Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

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Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to prevent consent from being withdrawn by a landlord once it has been granted.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

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

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?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

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?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

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?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

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?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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 Earl of Erroll (CB)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

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.