English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 13
297Ayes
147Noes
Carried · majority 150 · Government won205 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 297 · No 147 · DNV 205 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 21 April 2026, the House of Commons voted by 297 to 147 to reject Lords amendment 13 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. The amendment would have lowered the threshold required for the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London's council tax decisions, making it easier for the Assembly to challenge and revise those decisions. The Commons backed the government's motion to disagree with the Lords' change, preserving the existing higher threshold. In practical terms, the vote means the mayor retains the stronger position under the current rules when setting the council tax requirement, with the Assembly needing the existing higher level of support to override or amend those decisions. The Lords had sought to tilt the balance toward the Assembly, giving it a sharper tool for financial scrutiny of the mayor. By rejecting that change, the Commons left the mayor's authority over council tax less exposed to Assembly challenge than the Lords had proposed. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 296 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government's position to reject the amendment. Conservatives (80), Liberal Democrats (56), and the Greens (5) all voted against, supporting the Lords change. The Conservative shadow minister Sir James Cleverly described the amendment as strengthening democratic accountability in London and said his party supported it. Two independents voted on each side. There were no cross-party rebels among the larger parties.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords change, keeping the existing higher threshold and preserving the mayor's authority over council tax decisions with less Assembly interference.
Voting No meant
Oppose the rejection, backing the Lords amendment to lower the Assembly's amendment threshold and strengthen democratic accountability over the Mayor of London.
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
268
0
93
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
80
36
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
55
16
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
28
0
14
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
0
2
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
0
1
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