Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 33
257Ayes
128Noes
Carried · majority 129 · Government won264 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 257 · No 128 · DNV 264 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 13 November 2025, MPs voted by 257 to 128 to reject Lords Amendment 33 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The amendment, inserted by the House of Lords, would have required that any government regulations altering the national scheme of planning delegation be approved by Parliament through the affirmative procedure, meaning both Houses would have had a formal vote before such regulations could take effect. The government's motion to disagree passed, meaning the Lords amendment falls. The vote concerns how much parliamentary oversight applies when the government changes the rules on which planning decisions are taken by local councillors and planning committees rather than by other means. Clause 51 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and critics argued this power is unlimited in scope. Without the affirmative procedure, regulations made under that power would be subject only to the less demanding negative procedure, under which Parliament can object but does not vote to approve. The practical effect of the Commons decision is that future changes to planning delegation rules will not automatically require a parliamentary vote to take effect. The vote divided entirely along party lines. All 252 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position to reject the Lords amendment. All 73 Conservatives, all 42 Liberal Democrats, all five Reform UK members, all four Green MPs, and both Your Party members who voted opposed the government and supported the Lords amendment. Four independent MPs voted against the government and three voted with it. The division is one of several on the same day in which the Commons rejected Lords amendments to this Bill, including similar votes on Lords Amendments 1, 3, 32, and 37, all following the same pattern of government majorities in the low to mid 120s.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government in rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting that existing consultation processes are sufficient oversight for changes to planning delegation without requiring a full parliamentary vote each time.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring affirmative parliamentary approval before regulations alter the national scheme of delegation, arguing this is a necessary democratic safeguard against excessive centralisation of planning powers away from local councillors and communities.
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
73
43
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
42
29
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
—
3
4
6
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
0
0
5
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 aye · 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