Renters’ Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 64
335
Ayes
—
160
Noes
Passed · Government won
151 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 8 September 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 64 to the Renters' Rights Bill, passing the motion to disagree by 335 votes to 160. This means the Commons refused to accept a change the House of Lords had inserted into the Bill, pushing back the amendment and reasserting the government's original position on that provision. **Why it matters:** The Renters' Rights Bill is a major piece of housing legislation intended to strengthen the position of tenants in the private rented sector. Lords Amendment 64 represented one of several changes the upper chamber had sought to introduce, with the government characterising these as weakening tenant protections. By rejecting this amendment, the Commons maintained the stronger regulatory framework for landlords and greater security for renters that the government had designed into the Bill. The vote affects the millions of people renting privately in England, as well as landlords and letting agents who will be subject to the new rules. **The politics:** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, providing the government's majority of 321 combined votes in the Aye lobby. Conservatives (89), Liberal Democrats (63), and Reform UK (7) all voted in the No lobby, meaning they favoured accepting the Lords change. The Democratic Unionist Party, the Greens, and the SDLP sided with the government. This division on Amendment 64 was notably closer than several other Lords amendments rejected the same day, with Amendment 19 producing a near-identical split of 336 to 158, suggesting this particular provision was marginally more contested than others such as Amendments 11, 18, and 26, which passed by considerably larger margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position of rejecting Lords amendments that would have diluted tenant protections, including attempts to reintroduce fixed-term tenancies and make it harder for councils to hold bad landlords to account.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendments, which would have reintroduced fixed-term tenancies, raised the burden of proof for local authorities pursuing bad landlords, and made other changes that critics argue would weaken the Bill's protections for renters.
495 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
63
9
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
5
2
6
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
0
1
—
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 no · 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 no · 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