Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]: Second Reading
303Ayes
110Noes
Carried · majority 193 · Government won234 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 303 · No 110 · DNV 234 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 1 April 2025 to give the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill its Second Reading, passing it by 303 votes to 110. A Second Reading is the first substantive vote on a bill, approving its general principles and allowing it to proceed to detailed scrutiny. The bill would give ministers new powers to set and update product safety standards and weights and measures rules following Britain's exit from the European Union. The vote matters because leaving the EU created gaps in the legal framework governing product safety and measurement standards in the UK. Without new primary legislation granting ministers the necessary powers, the government argues it cannot properly regulate goods sold in Britain or keep standards up to date. Supporters say the bill fills a practical void left by Brexit and would help protect consumers while enabling businesses to compete fairly. Critics argue it grants ministers sweeping powers with insufficient oversight from Parliament, and they raised concerns that the bill's frequent references to EU law could make it a vehicle for quietly realigning British standards with those set in Brussels. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 266 Labour MPs and all 28 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the bill, while all 99 voting Conservatives opposed it, joined by all five Democratic Unionist Party MPs, three Reform UK MPs, one Ulster Unionist MP, and one Restore Britain MP. The Greens and the Social Democratic and Labour Party voted in favour. There were no Conservative votes for the bill and no Labour votes against it. The bill had originally been conceived under the previous Conservative government, a point the Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds noted during the debate.
Voting Aye meant
Support passing the bill to give the government powers to regulate product safety and metrology standards post-Brexit, arguing this is a practical necessity to fill the legal gaps left by leaving the EU
Voting No meant
Oppose the bill, concerned it grants excessive ministerial powers with insufficient parliamentary oversight, and that its heavy references to EU law risk becoming a vehicle for dynamic alignment with EU standards rather than asserting independent British regulation
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
266
0
95
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
99
17
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
—
4
1
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
3
4
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
2
0
0
Your Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
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
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 no · 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 no · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 no · Read full speech (120 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0