Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 32
268
Ayes
—
78
Noes
Passed · Government won
302 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 13 November 2025, the House of Commons voted by 268 to 78 to disagree with Lords Amendment 32 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. This meant the Commons rejected a change introduced by the House of Lords and reasserted the government's original position on that element of the legislation. The motion passed comfortably, with government supporters outnumbering opponents by a margin of nearly four to one. **Why it matters:** The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is the government's flagship legislation for speeding up the delivery of new homes and major infrastructure projects. The government has set a target of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects before the end of this Parliament. Lords Amendment 32 was one of several changes introduced in the upper chamber that the government argued would complicate or obstruct that delivery. By voting to disagree, the Commons kept the Bill closer to the government's preferred form, clearing a path toward Royal Assent. The division was one of a cluster of similar votes held on the same day, all concerning Lords amendments to the same Bill. **The politics:** The vote divided largely along party lines. All 255 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position. The Conservatives provided virtually all of the opposition, with 73 of their MPs voting against, joined by 6 Reform UK members and 1 independent. The Greens backed the government, voting aye. The Liberal Democrats did not appear among the no votes, though their spokesperson raised concerns in debate about democratic accountability and environmental protections in other amendments. The division sits within a broader political contest over planning reform, with the Conservatives accusing the government of causing a decline in housing starts, and the government pointing to planning laws as the structural barrier it is trying to remove.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to reject Lords Amendment 32, backing the government's approach to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill over the Lords' proposed change
Voting No meant
Oppose the government's rejection of Lords Amendment 32, believing the Lords' amendment should be retained in the Bill
346 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 302 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
228
0
134
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
73
43
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
7
1
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
0
0
5
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
—
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
1
0
—
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_vote_recorded · 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