A divisionDivision No. 494 · Tuesday, 21 April 2026· Commons· Devolution and Local Powers

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 4

298Ayes
152Noes
Carried · majority 146 · Government won
198 did not vote
Aye300No152DID NOT VOTE · 198

648 Members · Aye 298 · No 152 · DNV 198 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 21 April 2026, MPs voted by 298 to 152 to reject Lords Amendment 4 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, supporting the government's position and overturning a change made by the House of Lords. Lords Amendment 4 concerned transparency in the appointment of mayoral commissioners, and the government's successful motion to disagree means that the Bill returns to its pre-Lords wording on this point. This was one of several Lords amendments the government moved to reject on the same day, with similar results across each division. Lords Amendment 4 would have placed stronger accountability requirements on the appointment of mayoral commissioners, the individuals appointed to support mayors of combined authorities in exercising their new powers under the Bill. The government's position is that draft guidance on appointments and remuneration is sufficient, and that placing such requirements on the face of the Bill is unnecessary. Critics, including Conservative MPs, argue that guidance alone does not provide the same level of legally binding accountability as statutory provisions, and that expanding mayoral powers without matching transparency requirements risks creating poorly accountable governance structures. The Bill as a whole represents a significant transfer of powers from central government to mayors, combined authorities and local communities across England, covering areas including planning, transport, licensing and local governance reform. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 298 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, while all 152 opposition votes against came from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Ulster Unionist Party and several independents. There were no Labour rebels. The Conservatives framed their opposition as a defence of local consent and proper accountability, arguing the Bill is in practice centralising rather than devolving power. The Liberal Democrats and Greens joined them in the Noe lobby. This pattern repeated across every related division on 21 April, with the government winning each one by comparable margins, underlining the government's commanding Commons majority and its determination to restore the Bill to the form it preferred before the Lords made amendments.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position by rejecting Lords Amendment 4 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, restoring the Bill to its pre-Lords form on this point
Voting No meant
Back the Lords' amendment and oppose the government overriding the upper chamber's change to this devolution legislation
§ 01Who voted how.450 voting Members · 198 absent

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
269
0
92
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
84
32
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
56
16
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
2
3
8
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
2
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
5
0
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
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

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Miatta FahnbullehSupportivePeckham
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)
Sir James CleverlyOpposedBraintree
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)
Zöe FranklinOpposedGuildford
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)
Wendy MortonOpposedAldridge-Brownhills
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)
Jeff SmithQuestioningManchester Withington
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)
Mrs Elsie BlundellSupportiveHeywood and Middleton North
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)
Mr Paul KohlerOpposedWimbledon
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)
Lewis CockingOpposedBroxbourne
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0