A divisionDivision No. 285 · Monday, 8 September 2025· Commons· Renters

Renters’ Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 64

335Ayes
160Noes
Carried · majority 175 · Government won
151 did not vote
Aye336No162DID NOT VOTE · 151

646 Members · Aye 335 · No 160 · DNV 151 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

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. 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 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.
§ 01Who voted how.495 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
63
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
5
2
6
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
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
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 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