Planning and Infrastructure Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 38
252Ayes
130Noes
Carried · majority 122 · Government won264 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 252 · No 130 · DNV 264 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 252 to 130 on 13 November 2025 to reject a Lords amendment that would have required new spatial development strategies, created by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, to include specific protections for chalk streams. The government's motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 38 passed, meaning chalk streams will not receive statutory protection within those strategies through this legislation. The vote removes a provision that supporters argued was necessary to protect one of England's rarest freshwater habitats. Around 85% of the world's chalk streams are found in England, yet they do not currently hold the designation of irreplaceable habitats under planning law. Supporters of the amendment argued that existing protections have demonstrably failed: according to the 2024-25 chalk stream annual review cited in debate, 83% of England's chalk streams are failing to achieve good ecological status. The government's position is that chalk stream protection can be addressed through other means, including the new Environmental Delivery Plans and national planning policy, rather than being written into the face of this Bill. Labour MPs voted unanimously for the government's position, with 221 Labour and 28 Labour and Co-operative MPs in the ayes and none in the noes. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats united entirely in the noes, with 73 Conservative and 45 Liberal Democrat MPs opposing the government. Reform UK (5), the Green Party (4), and Your Party (2) also voted no. No cross-party rebellion against the government position was recorded among Labour MPs. The result followed a pattern consistent with other Lords amendment disagreements from the same day, where the government carried similar margins against a Conservative-Liberal Democrat bloc.
Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, accepting the government's view that chalk stream protection does not need to be hardwired into spatial development strategies via this Bill
Voting No meant
Support keeping the Lords amendment to give chalk streams statutory protection within spatial development strategies, arguing existing and proposed protections are insufficient
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
221
0
140
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
73
43
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
45
26
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