Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]: Reasoned Amendment on Second Reading
110Ayes
302Noes
Defeated · majority 192 · Government won234 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 110 · No 302 · DNV 234 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Conservative MPs voted to block the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill at its Second Reading on 1 April 2025, but the reasoned amendment was defeated by 302 votes to 110 (Division 166). A reasoned amendment at Second Reading is a procedural motion that, if passed, would have prevented the Bill from proceeding further by stating the reasons for rejection. The result means the Bill continued to its next parliamentary stage. The Bill gives ministers powers to regulate products and update measurement standards, filling gaps in UK law that arose after Brexit. Previously, many product safety and metrology (measurement science) rules derived from EU legislation; leaving the EU meant the UK needed its own statutory framework to set, update, and enforce those standards. Critics argued the Bill grants sweeping delegated powers to ministers, meaning Parliament would have little say over how those powers are used in practice, and feared it could be used to quietly realign UK standards with EU rules rather than pursuing an independent regulatory path. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 100 Conservative MPs who voted backed the amendment, joined by all five Democratic Unionist Party MPs, three Reform UK MPs, and one each from the Restore Britain and Traditional Unionist Voice groupings. All 266 Labour MPs and all 28 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed it, along with all three Green MPs and four Independent MPs. No Labour or Conservative MPs crossed the floor. The Bill subsequently progressed through Report Stage in June 2025, where further amendments from the opposition were also defeated.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking the Bill, citing concerns it grants excessive delegated powers to ministers and risks covert realignment with EU product standards rather than genuinely independent UK regulation.
Voting No meant
Support the Bill proceeding, arguing it provides the essential legal toolkit to set and update UK product standards post-Brexit, with no predetermined decision about whether to align with EU, US, or other international standards.
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 No
0
266
95
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
100
0
16
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
28
14
Independent
—
1
4
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
3
0
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
1
1
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Advocates the Bill as essential post-Brexit toolkit to regulate product safety, protect consumers, and level playing field between high street and online; rejected by opposition as unnecessary delegation, assured it makes no decisions on alignment.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (4,165 words) →
Tabled reasoned amendment opposing the Bill as a skeleton Bill conferring unaccountable ministerial power, risking de facto EU alignment, and undermining parliamentary sovereignty; contrasts with specific use-cases Parliament could legislate on directly.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,548 words) →
Questioned why delegated powers are necessary when Parliament has always been able to legislate on product safety; concerns that the Bill removes parliamentary ability to vote on specific regulations.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (520 words) →
Challenged the premise that the Bill is necessary, noting Parliament already has power to regulate and queried clause 2(7)(a) as potentially enabling dynamic realignment with EU regulations.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (436 words) →
Welcomed consumer protection aspects and online marketplace oversight but criticized the Bill as a skeleton framework shifting legislative authority to the Executive without adequate scrutiny; regretted lack of explicit duties on online platforms.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,197 words) →
Objected to the vagueness enabling covert EU regulatory alignment and excessive Henry VIII powers; noted the Lords Delegated Powers Committee's three separate critical reports as exceptional warning.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,167 words) →
Defended the Bill as necessary remedy to post-Brexit paperwork burdens; highlighted Conservative hypocrisy on delegated powers, noting they used 2,000+ statutory instruments under the Retained EU Law Act.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,898 words) →
Raised concerns about dynamic EU alignment and sought assurance the Bill does not abdicate control to EU decisions; cautiously heard reassurance but remained skeptical.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (120 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0