English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 41
284Ayes
149Noes
Carried · majority 135 · Government won216 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 284 · No 149 · DNV 216 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 21 April 2026 to reject Lords amendment 41 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which would have placed the "agent of change" principle on a statutory footing. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 284 votes to 149. The agent of change principle holds that developers who build new homes near existing music venues, pubs, and other cultural spaces should be responsible for mitigating noise impacts, rather than those impacts falling on the venues already in place. The practical effect of the vote is that the agent of change principle will not become a legal requirement in planning, licensing, or statutory nuisance law in England. Instead, the government committed to publishing updated planning policy guidance on the principle following the finalisation of the national planning policy framework. Critics in the debate pointed out that guidance on the issue has existed since around 2014 or 2015, and that the number of grassroots music venues in England has fallen from roughly 1,150 to around 800 in recent years, with planning pressures cited as a contributing factor. Labour MPs voted unanimously for the government's position, with 283 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs in the aye lobby and none in the no lobby. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and the Greens all voted against the government motion. The Liberal Democrats, whose peer Lord Foster of Bath had co-sponsored a separate amendment that the government accepted, nonetheless sided with those wanting statutory protection for venues. Two Labour backbenchers, Jeff Smith and Lewis Atkinson, spoke critically of the government's decision during the debate, though neither voted against it.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the government's argument that planning guidance is sufficient to protect music venues without new statutory duties
Voting No meant
Support putting the agent of change principle into statute, giving music venues and cultural institutions stronger legal protection from noise complaints by neighbouring new developments
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
255
0
106
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted No
0
82
34
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
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 no_vote_recorded · 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