English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 36
288Ayes
147Noes
Carried · majority 141 · Government won216 did not vote
651 Members · Aye 288 · No 147 · DNV 216 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 21 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 36 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which would have allowed local councils to determine their own governance structures rather than being required to adopt the government's preferred leader-and-cabinet model. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 288 votes to 147, Division 497. The vote means the bill's requirement that all English local authorities adopt a leader-and-cabinet governance model remains intact. Around 80% of councils already operate this way, according to the government minister Miatta Fahnbulleh, but the provision would compel the remaining councils to change. Critics of the rejection argued that forcing a single model on every council contradicts the bill's stated purpose of devolving power to local communities. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 287 Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government motion, while all Conservatives (79), Liberal Democrats (56), and Greens (4) who voted opposed it. The Democratic Unionist Party (3) and Ulster Unionist Party (1) also voted no. Two independents voted on each side. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The result fed into a continuing ping-pong (the back-and-forth exchange of amendments between the Commons and Lords) over the bill, with a further related vote on 27 April 2026 producing a similarly large government majority of 270 to 170 on the same governance question.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords change, backing the government's position that all English councils should be required to adopt a leader-and-cabinet governance model rather than choosing their own structures.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment giving councils freedom to determine their own governance arrangements, opposing what critics described as central government imposing a one-size-fits-all model on local democracy.
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
259
0
102
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
79
37
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
4
1
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
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
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