English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 2
293Ayes
155Noes
Carried · majority 138 · Government won200 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 293 · No 155 · DNV 200 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 21 April 2026 on whether to reject Lords Amendment 2 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which would have added "rural affairs" as a named area of competence for England's new strategic authorities. The government moved to disagree with the Lords amendment, and the Commons supported that motion by 293 votes to 155. The amendment was therefore removed from the Bill. The practical question at stake was whether strategic authorities, the new bodies overseeing devolved functions across English regions, should be legally required to treat rural affairs as a distinct competency alongside others such as culture, transport and economic development. Supporters of the amendment argued that without an explicit legal requirement, rural communities risk being sidelined by mayors who may focus primarily on urban centres. The government countered that mayors already hold responsibilities covering rural communities within their existing competencies, and that non-statutory guidance alongside those existing powers was sufficient to ensure rural interests are protected. The vote divided cleanly along party lines. Labour MPs, including those from the Labour and Co-operative Party, voted unanimously for the government's position, providing all 293 ayes. Conservatives (86), Liberal Democrats (56) and Greens (5) all voted against the government motion, totalling the bulk of the 155 noes. Three Democratic Unionist Party MPs, one Reform UK MP, one Ulster Unionist, and three independents also voted no. There were no notable cross-party rebels on the Labour side, and the result was consistent with the broader pattern seen in subsequent divisions on the same Bill later in April 2026, where the government repeatedly prevailed on Lords amendments by similar margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the government's view that rural affairs need not be named as a standalone legal competency for strategic authorities, trusting guidance and existing powers to protect rural communities.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring rural affairs to be explicitly recognised in law as a competency of strategic authorities, arguing that without a legal requirement rural areas risk being overlooked by city-focused mayors.
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 party-line column is inferred from how cohesively each party voted, not a published whip: a clear one-way majority of a party’s voters reads as a line, a close division reads as “Split”.
Party
Party line
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Voted Aye
263
0
98
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
86
30
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
55
16
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
1
4
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
1
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Voted No
0
5
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
1
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 · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division
Government Minister defending rejection of most Lords amendments as unnecessary or undermining devolution principles; supporting amendments on culture, scrutiny, licensing, and pavement parking; committing to guidance on agent of change and rural affairs.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (7,424 words) →
Shadow Secretary of State arguing the Bill is centralising rather than devolving; supporting select Lords amendments (brownfield-first, mayoral accountability, transparency) while criticising insufficient safeguards on land disposal and governance.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,165 words) →
Spokesperson arguing the Bill withholds real power from local areas; supporting Lords amendments for rural affairs, merit-based commissioner appointments, simple majority voting in London, brownfield-first, committee system choice, parish councils, and agent of change.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,677 words) →
Backbencher emphasising lack of Government ambition on brownfield regeneration and protecting green belt; arguing housing crisis requires funding and political will, not arbitrary targets.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (510 words) →
Backbencher welcoming the Bill but disappointed at rejection of Lords amendment 41 on agent of change principle; urging statutory protections for music venues and cultural institutions.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (171 words) →
Backbencher supporting devolution benefits and amendments on private hire vehicles; pressing for stronger enforcement and local knowledge in licensing to end out-of-area operations.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,083 words) →
Opposing Lords amendment 42 on land disposal as replacing localism with ministerial discretion; arguing it abandons local authority role and lacks proper safeguards for statutory trusts.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (951 words) →
Backbencher supporting brownfield-first amendments and pavement parking powers; opposing local government reorganisation without consent and criticising housing target increases unfairly placed on areas outside London.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,347 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0