Digital and Technology
Digital policy, broadband, and AI regulation
Based on 16 parliamentary votes
Sub-issues
How Parties Voted on Digital and Technology
Government alignment shows how often each party voted with the government's stated position. Issue-aligned direction shows agreement with the AI-identified supportive stance.
Voted with government positionVoted in issue-aligned direction
Recent Votes
| Vote | Result | Date |
|---|---|---|
The opposition brought forward a motion calling for stronger protections for children from online harms. As an Opposition Day motion, it was debated on time allocated to the opposition and the Labour government voted against it. Yes = Support the opposition's call for stronger or more urgent action to protect children from online harms, beyond what the government is currently doing · No = Reject the opposition's motion, defending the government's existing approach to child online safety — likely arguing current legislation (such as the Online Safety Act) is sufficient or that the motion is politically motivated Govt: No | 70-282 | 24 Feb 2026 |
Vote on regulations updating radio equipment rules (covering smartphones and other connected devices) for Northern Ireland to align with new EU standards, as required under the Windsor Framework. Jim Allister (TUV) opposed the vote on the grounds that his Northern Irish constituents have no democratic say in EU laws being imposed on them via the Windsor Framework. Yes = Support applying updated EU radio equipment regulations to Northern Ireland as required by the Windsor Framework, ensuring regulatory alignment for the single market · No = Oppose imposing EU-derived radio equipment rules on Northern Ireland without democratic consent, arguing the Windsor Framework undermines Northern Irish representation in lawmaking Govt: Aye | 376-16 | 19 Nov 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment on AI and copyright, replacing it with the government's own alternative commitments. The Lords had pushed for stronger protections for copyright holders whose work is used to train AI models; the government proposed softer commitments including a statement and a draft Bill in lieu, while resisting a firm legislative timeline demanded by the creative industries. Yes = 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 · No = 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 Govt: Aye | 305-191 | 10 Jun 2025 |
The Commons voted on whether to reject a specific change (Amendment 49F) that the House of Lords had made to the Data Use and Access Bill. By voting Aye, MPs sided with the government's position and overturned what the Lords had inserted into the legislation. Yes = Support the government's version of the Data Use and Access Bill by rejecting the Lords' Amendment 49F · No = Support retaining the Lords' Amendment 49F in the Data Use and Access Bill Govt: Aye | 318-188 | 3 Jun 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Data Use and Access Bill. The government sought to overturn Lords Amendment 49D, restoring its own preferred version of the relevant clause. Yes = Support the government's position by rejecting the Lords' amendment to the Data Use and Access Bill, deferring to the elected Commons over the unelected Lords on this data legislation provision · No = Support retaining the Lords' amendment, backing the change the upper house made to the Bill against the government's wishes Govt: Aye | 195-126 | 22 May 2025 |
MPs voted to insist on the Commons version of provisions in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, overriding changes the House of Lords had made. This was part of 'ping-pong' between the two chambers, with the government pushing through its preferred approach to data regulation, including issues around AI and copyright. Yes = Support the government's position on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, insisting on Commons amendments and rejecting the Lords' alternative amendments to the Bill · No = Support the Lords' amendments to the Bill, opposing the government's approach and preferring the changes made in the upper chamber Govt: Aye | 369-100 | 14 May 2025 |
The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment (43B) relating to safeguards around the definition and use of exemptions for scientific research purposes in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Lords wanted tighter protections to ensure research exemptions could only be used for genuine scientific research; the government disagreed, preferring its own existing framework. Yes = Support the government's position of rejecting the Lords' additional safeguards on scientific research exemptions, trusting the existing Bill provisions are sufficient · No = Back the Lords amendment to strengthen safeguards ensuring data exemptions are only used for genuine scientific research purposes Govt: Aye | 303-67 | 14 May 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to appoint a committee to formally set out the Commons' reasons for overriding several Lords amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, including insisting on Commons Amendment 52 (which the Lords had rejected) and rejecting Lords amendments 32B, 32C, 43B, 49B, 52B and 52C. This is a procedural 'ping-pong' step in which the elected Commons reasserts its position against the unelected Lords on multiple contested clauses, including issues related to the DVS trust framework and AI/copyright concerns raised by the opposition. Yes = Support the government asserting the Commons' will over the Lords by appointing a committee to formally explain why the Commons is insisting on its own amendments and rejecting the Lords' changes to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. · No = Oppose overriding the Lords on these amendments, preferring the Lords' versions of the contested clauses — including concerns about AI and copyright protections championed by peers and backed by the opposition. Govt: Aye | 363-99 | 14 May 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (49B) that would have required AI developers to be transparent about which copyright-protected creative works they use when training AI systems. The Lords wanted creators to know when their work is being scraped; the government opposed this requirement. Yes = Support rejecting the Lords transparency requirement, backing the government's position that existing copyright law is sufficient and that mandatory disclosure obligations on AI developers are not yet needed · No = Support the Lords amendment requiring AI developers to disclose when they use copyrighted creative works for AI training, protecting musicians, authors and other creators from having their work used without their knowledge Govt: Aye | 297-170 | 14 May 2025 |
MPs voted on a Conservative proposal (New Clause 19) to require the government to review raising the digital age of consent for social media data processing from 13 to 16, rather than implementing the change directly. The Liberal Democrats had a separate clause (New Clause 1) that would have made the change immediately, but the Conservatives argued a review was needed first to address implementation challenges like age verification. Yes = Support requiring the government to conduct a review into raising the age at which children can consent to social media data processing without parental approval from 13 to 16, before any legislative change is made · No = Oppose this review-first approach, either because the government prefers its own separate copyright/AI reporting mechanism (New Clause 17) or because others (like Lib Dems) wanted immediate implementation rather than further delay Govt: No | 161-293 | 7 May 2025 |
How is this calculated?
Government alignment (primary bar) shows how often a party's MPs voted with the government's stated position on this issue. This is the most comparable metric across parties, as it measures the same reference point for everyone.
Issue-aligned direction (secondary bar) shows how often MPs voted in the direction tagged as supportive of this issue by AI analysis. For example, if a vote is tagged “pro-environment”, a Yes vote counts as aligned. This can be misleading when the tagged direction happens to align with opposition amendments rather than government bills.
Why these metrics may differ: Opposition parties often vote against government bills for strategic or procedural reasons, even when they broadly support the policy area. The government alignment metric makes this clearer by showing the actual voting pattern against a consistent reference.
Source: Commons division data from the UK Parliament Votes API. Alignment direction determined by AI analysis of vote stance tags. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.