A PYMNTS Company

UK Government Again Fails to Advance Data Bill in Parliament

By  |  June 2, 2025

The UK government’s efforts to craft a compromise to allow the Data (Use and Access) Bill to clear Parliament and be readied for royal assent were again thwarted Monday when the House of Lords voted 242-116 to adopt an amendment to require AI companies to disclose the data used in training their models. The vote sends the bill back to the House of Commons for the fourth time, where the government has stripped the amendment from the legislation on three prior occasions.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The sprawling data bill is a centerpiece of the Starmer government’s efforts to kickstart economic growth in Great Britain by enabling better data processing and to position the UK as a leader in technology development including AI. Among other things, the bill includes provisions to allow greater data sharing among institutions that provide public services, like the National Health Service, and to enable “open banking,” such as by allowing consumers to aggregate their personal financial data from multiple institutions into a single dashboard.

    U.S.-based technology companies, with the tacit, and sometimes explicit, backing of the Trump administration, have been strongly supportive of the bill in its current form, without the transparency amendment.

    The sticking point has been fears among members of the creative industries and their supporters in Westminster that the government ultimately intends to allow the free use of copyrighted material to train AI models without the consent of the rights owner. The transparency amendment, championed by Baroness Beeban Kidron, is intended to allow creators and rights holders to identify whether their works have been used in training.

    Read more: House Bill Could Strip Cities of Authority to Regulate Rent Algorithms

    The debate in the Lords on Monday turned testy at times. Tory Lord Michael Dobbs demanded to know whether the government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer had made any behind-the scenes agreements of commitments on data transparency in recent trade talks with the Trump Administration, while Under Secretary of State Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, speaking for the government, pleaded with peers to refrain from inflammatory language and insinuations.

    “I resent the suggestion that we are beholden to technology companies,” Jones said.

    The UK government fears that introducing complicated questions of copyright and AI would only further delay passage of the data bill and perhaps discourage technology companies from investing to create the sort of data infrastructure it views as critical.

    On Monday, Baroness Jones insisted the current bill does not make any changes to U.K. copyright law.

    The government has promised to address copyright and AI in separate legislation later this year or next based on the results of a public consultation. In the meantime, No. 10 has committed to conduct an economic impact assessment on the bill and its effect on copyright owners and issue a report within 12 months of royal assent. On Monday, Baroness Jones offered to shorten that timeline to 9 months, and to issue a status report in 6 months if the 9-month plan falls behind schedule.

    That was not enough to sway the opposition, however. “I’m baffled by why the government is standing in the way of U.K. citizens trying to protect their own property,” Baroness Kidron said.

    The debate over the Kidron amendment has led to an unusual political alignment. Labour MPs, who ordinarily might be considered supportive of the creative community, have instead largely backed the Labour-led Starmer government in opposing the transparency requirement, leaving it largely to Tory peers in the House of Lords to take up their cause.