The amendment that sparked months of community meetings, packed Lords debates and a 162-55 vote in the upper chamber passed the House of Commons on Tuesday without a single vote being cast.
Lords amendment 42 (the Banner amendment, which allows the Secretary of State to discharge statutory recreation trusts over land such as Wimbledon Park) is now in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill heading for Royal Assent. Paul Kohler, the Wimbledon MP, had tabled a formal motion to disagree with it. That motion was never put. The amendment sailed through on the voices, buried in a list of dozens.
The Lords had passed it 162-55 on 13 April. The Commons had its chance on 21 April.
What happened in the chamber
Kohler had spoken passionately in the main debate. He told the Commons that the All England Lawn Tennis Club had bought the Wimbledon Park freehold in 1993 “at an appropriately reduced price, having expressly agreed both to never build on the land and to restore full rights of public recreation after the expiry of a pre-existing leasehold interest.” That commitment, he said, was now at risk.
He reminded MPs that the government had reversed its position after previously promising the law would remain unchanged. “Despite previous assurances that they would leave the law unchanged until a proper consultation could take place, the Government rowed in behind the Banner amendment,” he said.
Then Kohler landed the line that framed the session: “I tabled a motion to disagree with the Banner amendment but under the arcane procedures of this place, I understand that my motion will not be voted on, while the Banner amendment will remain.”
He was right. His motion was never reached.
The blame exchange
What followed illustrated how tangled the politics had become. Sir James Cleverly, the shadow minister for Braintree, attempted to turn the argument on the Liberal Democrats. “Had his party in the other place voted to keep the protections in, we would not be having this discussion at this Dispatch Box now,” Cleverly said. “His party failed to do its work in the other place.”
Kohler’s response was pointed. The Conservatives whose peer tabled the amendment had no standing to make that argument. “Every Tory peer either abstained or voted for the amendment tabled by their Conservative colleague, Lord Banner,” he said.
As for the Conservative safeguard amendment (which would have required a ministerial review before the new powers were exercised), Kohler called it “a parliamentary sleight of hand to pretend to the people of Wimbledon that the Tories have not abandoned them.” That amendment also vanished in the procedural wash, never put to a vote.
Kohler closed with a verdict: “That marks a sad day for Wimbledon specifically, public trust land generally and the credibility of the Conservative party across Merton, where the overreach of the AELTC is an important local election issue.”
Minutes later, amendment 42 passed without a division.
How it happened
Parliamentary procedure required a single vote on all remaining Lords amendments the government was not contesting. The debate had run until past 7pm, when a Programme Order cut it short. The Deputy Speaker moved through six contested amendments by formal division. Then, in a single question under that procedure, all remaining uncontested Lords amendments were agreed to on the voices. Amendment 42 was in that list. Done in seconds.
What happens now
Two things remain live. First, the minister Miatta Fahnbulleh committed at the despatch box that the new powers “will not be used until we have concluded that review.” That is a verbal pledge made in the chamber. It is not written into the legislation.
Second, Save Wimbledon Park’s appeal of the High Court ruling that the golf course was never a statutory trust is still live. Lord Banner told the Lords before the vote that the amendment was “in fact academic” for the Wimbledon Park case, given the AELTC’s High Court win. Whether he is right depends entirely on the Court of Appeal.
A community meeting organised by Save Wimbledon Park takes place in Wimbledon this evening (22 April). For the background to the legal and parliamentary dispute, the full series is here.
The mechanism is on the statute book. Whether it ever touches Wimbledon Park is now a question for the Court of Appeal and a ministerial review whose terms and timescale remain unspecified. Readers who want the government to publish those terms can write to their MP.
