A divisionDivision No. 281 · Monday, 8 September 2025· Commons· Renters

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

336Ayes
158Noes
Carried · majority 178 · Government won
151 did not vote
Aye338No160DID NOT VOTE · 151

645 Members · Aye 336 · No 158 · DNV 151 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 8 September 2025, MPs voted by 336 to 158 to reject Lords Amendment 19 to the Renters' Rights Bill. The amendment, which had been inserted by the House of Lords, would have exempted shared ownership leaseholders from certain tenancy protections when subletting their homes. The government moved to disagree with it, and the Commons backed that position. The practical effect of rejecting the amendment is that shared ownership leaseholders who sublet their properties will remain subject to the same protections the Bill extends to all tenants in the private rented sector. The Lords amendment had sought to create a carve-out for shared owners who find themselves compelled to sublet, for instance when a property sale falls through due to building safety issues. By voting it down, the Commons preserved the government's position that no such exemption should exist, on the grounds that it could weaken protections for the small number of tenants who happen to rent from a shared owner. The vote divided cleanly along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted entirely in favour of rejecting the amendment, providing the winning margin. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Reform UK MPs all voted against the motion, effectively supporting the Lords amendment. The Liberal Democrats explicitly argued in debate that the amendment recognised a genuine injustice for shared owners hit by circumstances beyond their control, while the government acknowledged the difficult position some shared owners face but declined to accept the exemption.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's decision to reject the Lords amendment, prioritising tenant protections over special flexibility for shared ownership landlords who sublet their homes.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment, arguing that shared ownership leaseholders in financial difficulty deserve an exemption from the Bill's restrictions and that rejecting it risks pushing some into financial ruin.
§ 01Who voted how.494 voting Members · 151 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
285
0
76
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
89
27
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
61
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
5
3
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
7
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Your Party
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 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