Renters’ Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 26
404
Ayes
—
98
Noes
Passed · Government won
149 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** On 8 September 2025, the House of Commons voted by 404 to 98 to disagree with Lords Amendment 26 to the Renters' Rights Bill. This meant MPs rejected a change that the House of Lords had made to the bill and voted to restore the government's original text. The motion passed comfortably, continuing a pattern of the Commons overturning Lords amendments to this legislation on the same day. **Why it matters:** The Renters' Rights Bill is the government's flagship housing legislation, intended to overhaul the private rented sector in England. By rejecting Lords Amendment 26, the Commons preserved whatever provision the government had originally drafted in place of the Lords' preferred modification. The bill as a whole is designed to strengthen protections for tenants, including abolishing no-fault evictions and reforming how landlords can end tenancies. Each rejected Lords amendment represents a decision to keep the government's original approach rather than accept changes introduced during the Lords' scrutiny of the bill, meaning the final legislation will more closely reflect what the government originally proposed. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 289 Labour MPs and 36 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, as did all 62 Liberal Democrats, all 4 Democratic Unionist Party members, all 3 Green MPs, and several smaller parties and independents. All 88 Conservatives who voted opposed the motion, joined by all 6 Reform UK members and 2 independents. There were no notable cross-party rebels in either direction. This vote was one of several held on the same day in which the Commons rejected Lords amendments to the bill, with comparable margins recorded on amendments 11, 18, 19, and 39, suggesting a coordinated government effort to return the bill to its original shape after Lords scrutiny.
Voting Aye meant
Support giving local authorities strong powers to enforce against rogue landlords, rejecting the Lords' attempt to water down those powers in the Renters' Rights Bill
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment that would have restricted local authority enforcement powers over landlords, viewing it as a necessary safeguard
502 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 149 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
289
0
73
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
88
28
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
62
0
10
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
36
0
6
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
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
—
Your Party
1
0
—
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0