Renters’ Rights Bill

Committee (4th Day)

16:09:00

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 pet Amendment 118

Moved by

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. Correcting that imbalance is so important for a number of reasons. There is the obvious link between rental restrictions and pet homelessness, with housing issues cited as the second most common reason that pets are relinquished to Battersea. Last year, Cats Protection took in the equivalent of three cats each day due to landlords not allowing them in their properties—part of a wider crisis of pets having to be given up. At Second Reading, I told the story of Zeke, a cat that arrived in Battersea just 24 hours before his first birthday after his owners faced the heartbreaking choice between finding an alternate rental property or giving him up to a shelter. His story is far from unique: across the UK, thousands of animals urgently need loving homes, yet countless responsible would-be pet owners in the private rental sector are being unfairly prevented from adopting or finding suitable housing due to overly restrictive tenancy agreements. It is not just our pets that suffer as a result; public health is impacted too. Research conducted by Mars Petcare has found that pet ownership saves the NHS approximately £2.5 billion per year, with pet owners making 15% fewer visits to a doctor. The physical benefits of taking a dog for a walk or a run every day are obvious, but those of us who own pets know it is the mental health and well-being aspects that have the greatest impact. Pets provide people with companionship and loyalty—particularly for those who live alone—help them to meet new people, add structure to their day and offer unconditional love and support. Children also benefit from understanding the responsibilities of caring for a dog or cat and learning how to interact safely with animals. Pet ownership is also often an indicator of a responsible and reliable tenant, which is very relevant to this debate. Research from Battersea showed that three-quarters of landlords surveyed did not observe any discernible increase in wear and tear to their property due to pets. For all these reasons, I am delighted that the Government are committed to encouraging responsible pet ownership across the private rented sector and I strongly support the ambition of this section of the Bill: providing tenants with the right to request a pet—a request that cannot be unreasonably refused by a landlord. My probing amendments today seek simply to tighten up certain aspects of legislation to guarantee that the pet provisions in the Bill are as effective as possible and that the laudable ambition and clear intention of this legislation is fully realised. But we are not quite there yet. As it stands, I fear that there are loopholes in the Bill and that landlords will have too much room to deny most requests, risking a serious and unnecessary burden on tenants, the ombudsman and, ultimately, the courts. The amendments I have tabled will provide certainty for tenants and clarity for landlords, and will ensure that the Bill is not a missed opportunity to unlock thousands of homes for pet owners across the country.

16:15:00

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. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the need for stronger legal protection than the Bill currently provides, which could be achieved through my noble friend’s amendment to define more firmly and tightly the circumstances in which a request to have a pet in rented property could be rejected. In the absence of a more precise definition of what would constitute acceptable grounds for a landlord’s refusal, disputes will inevitably proliferate. A lack of clarity and certainty in the law always leads to problems, as we have seen in various contexts recently. Opaque law cannot be satisfactory law. I hope that the Government will give very careful consideration to these important and constructive amendments.

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. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this issue, because I fear that, otherwise, as I said, the good intentions of Clause 12 will be totally undermined.

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. Amendment 123 follows on from this and seeks to exclude pets which are inappropriate or disproportionate in size or number. I realise there will be difficulties in defining this. Are five Dobermann pinschers more or less suitable than 25 fox-terriers? Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, I am not clear whether a landlord would be free to make a judgment, which most noble Lords would agree would be very sensible, that a Great Dane could not be housed in a studio flat, or that 50 cats could not be kept in a small terraced house. Given the difficulties, will the Minister consider making it clear that the landlord has, or should have, discretion to make sensible decisions for the benefits of residents, neighbours and the pets themselves?

16:30:00

My Lords, Amendment 124 is in my name, and I declared relevant interests earlier. The amendment is very simple: it is about putting social housing tenants in the same place as those in the private rental sector after the Bill has become an Act. I received a copy of a letter that the Dogs Trust sent to the Deputy Prime Minister in March this year in which it proposed exactly the same thing. Looking at the crib sheet for the answer that came back, I see that the first part is commendable in that it says: “The Government understands that pet ownership can be hugely beneficial, bringing joy to owners and supporting mental and physical health”. I can only agree with that. At Second Reading and in various parts of the process of this Bill, it has been eloquently and frequently said how important pets are and—speaking as a Scottish landlord, both personally and as a charitable trustee— I very much believe that and strongly support the concept of there being a rebuttable presumption that pets are allowed where people are renting properties. The letter went on to make two points. The first point was that the Government did not feel that what amounted to Amendment 124 was correct, because social housing tenants was a separate policy area. Of course, it is all still MHCLG, and I do feel that someone standing at a bus stop in middle England would scratch their head about that particular one: why on earth should someone living in social housing be in a different place to someone living in the private rental sector? It is a distinction without a difference. In the second part of the letter, it went on to give various reasons why it might be reasonable, within social housing, to say no to a tenant who wanted a pet. It all amounted to a series of reasons why it might not be reasonable for a pet to be allowed in a particular property, but of course that is already how the Bill is drafted: it is possible for a landlord to say that a particular pet or series of pets should not be allowed in rented accommodation, as long as that is reasonable. It is reasonable for a landlord to say no, so I do not quite see what the logical force of that is, because the social housing sector would retain that right to say no. I therefore urge the Minister to reach across the corridor at MHCLG and accept what has become a very popular amendment.

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have close connections with various animal charities, in particular as a vice-president of the RSPCA nationally and as president of one of its branches. I too want to speak to Amendment 124, eloquently introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I see no logic whatever: to make a distinction in the way that apparently has been done is what I call Civil Service short-sightedness, and I strongly disapprove of it. I can see no logical reason whatever for treating people who are renting their properties differently simply because they live in a slightly different type of property. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at this and come to a different conclusion. I will broaden this out slightly to look at the various amendments in this group. It seems to me that while the heart is in the right place—and I give due credit to the Government for introducing this general right to have a pet, for which I have long campaigned—the Bill fails slightly in not laying down the circumstances clearly enough, so that it leaves the opportunity for some landlords to squeeze past what is clearly intended. On the other hand, it could make for some difficulties if the tenants themselves are unreasonable. I suggest that the Minister look at bringing forward a code of conduct that would act as a guide for all the varying points which have been made hitherto—if you like, a “highway code”, not necessarily having the force of law, to which one could look for guidance where these tricky problems arise. I hope that this will commend itself to the Minister.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 124A in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester. He apologises to the House for not being here. He had hoped to be here, but a long-standing commitment has prevented him from being so. Of course, my noble friend Lord Black is absolutely right that pets can be extremely beneficial and are a great asset in many households. However, my noble friend Lord Howard is also right in saying that there needs to be a balance; there cannot just be an open door for tenants to have a pet as and when they want, however badly or well that pet behaves. Amendment 124A refers especially to cats. I was actually quite surprised that my noble friend Lord Black did not mention cats. He mentioned dogs—he gave them a good write-up—but he did not mention cats because he probably knew that I would make the point that cats are killers. They have many assets and I love them dearly, but let out of a house and loose, they are killers. They kill between 160 million and 270 million animals every year, a quarter of those being birds. I wonder how many of your Lordships woke up early on Sunday morning and listened to nature’s greatest symphony, the dawn chorus. It was International Dawn Chorus Day. We like small birds—songbirds. They are hugely under threat from all sorts of areas, but they are also under threat from cats. There are certain measures that cat owners can take to make their pet less harmful to other species, but the Brits are not terribly good at doing that. In fact, in Germany they have found that some of the Germans are not terribly good at that, either; they have actually made an order in some parts of Germany that during the summer, you have to keep your cat indoors all the time. Amendment 124A is very tightly drawn. It allows a landlord to say no to a tenant having a cat if the property is in an area designated by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—I remember speaking quite a lot during the progress of that Bill through Parliament—or close to a designated area. In other words, what we are really talking about here are key nature sites: the SSSIs and national nature reserves. The amendment is also carefully worded, in that one is not allowed to have a cat if the property is within a mile of one of those sites. Why a mile? The reason is that the research undertaken by the University of Reading and the University of Exeter at the request of SongBird Survival has found that cats can roam up to roughly 1,400 metres, which is just about a mile. Through their research, they also found that urban cats behave differently from what they call “peri-urban” cats, which are much more likely to stray further and have a different attitude and natural instincts from cats in urban areas, because of the restrictions of such areas. It is entirely reasonable to encourage landlords to say yes, but equally, it is entirely reasonable to allow them to say no in certain circumstances. Nature in this country needs not only protecting but encouraging. One of the small ways to encourage nature is to say no to a tenant having a cat in an area that is very close to or part of an SSSI or a national nature reserve. That is the right step: protection of nature rather than the will of an individual.

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 124 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Earl, I am at a loss to understand why potential tenants in social housing are not included in the Bill. I would have thought that those seeking social housing are likely to be unable to afford to buy their own home, in which case they would not have a problem with having a pet. Why does the Bill not enable such tenants in social housing to enjoy the rights afforded to tenants in private housing? I cannot see the distinction, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this question.

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am afraid I have none of the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who spoke about cats with intimate knowledge. At this stage I should redeclare an interest that I declared in the early days of this Committee. For the last almost 30 years my wife and I, by accident, in fact, have been the landlords of five one-bedroom flats in the house next door. While households normally have as their pet either a dog or a cat, there are some extraordinary households that have a string of other sorts of pet—for example, a snake, monkey or parrot. Looking at page 21 of the Bill, we find that a “pet” is described as “an animal”. On that basis, a talkative parrot or indeed a snake does not fall under these provisions. The assumption therefore is that the landlord is entitled to say no to snakes and, if he needs to—although one hopes it is hardly necessary—no to a talkative parrot. It is important to establish the reasonable grounds on which a landlord can refuse to permit a tenant to bring a pet into the property. Amendments 120 to 123, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, are very helpful. If they are going to be pressed on Report, I suggest they be condensed into a single amendment. My wife and I have always refused to permit tenants to have a pet such as a dog or a cat, because we have been concerned about the disturbance of other tenants—a dog barking, for example—and the damage a pet can create in the household. With that background, it has been very helpful of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, to identify circumstances in which it is reasonable or unreasonable for a landlord to refuse a pet in the premises. That continues to be a very interesting debate. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is going to educate us further on cats, but may we go on?

16:45:00

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, because the noble Lord, Lord Black, covered his two amendments very thoroughly. I do not have pets myself, but I declare that I have a daughter who has recently taken the tenancy of a house, and she has children, a dog and two cats. It was quite difficult for her to make sure that they could all live together, so I understand that a lot of people would have to lose their pets, and I think that is an incredible shame. I thank the Dogs Trust, Mars Petcare and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for their briefings and work on this, which were very thorough. Amendment 118 would provide security for pet owners in rented accommodation —knowing that, once granted, consent cannot be withdrawn. If this was tabled in the other place by the current Minister, I assume that he is going to accept this amendment, and that the noble Baroness the Minister will tell us that today. Amendment 125, which I have also signed, would go a long way towards ensuring that blanket no-pet policies cannot continue. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has described the second most common reason that pets are given up to it as because of rental restrictions. That seems extremely hard. Although I do not have any pets, I understand the value of pets to people in all sorts of ways, and I hope that we can have some success with these amendments.

I shall speak to Amendment 126A and to support the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Leicester. I had not intended to speak on this, but it is a point that there is a big difference between pets in rural properties and pets in urban properties. Speaking as someone who lets rural properties, I have never had any problem with stopping tenants bringing their pets, but I would mention that cats are a particular problem in certain areas. I think that the very carefully drafted amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, makes a great deal of sense in this respect.

My Lords, I declare my interest as entered in the register and apologise to the House for not having spoken before in Committee. I spoke at Second Reading, but the combination of the west coast main line and prior commitments has made it impossible in Committee until now. Briefly, I make just three points, in no particular order. First, in respect of Amendment 118, the nicest, cutest little puppy can turn into a horrible adult dog, and if it is impossible for the landlord, having given consent, to change that if the cute little puppy turns into a dog from hell, that would be a very great mistake. It is a matter of balance, reasonableness and judgment. Secondly, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, because that seems to be elementary sensibleness—nothing more. Thirdly and finally, having heard the very persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black, I suddenly wondered: were they asking the Government to make it compulsory for tenants to have pets? I ask the Minister what her view about that would be.

My Lords, I speak on this group mainly in support of Amendment 124 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I wish the Committee to note my entry in the register of interests: that I am a part-owner of a large independent veterinary practice, with a significant proportion of our turnover generated from pets. I welcome Clause 12 as it will increase the number of properties that tenants can keep pets in. With the growing number of pet owners in the past five years, it is certainly welcome. How we care for pets and how we value their companionship has changed significantly in society in the last 10 years, and that is why this clause is so important. But we must be aware that there are many in society who are allergic to pets, who find them scary and who are made nervous by them, especially children, and those who just do not like pets. Therefore, somehow, through this amendment, we need to ensure a balance between landlords, tenants and their pets, and others in society. As previously spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the amendment gives access to all tenants, regardless of whether they are in the private rental sector or accessing social housing. This gives tenants the right to request permission to keep a pet, regardless of their landlord. The Bill is also about improving opportunity for tenants to keep a pet; surely this simple amendment will create a level playing field between the social housing sector and private landlords. Social housing is probably the most likely first place to go for individuals on low income or who are homeless, seeking to find a home for themselves and their families, which often include a pet. This has been drawn to my attention recently by a TV advert for a homeless charity. Its website says: “New polling from homeless charity St Mungo’s reveals new extent of the housing crisis and its impact on people sharing their lives with a pet. 50% of those surveyed reported being placed in situations where they were forced to choose between remaining with their pets or accessing housing. This situation is ever present, within the last 12 months, 43% of respondents experienced challenges in finding housing that allows pets. This is amplified for those between the ages of 18-24, where 70% experienced this”. Therefore, to ensure that the private rental sector is not forced to take up all the housing needs of pet owners, I hope that this amendment will be considered by the Government. Surely the reasons for not allowing a pet in the home are the same for private landlords as for social housing landlords. On the other amendments in the group, I support Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, which would ensure that a landlord cannot withdraw consent. If a pet is causing an issue for a landlord, that will surely be covered by other provisions in the Bill. The landlord could terminate a tenancy using anti-social behaviour as a reason, whether it was caused by the tenant or the pet. The amendment would ensure that the tenant, once the pet is allowed in the home, cannot be forced to remove the pet unless the tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement. I also support Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which would ensure that a tenant in all properties, regardless of who the landlord is, can ask for the right to keep a pet at their home. Like the social housing Amendment 124, this amendment seeks to increase the number of properties available to tenants, but also ensures that all landlords, regardless of their position in the rental housing sector, are obliged to consider the request of a tenant to keep a pet. Amendments 125 and 126 provide some clarity for landlords and tenants, with definitions of when it is unreasonable for a landlord to reject a request for a tenant to keep a pet. This clarity can only help with negotiations between landlords and tenants with regard to keeping pets, and solutions will be found more quickly, I hope, and with less bad feeling between the two parties. This clarity will reduce the number of cases that can be referred to other authorities to decide whether a landlord’s reasons for rejection are in fact reasonable. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

My Lords, I declare an interest, having a young grandson who had an affinity with snakes. When he was very young, living in central London, he had several, one of which was quite large and called Wilberforce. Wilberforce used to do what snakes do—rear up and sway when anyone came in the room, so he was quite intimidating. One day he—we think it was a he—disappeared and has never been found. I mention this as a cautionary tale, as he may one day turn up somewhere where he is not quite as welcome as he was originally.

My Lords, the provisions relating to tenants keeping pets may seem a small aspect to some, but their impact on the well-being and lives of millions of renters cannot be overstated. We on these Benches warmly welcome the Bill’s intention to make it an implied term in most assured tenancies that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet. We support many of the amendments in this group, with the exception of Amendments 120, 122 and 123. For too long, a blanket ban on pets has been a source of needless unhappiness and stress for renters, compounding the sense that this large and ever-growing group are often treated as second-class citizens. This includes social renters, and we commend the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on that issue. Indeed, research estimates that pet ownership contributes considerable savings to the NHS each year, as an example, potentially as much as £2.45 billion annually across the UK through reduced doctor visits. It is simply wrong that the joy and benefits that a pet brings should be restricted to those who are fortunate enough to own their own home. We have heard compelling evidence illustrating the scale of this issue. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which I thank for its briefing on this issue, has highlighted that housing concerns are the second most common reason why dogs are relinquished to its care. Even though I am here in fear of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on this issue, I add my thanks to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for the rescue cat that we got from Battersea, who brings us daily joy and, I reassure the noble Earl, kills a lot of rats. Despite 76% of UK private tenants owning or aspiring to own a pet, only 8% of landlords currently advertise properties as allowing pets. This creates immense difficulty for renters, forcing them into heartbreaking decisions, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13 introduce the right to request a pet and allow landlords to require insurance, but we feel that they still leave further questions about the practical implementation. Sources currently suggest that there are no readily available insurance products for tenants to cover potential pet damage. We welcome some of the probing amendments on this issue and look forward to hearing from the Minister about any clarification on that. Organisations such as Generation Rent argue that the existing tenancy deposit should be sufficient to cover those damages. We must ensure that the Bill does not disadvantage the most deprived renters, perhaps by exploring alternatives such as allowing for a higher deposit or different insurance mechanisms such as the Scottish model of an additional deposit. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this issue. Crucially, the Bill states that consent cannot be unreasonably refused. However, what constitutes unreasonably withholding consent is not yet clearly defined. We need the reasonable grounds for refusal to be set out with more clarity, ensuring fairness and consistency in decisions, especially if the proposed ombudsman service or the courts are involved. A particularly troubling aspect is the exemption allowing superior landlords to override a landlord’s approval for pets. This risks undermining the spirit of the legislation, especially for tenants in blocks of flats or leasehold properties where management companies or freeholders might maintain blanket bans. We on these Benches support my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer in her Amendments 119 and 126 which seek greater clarity on this issue. This exemption should be removed to ensure that the right to keep a pet applies consistently across all types of rented homes. Other practicalities, such as the proposed timeframe for landlords to respond to pet requests, also may need some scrutiny or flexibility. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has suggested that a shortening of this time might be an idea. The intention behind these clauses is commendable, reflecting a much-needed shift towards acknowledging the important role pets play in many people’s lives. There is evidence that renting to tenants with pets can be commercially beneficial for landlords, with pet owners tending to have longer tenancies, averaging 24 months compared with 21 months for those without pets. Pet owners are also often willing to allow more regular inspections or consider covering additional costs. While concerns about damage are understandable, most evidence suggests that these fears can be exaggerated. In our view, and as other noble Lords and contributing organisations have highlighted, some refinement is needed. We must ensure that these provisions are not only well- intentioned but genuinely effective in practice, providing clear rights for tenants while addressing some of the legitimate concerns. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments.

17:00:00

My Lords, I will very briefly intervene. I agree that people who like pets benefit from having them, and I guess that landlords who do not like pets are going to have to put up with it, which seems fair enough. But—no pun intended—what a legal can of worms we are opening here. What is a pet? I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking: snakes are animals, as are alligators, rats, goats, snakes, and even fleas, which some people keep as pets. That is going to cause a great deal of stress and redefinition at some point. Listening to the very interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we heard that we are also going to introduce a category called an anti-social pet. That is going to be very hard to define and prosecute, and I suspect the unreasonable grounds for refusal will, again, cause interesting legal conundrums. So this amendment will go through, and I am happy to support it, but I wonder what legal can of worms we are opening for the future.

My Lords, this section of the Bill is set to introduce some significant changes affecting the rights of renters, the rights of landlords and the nature of the relationship between those two parties, and we need to consider these provisions and the amendments to them with particular care. Amendments 118 and 119, tabled by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to prevent consent from being withdrawn by a landlord once it has been granted. This proposal presents some challenges, as far as we can see, and may benefit from a more considered approach. It poses a risk to landlords when taking on a new tenant, because it raises the prospect that they could be tying themselves into a contract whereby they would have no right to remove, in future, a dangerous, aggressive or damaging animal from their own property. In our opinion, these amendments also suffer from the way that they have been drafted. If a tenant acquired a new pet, would they be obliged to seek consent again from their landlord, or would the one issuing of consent cover all future acquisitions? If a tenant was granted consent for a goldfish, does this amendment really seek to assume that the consent is also automatically granted if the same tenant decides to buy an Irish wolfhound? Amendment 120, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to address that fundamental question of proportionality, which I have referred to several times throughout my remarks on the Bill. This amendment rightly seeks to protect the landlord beyond the immediate term and ensures that they will still be able to make full use of their property after a tenant has left. If a landlord reasonably believes that a pet could limit their use of their property into the future and thus reduce its utility and value, it is surely reasonable to allow the landlord the discretion to protect their asset and the health of their family and future tenants. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising takes this responsible approach further in Amendments 121, 122 and 123, which would provide the landlord with the capacity to refuse consent if a pet was a dangerous wild animal, if a pet risked causing damage or disruption, or if a tenant wished to keep an inappropriate number of animals or an inappropriately sized animal in their property. These amendments would not only preserve the balance of the renter-landlord relationship but help to ensure the safety, protection from damage and the well-being of the landlord and tenant alike. As it stands, the Bill creates a huge risk for landlords: they could enter a contract with a tenant who could bring an unsuitable, untamed or even dangerous animal into their property without the capacity to refuse. These amendments are a sensible opportunity to redress this risk. Amendments 124, 125 and 126, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to clarify unreasonable circumstances for pet refusal, including in social housing —Amendment 124 is an extremely interesting amendment from that point of view. In our opinion, outlining these conditions could make the law clearer in application, although it is right that this should not come at the expense of the right of the landlord to safeguard and utilise their property. For instance, these amendments attempt to prevent a landlord refusing to consent to a pet on grounds of pre-emptive concerns. For this demand to balance out with respect for the rights of the landlord, it is surely reasonable to support a further amendment that would allow a landlord to withdraw consent once provided if their pre-emptive concerns turn out to be valid. We also have some concerns about the vagueness of the language used throughout these amendments, for instance the references to “a generalised fear of damage to the property” and to “generalised” animal welfare concerns. The Committee would benefit from further clarification about the specific steps a landlord would need to take to move from “generalised” to what would be considered a valid concern under the text of this amendment. Finally, I turn to Amendment 126A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leicester and introduced by my noble friend Lord Caithness. This is a very sensible proposal that is designed to build consensus and clarify points of concern over the scope and definition of the terms used by the Government in the Bill. I think that Amendment 124A is for national, if not international, debate. Although I understand my noble friend’s concern, I think that debate probably goes wider than this Bill. We must always remember that this Bill will be used to govern a series of relationships that involve possibly millions of people throughout the country. We have a duty in this place to make sure that the law is as clear as possible and that the relationship we create between a tenant and a landlord is fair and mutually beneficial. We need to make sure that we create market conditions in the rented sector that ensure a steady supply. If landlords start to pull out because of vague and overburdensome regulation, prices will go up and the choice for renters will go down. This is not an outcome that the Government want, nor one that will promote and protect renters’ rights.

My Lords, I also thank all the animal charities and organisations that have helped us with this clause. I know that other noble Lords have really appreciated the briefings that those organisations have sent out. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Howard of Rising, the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Leicester —whose amendment was ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their thoughtful amendments in relation to pets, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Before I go into the detail of the amendments, I reassure noble Lords how much I truly realise the incredible importance of pets to people’s lives, and I confirm that the Government have included provisions on pets in the Bill in recognition of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just mentioned that balance: we have tried really hard to get the balance right between wanting tenants to have the right to have a pet and making sure that landlords can have their responsibilities and property recognised. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and other noble Lords, for their recognition of the intent of pet provision in the Bill. No one wants people to have to give up precious pets just because of the tenure of their housing. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I would not make it compulsory to keep pets, although I took on board the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about the impact on people’s health. If you were allergic to pets, making them compulsory might be a different issue, but we have no intention of doing that. Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, seeks to ensure that once a landlord has granted consent for a tenant to keep a pet, that consent cannot later be withdrawn. Noble Lords have mentioned my honourable friend Minister Pennycook’s advocacy of this issue. I reassure noble Lords that when a landlord gives permission for a tenant to have a pet, that consent is binding and cannot be revoked, with the exception of the very rare occasion when that becomes an anti-social behaviour issue, which it might. Apart from that, it cannot be revoked. That is because, once permission is given, it forms an implied term of the tenancy agreement. This is an unwritten contractual term that tenants can rely on, as it is legally binding. Any attempt by a landlord to withdraw consent once given would therefore be unenforceable. This principle will be clearly outlined in the accompanying guidance to ensure clarity for both landlords and tenants. Given this, I do not believe it is necessary to add further provisions to the Bill, as doing so would introduce unnecessary complexity into legislation that is already clear on this point. The Bill is designed to create a fair and workable system for both landlords and tenants. Adding an explicit provision where the legal position is already established would have the potential to risk confusion and unintended consequences. In the light of that, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her Amendment 119, which seeks to ensure that a superior landlord “cannot unreasonably withhold” consent when a request is made to allow a tenant to keep a pet. Although I understand and sympathise with the intention behind this amendment, I have some concerns about it. If accepted, it could lead to significant legal uncertainty. Many superior leases include absolute prohibitions on pets, and introducing a reasonableness test in those cases could create confusion and conflict with existing contractual terms, which are legally binding on both parties. I intend to look at any data that might be available on the extent to which this might have an impact, but it could place a considerable burden on immediate landlords who would be required to engage with those superior landlords—who are often based overseas or are difficult to contact—before responding to a tenant’s request. That could cause delays, additional legal costs and the kind of practical difficulties the noble Baroness outlined herself in her own case—I hope permission is forthcoming for her dog. For those reasons, the amendment is not proportionate or necessary, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, will not press this amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, for Amendments 120, 122 and 123. Amendment 120 seeks to allow landlords to refuse a pet request where they reasonably believe that the pet may have a negative impact due to allergens on a range of individuals, including themselves, their employees, agents, neighbours and even future tenants. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, I must express concern that it would significantly broaden the scope on which landlords could refuse consent. The Bill already allows landlords to refuse permission where there is a legitimate concern, and guidance will make it clear that health-related issues, such as severe allergies, can be taken into account where medical evidence supports this and there is a genuine and ongoing concern to health. However, this amendment would go much further. In particular, the inclusion of future tenants introduces a highly speculative element, allowing landlords to refuse a request based on hypothetical scenarios that may never arise. That would give landlords an effective veto, entirely undermining the legislation, which aims to strike a balance between landlords and tenants. For these reasons, the amendment is not necessary or proportionate, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing it. Amendment 122 seeks to allow landlords to “reasonably withhold or withdraw consent” for a pet introduced mid-tenancy, where it is deemed “unsuitable for the property, … may cause a nuisance”, or may risk property damage or unreasonable upkeep. While I understand the noble Lord’s intention to provide clarity, I respectfully say that this amendment is not required. The Bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent on reasonable grounds, which are best judged on a case-by-case basis. The noble Lord, Lord Black, recommended some guiding principles around this and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, called for a “highway code” of guidance. We will be providing guidance alongside the Bill to give examples of the types of situations in which it may be reasonable for a landlord to refuse or withdraw their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. This will support both landlords and tenants without restricting flexibility in legislation. There is also a risk that listing specific reasons in the Bill may unintentionally narrow the interpretation of what counts as reasonable, excluding other valid concerns not explicitly named.

17:15:00

I am strongly opposed to the idea that a landlord could withdraw their consent retrospectively without reasonable grounds and force a tenant to give up their pet, which the Bill does not permit. This could leave a tenant in an impossible position and become a means for landlords to encourage the tenants to leave. For these reasons, I do not consider the amendment necessary; I hope the noble Lord will not press it.

Amendment 123 seeks to clarify that a tenant cannot keep an inappropriately sized animal or disproportionate number of animals in a property without the landlord’s express written consent. In our view, this amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already expressly requires tenants to gain written permission from their landlord to have a pet in their home. Landlords can refuse permission for such requests when it is reasonable, and decisions are best made on a case-by-case basis. There are too many variables for the Government to set them out in detail within the legislation. However, in our view, landlords are likely to be able to refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet in situations where a pet could not be kept safely in a property. That would include where the animal was too big or there were too many of them. I would therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 123.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling Amendment 124. I fully recognise the important role that domestic pets play in people’s lives. I agree with the noble Earl, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and my noble friend Lord Trees, that social tenants should not face more rigorous or less advantageous conditions around the keeping of pets because of their tenure of housing. As I have said, pets play an important role in people’s lives.

Many social landlords already set out their pet policies within their tenancy agreements, allowing tenants to keep pets where appropriate, provided that they are well cared for and do not negatively impact on neighbours or the wider community. I always remember that, when I was a councillor, someone in my ward came to say that somebody was keeping five dogs in a flat. They asked me to look into this as they were worried about the welfare of the dogs. The dogs were not causing any problems, but they were worried. When we went to have a look at the case, we found that the dogs were exceptionally well cared for. They were happy and well looked after. I am making this point because it should be decided on a case-by-case basis how these matters are dealt with.

We encourage all social landlords to adopt similar policies to ensure a fair and consistent approach. However, I acknowledge the significance of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I will reflect on these points and I would be happy to discuss the issue further with him. I said that pet ownership should not depend on the tenure of the property, and I mean that. I will give further consideration to the important issue that the noble Earl raises in his amendment. For the time being, on this basis, I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment.

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I would like to give her a bit more ammunition. I am looking at a website to do with MHCLG that talks about the “one team” approach in which MHCLG is very sensibly engaged. The first key principle in this approach is joined-up delivery. I feel there is a strong case here for a one-team approach and joined-up delivery.

I thank the noble Earl for those further comments. As I said, I will be happy to have further discussions with him and to take this important point back. Amendment 124A would introduce specific grounds for landlords to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a cat where the property is located within, or within one mile of, a protected site under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Government fully recognise the importance of protecting biodiversity and environmentally sensitive wildlife areas. However, we do not believe that such a blanket provision is necessary or proportionate in the context of this legislation. Nor is it fair on tenants, given that there is no similar restriction imposed on home owners in such environmentally sensitive areas. The framework set out in Clause 12 already allows landlords to refuse consent where it is reasonable to do so. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, would in effect create an automatic exemption covering a significant number of properties near protected sites across England and Wales, regardless of the tenant’s circumstances or willingness to act responsibly and, as I said, would not affect any private owners in that area. It risks introducing an overly rigid restriction, undermining the Bill’s aim of promoting fair and balanced access to pet ownership in rented homes. Tracking devices, which are sometimes put on cats’ collars, show how extensive cats’ daily travel can be— I think the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to the extent of cats’ wanderings. It would be very difficult to keep a track on that for different places in different areas. It also places an unreasonable burden on landlords, requiring them to assess environmental designations and the distances between a property and a protected site—matters which are outside their typical responsibilities. For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is necessary, and I hope the noble Earl will consider not pressing it. While I understand the intention behind Amendment 125 from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I do not believe it would be practical for the Government to specify every scenario in which a landlord could or could not reasonably refuse a request to keep a pet. There are simply too many variables to account for, including the type of property, the nature of the pet and the specific circumstances of both the tenant and the landlord. This amendment seeks to outline certain, though not all, circumstances that may be deemed unreasonable when a landlord refuses a tenant’s request to keep a pet. However, its inclusion could inadvertently lead to any circumstance not explicitly included on this list being presumed reasonable by landlords. This could create unintended consequences, limiting flexibility and making it more difficult to fairly assess individual cases. The question of whether it is reasonable for a tenant to have a pet in a rented property is, as I said before, best determined on a case-by-case basis. In most instances, this will be agreed on between the landlord and the tenant. As I said, there will be guidance available on this. Where disputes arise, they can be appropriately resolved by the ombudsman or the courts, which will be better placed to consider the individual facts of each case. It is also important to note that landlords will always retain the ability to refuse permission where a superior lease prohibits pets. This ensures that landlords are not placed in a position where they are forced to breach their own legal obligations. Given these safeguards, I do not believe it is necessary to introduce additional legislative provisions that could add unnecessary rigidity to what should remain a flexible, case-by-case approach. In light of this, I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing his amendment. Amendment 126 from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seeks to define specific circumstances in which it would be considered unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a pet, such as personal opinions, general fears about the risk of damage caused by pets, or past unrelated experiences. While I understand the intention behind this amendment, I must resist it on the grounds that it could complicate the existing proposals unnecessarily. The Government’s position is that superior landlords should retain the ability to refuse consent without needing to justify their decision, particularly given the practical challenges involved in engaging with them. In many cases, superior landlords are not based in the UK or are part of complex ownership structures and that can make communication slow, difficult and costly. Requiring them to provide reasons for refusal risks drawing immediate landlords and their tenants into prolonged and expensive legal or administrative processes. The Bill is designed to improve fairness and clarity in the tenant-landlord relationship without overburdening parties with obligations that may be difficult or unrealistic to meet in practice. That is why I said I will look into the quantum that might be involved here and come back to the noble Baroness on that, if that is okay. For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is proportionate or necessary, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will consider not pressing it. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for bringing forward Amendments 126A and 124A. Amendment 126A would place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on what constitutes a “reasonable refusal” of a pet under Clause 12, and would require consultation with landlords before they do so. I recognise the intention behind this proposal, which is to provide greater clarity and assurance for landlords when they consider tenant requests. As I have said, the concept of reasonable refusal is, by design, flexible. It allows landlords to take account of the specific circumstances of each tenancy. What is reasonable in one case may not be reasonable in another. That said, I can assure the Committee that we will publish guidance to help landlords and tenants understand how these provisions should operate in practice. However, guidance of this nature cannot and should not seek to cover every possible circumstance. It will provide helpful principles and examples, but it is vital that landlords retain the ability to exercise reasonable judgment based on individual cases. For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is necessary, and I hope the noble Earl will consider not moving it.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am glad she will produce the guidance, though perhaps not in the form I would have liked. Can I clarify one issue I am now confused about? If a tenant wants a pet, there has to be a written agreement. Does there have to be a written agreement for every pet, or does “a pet” cover a multitude of pets?

My assumption had been that it was for a pet, but I will come back to the noble Earl with a written answer.

My Lords, I think it is relevant. If I rent a property in which I am allowed a dog and I have a bitch and she has puppies, I would then have perhaps 10 dogs in the house, although the agreement was that I should have one dog. Do I have to go to the landlord and say that I have nine more dogs, but that it will be on a temporary basis? How does that work?

I understand the issue and I will respond in due course.

My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have taken part in this debate. I always knew it would be an interesting debate, and so it has proved. I did not know until we had the appearance of Wilberforce the snake that it would be quite so wide-ranging, but that has certainly been the case. One of the interesting things about this debate is that normally in Committee there is some disagreement with what the Government are trying to do. There has not really been any disagreement today with what the Government are seeking to do here; we are just seeking to make their noble intentions as effective as possible. I am very pleased the Minister responded constructively and positively. As my noble friend Lord Lexden said, opaque law can never be satisfactory law. The speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Grender, the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord de Clifford, and others have underlined that there are too many uncertainties as things stand. In that most precious of relationships between a human and a pet, there needs to be certainty. This debate has brought that out. My anxiety is that some of the amendments, including those from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seek to import more loopholes into the Bill and to give landlords greater powers of veto. I am disappointed that my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has fallen into that trap as well. I thank the Minister for her comments, which were very constructive and positive. She spoke a number of times about guidance, including on consent and withdrawal of consent. I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to understand the intricacies of the contractual obligation she talked about, but I am pleased to hear that they will be spelled out in accompanying guidance. Would she be prepared to talk to the animal charities involved in this sector about the drafts of that guidance and, similarly, about the guidance on the refusal of consent? Those will clearly be very important documents and those with day-to-day practical experience of the problems that arise in this area would be very good people to consult. We will all be grateful to the Minister for saying, on the issue of superior landlords, that she will look at the quantum of data. Perhaps she could do that before we reach Report and let the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have it so we can discuss whether there is any need for further amendments. Finally, the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has strong support from all sides of the House, and he is absolutely right to bring it forward. The right to own a pet should be universal and not in any way dependent on the type of property someone lives in. I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that she will look further at this and give it consideration before Report. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

Amendments 119 and 120 not moved.

17:30:00

Amendment 121

Moved by

121: Clause 12, page 19, line 36, at end insert— “(5A) Where a landlord has given their consent under subsection (1) they may withdraw their consent at any time if they become aware that the pet in question is a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment seeks to enable landlords to refuse pets on the grounds that they are a dangerous wild animal.

My Lords, Amendment 121 seeks to probe and address the inadequate definition of “pet” in the Bill, which has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords during this debate. Part 1, Chapter 1, Clause 12(2) inserts the following definition into Section 45(1) of the Housing Act 1988: “‘pet’ means an animal kept by a person mainly for … personal interest … companionship … ornamental purposes … or any combination” of those. My Amendment 121 seeks to probe whether pets that are considered dangerous and/or wild animals under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be counted as pets. This might sound like common sense, but I am not convinced that, under the current drafting of the Bill, landlords would not be forced to consider giving consent for unsuitable and, in this case, dangerous animals. These Acts already govern the keeping of dangerous animals, but it is good practice to ensure legal consistency, and it is not clear how they will interact with the Bill before us today. For example, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 requires accommodation to be “suitable as regards construction, size, temperature, lighting, ventilation, drainage and cleanliness”. If a landlord’s property happens to fit the definition in that legislation, does that mean that an animal included therein would be considered a pet by the definition of this Bill? As we will hear in the next group, damage insurance is problematical, as it is for standard pets. Will any insurance provider give cover for the damage that could be caused by a dangerous animal? If the fact that an animal is dangerous and wild, or falls outside the definition of a pet, can be a reasonable ground for refusal, would it not be simpler to make that explicit by reference to an existing definition and list already in legislation? Why should landlords be required to make independent assessments to justify their refusal? The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is another example. It bans the keeping of specific breeds without an exemption certificate and creates offences for dogs that are out of control or that cause injury or death. Again, it is unclear how this existing legislation interacts with the Bill. If the owner of a banned breed has an exemption certificate, would a landlord be able to refuse the animal in their property? Likewise, if a dog had been deemed dangerously out of control or had injured someone, what risk would this pose to the landlord, their property agents and others who need access? What risk would be considered acceptable, if any? I hope that the Minister can answer these questions and clarify this matter. If she needs to write to me on any of them, I would be very happy to receive her letter, but I would like to be reassured that this amendment and others we will debate today are being considered as they should be. I beg to move.

My Lords, what is a pet? That is a central question to everything that we are discussing. Some noble Lords will remember that there once was a parrot—a Norwegian Blue, to be precise—that was very sick. In fact, he was so sick, he was a deceased parrot—at least, that is how his new owner perceived it—and no amount of nailing that dead polly’s feet to the perch could change that. How we miss Monty Python. Perceptions, rather like recollections, may differ, yet this Bill’s definition of a pet depends almost entirely on perception, and I suspect it is likely to cause quite a few ruffled feathers. Therefore, I have put down two amendments—Amendment 131 and the consequential Amendment 132—to prod and probe a little. First, as the Chief Whip instructed, I declare my interest as a pet owner. Percy is our rescue cat—a very happy puss that has trained my family exceptionally well. So well that, if ever I were to ask my family who they love more, me or Percy, I would soon be looking for lodgings. As the Explanatory Notes set out: “The Bill requires landlords not to unreasonably withhold consent” for tenants to have pets. Despite the split infinitive, I would have thought that that was the right target area: legislation based on what is reasonable. But the Bill goes further and howls at the moon in trying to define a pet. It does this in a very peculiar manner, by defining a pet not by what it is, but by how it is perceived. It offers three definitions, as my noble friend has already pointed out. A pet is defined as an animal kept, first, for mainly personal interest, secondly, for companionship, and thirdly—it is this that my amendment mostly concerns—mainly for ornamental purposes. That is a definition we should consider getting rid of. What is a pet kept for ornamental purposes? I will take a calf as an example. Currently, the beautiful pastures around my home in Wylye are filled with any number of calves. They are so cute and cuddly, and my grandchildren always want to take one home. But I think we can agree that a calf is not really a pet; it is a would-be cow. Except, it would seem to fall directly under the Bill’s definition of a pet: first, it is personally interesting to my grandchildren; secondly, it is companionable, particularly so long as one has a bottle of milk handy; and thirdly, it is ornamental. A triple whammy. I remember Margaret Thatcher once cuddled a calf. I was with her in Suffolk on the election trail in 1979 when she picked up this terrified young animal and embraced it. Did the fact that she found it personally interesting or exceptionally ornamental—and, as it happened, amazingly photogenic—make it a protected pet? Could she have taken it home? Apparently, the Daily Mirror paid the farmer £50 to let it know if the poor thing died before polling day. Can you imagine the headlines? “Maggie Thatcher, calf basher”—but I digress. The problem is that once we try to define what a pet is or is not in the way the Bill attempts, we start with a cat’s cradle of confusion and end up with a dog’s dinner. People nowadays get very protective about their pets, and very litigious; we need to take care. Traditionally, working animals and pets have been regarded as separate categories, but it is not always clear cut. Take Larry, the Downing Street cat: is he not a working animal that is supposed to keep the place free of vermin? Good luck with that. Ever since the Prime Minister’s claim at his party conference that his main mission in life was to free the sausages—Remember that? It was a magical moment—I suspect that Larry has been working even harder to try to track down all those missing sausages. However, it is the third category that really has me wondering. Clause 12 defines a pet as an animal that is kept for “mainly … ornamental purposes”. Forgive me, but what on earth does that mean? I am confused. Does it mean, for instance, an XL bully dog? I am told that many owners regard them as extremely attractive. It must be the way they smile, or drool. But does that give a tenant an unequivocal right to keep them? I ask the Minister: does the landlord have no grounds to refuse—even if keeping such animals might well cause fear for others, such their neighbours who have children or who own a small dog or cat? As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising so eloquently pointed out, one pet owner’s rights can become another pet owner’s nightmare. I should perhaps whimsically point out that for, the purposes of the discussion, I have decided this week to self-identify as a Chihuahua. So, hand on heart and paw on prostate, I say: these definitions are barking mad. I really do not want to end up as breakfast for next door’s bully dog, no matter how cute he looks. Would it not be enough simply to require both tenant and landlord to be reasonable in the specific circumstances? The Minister keeps coming back to the concept of people being reasonable. That is a much stronger concept, it seems to me, than tying ourselves in knots trying to define what a pet is in the ways that the Bill currently attempts. Our laws should offer clarity, not confusion. But, no matter how hard we try to nail these definitions to the perch, they will make about as much sense as a dead parrot. So their proper place is not in the Bill but in that great parliamentary litter tray in the sky. I request the Minister to go back and have a much closer look at the definition of a pet.

My Lords, I declare my interests as a landlord of private property. It is becoming clear that the Bill will be a beanfeast for lawyers in the area of landlord-tenant disputes. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs implied, it could well happen with regard to landlord-tenant disputes over pets. My noble friend Lord Howard’s amendment is eminently sensible, and his points about overriding current legislation are very important, as are those on insurance problems in this area.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was as entertaining as ever in speaking to his amendment. But none of us was here in 1990—here in your Lordships’ House, I mean; obviously, we were around. In 1990, this discussion took place on the definition of a pet under the Environmental Protection Act, which chose not to define a pet specifically. Instead, it focused on the nuisances and environmental harms, regardless of the type of animal. That approach was probably safer because, obviously, for some people a praying mantis could be a pet, and it is certainly a very ornamental creature when you look at it closely—as would be a butterfly. I have a lot of sympathy with the Government, and I think that we should stick with the idea of companionship, which is in the Bill. But the Environmental Protection Act offers a lesson from that time, one concerned with the effects of an animal’s presence or behaviour and not with whether the animal is defined as a pet. I do not feel very strongly about this issue, but that lesson is there should the Government choose to take it.

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this engaging debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for moving Amendment 121, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs—as always, he has such a wonderful way of speaking in this Chamber. I cannot add much more to what he said. He is absolutely right.

17:45:00

My noble friend was right to highlight the importance of legal consistency. We have already discussed definitions during the passage of the Bill, and I think we will discuss further definitions as we move forward with it. But my noble friend Lord Howard was right to draw attention to the references to existing terms in legislation. We have particular concerns, as does my noble friend Lord Dobbs, about what the Government mean by “ornamental purposes”. We question what this could entail, what the consequences might be and how the tribunal judges are expected to interpret its meaning. Equally confusing is the inclusion of “personal interest”. Although a colony of termites might sound unlikely, people keep all kinds of pets, and it is a very possible scenario, I suggest. We believe that, beyond merely weakening the structural elements of any property, such issues could undermine the very foundations of the Bill.

The Government must address these concerns and must compile a watertight definition to ensure that landlords are not forced into a perverse situation over exotic or even dangerous pets. This definition is important, and we must get it right. If the Government cannot provide a clear and straightforward definition, this issue will continue to arise repeatedly. I hope the Government will address these concerns and engage with us all so that we can get a meaningfully straightforward definition that will ensure clarity, particularly if these go to tribunals or courts in the future.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Dobbs, for their amendments relating to the definition of a pet. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott, for their comments on this debate. Even in these two short debates this afternoon, we have seen the benefit that our House can add to legislation, including probing very intensively a definition but also the entertaining nature of the speeches we are privileged to listen to. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for his entertaining intervention. Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to allow landlords to withdraw consent for a pet if it is later found to be a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Although I of course fully support the principle that animals posing a serious risk to safety should not be kept in rental properties, this amendment is not necessary. The keeping of dangerous wild animals without a licence is already prohibited under the 1976 Act, and the 1991 Act imposes strict controls on specific dog breeds—I presume that includes the XL bullies that were mentioned by the noble Lord. These laws already provide local authorities with sufficient powers, and we would expect a request for a pet that falls foul of that legislation to give landlords a strong case for refusing consent. Local authorities have the powers to act, and the amendment would therefore duplicate existing protections and introduce unnecessary complexity into the Bill. For these reasons, we do not consider the amendment necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it. Amendment 131, from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, seeks to remove the line in Clause 12 that includes keeping animals for “ornamental purposes” within the definition of a pet. Amendment 132 is consequential to Amendment 131. I understand that these are probing amendments, intended to seek clarity on the scope of the term “pet” as used in the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, I miss Monty Python—I have watched them over and again, I must admit—but I must respectfully resist these amendments. The line in question, referring to animals kept for ornamental purposes, is a deliberate and important part of the definition. The noble Lord will be pleased to learn that it does not refer to dead parrots, but it ensures that the Bill captures a broad and inclusive understanding of what a pet may be, reflecting the wide range of animals that people may choose to keep in their homes for companionship or decorative enjoyment. I am not sure whether Wilberforce the snake was decorative, ornamental or a pet, but he is obviously now enjoying somebody else’s company than his original owner. Removing this provision could risk narrowing the scope of the definition, creating legal ambiguity and potentially excluding animals that are commonly accepted as pets, such as fish and birds—live ones. To support implementation, the Government will provide guidance, setting out examples of instances where animals are likely to fall into the definition of a pet. I hope that that will help to ensure consistency and clarity for both tenants and landlords, without placing restrictions on primary legislation. It is important to repeat that landlords are required to agree only to reasonable requests; a calf that may grow into a cow is unlikely to be reasonable in a small flat, for example. For these reasons, I do not consider these amendments necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing them.

As my amendment alluded to, the Government’s definition of a pet is very broad and open to debate, although I believe that the Minister’s remarks were helpful. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, the definition could be stretched to the extreme. How is a landlord or tribunal expected to understand its meaning? To summarise, the definition of a pet in this Bill poses more questions than it answers, and I hope that the Government can offer some much-needed reassurance on this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 121 withdrawn.

Amendments 122 to 126A not moved.

Amendment 126B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 127

Moved by

127: Clause 12, page 20, leave out lines 28 to 31 Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to remove a requirement on tenants to have pet damage insurance.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 127, I shall speak also to Amendments 128, 129 and 130. I remind the Committee of some different interests this time, in that I am a director of Alpha Insurance Analysts, which operates around £1 billion of premiums at Lloyd’s, and I have share ownership in Hiscox Group. The thrust of everything in this bit of the Bill is all about pets. I am very keen on pets in general being in houses. As I pointed out, pets are usually allowed in my Scottish interest. When I looked at the insurance provisions, I was looking very carefully with a professional eye, and I wanted to try to tweak four separate areas that all needed something. First, there was the proposition that the tenant would buy insurance, then that would be all right. Secondly, there was the proposition that the landlord could buy insurance and bill that back to the tenant. Thirdly, there was the possibility of aligning the England and Wales law with what happens in Scotland, where, of course, I have a lot of experience. Fourthly, there was the knotty issue of the definition of “premium”, over which I have had many arguments in many jurisdictions over many years—and I apologise in advance for disagreeing with counsel on that. Amendment 127 is on the first of those things in my list. There is no market today for insurance where a tenant goes out privately to buy insurance. There certainly will not have been a single cent of premium written in the UK market up to 31 December last year nor in any of the continental European non-life insurance markets, with which I am extremely familiar. One or two products have appeared on the market that provide some sort of partial cover—and I shall try to describe some of that. I am very grateful, in saying this, to the department and the people supporting the Minister, because we have had a funny tour around this issue. We even had one exciting moment when an insurer that I had never heard of, which turned out to be an insurance company based in Anguilla, of recent formation, was keen to sell insurance to British people, although of course there would have been no protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or from the insurance ombudsman, let alone all the tax and regulatory problems with an Anguilla insurer trying to settle a claim in the UK. Leaving aside that exciting insurer, one or two insurers have come along, but they want to insure only against accidental damage, however it is dressed up. When talking about insurers, it is important to understand the difference between the insurance carrier, which takes the bet, and the insurance intermediary, which puts exciting things on the web to try to entice you. These are all insurance intermediaries, and there is only one carrier that is identified at the moment, which is under half the size of the legal minimum for an insurance carrier, if you are forming a new one, and does not appear at all on any of the lists of allowed insurers that major brokers have. It is exceptionally small and very weak. The problem with the cover of the three policies that appear online at the moment is that they are limited to accidental damage. In one of them, accidental damage is defined as “unexpected damage which happens suddenly and has not been caused on purpose or inevitably”. I immediate think that that does not sound like very good cover. The other one goes a lot further. It says that the policy is “not for damage caused by everyday wear and tear. For example, if a dog scratches at your door every day, this is not covered, while if a pet pulls down curtains that causes damage to a wall this would be covered”. Of course, that is a vanishingly small percentage of the loss costs likely to be caused by a pet. Most of the losses from pets will be to do with chewing or infestations—I look at my noble friend Lord Trees in the hope that he will tell us all a bit more about infestations later on. The difficulty of trying to legislate so that a landlord can say to someone, “You can have a pet as long as you buy an insurance policy”, and there being no actual policy of insurance that exists, or no reasonable one, is that it is what is sometimes called an Italian torpedo—a legal trick whereby you started a case in a different jurisdiction to slow everything down, and the initial case never gets decided. It would mean that the landlord could ask the tenant to find insurance that he knew did not exist and the pet would never be allowed into the property. That is not the intention of this Bill, so it would be quite wrong to let this option go forward. That is why Amendment 127 seeks to get rid of that option. It is not a probing amendment—it is a real amendment. I turn to Amendment 129 next, only because the amendments have appeared a bit out of order. It is a probing amendment, and it covers the second issue on insurance, which is whether the landlord could buy insurance. Here I am much more hopeful. I should point out that this type of insurance also does not exist at the moment, but I have spoken to the underwriting managers of at least two of the big players in the UK markets and left those conversations feeling that it was quite possible that this type of insurance could come into existence—in fact, in reviewing the internet, there is some evidence that it might. It will start with this accidental damage problem, so it is not a complete cover; therefore, landlords might not choose to exercise that option because it does not really exist. Therefore, I feel it is unfair to ask landlords to go to the market to buy insurance, and they might not want to. The insurance would therefore be a terrible situation, where a landlord is being asked about a pet and the tenant cannot buy the insurance because it does not exist—at least not in a reasonable form—and nor can the landlord because it is at a very early stage. But I felt that should stay on the statute book because I believe that something helpful might come along. I believe also that the type of insurance that will come along will be a small layer just above the deposit that people pay anyway; at the moment, it is a five-week deposit.

18:00:00

Therefore, Amendment 129 is a set of suggestions to increase the understanding of that landlord option, and about how much insurance a landlord might reasonably ask a tenant to pay for, because the landlord’s cost of insurance is billed back to the tenant. If the landlord bought £5 million worth of cover, it would cost a lot of money, and that would obviously not be right, which is why I have put the six months in there.

Moving on to Amendment 128, which is also a probing amendment, in Scotland, of course, this is coped with—in my direct experience—simply by having a larger deposit. The deposit in Scotland is two months. I am afraid I have rounded two months down, which is why I have increased the deposit to eight weeks. But this would provide a level of cover. In Scotland, it drives the way in which landlords present the properties. So, you present properties with hard floors so you have much less of a problem with things such as infestations, and you present properties knowing that you are probably going to have to replace bits of wood lower down on the wall that might have been chewed. Therefore there is in Scotland an operational market that has worked on this basis for some time, and I felt that was a reasonable introduction of a separate idea which would allow for the landlord to have some comfort when he was allowing a pet into the house.

I am going to finish by briefly talking about Amendment 130, which seeks to define premiums. As I said, there are an enormous number of fights, or there have been in the past, over what the word “premium” means in English law. It is something that insurers, reinsurers and all sorts of people worry about the whole time, therefore it is best always to be absolutely clear what you mean. It is clear in my mind that in this Bill we mean “premium plus IPT”—that is, that the amount of money that can be reclaimed when the landlord buys the insurance is the insurance premium and the IPT as well. It is important to be clear about that, otherwise inevitably there will be questions put of tribunals and so on that are trying to worry about this sort of thing. They will not have the scars on my back that I have after 30 years of fiddling around in the insurance markets. So it should be made crystal clear, and that was the intention behind Amendment 130. I beg to move.

My Lords, when the Renters (Reform) Bill was originally proposed, Battersea asked landlords what policies or incentives would make them more likely to consider offering pet-friendly properties—that is an important point to bear in mind—and out of all the different policies and incentives, the two most popular were requiring tenants to hold insurance to cover any damage, or changing the Tenant Fees Act to allow the landlord to charge for a deep clean and fumigation at the end of the tenancy. I acknowledge that there are concerns regarding availability of insurance to cover pet damage in line with the requirements currently set out in the Bill. However, having talked to those with expertise in the sector, I believe the insurance market will adapt to new legislation, as it has in the past with cyberinsurance under the Data Protection Act 2018 and professional indemnity insurance for cladding remediation under the Building Safety Act 2022. I think there is already evidence of insurers responding to market demand, with the letting insurance providers Paymentshield and Addept Insurance updating their tenants’ content policies to include pet damage cover. I am aware of other providers that are in the process of—

One of the things I read was that Paymentshield is offering accidental damage only; I read out the definition of accidental damage and that is not really any cover at all. I am sorry; I do not know whether the noble Lord was talking to insurance underwriters or brokers, but I can tell him that the underwriting community in the insurance world is absolutely solid on this.

My Lords, my general point was that I believe the market would adapt in time, because that is the purpose of legislation—to push that market on. I know there are other insurers that are looking at pet damage insurance products to bring to the marketplace. We will have to see if it happens, but I very much hope that it would. I understand the fears from landlords that pets may damage their properties, but I also do not believe that pet deposits are the solution to this area, because they are unevenly applied and unaffordable to many. Finally, I just want to make the general point that research has shown that fears around pet damage are often largely unfounded. Again, research that was commissioned by Battersea with the University of Huddersfield showed that more than three out of four landlords did not encounter any damage caused by pets in their rental properties. So there is very low risk, and, alongside evidence showing that pet owners tend to stay longer in their properties, this demonstrates that renting to pet owners can be financially beneficial to landlords in the long run.

I put to the noble Lord this point about the Italian torpedo. I hope he will accept that there is currently no reasonable insurance solution available for a tenant—there is none. So, if a landlord says, “I need you to go out and buy a tenants’ insurance policy”, thinking, sneakily, that as one does not exist, the tenant will look forever and will never be allowed a pet, would that be an acceptable solution for the noble Lord?

I go back to the point that the market may not exist at the moment but the legislation is designed to push this market along. I very much hope that by the time the Bill becomes law, that market will have adapted.

But if the market does not come into being—I made the point about insurance not being available for inevitabilities—we will have created through the Bill a route for landlords to quite simply prevent tenants having pets.

That is probably a bridge we ought to cross when we come to it.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted from the University of Huddersfield’s excellent research, The Financial Impact of Pet Ownership in Rental Properties, which I have read in detail. One of the most surprising things is that there is more non-pet-related damage to properties from non-pet owners, which averaged at £215, than there is pet-related damage from pet owners. But perhaps the more relevant thing to this particular debate is that when there was damage: the tenant’s deposit fully covered the cost 38% of the time; the repair costs exceeded the deposit and the tenant covered the additional costs 18% of the time; and the repair costs exceeded the deposit and were covered by insurance 13% of the time—which is surprising given what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, told us. So, more than 60% of the time, there was no problem at all. Only in a very small percentage of the time did the landlord find themselves out of pocket. The overall findings from this study were that it is a much-exaggerated fear rather than an actual problem.

My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 129 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and others. With regard to pets, the main purpose of the Bill is to make it more likely that landlords will accept tenants with pets. That is its purpose, surely, and it is an objective that I fully support, as a veterinarian, particularly for elderly and lonely people, as well as others. The benefits of pet ownership are very well known, with a strong evidence basis. Amendments 127, 128 and 129 would ensure that the purpose of the Bill with regard to pets is not confounded by unintended consequences. The current reality—and we cannot ignore realities, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, does—is that 40% of landlords are currently unwilling to accept tenants with pets. Another survey that the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted showed that 27% of landlords who do accept tenants with pets—that is, one-quarter—have experienced problems. So, in order to boost the market for pet-friendly rentals, it is important that landlords are assured that, were there to be negative effects due to pets, there is adequate legal recompense. The Bill recognises this, and the solution it proposes is that the landlord can require a tenant to provide appropriate insurance. But the problem, clearly articulated by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who is, of course, an expert in insurance, is that it appears extremely unlikely that there will be a product on the market which a tenant could buy to insure against the problem—relatively unlikely, perhaps —of damage. If that were the case, as my noble friend started to explain, a landlord could debar a tenant by the simple act of requiring that they provide insurance to cover pet damage, their failure to find which would legitimately allow a landlord to bar them access with a pet to rental accommodation. So it would conflict with the objective of the Bill. Amendment 127 would remove that possibility. Instead, Amendment 128 would allow an increased deposit arrangement to enable landlords to permit pets, confident in the knowledge that, in the unlikely event of damage, it will be covered by the deposit. Amendments 128 and 129 would ensure that the level of recompense is likely to adequately cover relatively costly measures, such as deep cleaning to remove allergens, referred to earlier, or the elimination of infestation with fleas, which can be a significant problem if it occurs and expensive to remove. I would love to say more about fleas—they are remarkable creatures that can jump amazing distances compared to their size—but I am aware of the constraints on repeating Second Reading speeches, so I will not. I also make the point that a deposit is likely to be a fairer and more acceptable arrangement to a tenant than paying for an insurance policy, because obviously there is no cost unless there has been a problem. To conclude on these three amendments, I strongly support them and I think they would make it more likely that landlords could be persuaded to offer their property for rent to tenants with a pet than any alternative. I shall just make an additional point that I did raise at Second Reading but which is pertinent to this issue and has wider implications, and that is on assistance dogs. We know that having a pet is very valuable to many people’s physical and mental health, but the case of assistance dogs is very special. These are incredibly valuable animals that can alert to medical emergencies of all sorts, as well as providing physical support for disabled people, hearing support and other things. Yet assistance dogs are not actually officially recognised—there is no list or register of them—and I understand that people with assistance dogs sometimes have problems finding rental accommodation. I raised this at Second Reading, but I hope the noble Baroness will excuse me mentioning it again. She said she would discuss it with officials, and I ask her to consider that again. I strongly support Amendments 127, 128 and 129.

18:15:00

I am delighted to have added my name to Amendments 127, 129 and 130 in this group. I thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for leading on this section with regards to pet insurance and respect his deep knowledge of the insurance market. Amendments 127 and 128 seek to provide an alternative to the pet insurance route for protecting landlords from pet damage, as there is still uncertainty at present as to whether the insurance market will provide a policy that is fit for purpose, as described in the Bill. Amendment 128 would allow for an additional three weeks of deposit to be paid and held. I listened to the Government saying that finding a deposit can be challenging for tenants, especially the low paid. Therefore, these insurance policies, if they can be developed, could be an accessible and appropriate product for tenants. For some tenants and landlords, the option of paying a three-week deposit could be an alternative, as both parties would know where they stand from the beginning of the tenancy, or when a pet moves into a property. There are further advantages, as the tenant would get their money back if no repairs were required at the end of the tenancy, thereby rewarding tenants for looking after the property. As my noble friend Lord Trees pointed out a minute ago, if tenants pay for an insurance product, they are not rewarded for being good tenants, and the premium paid benefits neither tenant nor landlord. The deposit scheme is allowed in Scotland, so there is some real-life data that can be drawn on to see whether it works for both tenants and landlords. From my noble friend Lord Kinnoull’s experience, it appears to be working. The deposit option gives flexibility for landlords and tenants in choosing the most appropriate protection for themselves and their circumstances in covering the possible extra costs of housing a pet in a rental property. This is a challenging issue for some landlords and very few currently accept pets. That is why Clause 12 is welcome: it will increase the number of landlords accepting pets—surely giving two methods by which they can protect themselves can only ease the fear and reluctance in accepting a pet. Amendments 129 and 130, which I also support, would bring clarity on the detail to be included in the proposed insurance products and would clear up some of the confusion with these amendments. Therefore, I hope the Government will listen to these speeches today and consider adding a bit more flexibility to the Bill by accepting these amendments on Report.

My Lords, I support Amendment 128 and declare my interests as a landlord and a former PRS tenant. I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on pet deposits. First, I want to state that I am a dog lover and had dogs as pets in my youth. I was, however, horrified by the description by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, at Second Reading of the potential cost and sustained effort required to deal with flea infestation, and there is other damage that cats and dogs in particular can cause. Carpets, for example, may need to be wholly replaced after some pet tenancies, as I have experienced at considerable additional cost, which was not met by the deposit. As your Lordships have heard, insurance products are currently non-existent or very unsatisfactory, so it makes sense, in my view, to introduce a pet deposit scheme which would make the whole process a lot simpler. The main point I wish to make is that where a lease bans pets, particularly dogs, this should be respected. As we also heard earlier, not all properties are suitable for dogs, especially large dogs. There has been an exponential rise in dog attacks in the country, especially since the pandemic. In total, there were 31,920 dog attacks in England and Wales over the last year alone— 87 a day. Since 2022, 31 people have been killed by dogs, and there were almost 11,000 hospital admissions for dog bites in England between 2023 and 2024. These figures are truly horrific and are growing. I do not claim to be an expert on this rise, but many have put it down to the surge in dog ownership since the pandemic, poor dog training and an inability of inexperienced owners to control their powerful dogs. If you had been the victim of a dog attack, you would understand why some seek protection in their home environment, especially blocks of flats. My wife was attacked by a dog in our open gardens. Although dogs are banned under the lease, we made an exception to allow a family with a dog. At the time, my wife was wearing a back brace, having recently fractured her spine. I placed myself between the dog and my wife, while the neighbour took five minutes to come outside and struggled to restrain the aggressive dog. Incidentally, it was not a banned breed. Those five minutes felt like a long time. Although our neighbour was red-faced and apologetic, it was a serious and frightening incident. For months afterwards, my wife had flashbacks, as it could have been a life-altering experience, like the ones you read about in the newspaper or see on television. In conclusion, where dogs are banned under leases, those leases should be upheld, and where dogs are allowed with discretion, that should also be upheld.

My Lords, the matter of pet damage insurance is an extremely important one, as it directly addresses the responsibility of the tenant in conjunction with the increased rights that they may be granted under the Bill. In all our discussions on this question, we have acknowledged that allowing pets into rented properties brings with it a series of risks. There are risks to health in questions around allergies and dangerous animals, risks of damage to the property and risks to the well-being of neighbours and other tenants. Given this, we believe it is reasonable to grant the landlord the capacity to require the tenant wishing to bring a pet into their property to have pet damage insurance. I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I thank him for all the work he has done on this—which I think is really important work—but I am disappointed that there does not yet seem to be a product in the market for this. However, we have to continue down the insurance route as well as down the route of having deposits. It is important, as is in my amendments, that before this section of the Bill comes into effect, there is a final decision from the Secretary of State on an insurance product that is available. If that is not going to come forward, we will have to relook at the issues that have been brought up by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in Amendments 127 and 128, which, as we have heard, provide an alternative avenue for redress should any damage be caused. This is a flexible addition to the Bill, and discretion is going to be important, but it is important to give people the option here, whether it be through a deposit or through an insurance product which is on the market in the future. There is concern over the deposit, because it is there for very specific reasons, and when you add a further reason—damage by pets—the amount of deposit may have to be looked at again. The noble Lord opposite brings up the idea of a pet deposit along with the deposit. The principle behind this is that when you have a right to have a pet, you also have responsibilities for that pet. It is correct that landlords should be permitted the ability to claim redress when their properties are damaged, and tenants should be responsible when choosing to have pets. It is important that we make sure that there is some form of redress for any damage caused, if the landlord wishes. Some landlords will welcome pets without any further insurance or deposit, but where the landlord wishes it, there must be some way for the tenant to have some form of redress at the beginning of the tenancy, in case there is any issue with their pet’s damage or anything else concerning that pet.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments relating to pet insurance and deposits. The noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Trees, Lord de Clifford and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have all contributed to the debate. Turning first to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I thank the noble Earl very much for his constructive engagement with me and my officials in the department in recent months. The benefit of the noble Earl’s expertise in this area has been very valuable and very much appreciated, so I am grateful to him. Amendment 127 seeks to remove the requirement for tenants to obtain pet damage insurance. While I completely understand the concerns behind the amendment, respectfully, I disagree with its approach. One of the key barriers to renting with pets is landlords’ concerns over potential property damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined. Requiring tenants to have pet damage insurance provides landlords with the reassurance they need and helps foster a more positive attitude towards pet ownership in rental properties—that is the balance between rights and responsibilities that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned. Removing this requirement risks undermining the balance of ensuring that tenants have a fair opportunity to rent with pets, while also protecting landlords from unnecessary financial risk. It is also important to note that we are seeing some signs that insurance products designed specifically for pet-related damage are emerging in response to the Bill—not just from Anguilla, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, these products will develop, meaning that tenants should have viable options available. This requirement is therefore both reasonable and practical, ensuring responsible pet ownership without placing an undue burden on either tenants or landlords. I emphasise in response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—

I will just raise one very simple point, which I thought the Minister was going to deal with. I declare my interests as a Suffolk farmer with houses to let. I am unclear, not being a lawyer: in terms of the liability of a tenant whose premises, or the premises which they occupy, are damaged during a tenancy, is there a distinction between the liability for something that they have done and for something that a pet has done? If there is not a distinction, then presumably the landlord does not have to worry too much about how the damage was done. All that is at stake is what the damage is and what it is going to cost to remedy it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The distinction in this case is just trying to encourage landlords who have previously been fairly resistant to tenants keeping pets that they are able to give that concession to pet owners. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I emphasise that we continue to engage with the insurance industry, and we remain open to further information about the market and views on how it might develop. I apologise that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has not yet had a written response to his query about assistance dogs. I will follow that up and get a response for him. In terms of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, I want to clarify a point I made in my previous speech. Landlords cannot withdraw their consent to keep a pet in case of anti-social behaviour. However, there are other steps they can take. Landlords can seek to evict anti-social tenants for a broad range of anti-social behaviours under ground 14, which could include behaviour related to noisy, disruptive or aggressive pets. Landlords can also contact their local council’s anti-social behaviour team and the police if behaviour persists, which can culminate in anti-social behaviour injunctions being granted by the courts. In that instance, that could then ban the tenant in question from keeping a pet. The incident that the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, described was really frightening, and I understand why he would have concerns about that. I hope the action I have described helps to respond to his points.

18:30:00

Amendment 128, also tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, seeks to introduce an additional pet damage deposit. While I recognise the additional security this could provide to landlords, I have to resist his amendment for two key reasons. First, it would place a financial burden on tenants, particularly those on lower incomes who already struggle to raise a standard tenancy deposit. Adding another upfront cost would make securing a home harder, disproportionately impacting those in financial difficulty. Secondly, it could create unnecessary administrative complexity for deposit protection schemes, increasing costs and making the system harder to navigate for both landlords and tenants. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out that, in the evidence of the University of Huddersfield’s research, the incidence of pet damage is relatively low. We need to think about that in this case as well. The Bill strikes the right balance by allowing tenants to obtain pet damage insurance instead, providing landlords with reassurance while avoiding those potentially very large upfront costs.

Amendment 129 seeks to increase security for landlords against pet damage. While I understand the intention behind it, I have to resist this amendment, as, first, it would make it more difficult for insurers to develop suitable pet damage insurance products. By imposing rigid requirements, we risk limiting the flexibility insurers need to design affordable and effective policies. Overprescribing criteria could, for example, stifle innovation and reduce the availability of products for tenants. It could also place an additional financial burden on tenants. If insurance providers struggle to develop appropriate products, the cost of obtaining such insurance may increase, making it harder instead of easier for tenants, particularly those on lower incomes, to meet the requirements.

Amendment 130 seeks to clarify that in this clause, the term “premium” includes “insurance premium taxes.” I understand the noble Earl’s concern about this, but the amendment is unnecessary, as, first, “premium”—and he knows far more about the insurance industry than I do—is widely understood within the insurance industry and related contractual contexts to encompass all statutory charges, including insurance premium taxes. The existing wording already provides sufficient clarity for insurers and stakeholders, without the need for further elaboration. Secondly, inserting this clarification may introduce unnecessary complexity. It risks creating potential ambiguities in the calculation and application of premiums, thereby complicating administration without delivering any substantive benefit. For these reasons, I ask the noble Earl not to press that amendment.

The two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require the Secretary of State to consult with insurers before Clause 13 comes into effect. Amendment 284 aims to ensure that insurance products which cover the risk of pet damage are available for landlords who rent to pet owners. We recognise that one of the key concerns for landlords when considering tenants with pets is the potential for damage that may exceed the tenant’s deposit. However, while there are currently limited insurance options specifically covering the risk of pet damage, this is because landlords have discretion over allowing pets and cannot charge tenants for insurance under the provisions of the Tenant Fees Act 2019, meaning there has been little demand for such products. By establishing a framework that encourages the development of this market, we believe the Bill will drive the necessary adaptations in the insurance industry.

As I have already mentioned, my department is engaged in discussions with the insurance industry, and there are some signs that new products are in development in anticipation of the Bill’s passage. We remain open to further discussion with those who know these markets well. For these reasons, we do not support the amendment. I understand how well-intentioned it is, but it would create an unnecessary delay in enabling landlords to require tenants to obtain pet damage insurance, ultimately slowing one of the Bill’s key objectives, which is to ensure that pet ownership is no longer a barrier to renting.

I am a little bit confused as to where we go on this. We are hearing that there is no product at the moment, and there are differing views as to whether there will be a product. The Government are not interested in looking at extra deposits, and I understand the reasoning for that. But if we do not have extra deposits and there is no product, where do we go with this? When does this come into effect if there is no protection for the landlord in the future? I am just confused about the timescale. How long are the Government going to wait for a product to be available?

I understand those concerns. As I have already mentioned, the department is talking to insurers all the time. We are looking at the messages from them that they are developing new products in anticipation of the Bill going through, and we will keep monitoring that during the passage of the Bill. We do not want to create a delay in one of the Bill’s key objectives, which is facilitating pet ownership. We do not want to put a block or barrier in the way of that, but we understand that we need to keep this dialogue going with the insurance industry to see where we are as the Bill progresses. Amendment 285 seeks to ensure that tenants have access to specific insurance products to cover pet-related damage before landlords can require such coverage. This is a similar point: the amendment would similarly create an unnecessary delay in giving landlords the confidence to rent to tenants with pets. The insurance options tailored specifically for pet damage exist in limited numbers at the moment. That is because landlords have had the discretion to refuse pets, so they have used that as a way of getting around the insurance issue, and it has led to low demand for such products. We believe that the Bill will change that by providing tenants with a fairer opportunity to rent with pets and giving landlords the reassurance they need. We do not believe that a mandatory delay should be made law, as we hope those new products are coming forward with the Bill. If Clause 13 is postponed, tenants’ struggle to secure homes just because they have a pet will continue. Once the law is in place and landlords begin accepting more tenants with pets, we think the insurance market will adapt to meet the demand, and delaying Clause 13 would only prolong the struggles of responsible pet owners. Given these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will consider not pressing these amendments. We will continue to monitor this situation and carry on our dialogue with the insurance industry.

I am sorry to ask the Minister further questions, but is the Minister saying that landlords will be required to take pets without insurance or any further deposits if there is no product available? If that is the case and a product comes in six months to a year later, will the Bill then allow landlords to ensure that tenants get that insurance product? I am not quite sure how that will work.

We will be amending the Tenant Fees Act so that landlords will be able to require the tenant to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet. Landlords will be able to require tenants to have that insurance.

The Minister has again referred to my point that we need to change the Tenant Fees Act. Is she saying there is in law a difference in liability for damage done to a rental property by the tenant or their pet? We know that, if they get struck by lightning, it is not their fault, but do they not have a liability for any damage done as a result of their tenancy anyway? In which case, why does any of this matter?

I have already answered the noble Lord’s question: the idea of this specific pet insurance is to encourage landlords to accept tenants with pets. That is what the clause is there to do: to try to incentivise and encourage landlords to accept pets as part of the tenancy.

My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate. I thank those who have contributed to it all round, and I will try to mention everyone. I thought I should start by answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about whether there is a difference in the insurance policy between a pet and a human being. The answer is yes, because the provisions of a standard insurance policy in the UK would present two problems for the pet. The first is a total exclusion for infestation and insects—so the sort of problems the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was talking about would be taken out straight away. Secondly, there is usually a heavy exclusion for gradually operating causes, so that would take out chewing and other things pets might do. For centuries, or at least a century and a bit, there have been policies that are aware of pet damage issues. It is not just a landlord and tenant issue; it is a first-party issue that someone might start claiming for a dog chewing a Sheraton chair. Is that a thing you can claim for on insurance—yes or no? The answer has always been no. This is the core of the problem, which I will finish on. I did not have the good grace to speak to Amendments 284 and 285, but they are in fact good ways of getting at the very problem I have been describing. I am not sure that I have been clear enough; it is not a question of the market eventually creating something, because it is not insurance if it is inevitable. The difficulty of “first dollar in” protection for a dog chewing something is that it is inevitable that there will be a loss. It is not something that any proper underwriting manager will ever say yes to. Lots of brokers will be very interested in saying yes, because they will see premium volumes and commissions to be earned as well, but underwriting managers will not, and I am therefore extremely negative on the prospects of there ever being a comprehensive policy for a tenant to insure against their pet damaging a flat. That is why I have been concentrating on trying to find other ways of doing this—that are going to be the enabler, which I want, of pets coming into flats. On Amendment 130, what the Minister has just said is very helpful, in that that can at least be referred to. Although people in the insurance market will carry on knocking spots off each other about the definition of “premium”, the Minister’s helpful words at the Dispatch Box will settle that issue, and we can leave Amendment 130 to one side. Amendment 129 tries to add something currently missing from the Bill, which is a better definition of what the landlord is able to buy and give the bill to the tenant for. It seems that, at the moment, the landlord could buy £5 million-worth of cover and ask the tenant to pay for it, which would be very expensive. There is more to be discussed on that, and I hope the Minister will agree to meet with me to carry on going through these various insurance issues. On what the Minister said about the complexities of administering an eight-week deposit versus a five-week one, the great thing about having Scotland next door to us is that we can look over the border and see how complex that has proved to be. In fact, it is perfectly easy to handle. All the various agents who are active in Scotland—the big ones, anyway—are also active in England. I assume that they already have the systems to manage this. I do not feel that the deposit system, which is so successful in Scotland, could not be applied and be successful in England and Wales. Finishing on Amendment 127, my advice to the House is that we will not get there by having this type of insurance. It would be very unfortunate if this went on to the statute book and it was possible for a landlord to use what I have described as an Italian torpedo approach to prevent people who want to have a pet in their home from doing so, simply by asking for the impossible. Therefore, I look forward to engaging with the Minister and her excellent team again, in the hope that we can find a way forward. In the absence of anything else, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 127 withdrawn.

Amendments 128 to 132 not moved.

Clause 12 agreed.

Clause 13 agreed.

18:45:00

Amendment 133

Moved by

133: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause— “Permission for home adaptations(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows. (2) After section 16 insert—“16A Home adaptations(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy that a landlord must give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.(2) A tenant may appeal a landlord’s refusal to give permission for such adaptations.””Member's explanatory statement This new clause would ensure that landlords of private and social tenancies provide permission for home adaptations for people who have disabilities where a Home Assessment has been carried out.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 133 in my name and that of Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment would require landlords to grant permission for home adaptations that constitute reasonable adjustments where these have been recommended by local authority assessments. Disabled individuals in the private rented sector often face significant barriers in accessing essential adaptations that allow them to live safely, independently and with dignity. According to the English Housing Survey for 2022, 21% of private renters live in homes that fail to meet the decent home standards and 16% of private renters with a long-term illness or disability are in homes with at least one category 1 hazard, such as the risk of falls or inadequate heating. These conditions are not only uncomfortable; they can actively endanger health and undermine independence. The Family Resources Survey for 2022-23 reports that 24% of people in the UK are disabled, amounting to approximately 16 million individuals. With such a significant proportion of the population affected, the case for making housing adaptable and accessible is both moral and practical. We know that many disabled renters face long delays, refusals or restrictive conditions when requesting simple modifications. Even small adjustments such as installing grab rails, ramps or stairlifts can make the difference between a person being able to remain in their home or being forced to move, rely on care or live in unsafe conditions. This amendment seeks to remove those barriers by ensuring that tenants can make necessary changes, subject to the existing checks and balances of local authority assessments. It offers a proportionate, workable solution that respects landlords’ rights while upholding the basic needs of tenants. The amendment would also help to reduce demand on already stretched social housing by enabling more disabled people to remain in private accommodation that suits their needs. Given that nearly a quarter of the population is disabled, the need for accessible and safe housing is clear and pressing. This amendment offers a practical step to ensure that those who need adaptations are not denied them by process, delay or indifference. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment in order to make real the promise of equality under the law and to ensure that disabled renters can live in homes that support their independence, health and dignity. I beg to move.

My Lords, my Amendments 178 and 191, along with Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, highlight some of the challenges that disabled people face living in rented accommodation. Life is hard if you have to live with a disability, and it makes sense if where you live can help you have as much of an active life as possible. When we talk about disabled people, we are not just talking about wheelchair users; we are talking, for example, about people who might react badly to certain colours or intensity of lighting. Step-free access these days ought to be almost automatic, given our ageing population. The sad reality is that Britain’s housing stock has not been designed with disabled people in mind, and the provision of adaptations for disabled housing is quite scarce. My Amendment 191 would give people reassurance that they can ask about and discuss disability adjustments when looking for somewhere to live, without being disadvantaged. Amendment 178 would take this further and give tenants a right to make minor adaptations for disabilities without needing consent from the landlord. Taken together, these amendments would support people with disabilities to live healthier, happier lives by ensuring that they have specific rights to meet their needs. I hope that the Minister can take this issue away and look at it, as there are some simple ways forward that will have a huge beneficial impact on disabled people and their families.

My Lords, I think the objective of the noble Baroness’s amendment is commendable. I worry, however, that if a property is altered, it will be limited by the assessment made by occupational health, within the limitations of local authority budgets and what the cost is estimated to be. In some properties, particularly older ones, these alterations can be very substantial. The question arises: what happens if the tenant leaves the property and it has to be reinstated? That would be a relatively simple operation for a straight stairway, but not all properties are like that. Installing a lift would be a major structural operation. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could assess what the implications would be when someone left a property and how it would be reinstated. Reinstatement can often be more costly than the installation. With regard to undertaking minor amendments, it depends on what we mean by minor. If building control consent is not required and people alter a property, they can undermine the structure very simply. It is not difficult—a lot of older properties may not have the same structural integrity as more modern ones. If people can say that a change is only minor, what is the boundary and what are the limitations if we have no definition of what a minor alteration is? If someone starts interfering with the structure of a property without the requirement of building control consent, there will be difficulties ahead, as there can be implications for the adjacent property. If various adaptations are needed in a terraced house, it can affect properties on either side. Who would pay for the removal of the adaptations in the first place? Although the noble Baroness has tabled a very well-meaning amendment, I fear that, if given an inch, people would take a mile because they would not want to bother with getting the various consents. People could undertake quite substantial and perhaps even risky amendments to property without consent. Again, the question arises: how do we reinstate them afterwards?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their important amendments on disability adaptations. This is a crucial issue, and the Government have a duty to find the correct balance again between ensuring that disability adaptations are available to tenants and considering the significant impact that some provisions could have on our landlords. Amendment 133, which proposes an obligation for landlords to grant permission for home adaptations following a local authority assessment under the Equality Act 2010, rightly highlights the importance of accessibility. However, we must also consider the practical and financial implications. Landlords, particularly those with smaller portfolios or those who operate on very tight margins, are already contending with a range of rising costs and regulatory pressures. Although the amendment’s intention is clear and commendable, the Government, we believe, must ensure that any new duty is accompanied by adequate support mechanisms so that landlords are not forced to absorb potentially substantial costs that could threaten the viability of their business or the quality of their housing stock. Amendment 178 would allow tenants to undertake minor adaptations without seeking landlords’ consent. This is not merely a modest proposal—it raises some serious questions. Although “minor adaptation” may sound innocuous, this interpretation is highly subjective. One tenant’s minor change may in reality be a significant alteration that affects a property’s structure, aesthetics or marketability. We must be clear that even small, cumulative changes can lead to a loss of value, future repair costs or regulatory complications for the landlord. Properties not designed or built to accommodate such modification may be especially vulnerable. This amendment risks creating confusion, undermining landlord confidence and ultimately reducing the availability of homes to rent, particularly in lower-cost segments of the market. Landlords must have clarity, and they must be protected from unintended consequences. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, what happens when the tenant leaves, and who pays for reinstating the property? Amendment 191, which seeks to prohibit discrimination against prospective tenants requiring adaptations, addresses an issue of genuine concern. We support the principle of tackling discrimination wherever it occurs; however, we must also recognise that landlords will reasonably assess the suitability of their properties and the cost implications of meeting specific needs. To avoid placing landlords in an impossible position, any new obligations must be underpinned by clear guidance and, where necessary, financial support. I urge the Minister to bring forward some proposals before Report that genuinely balance the rights of disabled tenants with the realities that landlords face. If we are to ensure that homes are both accessible and available for disabled people, we must avoid shifting the full cost burden on to landlords, particularly without due process, oversight or compensation. The aim should be a system that is fair, proportionate and sustainable for all the parties involved.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments relating to home disability adaptations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments. Amendment 133 seeks to require landlords to permit home disability adaptations when these have been recommended in a local authority home assessment. The Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled tenants, but I recognise that such rights are not always easy to enforce in practice. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need. However, I do not consider this amendment to be the right way to achieve that. In particular, there are significant risks to introducing a new requirement linked to home assessments. These assessments are carried out by local authorities as part of the means-tested disabled facilities grant process. The amendment would therefore create a two-tier system and could make it harder for people who are not eligible for the disabled facilities grant to access adaptations. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we recognise how important those home adaptations are to make sure that older and disabled people live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. I have seen at first hand, as I know she has, the real difference that these adaptations can make. That is why the Government have awarded an £86 million in-year uplift to the disabled facilities grant for 2024-25, bringing the total funding to £711 million. That increased funding will allow more eligible people to make vital improvements to their home, allowing them to live more independent lives and reducing hospitalisations. The Government have also confirmed that amount for 2025-26. To ensure that the disabled facilities grant is as effective as possible, we also continue to keep different aspects of the grant under review. For example, we are currently reviewing the suitability of the £30,000 upper limit. I have known cases where, because of the scale of the adaptations that are necessary and the impact of inflation on construction work, that needs to be reviewed. The Government are also reviewing the allocations formula for DFG to ensure that funding is aligned with local needs. We will consult during 2025 on a new approach, with a view to implementation as soon as possible after the consultation.

19:00:00

The Bill will make a substantial difference to the experience of disabled people in the private rented sector in relation to home adaptations. Abolishing Section 21 will give tenants greater confidence to request adaptations and challenge unreasonable refusals, while the PRS landlord ombudsman will offer a new route of redress for tenants that may be quicker, cheaper and less adversarial than the courts. Discussion of these matters during the passage of the Bill has prompted us to look at whether we can do even more to support disabled renters. As noble Lords may be aware, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning recently wrote to the MPs who tabled amendments on this issue in the other place to set out what further action the Government will be taking. I have sent out copies of that letter, but if anybody who wants one has not received one, I ask them to let me know.

One barrier is the lack of knowledge among landlords, tenants and agents. The Bill includes a power to require landlords to provide a written statement of terms to new tenants, to provide information about the tenancy and both parties’ responsibilities. Subject to drafting and scrutiny of the secondary legislation, we plan to mandate that the statement sets out the duty on landlords, under the Equality Act 2010, not to reasonably refuse disability adaptation requests from tenants. In addition, we intend to work closely with the sector, including organisations representing disabled people, to deliver a programme of communication and engagement to further raise awareness so that all parties are aware of their rights and obligations in relation to adaptations.

We also believe that there is a value in developing enhanced guidance. The Government will therefore engage with key organisations in the sector to update and strengthen guidance to help all parties navigate the current system effectively; for example, helping landlords and tenants to understand what constitutes “reasonable” for adaptation requests. Existing measures in the Bill, and these further commitments, will be a more appropriate and effective way of supporting disabled tenants. These avoid the significant risk of negative unintended consequences presented by this amendment. As a result, I ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.

That is a very positive response. Can we have that in writing, please, to save us from going through Hansard, as to those further measures that the Government intend to take? Will they be in the Bill or in guidance?

I will provide in writing all that I have just outlined. Amendment 178 seeks to allow private rented sector tenants to carry out disability adaptations to their homes without first obtaining consent from their landlord if the cost of these adaptations is below a threshold set in regulation. I agree that the Government should seek to address barriers preventing disabled tenants getting the home adaptations that they require. However, this amendment is not the right way to achieve it. The amendment defines which disability adaptations are classed as minor solely by reference to cost. This would not capture a range of other factors—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—that a responsible landlord would need to consider when deciding whether to permit alterations. These factors could include interactions with building regulation requirements—a very important set of requirements on landlords—the need for consent from third parties and how easy it will be to return the property to its original condition. As many of these factors will be dependent on the features of each individual property, it would not be possible to define “minor adaptations” in a way that works effectively for all housing in a private rented sector as diverse as ours. Given the challenge in defining which adaptations are minor, it is likely that some disabled tenants would make genuine mistakes, for the best reasons, and carry out adaptations that were not in scope of the legislation. If successfully challenged by landlords in the courts, this could result in negative consequences, such as being ordered to pay damages to remove the adaptation. The risk of this happening could deter tenants from exercising such a right. This amendment would also create a new right for tenants alongside the existing obligation on landlords under the Equality Act 2010 not to refuse consent for disability-related improvement. That could make the system more confusing and more difficult for tenants to navigate. Therefore, the amendment would not be an effective way of supporting disabled tenants and could even make things worse. The Government are already taking strong action on this through the existing measures in the Bill and the further commitments that I have set out. Amendment 191 seeks to extend the rental discrimination measures in the Bill to persons requiring home adaptations. We recognise very much the important issue that this amendment raises and agree strongly that people with disabilities should not face discrimination when accessing the private rented sector; nor should they be unreasonably refused the adaptations that they require. We hope that the transformative reforms to the private rented sector delivered through the Bill will make a substantial difference to support disabled tenants. The abolition of Section 21 and the new PRS ombudsman address the two key barriers identified by the 2024 report of the former Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee: retaliatory eviction and access to redress. Disabled people are, however, already afforded the full protection from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. As part of this, landlords and agents are forbidden from victimising or discriminating against a person based on a disability in relation to the offer of a tenancy, the terms on which a tenancy is offered or their general treatment of that person. Expanding the Bill’s rental discrimination provisions in this manner would create an unnecessary dual system, increasing complexity and causing confusion, leading to an overlap of responsibilities between local authorities and the courts.

Can I just come back on the reinstatement issue? Perhaps there was something in that response in the other place that the Minister referred to which would have covered this. Everybody is at one in wishing to provide people with the best possible circumstances to enjoy their tenancies; if that requires adaptations, so be it. Statistically, it is very important. However, some of these adaptations can be very substantial. If you have a lift, you have to cut the floor out from ground floor to first floor to take the machinery out; structurally you have to leave the lift shaft. That is one example. Bathrooms and stairlifts are others. If you take them away, they leave huge holes. Does the Minister have a response to that? How will it be repaired so that a landlord can resell or relet the property?

I understand the noble Lord’s point about reinstatement. However, the property being adapted will usually extend the length of the tenancy, which is one of the initial objectives. This already happens where a tenant asks for a home adaptation to be carried out. That will usually mean that they will extend the length of their tenancy. If the tenant does decide to move out, the landlord can seek someone else who would benefit from that adaptation. I will come back to the noble Lord regarding his point about any necessary reinstatement costs. Normally, landlords will be able to find another tenant who would benefit from the adaptation that has been made to the property.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, and I look forward to seeing her letter and the various assurances that she has given us today. This amendment stemmed from the fact that refusal by landlords has been a major obstacle in the private sector to disabled people who are trying to get adaptations, and it seems that there are a number of measures within the Bill that will really start to tackle this problem. The Equality Act requirements have not prevented landlords refusing tenants who have requested adaptations. As the Minister says, the business of reinstatement is not always necessary. I admit that some hoists might need to be reinstated, but there is a huge shortage of rental places available for people with even minor disabilities. Bathroom improvements and stairlifts can be a great benefit and make the property much more in demand, because they are in very short supply. I accept that some reinstatement may well be necessary at some stage, but you need only to look at how much demand there is for these properties before you think that you would necessarily have to reinstate them after somebody with a disability has left. The fact that the tenants have a longer period of tenure as a result is also an important factor. The point of this amendment was that getting it under the disabled facilities grants, meaning that local councils would have their inspection under some form of supervision, was meant to be a safeguard to ensure that things were not being done in an ad hoc or an unsafe way. I am very pleased to hear that disabled facilities grants are being boosted, because the fact that there has been so little money in them for so long has been a major impediment to getting these improvements. I look forward to reading the Minister’s assurances in the letter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 133 withdrawn.

Amendment 134

Moved by

134: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause— “Right to request Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) installation(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that— (a) a tenant may request the installation of Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) at the dwelling-house if the tenant asks to do so in accordance with this section and the landlord consents;(b) such consent is not to be unreasonably refused by the landlord;(c) the landlord is to give or refuse consent in writing on or before the 28th day after the date of the request, except as provided by subsections (2) to (5).(2) Where the landlord reasonably requests further information from the tenant about the proposed FTTP installation on or before the 28th day after the date of the tenant’s request the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent until the 7th day after the date on which the tenant provides any further information that the landlord requests where the following circumstances apply—(a) the installation of FTTP at the dwelling-house would require the landlord to obtain the consent of a superior landlord under the terms of a superior tenancy, and(b) the landlord seeks the consent of the superior landlord on or before the 28th day after the date of the tenant’s request.(3) The landlord may delay giving or refusing consent until the 7th day after the date on which the landlord receives consent or refusal from the superior landlord.(4) Where the landlord and the tenant agree that the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent, the landlord may delay until whatever date is agreed between the landlord and the tenant.(5) Where more than one of subsections (2) to (4) apply, the landlord may delay until the latest date to which the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent under any of the subsections.(6) This section applies to every assured tenancy other than a tenancy of social housing, within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment introduces a right for tenants to request Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) installation, similar to the right to request keeping a pet, by ensuring that landlord consent for FTTP installation cannot be unreasonably refused and that decisions are made within a specified timeframe. This provision is intended to reduce delays in broadband infrastructure improvements in rented properties.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 134, I will also speak to Amendment 135. Both are also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Best. I am grateful to Openreach for raising this issue with me, and to Generation Rent and the Good Things Foundation for their support. These amendments would introduce the right for tenants to directly request a full-fibre broadband installation. Tenants would be able to request from their landlord directly, who would have to decide within a specified timeframe. Landlord consent would not be able to be unreasonably refused. Broadband was historically delivered through electrical signals in copper phone lines, but this technology faced limitations, including vulnerability to weather and limited information-carrying capabilities. A demand for connecting multiple devices grew. Copper networks have increasingly been replaced with fibre-optic cables, enabling more reliable broadband and faster download speeds for households and businesses across the UK. Four years ago, less than a quarter of British homes and offices could access full-fibre broadband. Today, around seven in 10 premises, or 20.7 million, have access to full fibre, and gigabit-capable network coverage has increased from 40% in 2021 to 83% last year. This progress has been commendable, but there are still challenges to building this vital infrastructure, which is why I tabled these amendments to resolve an increasingly pressing matter. Although the provision of ultrafast broadband has been mandated in new builds since 2022, tenants in older residential properties have to rely on freeholder permission to upgrade existing copper to full fibre. This can pose significant challenges to the provision of gigabit-capable broadband to residents, if landlords are difficult to identify or are unresponsive to requests for access. It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of multi-dwelling units across the country whose tenants could be disfranchised from the benefits of gigabit-capable broadband. Although there are existing rights to enter communal areas in flats to repair the ageing copper network, providers cannot use these same rights to upgrade tenants to the latest technology, despite the benefits it brings. Although the telecommunications code was amended in 2022 to help broadband providers get access to multi-dwelling units by providing a tribunal process, this route is often very ineffective, takes a great deal of time and cost, and results in properties still being bypassed. The law also allows providers to apply to the tribunal only when a tenant has asked for a broadband service, but if the building does not already have a fibre network in place, there is no service available for the tenant to request. As a result, tenants, often in lower-income areas, will be left with slower, outdated broadband options, restricting their ability to access vital public services, work remotely, and access online education.

19:15:00

Amendments 134 and 135 would enable all network operators across the country to play their role in tackling the digital divide caused by a failure to enable renters to access full-fibre broadband. These amendments would provide a solution to this urgent and pressing matter, and there is no reason why someone in a third-floor flat should have less opportunity than someone in a terraced home.

My amendments to introduce the right to request full fibre installation from the landlord would empower more households to access faster, more reliable broadband sooner. It is a cost-neutral lever the Government can pull now to help close the digital divide, while supporting their commendable digital inclusion aims, and ensure that premises across the country are not left behind, with their tenants unfairly disadvantaged socially and economically. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and wonder whether she has alternative solutions for addressing this problem. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 134 and 135, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, as has the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. The amendments seek to address a very real problem, as the noble Baroness described. Some renters are being prevented from getting advanced broadband because their landlord has not given consent for the installation of fibre to the premises, or FTTP. Openreach, by far the biggest provider, estimates that over 900,000 households in private rented accommodation are affected. Access to fast, reliable broadband is vital to make a GP appointment, to use a bank account, to communicate with friends and family, and to shop online, and it is essential for home working. Today, adequate digital connectivity is almost as important a service as water or electricity. My home was upgraded from a hopelessly unreliable copper network to FTTP broadband, with greatly improved access to all the wonders of the internet. Why would any landlord fail to approve the installation of the necessary digital infrastructure? After all, better broadband would make their property easier to let and increase its value at no cost to the landlord. It seems that this is not a problem of landlords rejecting requests—for example, because they wrongly fear the process will be disruptive. Rather, it is because the landlord is hard to identify or simply fails to respond. The landlord may be based overseas. They may simply not be bothered. The amendment would overcome this problem by giving the tenant the right to make a request for fibre to the premises—a request which must be considered within a fixed timescale and cannot be unreasonably withheld, just like the new renters’ right to request permission for keeping a pet. Full-fibre broadband is mandatory for new homes. Landlord consent is likely to be obtained relatively easily from social housing providers, but some private sector renters are missing out unnecessarily. This needs to change. Meanwhile, as well as representations from Openreach on the need for this amendment, I have heard from two other installers of fibre and the Independent Networks Cooperative Association—INCA. These have expressed some concerns. They fear that avoiding the need for the landlord’s participation in the installation process would give unfair competitive advantage to Openreach, which already has an engagement with the premises through its provision of the old copper wire system from yesteryear. The SME network providers are worried that, because Openreach is best able to install fibre without landlord consent, the amendment could give it more of a monopoly. The smaller providers point to the value of their approach, which involves them forming good relations with landlords: bringing the landlord on board ensures they know where best to drill holes for new cables, install wires across common areas, satisfy building safety regulations, et cetera. While not addressing the problem of digital exclusion caused by unco-operative or absentee landlords, the case for ensuring a level playing field for competing providers also deserves attention. If the Government are minded to accept this amendment—I hope they will, for the sake of the tenants who can otherwise be denied all the huge benefits of fibre to the premises—new regulatory measures to accompany the amendment need to take on board the SME providers’ perspective. With these comments, I am delighted to support the amendments.

My Lords, I also support these amendments. I have one small niggle, which I will get to, but I live at the end of a very ropey copper wire system, so I yearn for the day when broadband reaches up into the Midlands—or, as it is known down here, the north. My understanding is that Openreach, in the areas where it is installing, currently includes a building free of charge in its rollout programme. That could change, and it is not clear whether alternative network providers may charge for installing. The situation is not clear at the moment and is, of course, subject to change. Therefore, would the Minister consider it right to oblige landlords to take on the cost if one is imposed?

My Lords, I rise to give my support for Amendments 134 and 135 in the names of my noble friend Lady Janke and the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Best, who, in his usual style, has added some quality dimensions to this discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has given his usual nudge about something we might have forgotten. In short, these amendments offer a simple, cost-neutral solution to a growing problem. Too many renters are still denied access to fast, reliable broadband, and there is a real risk of growing the digital divide as a result. The ability to work remotely and to access education and vital public services are basic needs in the modern world. Reliable broadband is not a luxury; it is a necessity as fundamental as water or electricity in our lives today, yet over 900,000 households are being left behind. This is often simply because, as has been said clearly, landlords are hard to reach for requests for fibre installation or are just not bothered. These amendments would introduce a clear, fair process, ensuring that tenants could request full-fibre broadband and receive a timely response. This is not about forcing landlords to pay but removing a passive barrier that is harming renters’ access to full-fibre broadband. It is good to know that these measures are backed by many organisations, such as Generation Rent and the Good Things Foundation, and offer a cost-neutral way for the Government to improve digital inclusion, particularly for low-income renters. Importantly, yes, landlords benefit too, with fibre infrastructure clearly adding a long-term rental value to their properties. This is a fair and practical step to connect more people and strengthen our digital infrastructure, so we strongly support these amendments—no surprise there—and urge colleagues to do the same. We look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I will say a few words, particularly in response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Cromwell about loading costs on to the landlords. The problem is that, if you are in the countryside, they want to charge a huge amount to get it to you. We have one or two cottages and, to get a fibre cable out to us, we were being quoted £15,000 at one point. We would be connecting about five properties at the end of it—rented properties and another house. The other complication is that, if one of them is a business, for example, there are different rules on what they are allowed to charge. A lot of this is in the original regulations telling BT and the other networks what they had to do, particularly when BT was trying to block other people having access to the houses. There are a lot of unfairnesses in the legislation, which Ofcom never dealt with properly. I am not sure where it has got to now, but there are lots of little wars going on. It can be very expensive: it is not just a matter of connecting something to a roadside, as it is in the city. If you are going to be running it half a mile or so, you will find that you can be loaded with enormous costs, and that they want five-year leases and so on. Sometimes, you can tell that the price will be slashed soon, because they suddenly make a big sales pitch, trying to get you to take on a five-year commitment to five grand a year; that is the best sign that they are about to roll it out in a couple of years’ time. So things are not quite as simple as they seem.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for bringing Amendments 134 and 135 to the attention of the Committee today. These rightly highlight the growing importance of fibre-to-premises broadband and the many benefits that come with high-speed internet connectivity. In today’s world, where remote working has become increasingly common and where online applications are used to complete everyday tasks such as banking, a fast, reliable internet connection is essential. Applications that require real-time communication, such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams, not to mention watching the odd video, depend on high-speed connectivity to function effectively. For the working day to run smoothly, a strong and stable connection is essential. We are all familiar with the dreadful “buffer face”, that puzzled expression we adopt as we wait for our devices to respond. What should be a simple task can become an exercise in frustration, all because of poor internet infrastructure. As many noble Lords have mentioned, a large group of people are excluded because of a lack of fast fibre. Fibre to the premises is a significant step forward. It is far less susceptible to weather-related interference, and it offers future-proof capabilities. We are supportive of ensuring everyone has access to such high-speed broadband, and it is essential if we are to have a successful, dynamic and modern economy. However, there is a need to consider some of the complications, as the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have pointed out. As the noble Earl said, rural broadband is a big issue: while many broadband providers offer contracts with no upfront installation fees, the reality is that some properties require additional work, such as laying new ducts or trenching. For some home owners, this may lead to excess construction charges, which can range from a few hundred to several thousand pounds. How will this be addressed? While installing in a stand-alone dwelling may be relatively simple, there is the issue of multi-dwelling units such as blocks of flats, which a number of noble Lords have raised. There are significant additional complexities there, such as the potential logistics if every single flat tenant could claim to have their own separate installation; ensuring that the building’s integrity and things such as fire safety are maintained in that building; and the impact on other flat owners and so forth. For multi-dwelling units, this needs to be done on a system basis, working with the owners and the tenants. There is a need to make the process simpler and to ensure landlord engagement. It is essential that the Government look to address these issues, ensuring that unaffordable costs do not fall unfairly on landlords or tenants and that the complexities of installation in multi-dwelling units are addressed. The Government should actively promote awareness of initiatives that may help to offset these costs and find solutions to complexities. Clear communication and guidance can also help property owners better understand their existing infrastructure and anticipate potential expenses. The Government should consider how best to promote fast-fibre internet with affordable, practical solutions, looking to address potential costs and to deliver those practical solutions to the more complex multi-dwelling units.

19:30:00

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her amendments regarding the right for private rented sector tenants to request the installation of telecommunications apparatus, and the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Cromwell and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments on this group. I completely understand the reason why the noble Baroness raised this important issue. Digital infrastructure absolutely underpins the UK economy. It is a key driver of productivity and will only grow in importance over the coming decade—there is definitely no going back on this. That is why the Government are committed to delivering nationwide gigabit coverage by 2030, reaching a minimum of 99% of premises in the UK. No one can now deny that digital infrastructure is as vital as all the other utilities we expect to have access to. As of March this year, just under 87% of premises in the UK can access a gigabit-capable connection. But the Government are very aware of concerns around the speed of deployment in the multiple dwelling units, such as blocks of flats, that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, just referred to. Amendment 134 would introduce an implied right for tenants to make a request in writing for the installation of fibre to the premises—fibre optic cables. These cables are capable of providing gigabit broadband directly to the home. The amendment would provide that landlords may not unreasonably refuse such a request and that they must respond to the request within 28 days. Amendment 135 sets out the formalities of such a request and provides circumstances in which it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse it, including where the landlord would be in breach of an agreement with a superior landlord. It also sets out how these provisions may be enforced. These amendments are intended to reduce delays in deploying broadband infrastructure improvements in rented properties. However, the Government are aware that issues with the speed of deployment in urban areas have related to multiple dwelling units in particular, such as blocks of flats, rather than the rental sector in general. The amendments may not address the problem of slow deployment in multiple dwelling units. For example, leasehold flats in multiple dwelling units that are not rented, which outnumber rented flats within those units, would not be covered by these amendments. Further, leasehold flats in multiple dwelling units that are rented would not necessarily benefit from the right to request fibre to the premises because of the requirement for superior landlord agreement. We therefore believe that further consideration of how such an intervention should be targeted is required before any intervention is undertaken. We understand that network operators have strongly differing views on whether and how government should intervene here—points mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cromwell—and they have concerns that any such intervention could have unintended consequences. In particular, there are concerns that intervention without proper consideration may impact the telecoms network operator market in such a way that could harm competition and investment and, in fact, slow down deployment rather than speed it up. Given these matters, we do not consider the amendments to be appropriate. However, I assure noble Lords that that is not to say the Government are turning a blind eye to the issue. We recognise that more could be done to ensure that residents living in blocks of flats are not left behind as the rollout of gigabit broadband continues at pace across the UK. We are receiving positive responses to our work with local authorities and housing associations to facilitate deployment in social housing multiple dwelling units. Officials are also actively considering options to identify what would be the best interventions to facilitate gigabit broadband deployment in privately owned multiple dwelling units. We are actively working on that. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Errol, about the cost to landlords and the potential costs in rural areas of implementing this, I do not have an answer. I will talk to my colleagues in DSIT and come back to the noble Lords on those important points. I hope that my words provide reassurance to the noble Baroness that the Government are seriously considering what we consider to be a very important issue. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendments.

The Minister said, significantly, that the Government are going to connect 99% of premises. That is not enough, looking forwards, because a lot of people sometimes move around, travelling. Nowadays, when you are not in a premises, you rely on broadband connections for satnavs and perhaps doing something remotely because you are travelling but need to connect with work over broadband. We need to cover the whole country, not just premises. That was the big flaw in the earlier work by these operators. I ask the Minister not to make the same mistake again. We should not forget that BT still owns Openreach. Even though it has been legally separated, it is not completed yet. So the Minister should beware of what she is told.

The noble Earl makes an excellent point. Anyone who has travelled on the east coast main line will be incredibly frustrated about the dipping in and out of the broadband signal, and if you go through the Hatfield Tunnel on the A1, you will lose your broadband there as well. So he makes an important point. The Bill is of course about housing, which is why we are considering the housing aspects of it, but I am sure my colleagues in DSIT are very aware of the absolute need to make sure that we have good broadband connection wherever we are in the country.

I thank the Minister for her comments, and I am very interested to hear how the Government will move forward on this. As they have rejected this amendment, I would be very interested to see what measures will be taken. Whatever reassurances we have in here, there are still large numbers of people who are digitally excluded and, as other Members have said, they are entirely reliant on broadband connection for so many things, whether it is medical appointments, work or for economic reasons. It is a real inequality and a great exclusion if they cannot have reliable connections. I hope that this will be a priority and that the Minister will inform us—perhaps in a letter—about what developments are taking place and by when. She mentioned some dates and I should be interested to see them. With those reassurances, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 134 withdrawn.

Amendment 135 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.17 pm.