I thinks it's only fair that you provide some kind of summary as to what the outcome was.
I did try reading the debates that you kindly provided, but unfortunately my eyes glazed over quite quickly.
Did you read them?
Sure, I like reading Hansard.
You can press Ctrl+F to search for interesting words within a page (e.g. Cons, fitness, fire, safety etc) if you don't want to read the whole thing.
I didn't want to pick particular contributions as then I could be accused of bias e.g. searching Hansard for "fire flats" will find a contribution from Mr Corbyn in 2013 warning about checks not being carried out[1] (albeit in the private sector).
Obviously (I'm not sure why I assume this obvious) the Labour party were pushing strongly for an amendment to improve safety.
But PJ's point was attacking the Conservatives so I'll stick to their responses.
A couple of Conservative MPs made the point that they were "accidental landlords"[2] with just one property and thought the checks would be onerous.
The point was made that there was already lots of legislation and didn't see the need for more [3] (this was countered by pointing out it covered only the worst offenses).
There was a weird point from the conservatives about how a "plague of rats" as not making a house "unfit" [4]. I don't think he knew where he was going with that one!
The main debate (there were others too which I didn't link to) wasn't mainly focused on whether property was unfit.
The Conservatives wanted to keep the bill focused[5] and look to existing powers (there are long contributions that follow from Labour members explaining why this isn't the case).
Again, the Conservatives make the point that additional checks (electrical) would be onerous[6].
Again, the Conservatives wanted to pass what they had with the suggestion to look at safety another time [7].
It ends with:
"My hon. Friend is right; I could have extended the list. Tory Ministers and Back Benchers have voted against our proposals to reinforce councils’ hands so that they deal with such abuse from landlords and such exploitation of tenants, to require homes to meet standards that make them fit for human habitation and to mandate annual electrical safety checks. They rejected each and every one of those proposals, to which we will return in the other place."[8]
The vote was straight down party lines. All Conservatives, all DUP and all (one) UUP voting one way. Everyone else the other. [9]
That's my best summary with references for you to check my interpretation.
[1]
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...istmasAdjournment#contribution-13121967000304
[2]
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...anHabitation)Bill#contribution-15101634000549 and
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...anHabitation)Bill#contribution-15101634000553
[3]
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...anHabitation)Bill#contribution-15101634000568
[4]
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...anHabitation)Bill#contribution-15101634000575
[5]
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ngAndPlanningBill#contribution-16011280001183
[6]
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ngAndPlanningBill#contribution-16011280001291
[7]
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ngAndPlanningBill#contribution-16011280001298
[8]
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ngAndPlanningBill#contribution-16011280002016
[9]
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...02779/HousingAndPlanningBill?outputType=Party