Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1

Thursday, 13 November 2025 · Division No. 347 · Commons

254Ayes
135Noes
Passed

259 MPs did not vote

cross-cuttingGovernment wonPro Infrastructure Delivery(Yes)Pro Parliamentary Scrutiny(No)Pro Planning Reform(Yes)Lords Checks And Balances(No)

Voting Yes means

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 means

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

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.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye
225 Aye/0 No
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/76 No
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0 Aye/45 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
27 Aye/0 No
Independent
1 Aye/5 No
Reform UKWhipped No
0 Aye/5 No
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0 Aye/4 No
Democratic Unionist Party
0 Aye/1 No
Your Party
0 Aye/1 No

What They Said in the Debate

David Simmonds

Conservative · Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Gideon Amos

Liberal Democrat · Taunton and Wellington

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Neil Duncan-Jordan

Labour · Poole

Opposed

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.

Voted Aye

Kit Malthouse

Conservative · North West Hampshire

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Ruth Cadbury

Labour · Brentford and Isleworth

Opposed

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.

Voted Aye

Florence Eshalomi

Labour · Vauxhall and Camberwell Green

Neutral

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.

Voted Aye

Dame Meg Hillier

Labour · Hackney South and Shoreditch

Neutral

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.

Matthew Pennycook

Labour · Greenwich and Woolwich

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Related Votes