Division · No. 281Monday, 8 September 2025Commons Renters

Renters’ Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 19

336
Ayes
158
Noes
Passed · Government won
151 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** On 8 September 2025, the House of Commons voted by 336 ayes to 158 noes to reject Lords Amendment 19 to the Renters' Rights Bill. This was a motion to disagree with a change the House of Lords had made to the bill, meaning MPs voted to remove that amendment and restore the bill's original wording on the relevant provision. The government won the vote, but the margin was notably narrower than on several other Lords amendments considered the same day. **Why it matters:** The Renters' Rights Bill is a major piece of housing legislation intended to overhaul the private rented sector in England. By rejecting Lords Amendment 19, the Commons maintained its preferred version of the bill on whatever provision this amendment addressed, keeping the legislation on its original policy course. The vote contributes to the overall passage of the bill through its parliamentary stages, with the Lords and Commons continuing to negotiate the final shape of the law through a process known as ping-pong, where the two chambers exchange the bill until they reach agreement. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 321 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the government, and they were joined by the Democratic Unionists, the Greens, and a handful of independents. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Reform UK all voted against the government. The 158 noes represent a meaningfully larger opposition than the 93, 97, or 98 noes recorded against other Lords amendments on the same day, suggesting this particular amendment attracted broader cross-party sympathy in the Lords and more determined opposition from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the Commons.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position: reject Lords changes that would reintroduce fixed-term tenancies and dilute local authorities' ability to hold rogue landlords to account, preserving stronger tenant protections
Voting No meant
Back the Lords amendments, supporting greater flexibility for landlords including fixed-term tenancies and a higher burden of proof for enforcement action against landlords
§ 01Who voted how.494 voting members · 151 absent
Aye338No160DID NOT VOTE · 151

494 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 151 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
285
0
77
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
89
27
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
62
10
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
6
2
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
7
1
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
1
0
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 no · 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 no · 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