English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 26
287Ayes
149Noes
Carried · majority 138 · Government won215 did not vote
651 Members · Aye 287 · No 149 · DNV 215 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on 21 April 2026 to reject Lords Amendment 26 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, by 287 votes to 149 (Division 496). The Lords had inserted a requirement that mayors, combined authorities, and combined county authorities could designate greenfield land for development only once satisfied that no suitable brownfield land existed. The government moved to remove that requirement, and the Commons agreed. The practical effect of the vote is that no statutory brownfield-first test will appear in the Bill. The government argued its approach was already secured through revisions to the national planning policy framework made in December 2024, which state that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved. Those opposing the government's motion wanted a legally binding obligation written into primary legislation, arguing that policy guidance alone is insufficient to protect greenfield and green belt land from development pressure. The vote split along clear party lines with no recorded rebels. All 285 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and the Greens all voted against. Two independents voted on each side. The Liberal Democrats' Zoe Franklin specifically cited brownfield-first development in her own constituency while announcing her party's intention to support the Lords amendment, and Conservative MP Lewis Cocking argued that a government genuinely committed to protecting greenfield land would have accepted it.
Voting Aye meant
Support removing the Lords' brownfield-first requirement from the Bill, trusting planning policy guidance rather than primary legislation to protect greenfield land
Voting No meant
Oppose removing the Lords' amendment, insisting a statutory brownfield-first requirement is needed to genuinely protect green belt and greenfield land from development pressure
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
257
0
104
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
79
37
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
56
15
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
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