English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 37
291Ayes
144Noes
Carried · majority 147 · Government won213 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 291 · No 144 · DNV 213 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 21 April 2026 to reject a Lords amendment that would have required the government to develop and implement a national strategy for parish and town council governance in England. The motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 37 passed by 291 votes to 144. The government simultaneously offered an amendment in lieu, committing to ensure that neighbourhood governance structures under the Bill can include town and parish councils, alongside updated guidance on community governance reviews. The practical consequence is that no legally binding national strategy for parish and town councils will be created. Instead, the Bill's existing clause 60, which places duties on local authorities to establish neighbourhood governance structures, will serve as the vehicle for parish and town council expansion, with updated guidance to accompany it. Supporters of the Lords amendment argued that without central direction, many communities would lack the information and support needed to establish or strengthen local parish governance, particularly as local government reorganisation creates larger, more distant councils. The government countered that the Bill's neighbourhood governance provisions already address the matter, and that a separate statutory strategy was unnecessary. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 288 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position, while Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Green MPs voted against. Reform UK had no vote recorded for any of its members. The vote is one of several on this date in which the Commons rejected Lords amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, with related ping-pong votes on other contested provisions continuing into late April 2026.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of a mandatory national parish governance strategy, accepting instead the government's own amendment in lieu which allows neighbourhood governance structures to include town and parish councils.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring a national strategy for parish and town councils, arguing that without central direction and support, communities will lack the momentum and information to expand parish governance.
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
260
0
101
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
80
36
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
56
15
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
28
0
14
Independent
—
3
2
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Split
2
1
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
0
1
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