Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Fookes, I want to address the issue of pet ownership. It is one that I have raised a number of times in this House, and I am delighted that the Government are now tackling it.

We are a nation of pet lovers. There are around 13.5 million homes with dogs as pets in the UK and around 12.5 million homes are graced by a cat—mine included. My husband and I have been blessed with the company of several cats—Destino is the incumbent—for 30 years and understand only too well the old adage that a cat is what makes a flat or a house a home. We have always been lucky to own our own home, but the companionship offered by pets should not be a privilege limited only to those who can do so, as the Minister quite rightly said in her opening remarks.

That is becoming a pressing issue as we increasingly become a nation of renters, many of whom want to own a pet cat or dog yet, at the moment, simply cannot. The second most common reason that animals are relinquished to the wonderful Battersea Dogs & Cats Home is housing, with only 8% of private landlords currently listing their property as pet-friendly, while an unacceptable 33% of private landlords who do not currently allow pets in any of their properties say that nothing would persuade them to do so.

Cats Protection’s Cats and Their Stats report in 2024 found that over half a million households who would like to have a cat do not have one because their rental agreements forbid it. As a result, Cats Protection took in the equivalent of three cats each day last year where owners had to make the gut-wrenching decision to give them up. These are not just dry statistics; wanting a pet and being told you cannot have one impacts people’s health and well-being, not least older, often lonely, people for whom a pet is a lifeline.

There are thousands of heartbreaking stories of people taking that most difficult of decisions to give up their beloved pet to a shelter when they cannot find somewhere pet-friendly to live. That includes cats like Zeke, who arrived at Battersea just 24 hours before his first birthday after his owners were faced with that unenviable decision whether to find an alternative rental property that would allow pets or to give up their beloved animal altogether. Take Anna and her husband who, after selling their home, had to find a short-term rental with their newborn son and two cats. That young family found it so difficult to find a landlord who would allow cats that they ended up living in a tiny converted garage.

Pets truly are members of the family. It is hard to overestimate the health benefits that pet ownership brings. Research by Mars Petcare has found that pet ownership saves the NHS around £2.5 billion each year in the UK, with pet owners making 15% fewer visits to a doctor for health reasons. That is partly the result of the physical health benefits of owning a dog but also the result of the significant mental health support that all pets provide.

As the Bill progressed in the other place, we heard arguments opposing the inclusion of the pet provisions due to concerns that pets cause damage to properties, but evidence suggests that these fears are exaggerated. Research commissioned by Battersea with the universities of Huddersfield, Sheffield Hallam and Brunel found that renting to tenants with pets is in fact commercially beneficial for landlords.

I welcome strongly the pet provisions in this Bill which seek to prevent landlords being able unreasonably to refuse a pet request from a tenant. I also recognise that improvements have already been baked into the Bill, including reducing the amount of time that landlords have to respond to a pet request. This change will make a meaningful difference for both tenants and shelter organisations dedicated to rehoming animals.

However, there is room further to strengthen the Bill’s pet provisions to create a fairer balance between the needs and rights of both tenants and landlords. I aim to bring forward proposals to do so in Committee. As has happened in countries such as France and Canada, where similar legislation has been passed, providing guiding principles on what constitutes unreasonable grounds for a landlord’s refusal to a pet request would be a positive step. While no piece of legislation can feasibly detail all scenarios, as my noble friend Lady Fookes outlined earlier, without such guiding principles I am concerned that the legislation will leave loopholes open for landlords, giving too much leeway to deny the majority of pet requests, in turn placing an unnecessary burden on tenants, the ombudsman and ultimately the courts.

I also believe that, once permission for a pet has been granted, it should remain in place for the duration of the tenancy; otherwise, there is a risk of landlords revoking consent later down the line, undermining the stability and security for renters and their pets.

Additionally, while I have no doubt that this legislation will make a real difference for those tenants in situ who wish to acquire a new pet, it will not act as enough of a sea-change for those with existing pets who are looking for a new place to rent, with landlords simply shuffling prospective tenants to the bottom of the list.

I strongly support the pet provision aspects of the Bill because they mark the start of a long-overdue culture shift which will mean that more tenants can own a pet in rented homes, with incalculable benefits not just for their own health and for the pets, but for society as a whole. With more people renting than ever, and more wanting to own a pet, this legislation is a tremendous opportunity to unlock thousands of homes for pet owners. I hope we can make the small necessary amendments to it in Committee to ensure that we deliver for all those who want and deserve that most precious gift in life—the unconditional love of a pet.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

118: Clause 12, page 19, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) the landlord may not review or withdraw consent once given.”

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this important group on pet ownership, which is a subject of real concern and interest to hundreds of thousands of families that live in rented accommodation and desperately want to share their lives with a pet. I will speak to Amendments 118 and 125, which are also supported by my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to whom I am very grateful. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for adding her name to Amendment 125. She brings great authority to this debate as a former Defra Secretary of State with a long-standing interest in and commitment to animal welfare.

I also support Amendments 119 and 126, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to which I have happily added my name. I declare my interest as a patron of International Cat Care. I am very grateful to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Cats Protection and other charities in the sector for their support and the excellent briefing they have provided us, as well as to other organisations, such as Mars Petcare, which has shared crucial research on the benefits of pet ownership and does so much for animal welfare.

I will set out the background to these amendments. We are a nation of pet lovers. Around 13.5 million homes in the UK include a dog and 12.5 million—mine included—are graced by a cat. Unfortunately, however, pet ownership is all too often limited to those who own their own home, causing huge anguish to the millions of families that rent but also want to share their lives with a pet. In 2024, Cats Protection found that over half a million households that would like a cat do not have one because their rental agreements forbid it. Research from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home shows that only 7% of private landlords list their property as pet friendly—an incredibly low number when we consider that, according to the same survey, 76% of tenants already own or aspire to own a pet.

Correcting that imbalance is so important for a number of reasons. There is the obvious link between rental restrictions and pet homelessness, with housing issues cited as the second most common reason that pets are relinquished to Battersea. Last year, Cats Protection took in the equivalent of three cats each day due to landlords not allowing them in their properties—part of a wider crisis of pets having to be given up. At Second Reading, I told the story of Zeke, a cat that arrived in Battersea just 24 hours before his first birthday after his owners faced the heartbreaking choice between finding an alternate rental property or giving him up to a shelter. His story is far from unique: across the UK, thousands of animals urgently need loving homes, yet countless responsible would-be pet owners in the private rental sector are being unfairly prevented from adopting or finding suitable housing due to overly restrictive tenancy agreements.

It is not just our pets that suffer as a result; public health is impacted too. Research conducted by Mars Petcare has found that pet ownership saves the NHS approximately £2.5 billion per year, with pet owners making 15% fewer visits to a doctor. The physical benefits of taking a dog for a walk or a run every day are obvious, but those of us who own pets know it is the mental health and well-being aspects that have the greatest impact. Pets provide people with companionship and loyalty—particularly for those who live alone—help them to meet new people, add structure to their day and offer unconditional love and support. Children also benefit from understanding the responsibilities of caring for a dog or cat and learning how to interact safely with animals. Pet ownership is also often an indicator of a responsible and reliable tenant, which is very relevant to this debate. Research from Battersea showed that three-quarters of landlords surveyed did not observe any discernible increase in wear and tear to their property due to pets.

For all these reasons, I am delighted that the Government are committed to encouraging responsible pet ownership across the private rented sector and I strongly support the ambition of this section of the Bill: providing tenants with the right to request a pet—a request that cannot be unreasonably refused by a landlord. My probing amendments today seek simply to tighten up certain aspects of legislation to guarantee that the pet provisions in the Bill are as effective as possible and that the laudable ambition and clear intention of this legislation is fully realised.

But we are not quite there yet. As it stands, I fear that there are loopholes in the Bill and that landlords will have too much room to deny most requests, risking a serious and unnecessary burden on tenants, the ombudsman and, ultimately, the courts. The amendments I have tabled will provide certainty for tenants and clarity for landlords, and will ensure that the Bill is not a missed opportunity to unlock thousands of homes for pet owners across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

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

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

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

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, my general point was that I believe the market would adapt in time, because that is the purpose of legislation—to push that market on. I know there are other insurers that are looking at pet damage insurance products to bring to the marketplace. We will have to see if it happens, but I very much hope that it would. I understand the fears from landlords that pets may damage their properties, but I also do not believe that pet deposits are the solution to this area, because they are unevenly applied and unaffordable to many.

Finally, I just want to make the general point that research has shown that fears around pet damage are often largely unfounded. Again, research that was commissioned by Battersea with the University of Huddersfield showed that more than three out of four landlords did not encounter any damage caused by pets in their rental properties. So there is very low risk, and, alongside evidence showing that pet owners tend to stay longer in their properties, this demonstrates that renting to pet owners can be financially beneficial to landlords in the long run.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

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

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

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

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

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

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

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

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

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

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

190: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Discrimination relating to pets(1) A relevant person must not, in relation to a dwelling that is to be let on an agreement which may give rise to a relevant tenancy—(a) on the basis that a pet would or may live with or visit a person at the dwelling if the dwelling were the person’s home, prevent the person from—(i) enquiring whether the dwelling is available for let,(ii) accessing information about the dwelling,(iii) viewing the dwelling in order to consider whether to seek to rent it, or(iv) entering into a tenancy of the dwelling, or(b) apply a provision, criterion or practice in order to make people who would have a pet live with or visit them at the dwelling, if it were their home, less likely to enter into a tenancy of the dwelling than people who would not.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—(a) the relevant person can show that the conduct is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or(b) the relevant person can show that the prospective landlord of the dwelling, or a person who would be a superior landlord in relation to the dwelling, is insured under a contract of insurance—(i) to which section 40 does not apply, and(ii) which contains a term which makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit a tenant under a relevant tenancy from having a pet live with them at the dwelling or to restrict the circumstances in which such a tenant may have a pet live with them at the dwelling, and the conduct is a means of preventing the insured from breaching that term.(3) Conduct does not breach the prohibition in subsection (1) if it consists only of—(a) one or more of the following things done by a person who does nothing in relation to the dwelling that is not mentioned in this paragraph—(i) publishing advertisements or disseminating information;(ii) providing a means by which a prospective landlord can communicate directly with a prospective tenant; (iii) providing a means by which a prospective tenant can communicate directly with a prospective landlord, or(b) things of a description, or things done by a person of a description, specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak also to my Amendments 192 to 196 and 198, which are also signed by my noble friend Lord Lexden and, with the exception of Amendments 193 and 198, by my noble friend Lady Coffey. I am very grateful to them. Given the hour, and as we are discussing animals, it is right to acknowledge that they are clearly night owls.

The purpose of the amendments is to insert a new clause to extend pre-tenancy discrimination protections to pet owners. In an earlier debate on this Bill in Committee, I set out why this legislation is so important and why pet owners need certainty and clarity about its application. These amendments build on that debate on a further, very specific issue.

Although the current version of the Bill provides protections after tenancy begins for pet owners, requiring landlords to consider pet requests reasonably, I am concerned that these are rendered ineffective if pet owners are excluded before tenancy agreements are even offered. As I have made clear before, I am delighted that the Bill rightly seeks to prevent pre-tenancy discrimination against tenants with children and those who are benefit claimants, but I believe these welcome provisions should also be extended to tenants who already own pets and are seeking a new place to rent. Currently, they are unprotected. Without such a measure, there is a real risk that landlords will automatically disadvantage or reject applicants simply based on the issue of pet ownership.

The truth is that pet ownership is, regrettably, already currently treated as a de facto disqualifier by many landlords. Applicants can be dismissed outright on the sole basis of owning a pet, with no requirement to justify the decision. This renders any post-tenancy pet consent rights in the Bill practically inaccessible for existing pet owners who are moving home, who are barred from progressing past the application stage in the first place.

As the Minister rightly highlighted during our debate last week, the pet provisions in the Bill are fundamentally based on the principle of reasonableness, and that is absolutely right. However, as it stands, a landlord is not technically required to consider in any form a pet-owning applicant and can reject them outright without appropriate safeguards in place. This creates a gap. Although existing tenants may benefit from protection, prospective tenants looking to move may not have the legal support to make a reasonable request to keep a pet at the point of applying for a tenancy. I fear this will continue to result in pet owners facing the heartbreaking decision of having to choose between a home and their pet, as many thousands of homes will remain closed to them.

The proposed clause, with consequential amendments, offers a balanced solution. It does not require landlords to accept pets unconditionally. Instead, it prevents landlords automatically rejecting applications on the grounds of pet ownership while retaining their ability to refuse consent on reasonable grounds after an application has been successful. That seems to me to be the right way to deal with this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his amendments relating to pets and rental discrimination, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Hayter for their comments on these amendments.

Amendments 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 198 would extend the core rental discrimination provisions of Chapter 3 to prospective renters with pets, protecting them from any unfavourable treatment in the letting process. We know that pets bring a huge amount of joy to their owners—even Wilberforce, the snake we heard about the other day—and we are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector.

However, it is our view that extending our rental discrimination provisions in this manner would not be proportionate, nor is it necessary. The Bill already contains measures to ensure that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home. Landlords must consider all requests and provide valid justification if consent is refused. This ensures that tenants are not unfairly prevented from keeping pets while still allowing landlords to consider legitimate concerns such as property suitability lease restrictions—the other day we discussed superior leases, which may have clauses about pets—or potential issues with other residents, as my noble friend Lady Hayter mentioned.

Tenants will be able to escalate unfair decisions to the PRS ombudsman, who will have strong powers to put things right, such as compelling a landlord to take a specific action, issue an apology and award financial compensation. Given that, I kindly ask that the noble Lord consider not pressing his amendments.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

I am grateful to all who have taken part in this short debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Lexden, who rightly told us about the heartbreak that can follow when tenants have to choose between a home and a pet, something that happens far too often and which the Bill is determined to diminish. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey, who brought to bear her considerable experience and expertise in this area. We should take her comments very seriously.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that of course I understand the issue that arises from allergies; I am unfortunately allergic to pollen and there is little I can do to avoid it. She is right, and that is why we have to strike a balance. As my noble friend Lady Scott said, this is all about balance between the rights of tenants and those of landlords. I believe that these amendments strike that balance, which is why I tabled them.

I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and her understanding. She has been very constructive throughout our Committee discussions on pets, and I thank her for that. When we last discussed these matters in Committee—last week, I think—she talked about some of the guidelines being drawn up to go alongside this legislation when it comes into force. It occurs to me that this might be one of those areas where there could be some form of guidance to landlords that would ameliorate some of the problems. If she would be happy to do so, perhaps she might look at that and talk to the various animal charities concerned; I know they would be happy to help. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 190 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood Excerpts

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

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 11B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, seeks to allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to up to three weeks of rent. Like many of the charities involved in the animal welfare sector that have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, I am disappointed that we are having to return to this subject after it was clearly rejected in the other place, having been the subject of intense discussion. Charities including Battersea, Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust strongly support the Government’s position, and so do I. The reason for that is clear. Such an obligation would defeat the very purpose of the pet provisions in this carefully balanced Bill, which are designed to make pet ownership easier for tenants and remove the iniquity that owning a pet is the preserve of the increasingly small number of people who can afford to own their own home. I declare my own interests as the owner of a cat.

Let us be clear: as I said in Committee, for tenants seeking to have a single pet in rented accommodation, there is likely to be only very minimal, if any, damage. The standard security deposit is more than sufficient to cover any damage beyond standard wear and tear, as a survey conducted in 2021 by YouGov on behalf of the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection concluded. In rare circumstances, where damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit, measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant. As such, charging an additional pet deposit is unnecessarily and wholly disproportionate.

This costly proposal would put the wonderful aspiration of pet ownership beyond the reach of many. Allowing landlords to require a pet deposit equivalent of up to three weeks’ rent could see tenants forced to find up to an additional £1,500 for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas such as London—a figure which is unaffordable for many. It would also introduce an unfair geographical disparity, with those living in cities, where rents are higher, being far worse off compared with those living in rural areas.

Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency regarding what a landlord decides should constitute pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Many landlords, I fear, would see this as an extra fund to provide an option to withhold more money simply for standard wear and tear.

The pet provisions in the Bill have been thoroughly and energetically debated, both inside and outside this House. It is clear from all those discussions that the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet and that this amendment is completely unnecessary. Its only result would be to neuter one of the key planks of this vital legislation, destroying the hopes of so many tenants who dream of having a pet in their home. Today, we should make that dream a reality, so I am afraid that, if the noble Lord presses his Motion, I shall be voting against it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters: first, the Ministry of Defence accommodation, and then the pet deposit. On the Ministry of Defence housing, we thank the Government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised, and the Government’s response has been both proportionate and pragmatic. On these Benches, as ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the Government’s Motion.

Turning to pets, I support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on an issue that has filled my inbox and, I know, that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson as well. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet-related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. However, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, emphasised, no such insurance product actually existed. Once the Government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing was put in its place.

The noble Lord’s amendment would restore that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring that renters can keep pets in their homes while landlords have reassurance that any pet-related damage can be covered. If there is no damage, the deposit will be returned. Recent research by Propertymark shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets. Yet more staggeringly, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.

Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these Benches will support him.

Finally, I thank the Government for their constructive engagement and the assurances given in writing and from the Dispatch Box on the standard of proof. Those commitments provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister’s response.

Taken together, we believe that these measures improve the Bill, and make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for tenants and landlords alike.