Renters’ Rights Bill

Report (2nd Day)

My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group of amendments, I repeat the reminders from last week on declaring interests. As we set out previously, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that, in their first contribution on Report, noble Lords must declare any relevant financial interests in a specific but brief way. Declarations do not need to be repeated in subsequent speeches on Report, so if noble Lords made a declaration last week, they do not need to do it again. As my noble friend the Chief Whip reminded the House last week, it is no longer sufficient to say that one’s interests are as set out in the register.

Clause 11: Right to request permission to keep a pet

Amendment 47

47: Clause 11, page 18, line 9, at end insert— “(5A) The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include, but are not limited to, the following—(a) a superior landlord’s personal opinion of a tenant;(b) a superior landlord’s personal opinion of pets or specific species;(c) a generalised fear of damage to the property;(d) a pre-emptive fear of complaints from neighbours relating to noise, fouling or anti-social behaviour caused by the animal;(e) a superior landlord’s experience with a previous tenant about pets;(f) generalised or unsubstantiated animal welfare concerns.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment sets out examples of when it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent, providing clearer guidance and limiting arbitrary or prejudiced refusals.

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I own a dog that is subject to approval by a superior landlord of the flat in which we live. It has that approval.

In Committee, the Minister laid out the Government’s commitment to enabling many more tenants to have pets in rented properties, which is, of course, very welcome. However, in her reply to my Committee stage amendment, which was similar to this amendment, she made the point that the Government did not want to include superior landlords among landlords who could unreasonably refuse the right to keep a pet. The superior landlord owns the head lease under which another landlord may come. She gave two main reasons: first, that there are practical challenges involved in engaging with superior landlords, and secondly, that in many cases the superior landlord is not based in the UK or is a complex ownership structure and requiring the superior landlord to give reasons for refusal for a pet might involve the tenant and/or the landlord in lengthy and costly processes that might make the obligation difficult to realise in practice.

The fact is that most superior landlords are very quick to contact tenants when there is something they do not want to happen or there is an issue about money, so I do not accept how difficult it is to engage with them. The Minister may give me some examples. The fact that they are based overseas or have a complex ownership structure is simply not a good reason. The Minister kindly said she would come back to me after she had looked at the quantum involved, and I wonder whether she has found that out now as I have not heard anything.

The Minister went on to say that my amendment was “not proportionate or necessary”. In fact, it is necessary, given that there are about 24,000 property management companies and the average size of portfolio is about 193 units. That would equal about 4.5 million units altogether, and the bigger superior landlords often manage about 144,000 properties. That is an awful lot of tenants to whom this very good clause of the Bill would not apply. On whether it is proportionate given the size of the tenant base who, without my amendment, will not benefit from Clause 12, I believe it is necessary and desirable that, when we legislate, we are as fair and equitable as possible.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48, which stands in my name. I declare my interests both as a landlord for my own part, to a small extent—all for properties in Scotland—and as trustee, in particular for the Blair Charitable Trust, all properties of which are also in Scotland.

At the earlier stages of the Bill, it was reflected by a number of noble Lords that pets promoted well-being among tenants; that is something with which I very much agree. I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who made a very good speech on this point at an earlier stage.

The thrust of this Bill is that there is a presumption that pets should be allowed in rented property. There are two protections for landlords. First, they can say no if it is reasonable to do so; we have just been hearing about some things that might not be so reasonable. Secondly, there is a protection for landlords, at least currently in the Bill, of deposits and insurance. However, social housing is not included in the Bill; indeed, it is specifically excluded. That seems to me very unfair.

I am grateful to the Minister and her Bill team, some members of which I can see sitting in the Box. They have been very generous with their time; we have been over this topic a number of times in the Minister’s meeting room upstairs. It seems to me that people in social housing are in many ways the people who most need the sense of well-being that a pet brings. I would be very keen that we make that change.

In the meeting—I do not want to steal any of the Minister’s thunder—a number of points were made to me about this area, and I must say that I have been brought along with those. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell the House everything that she told me. I think that would be helpful to everyone on this amendment.

I rise to support Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord de Clifford. It is a short amendment but, hopefully, could have a long impact. It would allow tenants in social housing some of the benefits with regard to keeping a pet that this Bill will provide for tenants in private properties. Tenants seeking social housing may not be in a position to buy their own property; if they did, they would have no problem with keeping a pet and they would have all the positives to which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull alluded in relation to well-being and health benefits. Instead, the Bill denies them those rights, which are enjoyed by tenants in the private rental market. I am curious to understand the Government’s explanation for this.

My Lords, I too am anxious to have a better explanation. To me, the Bill seems very unfair, as it introduces two classes of people, one of whom will be disadvantaged at the same time as others are advantaged. It is one step forward and another one or two steps back. I hope that the Minister will be able to give sufficiently strong reasons why this should not happen to make me content, but I am not holding my breath.

My Lords, I declare an interest. My wife is the landlord of a number of rented properties. My reason for rising is to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, when she comes to reply, to clarify something that puzzles me about her Amendment 47. It says:

“The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include … a superior landlord’s personal opinion of … specific species”.

I ask her whether this means that the superior landlord would be prohibited from saying that he or she does not think it is reasonable or appropriate for the tenant to keep as pets rats, skunks or tigers.

My Lords, I speak today in support of Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I declare my interest with regards to pets, as I own a share of a veterinary practice that cares for pets and I have my own dog. We welcome the Government’s support of a tenant’s right to request to keep pets. Although social housing is not the main focus of this Bill, surely it is fair and reasonable for all tenants to have the same rights to request to keep a pet, regardless of the type of landlord that they rent from, whether it is a private company or a social landlord. As I have said previously on this amendment, it also makes it fair to all landlords. Surely private landlords should not be the only landlords to have to accept pets in their property. I hope that the Minister can find a positive solution today to this issue and that all tenants have the opportunity to keep pets in their homes.

My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness Miller. I speak as a landlord of rental properties in Norwich, as declared in the register. Naturally, we should consider the rights of people who own companion animals, but that must go hand in hand with the rights of a landlord who may be concerned about damage to his property and the rights of neighbouring residents who may have to deal with the consequence of noise, mess, smell, and so forth. Once again, there is a balance to be struck, but this amendment strikes the wrong balance.

It is obvious that keeping a pet elevates the risk of damage, especially in the case of furnished accommodation. This Bill contemplates that all tenancies are the same, but there are different sorts of properties and in furnished accommodation the consequences of damage are greater. It fails to recognise the reality of different types of accommodation, whether they be period or listed or of some historic or archaeological merit making the building incompatible with pets. There are often circumstances, particularly in blocks of flats, where there are communal amenities—for example, common courtyards or gardens, often where children play. All these are different to the detached rented home in the countryside where there is much more space. This Bill contemplates a one-size-fits-all approach, regardless of all the different types of properties one may wish to tenant, whether they be furnished, unfurnished, in the countryside, or flats.

It is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to allow a large dog in a small flat where there is no outside space. Confined animals do not just chew, although they do. They bark and upset the neighbours, and the needs of neighbours must be considered. This Bill is all about the tenant, and I can understand that that is important, but it is to the exclusion of any other stakeholder, and that cannot be right. The landlord must make the judgment and take into account whether the applicant, perhaps a night-shift worker with a large dog, is suitable for his property. I will concede that there is a world of difference between the different types of pets: goldfish, spiders, dogs, cats and ferrets—may I be the first to introduce a Second Reading having just heard the First Reading of that particular Bill? Let us make those distinctions with the chewing variety. By just calling them pets, we are denying the obvious distinction between two legs, four legs, 100 legs, no legs, fishy ones with scales and so forth. There are different types of animal contained within this catch-all. That cannot make sense.

My Lords, I support Amendment 48 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, not because he is the Convenor of the Cross Benches, although that could be a bonus point, but for three reasons. First, my family have never kept a pet, but why should I be part of a legislature that would deny somebody seeking consent to keep a pet simply because they live in social housing? To me, that is clear discrimination. It cannot be right that you would say, “Because you’re in social housing, you cannot request the consent of the landlord”. It is their right to ask for consent. That is not to say that it would give an automatic right to the social housing person to keep a pet.

Secondly, we are constantly told that this wonderful nation and the other three are nations of pet lovers. Do we want to say that somebody in social housing cannot be a pet lover? Who would want to say that?

The third reason is our beloved Majesty, the late Queen Elizabeth II. Do your Lordships remember when there was somebody who was going through a lot of trauma and she invited that gentleman to come and spend time with one of her corgis? Noble Lords will remember that the person said, “This has put my trauma in perspective”.

Those who want to keep pets because they live in social housing, and because they are animal lovers, should be given the same right as others to request consent.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his thoughtful and balanced Amendment 48. This Bill must work for renters, but it must also work for landlords. We have discussed pets at length throughout the stages of the Bill and there is no denying that pets provide vital companionship, comfort and emotional support for many. It is therefore no surprise that this issue has attracted considerable interest across the House.

However, we recognise that this is not a Bill about social housing; it is focused rightly on the private rented sector. The frameworks, obligations and operational realities governing social housing are distinct, and we believe they are better addressed through the appropriate legislative and regulatory channels. That said, we fully support the principle behind the noble Earl’s amendment and hope the Minister will take this issue forward. There is a clear opportunity to work with housing associations and local authorities to ensure that fair, proportionate and compassionate policies can be delivered in this space.

Turning to Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, we understand the intention to provide clearer guidance on what might constitute an unreasonable refusal by a superior landlord. With all legislation, clarity is of the utmost importance. However, we have some reservations about the breadth and subjectivity of the language proposed. Terms such as “generalised fear” and “personal opinion” may prove difficult to define or enforce in practice. We are not unsympathetic to the spirit of the amendment, but we believe that further refinement would be required to ensure legal certainty and maintain a workable balance of interests.

As we take the Bill forward, we must not lose sight of its core objective: to deliver a rental market that is fair, functional and fit for the future. Tenants deserve security and dignity in their homes, but landlords also deserve clarity and confidence in the law.