Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 32
268Ayes
78Noes
Carried · majority 190 · Government won302 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 268 · No 78 · DNV 302 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on 13 November 2025 to reject Lords amendment 32 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, passing the government's motion to disagree with the amendment by 268 votes to 78. The vote strips the Lords' insertion from the bill and sends it back to the upper chamber without that provision. The bill overhauls the planning and consenting system for major housing and infrastructure projects in England, and the government has argued throughout its passage that the Lords inserted a series of amendments contrary to the bill's core purpose of streamlining the consenting regime. The detailed content of Lords amendment 32 is not set out in the available parliamentary record, though it was grouped with several other amendments concerning nature and environmental protection, including provisions relating to Environmental Delivery Plans and species protections. Retaining it would have added obligations the government viewed as conflicting with its streamlined approach; removing it keeps that regime intact. Labour MPs voted unanimously in favour of the motion, joined by most independents and the four Green MPs who voted, producing a total of 268 ayes. All 73 Conservative MPs who voted opposed the motion, alongside all six Reform UK MPs who voted and one independent, giving 78 noes. The vote was one of several on the same day in which the government successfully overturned Lords amendments to the bill, with related divisions on amendments 1, 3, 33 and 37 all producing similar outcomes.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to reject Lords amendment 32 and remove it from the bill, prioritising a streamlined planning and infrastructure consenting regime over the additional safeguards the Lords inserted.
Voting No meant
Support retaining Lords amendment 32, backing the Lords' attempt to strengthen environmental or planning protections within the bill against the government's wishes.
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
227
0
134
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
73
43
Liberal Democrats
—
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
—
7
1
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
0
5
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
2
0
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_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