- Committee (4th Day)
- Relevant document: 14th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee. Scottish Legislative Consent granted; Welsh Legislative Consent sought.
- 4:09 pm
- My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, I remind the Committee again of the protocol around declaring interests. As I mentioned last week, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of a Bill’s proceedings. That means that, in Committee, relevant interests should be declared during the first group in which a noble Lord speaks. If a noble Lord declared an interest during the previous two days in Committee then that is sufficient, but if they are making their first contribution today then any relevant interest should be declared.Clause 12: Right to request permission to keep a petAmendment 118
- 118: Clause 12, page 19, line 12, at end insert— “(d) the landlord may not review or withdraw consent once given.”
- My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this important group on pet ownership, which is a subject of real concern and interest to hundreds of thousands of families that live in rented accommodation and desperately want to share their lives with a pet. I will speak to Amendments 118 and 125, which are also supported by my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to whom I am very grateful. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for adding her name to Amendment 125. She brings great authority to this debate as a former Defra Secretary of State with a long-standing interest in and commitment to animal welfare.I also support Amendments 119 and 126, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to which I have happily added my name. I declare my interest as a patron of International Cat Care. I am very grateful to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Cats Protection and other charities in the sector for their support and the excellent briefing they have provided us, as well as to other organisations, such as Mars Petcare, which has shared crucial research on the benefits of pet ownership and does so much for animal welfare.I will set out the background to these amendments. We are a nation of pet lovers. Around 13.5 million homes in the UK include a dog and 12.5 million—mine included—are graced by a cat. Unfortunately, however, pet ownership is all too often limited to those who own their own home, causing huge anguish to the millions of families that rent but also want to share their lives with a pet. In 2024, Cats Protection found that over half a million households that would like a cat do not have one because their rental agreements forbid it. Research from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home shows that only 7% of private landlords list their property as pet friendly—an incredibly low number when we consider that, according to the same survey, 76% of tenants already own or aspire to own a pet.
- 4:15 pm
- I turn first to Amendment 118. The Bill as drafted does not include a specific provision stating that, once consent to keep a pet is granted, it will remain for the duration of the tenancy. This will cause obvious anxiety and uncertainty for pet owners. This simple amendment would ensure that a landlord may not review or withdraw consent, once given. It was originally proposed in the other place during the passage of the previous Bill on rental reform by the honourable Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, Matthew Pennycook, now Minister for Housing and Planning, during his tenure as shadow Housing Minister—and he was absolutely right. Without such a provision, families with pets will remain in an ongoing state of housing insecurity, with the threat of eviction always looming around the corner.
- I understand, of course, that the effective outcome of allowing pets for the duration of a tenancy could be established down the line, but only as a result of time- consuming and costly litigation. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed, because it places the unfair burden of seeking redress on tenants, adds to the workload of the ombudsman and stretches an already overloaded legal system. It would be far cleaner and fairer to incorporate such a protection from the outset.
- I turn to Amendment 125. At the moment, the Bill rightly aims to end the blanket ban on pets in rental properties, providing tenants with the right to request to live with a pet. It does so by preventing landlords from “unreasonably” refusing such a request. But, again, that imports a troubling degree of uncertainty into the system and gives far too much latitude for a landlord to deny a request. The provision allows landlords to reject a tenant’s request simply based on personal preferences —such as a dislike of dogs or concerns about noise, for instance—without needing to provide any clear justification or evidence to support their refusal.
- Some landlords have not tried to hide their intention to do so. Before this legislation has even passed, landlord groups have outlined their plans in public forums to exploit its loopholes, specifically referencing this section of the Bill. They have listed potential reasons to deny requests, which include the risk of property damage, noise levels and issues with anti-social behaviour. This will result in frequent disputes between tenants and landlords, again placing a burden on tenants and placing potential pressure on the ombudsman, and ultimately the courts, to sort out matters that we could sort easily and cleanly in the Bill.
- The amendment, therefore, simply looks to include guiding principles on what constitutes unreasonable refusal in response to a tenant’s request to keep a pet in privately rented property. It builds on the experience of countries such as Canada, France and Sweden, where similar legislation has been implemented with success. These countries have stricter regulations that exceed the protections outlined in our current Bill, including clear criteria for what constitutes unreasonable refusal. I understand that we cannot feasibly detail every reason for refusing a pet request; however, a middle ground between the current situation, which offers no guidance at all, and an attempt to cater for every possible scenario is entirely practical and proportionate. The clear guiding principles in this amendment, enabling tenants to understand their rights and landlords their obligations, achieves that.
- This important Bill has the power to transform the experience of private renting for many thousands of families, but only if we act now to strengthen this legislation. Tenants and landlords need clear, fair rules that reflect this reality. Without them, there is a real risk that pet homelessness will only grow. We have the opportunity to unlock millions of homes for pets and pet owners across the country, so that no tenant will ever again have to face the heartbreaking decision of choosing between their home and their pet. I very much look forward to the debate and to hearing the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
- I am always glad to support my noble friend Lord Black, with whom I have worked closely on many subjects over many years. Long ago, when we were both in the Conservative research department during a general election campaign, we circulated a briefing note to the party’s candidates telling them what they would need to do to win the support of animals great and small if these marvellous creatures had the vote. I cannot remember whether we included rights for pets in rented property, but it would have been a grave lapse if we had omitted them.My noble friend’s amendments do not contain a hint of opposition to the Government’s proposals relating to pets; they seek to make the good relevant elements of the Bill even better. The amendments have two objectives: to strengthen the legal protection that the Bill confers on pets and to increase the well-being of people in rented accommodation who want to keep and cherish a pet. These two objectives, as my noble friend has explained, are intertwined. All the research carried out by the wonderful charities devoted to the welfare of pets shows that their owners in rented property not only enjoy greater contentment but lead healthier, better-disciplined lives. The upshot is that tenants who keep pets are likely to seek longer-term tenancies—something that benefits landlords by increasing rental income security.Surely, through the Bill, we should do all that is possible to prevent responsible people in rented housing being denied unreasonably the opportunity to have a pet or pets, which those who own their homes enjoy automatically, particularly at a time when successive Governments have failed to ensure the provision of sufficient new housing for private ownership.It is a sad and deeply regrettable fact that a significant proportion of landlords, as my noble friend has explained, are resolutely opposed to the presence of pets in their properties. A 2021 survey by YouGov, on behalf of those excellent charities the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, found that one-third of private landlords who currently refuse to allow pets in their properties are not prepared to reconsider their opposition. They must be expected to go to all possible lengths to try to flout the pet ownership provisions of this Bill.
- My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 119 and 126 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has added his name. The provisions of my two amendments simply mirror the provisions that are in Amendments 118 and 125, so that they will apply to superior landlords as well as landlords. A superior landlord is a person who, for example, owns the block of flats and has a greater interest in the tenants than does the immediate landlord. I declare an interest as I have been affected twice recently by the superior landlord being in a position to deny any pet ownership.I fully agree with the excellent introduction to this issue from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, and all the points that he made, but, if this provision is not added to the Bill, I fear it will completely undermine the Government’s very good intentions, which we support, in bringing forward Clause 12, because the position of the superior landlord will almost always override that of the landlord.The interests that I quote I will give as examples. The first was from when, during Covid, I rented out my flat. The family who rented it wanted to adopt a cat. The rules applying to the block of flats state that pets may not be kept, so although I as a landlord was happy that this family adopted a cat, the superior landlord rules for the block forbade it. More recently, this year, my husband and I have bought a flat, but even as owners we are subject to a rule that the superior landlord has to give permission for a pet. This means a lot of uncertainty for the vendor and for us, while the superior landlord decided whether we could keep our 15 year-old dog.If the Government succeed in changing the position for renters, they must also address the issue of superior landlords and their ability to block any pet ownership. If the Government do not address this, the likelihood is that the good intentions behind this clause will fail because of the legal limitations for subtenants. Usually, they do not have a direct contractual relationship—that is, in legalese, no privity of contract—with the superior landlord, unless there is a direct agreement. This can mean that enforcing rights or obligations becomes very difficult if the issue lies with the superior landlord rather than with the immediate landlord.
- My Lords, I am not quite sure what the Minister said earlier, but I would like to declare interest as an owner of rented property.I shall speak to Amendments 120, 122 and 123 in my name in this group. All these amendments seek to highlight where pets could be unsuitable in a rented property. Although, as I have already said earlier during this Committee, as a landlord I have never refused a pet, a blank cheque for pets is not practical. Amendment 120 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if the allergies from that pet would have a negative impact on the landlord’s employees, their managing agents or other related persons, including future tenants. For those who suffer with allergies, this is a very serious matter and can have a debilitating effect, and it is not always possible to remove allergens through standard cleaning. We have all read and heard about the allergies from peanuts et cetera that can kill; well, the allergies from pets are not so serious, but they are very serious for people who suffer.Amendment 122 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if they reasonably believe it is unsuitable for the property, may cause a nuisance to neighbours or may damage the property or place an unreasonable burden on its upkeep. Wooden floors get scratched and carpets get stained—if they are still there —when pets are involved, so flooring almost always needs to be replaced when a tenancy ends. Some may consider this reasonable wear and tear, and others may not, but it is certainly a much greater cost when there have been pets in a property, and it is an important factor to consider. Not every landlord is in a position always to replace everything every time there is a new tenancy. Of course, some pets are capable of causing more damage than others, and some properties are easier to upkeep than others. I think there should be some leniency and some leeway for landlords who know their properties to make a judgment on this.
- 4:30 pm