Renters’ Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 39
325Ayes
171Noes
Carried · majority 154 · Government won152 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 325 · No 171 · DNV 152 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 325 to 171 on 8 September 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 39 to the Renters' Rights Bill, which would have placed military service family accommodation within the scope of the new statutory Decent Homes Standard. The government's motion to disagree with the Lords passed comfortably, meaning the amendment was stripped from the Bill before it became law. The practical effect is that service families living in Ministry of Defence accommodation will not have the same legally guaranteed housing standards as private or social renters under the Act. The government argued that MOD housing already meets a "decent homes plus" standard that exceeds the statutory benchmark, and that local authority inspections of secure defence sites would be unworkable on security grounds. In place of legislation, ministers committed to an annual report to Parliament on the standard of service family accommodation, pointing also to a planned defence housing strategy and a £1.5 billion investment in MOD housing. Labour MPs voted almost unanimously in favour of the government's position, with only one Labour MP voting against. The Liberal Democrats voted solidly against the motion, alongside all voting Conservative, Reform UK, Green, and Democratic Unionist Party MPs. The Liberal Democrats argued that service families would become the only category of renters in Britain without statutory protection under primary legislation, and pressed the government to table its own amendment if it objected to the Lords' wording. No such government amendment was forthcoming. The vote was one of several on the same day in which the government successfully disagreed with Lords amendments to the Bill, with related divisions on amendments 11, 18, 19, and 26 all producing similar government majorities.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's rejection of the Lords amendment, accepting ministerial assurances and an annual reporting commitment rather than placing statutory Decent Homes Standard protections for service family accommodation on the face of the Bill.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring military service family accommodation to meet the statutory Decent Homes Standard, arguing service families deserve the same legal protections as private and social renters.
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
284
1
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
—
3
5
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
7
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
4
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
1
0
1
Your Party
—
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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