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
On 1 April 2025, the House of Commons voted on the Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which had originated in the House of Lords. Second Reading is the stage at which MPs debate and vote on the general principles of a bill. The motion passed by 303 votes to 110, meaning the bill proceeded to further parliamentary scrutiny rather than being rejected outright. The bill updates the legal framework governing product safety standards and measurement (metrology) rules in the United Kingdom. In practical terms, it addresses how products sold in the UK are regulated following Brexit, when the country left the European Union's single market regulatory system. It also extends standards to cover digital and online products, reflecting changes in how goods are bought and sold. The legislation affects consumers, businesses, trading standards bodies, and online marketplaces. Supporters argue it modernises an outdated framework and strengthens consumer protection; opponents raise concerns about regulatory burdens on business and the specific mechanisms by which rules could be aligned with or diverged from EU standards. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 295 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the bill, as did the three Green MPs and both SDLP members. All 99 voting Conservatives opposed it, joined by all five Democratic Unionist Party members, all three Reform UK members, and the Ulster Unionist and Traditional Unionist Voice representatives. The bill subsequently continued through Parliament, with Report Stage amendments debated on 4 June 2025 showing the government defeating opposition amendments seeking to constrain how the bill handles alignment with EU product standards.
Voting Aye meant
Support giving the government new powers to set and update product standards and metrology rules, enabling post-Brexit regulatory flexibility
Voting No meant
Oppose the Bill, fearing it grants excessive delegated powers to ministers and could lead to covert dynamic alignment with EU standards without proper parliamentary scrutiny
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
72
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
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
Your Party
—
0
0
1
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