substitutions, the Commons was advancing the government's preferred approach to data regulation without the additional AI-related safeguards the Lords had sought to introduce. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 267 Labour MPs and 29 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour, as did all 54 Liberal Democrats and smaller parties including Plaid Cymru, the SNP, and the Greens. All 90 voting Conservatives and all 7 Reform UK MPs opposed the motion. Two independents voted against, and six voted in favour. There were no cross-party rebels of note on either side.
Voting Aye meant
Support the Commons asserting its position over the Lords on disputed amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, backing the government's approach to data regulation including on copyright and AI issues.
Voting No meant
Oppose overriding the Lords amendments, preferring the changes the Lords had introduced — including on copyright protections for the creative sector in relation to AI.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
267
0
94
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
90
26
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
54
0
17
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
6
2
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
4
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
7
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
1
4
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
0
1
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Government Minister defending rejection of copyright transparency amendments, arguing the Bill is not the right vehicle and comprehensive work is needed across multiple policy areas before legislating on AI and copyright.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (8,437 words) →
Shadow Minister supporting Lords amendment 49B as a proportionate transparency measure, criticising the Government for creating panic in the creative sector through earlier consultation language on copyright opt-outs.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,402 words) →
Strongly supporting Lords amendment 49B, arguing the creative sector faces imminent threat from data scraping and transparency could be implemented immediately without waiting for technical solutions or impact assessments.SNP · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,848 words) →
Supporting Lords amendment 49B, emphasising the £126 billion creative sector contribution to the economy and the threat of unprotected data scraping by large tech companies.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (728 words) →
Pressing the Minister on transparency and copyright protection, noting the Government's earlier messaging about opt-outs created panic in the creative sector, and calling for clarity on solutions.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (407 words) →
Accepting Minister's reassurance that scientific research exemptions will not enable blanket AI training, but advocating for transparent engagement with tech companies to develop appropriate technical solutions.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (744 words) →
Questioning whether the Bill will deliver on content credentials and digital fingerprinting to verify AI use, arguing technical standards should be part of the solution.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (161 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0