Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I realise that this is a wide-ranging Bill, but I want only to deal with one small aspect of it, which the Minister kindly referred to in her opening remarks: the value of allowing tenants to keep pets as the general standard. She was kind enough to mention the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, as having given her valuable advice on this topic, so I shall be interested to hear what they have to say later in this debate and interested too to see whether any of my comments chime with what they say.

My first interest in this was when I was an MP—heaven alone knows how many years ago now—but I remember feeling saddened and indeed angered by the blanket refusal of many landlords to allow someone to keep a beloved pet. I can remember one constituent who refused to go into suitable accommodation without their pet. Others would succumb to this because they were desperate and had to give up their pet. There has been, over these many years, a lot of hidden unhappiness, needless unhappiness, for people who so value the companionship of animals. I think we now realise more clearly than ever before the mental and physical health which can accrue from having a pet. I hope that this is a good moment in which to set the matter straight.

Sadly, it seems that there are still many landlords who, without this Bill, will not allow pets to be kept. I was startled by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home saying that the second-most common reason for people giving pets back to it related to housing. It added that only a very small percentage of landlords ever indicated that they were happy about pets being kept. There remains a great deal of work to be done on this score.

I understand that there are those who worry about the possible unhappy implications of very noisy dogs, damage to furniture and perhaps aggressive dogs, but these can be exaggerated. In any case, the idea of insurance being required, if the landlord so wishes, is a very sensible approach. I hope that that will help towards sensible pet ownership.

On the other hand, I have some reservations about the adequacy of the two clauses which deal with this—Clauses 12 and 13. For a start, it is obviously proper that landlords should not withhold their consent unreasonably, but there is no indication whatever about what unreasonable behaviour might constitute. I know full well that it is impossible to list every eventuality in the Bill, or even in delegated legislation, but I am concerned that there seems to be no way of dealing with this. The Minister may have something in mind: perhaps some official guidance which is outside the law but which gives clear indications. I would not expect to deal with anything so detailed tonight, but I would be very happy if we could have correspondence on this matter and these other matters at a later stage or, indeed, have that unusual and valued thing, an actual meeting.

In addition, I am concerned that we are creating another unfairness because social housing is not included. I can understand why if we are not dealing with social housing, but it is going to look rather odd if we have a right in one sector that is not available in another, very comparable sector which, for the average person, will seem to be exactly the same. I wonder whether there is any way in which we can deal with that issue.

I have some reservations on these matters, but, overall, I am delighted that we have at last got where I would like to have got—what?—50 years ago. Anyway, better late than never.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 124 is in my name, and I declared relevant interests earlier. The amendment is very simple: it is about putting social housing tenants in the same place as those in the private rental sector after the Bill has become an Act.

I received a copy of a letter that the Dogs Trust sent to the Deputy Prime Minister in March this year in which it proposed exactly the same thing. Looking at the crib sheet for the answer that came back, I see that the first part is commendable in that it says: “The Government understands that pet ownership can be hugely beneficial, bringing joy to owners and supporting mental and physical health”. I can only agree with that. At Second Reading and in various parts of the process of this Bill, it has been eloquently and frequently said how important pets are and—speaking as a Scottish landlord, both personally and as a charitable trustee— I very much believe that and strongly support the concept of there being a rebuttable presumption that pets are allowed where people are renting properties.

The letter went on to make two points. The first point was that the Government did not feel that what amounted to Amendment 124 was correct, because social housing tenants was a separate policy area. Of course, it is all still MHCLG, and I do feel that someone standing at a bus stop in middle England would scratch their head about that particular one: why on earth should someone living in social housing be in a different place to someone living in the private rental sector? It is a distinction without a difference.

In the second part of the letter, it went on to give various reasons why it might be reasonable, within social housing, to say no to a tenant who wanted a pet. It all amounted to a series of reasons why it might not be reasonable for a pet to be allowed in a particular property, but of course that is already how the Bill is drafted: it is possible for a landlord to say that a particular pet or series of pets should not be allowed in rented accommodation, as long as that is reasonable. It is reasonable for a landlord to say no, so I do not quite see what the logical force of that is, because the social housing sector would retain that right to say no. I therefore urge the Minister to reach across the corridor at MHCLG and accept what has become a very popular amendment.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have close connections with various animal charities, in particular as a vice-president of the RSPCA nationally and as president of one of its branches.

I too want to speak to Amendment 124, eloquently introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I see no logic whatever: to make a distinction in the way that apparently has been done is what I call Civil Service short-sightedness, and I strongly disapprove of it. I can see no logical reason whatever for treating people who are renting their properties differently simply because they live in a slightly different type of property. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at this and come to a different conclusion.

I will broaden this out slightly to look at the various amendments in this group. It seems to me that while the heart is in the right place—and I give due credit to the Government for introducing this general right to have a pet, for which I have long campaigned—the Bill fails slightly in not laying down the circumstances clearly enough, so that it leaves the opportunity for some landlords to squeeze past what is clearly intended. On the other hand, it could make for some difficulties if the tenants themselves are unreasonable.

I suggest that the Minister look at bringing forward a code of conduct that would act as a guide for all the varying points which have been made hitherto—if you like, a “highway code”, not necessarily having the force of law, to which one could look for guidance where these tricky problems arise. I hope that this will commend itself to the Minister.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 124A in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester. He apologises to the House for not being here. He had hoped to be here, but a long-standing commitment has prevented him from being so.

Of course, my noble friend Lord Black is absolutely right that pets can be extremely beneficial and are a great asset in many households. However, my noble friend Lord Howard is also right in saying that there needs to be a balance; there cannot just be an open door for tenants to have a pet as and when they want, however badly or well that pet behaves.

Amendment 124A refers especially to cats. I was actually quite surprised that my noble friend Lord Black did not mention cats. He mentioned dogs—he gave them a good write-up—but he did not mention cats because he probably knew that I would make the point that cats are killers. They have many assets and I love them dearly, but let out of a house and loose, they are killers. They kill between 160 million and 270 million animals every year, a quarter of those being birds.

I wonder how many of your Lordships woke up early on Sunday morning and listened to nature’s greatest symphony, the dawn chorus. It was International Dawn Chorus Day. We like small birds—songbirds. They are hugely under threat from all sorts of areas, but they are also under threat from cats. There are certain measures that cat owners can take to make their pet less harmful to other species, but the Brits are not terribly good at doing that. In fact, in Germany they have found that some of the Germans are not terribly good at that, either; they have actually made an order in some parts of Germany that during the summer, you have to keep your cat indoors all the time.

Amendment 124A is very tightly drawn. It allows a landlord to say no to a tenant having a cat if the property is in an area designated by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—I remember speaking quite a lot during the progress of that Bill through Parliament—or close to a designated area. In other words, what we are really talking about here are key nature sites: the SSSIs and national nature reserves. The amendment is also carefully worded, in that one is not allowed to have a cat if the property is within a mile of one of those sites. Why a mile? The reason is that the research undertaken by the University of Reading and the University of Exeter at the request of SongBird Survival has found that cats can roam up to roughly 1,400 metres, which is just about a mile. Through their research, they also found that urban cats behave differently from what they call “peri-urban” cats, which are much more likely to stray further and have a different attitude and natural instincts from cats in urban areas, because of the restrictions of such areas.

It is entirely reasonable to encourage landlords to say yes, but equally, it is entirely reasonable to allow them to say no in certain circumstances. Nature in this country needs not only protecting but encouraging. One of the small ways to encourage nature is to say no to a tenant having a cat in an area that is very close to or part of an SSSI or a national nature reserve. That is the right step: protection of nature rather than the will of an individual.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

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

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

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


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

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion A agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, before we turn to Motion B, I remind your Lordships that, during a Division in particular, I need a clear sight of the clerk at all times. It is therefore strictly forbidden for any Peer to move between the Table and me so that I cannot see the clerk.

Motion B

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will address Amendment 18, Motion C1 in place of Motion C. To recap very briefly on the substance of the amendment, the Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property fails to sell.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me for interrupting, but we were on Motion B and I was under the impression that the noble Lord wanted to speak on Motion B, but it appears that he has gone to Motion C. Am I correct?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My mistake, I will sit down and restart later.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

Oh, they are in the same group. It is not my afternoon, is it? Pray continue.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

We could set this to music if the noble Baroness wishes. Where did I get to? I will not start again, the House has been too patient, but I will start halfway through.

The Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell. They are not allowed to re-let it for 12 months. The property must stand empty and unrented for that 12 months. The amendment does not quibble with that punitive intention of the Bill. It accepts that, in order to prevent a few bad landlords trying to abuse the system, all property, belonging to all landlords, that fails to sell will stand empty and be impossible to live in for anyone seeking rental accommodation. The amendment simply sets that punitive period at six months and requires the landlord to furnish proof to a court of a genuine and reasonable, including reasonable pricing, attempt to sell the property during that time.

The House of Commons debate on this amendment acknowledged that the landlord being hit with 12 months of no income, along with the costs of their property standing empty for a year, is a problem. However, this was considered to be “relatively minor” and simply an

“inconvenience … to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell”.

It was claimed that it is “far too easy” for

“any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict”

to abuse the proposed period of six months, and that

“landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; cols. 651, 646, 652.]

I am sorry to say that no facts were presented, quantified or examined, and no evidence was provided, just these dismissive anti-landlord assertions.