Data (Use and Access) Bill: Motion to insist on disagreement to LA49 and make (a) to (e) in lieu
304Ayes
189Noes
Carried · majority 115 · Government won153 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 304 · No 189 · DNV 153 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 304 to 189 on 10 June 2025 to reject Lords amendment 49F on artificial intelligence and copyright, and to substitute a package of government alternatives in its place. The alternatives include a cross-party parliamentary working group of MPs and peers, a commitment to consult creative and AI industries before bringing forward separate legislation, and a series of briefing meetings to keep interested parliamentarians informed. The motion passed. The Lords had repeatedly pushed to insert transparency obligations on AI companies regarding their use of copyrighted material directly into the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The government's position is that these questions belong in standalone future legislation following a proper consultative process, not as a partial addition to this bill. For the creative industries, which employ around 2.4 million people according to figures cited in the debate, the practical effect is that no new transparency requirements on AI firms will appear in this Act, and any legal protection will depend on existing copyright enforcement mechanisms plus whatever future legislation emerges from the proposed process. Labour MPs voted almost entirely with the government. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National Party, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, Green Party, and Democratic Unionist Party MP who voted backed the Lords position. One Liberal Democrat had no vote recorded on the government side, and four independents voted with the government against seven who voted with the opposition. The vote is the latest in a sequence of ping-pong exchanges between the Commons and Lords on this specific amendment, with the Lords having pressed versions of it through multiple rounds since May 2025.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's approach of rejecting the Lords' specific transparency requirement for AI use of copyrighted content, trusting instead in a promised future process involving a cross-party advisory group and eventual standalone legislation to resolve tensions between the AI and creative industries.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords' insistence on including transparency obligations for AI models over use of copyrighted material directly in this Bill, arguing that creative industries cannot wait and that the government's alternative offers insufficient commitment or timeline.
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
272
1
88
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
95
21
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
1
57
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
—
4
7
2
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
8
1
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
1
1
Your Party
—
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
1
0
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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