Renters’ Rights Bill

Johanna Baxter Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to this important debate and speak in favour of this Bill. Before I do so, let me take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) for his excellent speech. As the Member for Harlow, I live in a town full of Spurs supporters, so he is not overly popular at the moment, but my chief of staff is a fellow Seagull, so he will be pleased to show my hon. Friend support.

This is a really important debate to me, because Harlow constituency has nearly 6,000 households in the private rented sector and suffered from the previous Government’s ill-thought-out permitted development legislation. However, like many people who have already spoken, this debate also has personal resonance for me as somebody who worked for two years at a homelessness charity in Harlow called Streets2Homes. My role was generally to go out, sometimes into woodland and industrial areas, to find reported rough sleepers, get them registered with our charity and help get them off the street and, quite often, into the rented sector. That is why I personally welcome this legislation, which rejects the concept of no-fault evictions, and am looking forward to voting for it later.

The experience of working for a homelessness charity can often be challenging, but sometimes it can be baffling as well. It is unbelievable to me that in my previous role, I found it easier to house someone with an alcohol or drug addiction than someone with a dog. That includes guide dogs—we had one in this Chamber earlier—as well as emotional support dogs and assistance dogs. Those are animals who help people cope with and manage medical conditions, so that is not the kind of barrier that people with those conditions should be facing. It is like saying that we will not allow people with an inhaler for their asthma to have a house. While at conference this year, I had the opportunity to visit the Guide Dogs stall and talk to the wonderful people who support that wonderful charity. They highlighted this issue to me, and I was appalled by the lack of awareness of it. It is an issue faced every day by people who are already at a disadvantage; we should be making their journey into a home easier, not putting up walls and barriers against them.

As a dog owner myself—I am not sure I am going to introduce my dog to Jennie just yet, because he might get a bit carried away—I emphasise how important having a pet is to a family, and the emotional bond that they create. Being pushed to choose between a roof over your head and your family is not a choice anyone should have to make. Here is a statistic—

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Vince]

I will.

[Johanna Baxter]

Does my hon. Friend agree that once consent for a pet is granted, that consent needs to remain for the duration of the tenancy, and that we could strengthen the Bill by making that explicit in it?

[Chris Vince]

Ultimately, I want to do what I can to support people who have pets in their home, and my hon. Friend is right to say that we do not want people to face the anxiety of potentially being in a situation where a pet could be forced out of their home.

As I was about to say, 62% of homeowners in the UK have a pet, and as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), we are a nation of pet lovers. Let us be very clear: this is not about punishing landlords, and never has been; this is about protecting tenants’ basic rights. There needs to be clear guidance on what reasonable pet ownership means, and I am glad that the Bill recognises that.

Furthermore, 57,340 households were threatened with homelessness due to the end of an assured shorthold tenancy, which is an increase of 4.6% on 2022-23. People cannot be treated with such a dismissal. Some 21% of renters live in what we refer to as non-decent homes—homes that are not fit for living in—and this is somehow allowed. Renters are not and should not be treated in a lesser way than homeowners. They should be entitled to the same security in their lives as homeowners.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Johanna Baxter Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and saving me the trouble of doing so. Absolutely, landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be.

I have heard from tenants who are terrified of being evicted under section 21, with landlords rushing to act before the law changes and evicting with absolutely no excuses. I have heard from renters who feel like they are in a David and Goliath battle.

Lords amendment 11 is an attempt to treat pets more harshly. The proposers of the amendment have it wrong. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, tenants with pets are good news for landlords: research shows that their landlords are better off by £3,800 over 12 years thanks to lower vacancy rates and marketing costs for their properties. I would be a landlord who happily took pets.

Amendment 26 requires a criminal standard of proof for a civil matter. In my mind, that is not justice but obstruction. Last week, I met the housing ombudsman service. It told me that one in five calls that it deals with are from people it cannot help: private renters, people in new builds and people in conversions. The system is broken and the scales are tipped too far from our tenants. The Bill must fix that. We need one ombudsman, one law, one standard, one rule: wherever someone lives, if their home is owned by someone else and it is not up to scratch, they should be able to challenge it, get it fixed and live in a decent home. Housing is not just bricks and mortar; it is the foundation of everything else—health, education, family and work. Every renter deserves a home that is safe, warm, and fair.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.

As an animal owner myself—I have two cats—I rise to give voice to the many concerns expressed to me by pet owners across the country. Their concerns relate specifically to Lords amendment 11, which would allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to three weeks’ rent. The amendment was narrowly agreed to on Report in the House of Lords in July, in response to the Government’s decision to remove the right for landlords to require tenants to take out pet damage insurance. Cats Protection has argued that the Government’s decision to remove the provision allowing landlords to request pet-related damage insurance was the right one, as the insurance sector was not ready to meet demand competitively.

The Minister in the Lords outlined many arguments against the pet deposit amendment, including that an extra three weeks’ deposit is unaffordable for many tenants. She also referred to a report commissioned by Battersea Cats & Dogs Home and the University of Huddersfield, which found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. She noted that the Government were

“content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits”,

and I wholly agree.

Cats Protection is also strongly of the view that charging an additional pet deposit is neither necessary nor proportionate. Measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant in the very rare circumstances in which damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit. The amendment could see tenants forced to find up to £1,500 extra for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas. That would mean that those without additional ready funds are priced out of having a pet.

Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency in landlord decisions on what constitutes pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Some landlords may just see the extra fund as an option to withhold more money for standard wear and tear. Damage can be avoided with the use of throws and rugs, for example. I know that Cats Protection and Dogs Trust adopters are always given information on how to provide enrichment activities to keep pets happy. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) would like to take advantage of those to ensure that his terriers do not tear up his carpet.

I am concerned that the amendment will reintroduce the very inequity that the pet provision was designed to remove, putting the price of pet ownership out of reach for many tenants and entrenching geographical inequality. We all know how beneficial pet ownership is not just for the welfare of the animals, but for our wellbeing. “Cats and their stats”, a 2024 Cats Protection report, found that over half a million households who would like a cat do not have one simply because their rental agreement forbids it. I strongly believe that the additional pet deposit should be withdrawn from the Bill; the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet. I will oppose Lords amendment 11, and I encourage colleagues from across the House to do likewise.