A divisionDivision No. 282 · Monday, 8 September 2025· Commons· Renters

Renters’ Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 26

404Ayes
98Noes
Carried · majority 306 · Government won
149 did not vote
Aye404No96DID NOT VOTE · 149

651 Members · Aye 404 · No 98 · DNV 149 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

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. 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 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
§ 01Who voted how.502 voting Members · 149 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
289
0
72
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
88
28
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
62
0
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
6
2
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
2
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
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
Your 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 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