Data (Use and Access) Bill CCLM: motion to insist Commons Amendment 52
366Ayes
98Noes
Carried · majority 268 · Government won187 did not vote
651 Members · Aye 366 · No 98 · DNV 187 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 14 May 2025 to insist on Commons Amendment 52 to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, overriding the House of Lords, which had rejected that amendment and proposed its own alternatives, known as Lords amendments 52B and 52C. The motion passed by 366 votes to 98. The vote was taken as part of the Bill's final ping-pong stage, the process by which the two chambers exchange amendments until they reach agreement, and was grouped with several other motions on disputed Lords changes. Amendment 52 relates to provisions within the Bill, though the detailed content of the amendment itself is not set out in the available record beyond its connection to Clause 28 and the Digital Verification Services trust framework, and the fact that it engaged Commons financial privilege. The Lords had disagreed with the Commons version and proposed amendments 52B and 52C in its place. By insisting on its own amendment, the Commons rejected both alternatives. A committee was subsequently appointed to draw up formal reasons to be conveyed to the Lords explaining the Commons position. The vote divided almost entirely along government and opposition lines. All 265 Labour Party members and 33 Labour and Co-operative Party members who voted backed the motion, as did all 50 Liberal Democrats, all 5 SNP members, all 3 Plaid Cymru members, and all 3 Green Party members recorded as voting. The 89 Conservatives and 7 Reform UK members who voted opposed it. No Conservative or Reform UK member voted aye, and no Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Plaid Cymru, or Green member voted no. The motion was part of a broader set of government victories in the same sitting, including a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 43B, which passed 304 to 68, and a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 49B on AI and copyright, which passed 297 to 168.
Voting Aye meant
Support the Commons insisting on its own amendment and overriding the Lords' disagreement, backing the government's preferred position on the relevant provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Bill.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords' position by opposing the Commons insisting on Amendment 52, preferring the Lords' alternative amendments 52B and 52C.
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
265
0
96
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
89
27
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
50
0
21
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
33
0
9
Independent
—
3
2
8
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
3
0
1
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 no_vote_recorded · 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