Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1
254Ayes
135Noes
Carried · majority 119 · Government won259 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 254 · No 135 · DNV 259 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 13 November 2025 to remove Lords Amendment 1 from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, passing the motion by 254 votes to 135. The amendment, which the House of Lords had inserted, would have strengthened parliamentary scrutiny of National Policy Statements, the government documents that set out policy for decisions on major infrastructure projects such as airports, roads and reservoirs. By voting to disagree with the Lords on this point, the Commons backed the government's position that existing scrutiny arrangements are sufficient. The practical consequence is that the more formal, mandatory oversight role for Select Committees that the Lords had sought will not be written into the Act. National Policy Statements will instead be subject to the scrutiny arrangements the government considers adequate, without the additional procedural requirements the Lords amendment would have imposed. This matters because National Policy Statements shape some of the most consequential infrastructure decisions in England, including those affecting communities living near major transport or energy projects. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 251 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs recorded in the division voted in favour of removing the Lords amendment. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the Greens and most independents voted against. Two independents voted with the government. There were no recorded Labour rebels, though several Labour MPs, including Ruth Cadbury, Chair of the Transport Select Committee, and Dame Meg Hillier, who had tabled an identical amendment at an earlier stage, raised concerns from the government benches during debate. The division was one of several on the same day in which the Commons declined to accept Lords amendments to the Bill.
Voting Aye meant
Support removing the Lords amendment and backing the government's preferred, more streamlined approach to scrutinising National Policy Statements, with less mandatory parliamentary oversight.
Voting No meant
Oppose removing the Lords amendment; favour stronger, more formal parliamentary scrutiny — including Select Committee involvement — over major infrastructure decisions that affect communities across the country.
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 whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
224
0
137
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
76
40
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
45
26
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
—
2
4
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
1
4
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
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 · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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