A divisionDivision No. 507 · Monday, 27 April 2026· Commons· Devolution and Local Powers

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Motion relating to Lords Amendments 94B and 94C

269Ayes
170Noes
Carried · majority 99 · Government won
208 did not vote
Aye269No170DID NOT VOTE · 208

647 Members · Aye 269 · No 170 · DNV 208 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Commons MPs voted 269 to 170 on 27 April 2026 to disagree with Lords Amendments 94B and 94C to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, backing the government's position over changes proposed by the House of Lords. The motion passed comfortably, with the government's majority holding firm. The precise content of Amendments 94B and 94C is not detailed in the available debate record, though the vote formed part of a broader session of ping-pong (the back-and-forth exchange of amendments between the two chambers) on this legislation. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill restructures how powers are distributed across England, creating a tiered system of strategic authorities and giving ministers the ability to direct the creation of those authorities without local consent where agreement cannot be reached. By voting down the Lords' proposed changes, MPs preserved the government's preferred version of whichever provisions Amendments 94B and 94C addressed. The bill as a whole affects every English local authority and the communities they serve, covering everything from mayoral powers and planning to governance requirements and community asset rights. The division split almost entirely along party lines. All 268 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position, while Conservatives (97), Liberal Democrats (58), the Greens (5), and the unionist parties from Northern Ireland (6) all voted against. Two independents voted with the government and four against. The Conservative shadow minister David Simmonds characterised the bill overall as a centralising measure extending Whitehall control into town halls, while the government's Miatta Fahnbulleh pointed to constructive engagement throughout the bill's passage. This vote was one of several held on the same day, all of which the government won by similar margins.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position in rejecting Lords amendments 94B and 94C, backing the government's preferred version of the English Devolution Bill as it applies to planning and local governance provisions
Voting No meant
Back the Lords in their amendments 94B and 94C, opposing the government's approach — reflecting Conservative concerns that the Bill gives ministers excessive centralising powers and fails to adequately protect brownfield-first planning priorities and local democratic choice
§ 01Who voted how.439 voting Members · 208 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
244
0
117
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
97
19
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
58
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted Aye
24
0
18
Independent
2
4
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
0
8
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted No
0
4
1
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
1
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
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 concessions on rural/coastal affairs and parish councils while resisting statutory protections for brownfield and music venues, arguing devolution works best through local flexibility not central mandates.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (6,531 words)
David SimmondsOpposedRuislip, Northwood and Pinner
Opposition challenges the Bill as centralizing despite its devolution title; calls for brownfield prioritization, local consent for authority mergers, and stronger parish council protections to genuinely empower communities.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,665 words)
Zöe FranklinOpposedGuildford
Welcomes rural and coastal amendments but criticizes forced governance model changes and brownfield rejection as false devolution; demands real local choice and environmental protection.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (901 words)
Alex SobelOpposedLeeds Central and Headingley
Backs agent of change principle for music venues to prevent legal harassment; supports statutory protection to avoid £50k+ defence costs for cultural venues threatened by residential development.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (765 words)
Andrew GeorgeOpposedSt Ives
Argues for local consent on mayoral powers and highlights Cornwall's national minority status under European conventions; calls for consultative, not directive, approach to devolution.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,279 words)
Perran MoonOpposedCamborne and Redruth
Criticizes two-year delay on Secretary of State powers over combined authorities; demands permanent protections for Cornwall's national minority status and meaningful devolution.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (905 words)
Lewis AtkinsonOpposedSunderland Central
Advocates statutory agent of change protection for grassroots music venues; documents 350 closures and argues planning guidance alone is insufficient without enforcement and stronger NPPF language.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,059 words)
Vikki SladeOpposedMid Dorset and North Poole
Demands mandatory rather than consultative parish council inclusion in neighbourhood governance; argues 20% of country lacks democratic structures and Government amendment leaves gap unresolved.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,363 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