Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

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.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to prevent consent from being withdrawn by a landlord once it has been granted.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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

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.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

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.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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—

--- Later in debate ---

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.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

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?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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.