English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 98
287Ayes
150Noes
Carried · majority 137 · Government won212 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 287 · No 150 · DNV 212 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 21 April 2026, the House of Commons voted by 287 to 150 to reject Lords amendment 98 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. The amendment, passed by the House of Lords, would have required local consent before the government could impose changes to local governance structures, such as forcing councils to combine or creating new mayoral arrangements. By voting to disagree with the Lords, MPs backed the government's position that ministers should retain the power to act without local agreement where they judge it necessary. The vote has direct practical consequences for how local government restructuring works in England. Without the amendment, the Act gives ministers the ability to direct the creation or expansion of strategic authorities, including the imposition of mayors, even where local councils or communities have not agreed. Supporters of the Lords amendment argued this amounted to central imposition dressed up as devolution, while the government maintained the powers are necessary to deliver reform where voluntary agreement cannot be reached. The outcome affects any area of England where the government may seek to restructure local governance under the new framework. The division broke almost entirely along party lines. All 286 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the Greens all voted against, with 83 Conservative, 57 Liberal Democrat and 5 Green MPs in the No lobby. Reform UK had no vote recorded for any of its MPs. There were no significant cross-party rebels on the government side. The vote fits a broader pattern across the Bill's passage, with the government successfully overturning a series of Lords amendments in late April 2026 on related questions of ministerial power and local governance.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government retaining power to impose local government restructuring — including forcing councils to combine or adopt mayoral structures — without requiring the consent of local communities or councils.
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendment requiring local consent before governance changes can be imposed, arguing that genuine devolution must not be dictated from Whitehall.
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
258
0
103
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
83
33
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
56
15
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
28
0
14
Independent
—
1
4
8
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Split
1
2
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