Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026
294Ayes
108Noes
Carried · majority 186 · Government won247 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 294 · No 108 · DNV 247 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 28 January 2026 to approve the Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026, passing by 294 ayes to 108 noes. The regulations introduce a new annual fee for medical device companies to fund the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's (MHRA) post-market surveillance activity, replacing an existing per-application charge. They are due to come into force on 1 April 2026. The practical effect is that medical device manufacturers registered in the UK will pay an annual fee from April 2026 to help cover the MHRA's costs of monitoring devices already on the market for safety. In the first year, the fee will be part-subsidised by the Department of Health and Social Care, with the stated intention of moving to full cost recovery in subsequent years. Supporters argue this strengthens patient safety regulation; critics raised concerns about the burden on smaller businesses and questioned whether the MHRA is managing its costs effectively. The vote split along clear party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MPs provided the bulk of the ayes, at 260 and 27 respectively. Conservatives voted 91 to zero against, joined by all six voting Reform UK MPs, all five Democratic Unionist Party MPs, and one Traditional Unionist Voice MP. A handful of independents and smaller party MPs voted with the government. There were no notable cross-party rebellions, though two Labour MPs and one Labour and Co-operative MP voted no.
Voting Aye meant
Support the new annual fee structure to fund stronger post-market surveillance of medical devices, accepting a phased approach to cost recovery as a reasonable way to improve patient safety regulation.
Voting No meant
Oppose the fee increase as premature and potentially burdensome on businesses, given fees were already raised in mid-2025 with assurances they would cover costs until 2027, and question the MHRA's cost management.
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
260
2
99
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
91
25
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
27
1
14
Independent
—
4
1
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
—
1
0
3
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
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
The regulations are necessary and fair, redesigned in response to consultation feedback, with a phased approach that ensures 56% of manufacturers pay only £300/year and supports patient safety and UK competitiveness in life sciences.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,575 words) →
While post-market surveillance is important, the regulations lack a proper impact assessment, contain unexplained cost jumps (£3.1m shortfall in the previous fee increase), disproportionately burden SMEs and microbusinesses, and raise unresolved questions about device deregistration, obsolescence, and future cost recovery.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,319 words) →
Welcomes the government's responsiveness to SME concerns but requests confirmation via impact assessment that the adapted fee structure will not deter medical technology investment in the UK.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (288 words) →
Supports the regulations and their patient safety objectives but raises specific concerns about insulin pump users' security and continuity of access if device registrations expire or are not renewed for commercial reasons.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (682 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0