Division · No. 279Monday, 8 September 2025Commons Renters

Renters’ Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 11

398
Ayes
93
Noes
Passed · Government won
155 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened**: The House of Commons voted on 8 September 2025 to disagree with Lords Amendment 11 to the Renters' Rights Bill, by 398 votes to 93. This means MPs rejected a modification made by the House of Lords to the Bill and insisted on the government's original version of the legislation on that particular point. **Why it matters**: The Renters' Rights Bill is a major piece of housing legislation intended to strengthen protections for tenants in the private rented sector. By overturning Lords Amendment 11, the Commons reasserted its preferred approach to tenant protections without accepting changes that the Lords had introduced. The Bill affects millions of private renters across England, with provisions understood to include restrictions on no-fault evictions, new rights around tenancy conditions, and greater regulatory oversight of landlords. Rejecting the Lords' amendment keeps the government's more expansive tenant protection measures intact. **The politics**: The vote split almost entirely along party lines. All 288 Labour MPs and 35 Labour and Co-operative members voted with the government, as did all 60 Liberal Democrats, all four Democratic Unionist Party MPs, and all three Greens who voted. All 86 voting Conservatives and all six voting Reform UK members opposed the motion, joined by two independents. There were no rebellions on either side. This vote is one of several on the same day, with the Commons also disagreeing with Lords Amendments 18, 19, 26, and 39 to the same Bill, suggesting a broad Commons determination to resist Lords modifications to this legislation across multiple clauses.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the existing pet deposit rules without an additional three-week deposit charge for tenants who want pets
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, allowing landlords to require an extra three-week deposit before permitting a tenant to keep a pet
§ 01Who voted how.491 voting members · 155 absent
Aye399No95DID NOT VOTE · 155

491 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 155 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
288
0
74
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
86
30
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
60
0
12
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
35
0
7
Independent
6
2
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
Your Party
1
0
§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Matthew PennycookSupportiveGreenwich and Woolwich
Government must reject most Lords amendments as they undermine core Bill principles; supports amendments on agricultural workers and maintains 12-month no-let restriction to prevent abuse.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,162 words)
Sir James CleverlyOpposedBraintree
Bill is poorly thought through and counterproductive; will drive landlords out and reduce housing supply; Lords amendments attempt to address real problems the Government has created.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,220 words)
Gideon AmosNeutralTaunton and Wellington
Supports Bill's core aims but backs certain Lords amendments including those on shared owners (19), carers (64), and military housing (39) to improve fairness and accountability.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,366 words)
Antonia BanceSupportiveTipton and Wednesbury
Bill is groundbreaking and must be protected; opposes amendments that weaken discrimination enforcement and the 12-month no-let restriction; urges rapid implementation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (344 words)
Danny BealesSupportiveUxbridge and South Ruislip
Bill essential to address sector imbalance; opposes amendments on standard of proof (26-27), pet deposits (11), and re-let periods (18) as they undermine tenant protections.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,319 words)
Vikki SladeSupportiveMid Dorset and North Poole
Bill overdue; strongly opposes amendments on pet deposits (11), re-let periods (18), and standard of proof (26); backs military housing standard (39).Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,023 words)
Rachel BlakeSupportiveCities of London and Westminster
Bill's core principles must be preserved; opposes Lords amendments expanding eviction grounds and raising standard of proof; criticises Opposition for abandoning no-fault eviction commitment.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (687 words)
Dave RobertsonSupportiveLichfield
Bill provides critical opportunity for survivors of domestic abuse; opposes amendments that weaken tenant protections and stability.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (197 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0