Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]: Reasoned Amendment on Second Reading
110
Ayes
—
302
Noes
Defeated · Government won
234 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened**: The House of Commons voted on 1 April 2025 on a reasoned amendment (a procedural motion to decline giving a bill its second reading, effectively blocking it from proceeding further) tabled by Conservative MPs against the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. The amendment argued that the bill was unnecessary and would expand regulatory burdens in ways the opposition considered unjustified. The motion was defeated by 302 votes to 110, allowing the bill to advance to its next parliamentary stage. **Why it matters**: The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is designed to modernise the legal framework governing how goods sold in the UK are regulated for safety and accuracy of measurement, updating rules that date back decades and that were shaped by the UK's former EU membership. Defeating the reasoned amendment means the bill can continue its parliamentary passage, with implications for businesses that manufacture or sell physical goods in the UK, consumers who rely on product safety standards, and the broader question of how the UK aligns or diverges from EU regulatory frameworks following Brexit. Had the amendment succeeded, the bill would have been blocked at the outset. **The politics**: The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 100 Conservative MPs who voted supported the amendment, joined by all five Democratic Unionist Party members who voted, three Reform UK MPs, and one each from Traditional Unionist Voice and Ulster Unionist Party. All Labour, Labour and Co-operative, Green, and SDLP members who voted opposed the amendment. Two independents voted with the opposition. There were no Conservative MPs voting against the amendment and no Labour MPs voting for it, indicating tight party discipline on both sides. The bill subsequently continued through its parliamentary stages, with further contested votes at Report Stage in June 2025 and a related marking of retail goods instrument passed that same month.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking the Bill, arguing it hands excessive powers to ministers and risks dynamic alignment with EU regulations rather than giving the UK true regulatory independence
Voting No meant
Support the Bill proceeding, arguing it is necessary to fill regulatory gaps left by Brexit and gives the UK the toolkit to set its own product safety and measurement standards
412 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 234 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
267
95
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
100
0
16
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
28
14
Independent
2
3
8
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped Aye
3
0
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
—
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
0
0
1
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