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
Aye298No152DID NOT VOTE · 198

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

Analysis
Commons

MPs voted on 21 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 4 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which would have strengthened transparency and accountability requirements around the appointment of mayoral commissioners. The government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment passed by 298 votes to 152 (Division 494). The result means the Lords amendment fell and the government's own approach, publishing draft guidance on appointments and remuneration rather than introducing statutory requirements, was preserved. The vote matters because mayoral commissioners are unelected roles created by the Bill's new framework for strategic authorities. The Lords amendment sought to place legally binding scrutiny requirements on how those roles are filled and paid for. Without it, accountability rests on guidance that the government can revise or withdraw without parliamentary approval. Critics argued this leaves open the prospect of an expanding tier of costly, unelected officeholders with insufficient democratic oversight; the government held that its published guidance was adequate and that the amendment would cut across the core principles of the Bill. The vote divided almost entirely along government versus opposition lines. All 298 ayes came from Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs, with two independents joining them. The 152 noes were cast by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the Democratic Unionist Party, and smaller parties, as well as two independents. There were no Labour rebels recorded. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both flagged the amendment as a meaningful safeguard, with the shadow minister Sir James Cleverly explicitly distinguishing guidance from "proper accountability." The result fits a pattern across the Bill's ping-pong (the process by which the Commons and Lords exchange amendments) in which the government successfully overturned most Lords additions, as seen in a series of further divisions on 27 April 2026.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position that draft guidance on appointments and remuneration is adequate, rejecting the Lords' push for statutory accountability requirements for mayoral commissioners.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment requiring stronger, legally binding transparency and scrutiny over the appointment of mayoral commissioners, arguing guidance alone is insufficient to prevent unaccountable, expensive unelected roles expanding unchecked.
§ 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 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
269
0
92
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
84
32
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
55
16
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted 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
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
0
1
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

Votes by party (CSV) · Premium
§ 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