English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Second Reading
365Ayes
164Noes
Carried · majority 201 · Government won119 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 365 · No 164 · DNV 119 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on 2 September 2025 to approve the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill at Second Reading, passing it by 365 votes to 164. Second Reading is the stage at which the Commons debates and votes on the general principles of a bill, so this result gave parliamentary approval for the legislation to proceed to detailed scrutiny in committee. The bill proposes to shift powers and funding from central government in Westminster to English regional and local authorities. In practical terms, this could mean councils and combined authorities gaining greater control over areas such as local planning, economic development, transport, and public services. The legislation affects England's system of local governance, with implications for how communities across English regions experience decision-making over services and investment in their areas. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 361 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the bill, while all 88 voting Conservatives, all 71 voting Liberal Democrats, and the small number of voting Reform UK, Alliance, Ulster Unionist, and Traditional Unionist Voice members opposed it. Four Independents voted in favour and one against. The Liberal Democrat opposition is notable given that party's longstanding support for decentralisation, and may reflect specific objections to the bill's design rather than devolution in principle. The bill subsequently passed Third Reading on 25 November 2025 by 322 votes to 179, confirming its continued progress through Parliament.
Voting Aye meant
Support passing the Bill to devolve more powers to English mayors and local authorities, arguing this will drive economic growth, improve public services, and give communities more control over decisions affecting them
Voting No meant
Oppose the Bill at this stage, raising concerns about accountability, scrutiny, and whether the reforms genuinely empower local communities or simply shift centralisation to a regional tier
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
323
0
38
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
88
28
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
71
1
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
37
0
5
Independent
—
5
1
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
2
6
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
—
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
1
0
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
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
Bill delivers biggest transfer of power in a generation, ending begging-bowl culture, empowering mayors with planning/housing/transport powers, and strengthening communities through neighbourhood governance and asset protection.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,851 words) →
Bill is centralisation disguised as devolution, imposing restructuring without consent, raising taxes through mayoral precepts, weakening councils, and failing five tests: genuine choice, consensus, public support, bill control, and social care protection.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,471 words) →
Devolution principle supported but Bill centralises control, leaves areas unequally treated, weakens local accountability through appointed commissioners, and misses opportunity for genuine community empowerment or proportional representation.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (2,306 words) →
Questions where accountability and scrutiny will come from and how local people's voices will truly be heard under the mayor-led model.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,264 words) →
Points to Scotland as cautionary tale of centralised powers taken away from communities; warns against replicating that mistake south of the border.SNP · Voted no · Read full speech (82 words) →
Generally supportive of devolution ambition but seeks protection for Sheffield's existing committee governance system, which was chosen by local referendum and should be respected.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (676 words) →
Mayor-led devolution is inappropriate for diverse areas like Devon; reorganisation costs money without saving it; parish councils and national park authorities are overlooked; statutory duty to cooperate needed.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (900 words) →
London lacks sufficient accountability for its devolved powers; Assembly's two-thirds majority requirement needs abolition; boroughs should have voice in decision-making; Mayor Khan's ULEZ and tax increases show need for stronger scrutiny.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (711 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0