Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1
254
Ayes
—
135
Noes
Passed · Government won
259 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 13 November 2025, the House of Commons voted to reject Lords Amendment 1 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which had sought to modify the government's planning proposals. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 254 votes to 135. This was one of several divisions held on the same day in which the Commons pushed back against multiple amendments made to the Bill during its passage through the House of Lords. **Why it matters:** The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is the government's flagship legislation intended to accelerate the delivery of new homes and major infrastructure projects across England. Lords Amendment 1 concerned the parliamentary requirements around national policy statements, specifically the scrutiny procedures applied when those statements are updated or revised. By rejecting the amendment, the Commons backed the government's preferred approach, which reduces the level of parliamentary oversight required for minor or reflective updates to national policy statements. The Bill as a whole is designed to help deliver 1.5 million new homes and fast-track 150 decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 252 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, while Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Greens, Reform UK, and most independents voted against. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. The result was consistent with several other divisions held on the same day, in which the Commons overturned Lords amendments on related issues including environmental protections, brownfield-first development requirements, and local democratic accountability. The Bill is now in the later stages of the parliamentary ping-pong process, with the Lords' amendments being considered and largely rejected by the government.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position of removing the Lords-inserted requirement for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of major infrastructure projects, prioritising faster delivery of infrastructure
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring stronger parliamentary oversight of major infrastructure decisions, arguing Parliament should have sufficient time to scrutinise projects like HS2 or Heathrow expansion
389 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 259 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
225
0
137
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
76
40
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
45
27
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
1
5
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
5
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
1
4
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
—
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
0
1
—
Government must reject most Lords amendments to preserve streamlined planning process and £7.5bn economic benefit; selective concessions on EV charging and environmental delivery plans reflect proportionate scrutiny, not undermining Bill's core principles.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (7,734 words) →
Bill fails to deliver promised growth, homelessness, and infrastructure; government's centralization of planning power, green belt vulnerability, and failures on business costs (national insurance) are preventing house building despite existing permissions.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,245 words) →
Welcome pragmatic government amendments on environmental delivery plans, but Lords amendment 1 concerns are valid—Select Committees must retain meaningful scrutiny role despite government efficiency arguments.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,012 words) →
Lords amendments 38 and 40 on chalk streams and species protection are essential; EDPs must be limited to strategic landscape scales; centralization of power via clause 51 removes essential local democratic accountability.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (1,748 words) →
Supports government's reflective amendment procedure for efficiency but requires firm reassurances: ministers must appear before Select Committees reliably, engage early with Committees, and clock should count only sitting days.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,346 words) →
Lords amendment 40 must be accepted; species and habitats cannot be traded away through strategic EDPs—environmental delivery plans unsuited to protecting site-specific biodiversity and declining species.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (719 words) →
Minister's reassurances on chalk stream protection via national policy are insufficient and undelivered; statutory protection through Lords amendment 38 or equivalent concrete commitment needed, not vague future intentions.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,430 words) →
Lords amendment 1 concerns justified—Select Committees need genuine opportunity to scrutinize major infrastructure via national policy statements; government claims proportionate scrutiny do not adequately address reduced committee time.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,762 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0