Division · No. 284Monday, 8 September 2025Commons Renters

Renters’ Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 53

401
Ayes
96
Noes
Passed · Government won
153 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 8 September 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 53 to the Renters' Rights Bill, passing the motion to disagree by 401 votes to 96. This was one of several votes on the same day in which the Commons pushed back against modifications made by the House of Lords to the government's flagship rental reform legislation. The result means the Bill continues in its original form on this provision, rather than incorporating the change proposed by the upper chamber. **Why it matters:** The Renters' Rights Bill is the government's primary legislative vehicle for reforming the private rented sector in England, affecting millions of tenants and landlords. By rejecting Lords Amendment 53 alongside a series of other amendments on the same sitting, the Commons is reasserting the original terms of the Bill and signalling that it will not accept significant modifications from the Lords. The practical consequence is that whichever protection or restriction the amendment sought to alter or introduce will not be incorporated, preserving the government's intended policy design for the rental market. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 288 Labour MPs and 35 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government, as did all voting Liberal Democrats (60), Democratic Unionists (4), Greens (3), and several smaller parties. All 88 voting Conservatives opposed the motion, joined by all 6 Reform UK MPs and 2 independents, giving the Noes a total of 96. There were no notable cross-party rebellions. This vote sits within a broader pattern of Lords-Commons disagreement on the Bill, with the Commons rejecting at least four other Lords amendments on the same day by similarly large margins, reflecting the government's determination to pass its rental reform package largely unamended.

Voting Aye meant
Support rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the existing deposit framework rather than allowing a separate additional pet damage deposit for landlords
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment allowing landlords to require an extra pet deposit, giving landlords tangible financial protection against pet damage and encouraging them to accept pet-owning tenants
§ 01Who voted how.497 voting members · 153 absent
Aye399No97DID NOT VOTE · 153

497 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 153 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
288
0
74
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
88
28
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