Lord Black of Brentwood:

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.”

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.

I turn first to Amendment 118. The Bill as drafted does not include a specific provision stating that, once consent to keep a pet is granted, it will remain for the duration of the tenancy. This will cause obvious anxiety and uncertainty for pet owners. This simple amendment would ensure that a landlord may not review or withdraw consent, once given. It was originally proposed in the other place during the passage of the previous Bill on rental reform by the honourable Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, Matthew Pennycook, now Minister for Housing and Planning, during his tenure as Shadow Housing Minister—and he was absolutely right. Without such a provision, families with pets will remain in an ongoing state of housing insecurity, with the threat of eviction always looming around the corner.

I understand, of course, that the effective outcome of allowing pets for the duration of a tenancy could be established down the line, but only as a result of time- consuming and costly litigation. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed, because it places the unfair burden of seeking redress on tenants, adds to the workload of the ombudsman and stretches an already overloaded legal system. It would be far cleaner and fairer to incorporate such a protection from the outset.

I turn to Amendment 125. At the moment, the Bill rightly aims to end the blanket ban on pets in rental properties, providing tenants with the right to request to live with a pet. It does so by preventing landlords from “unreasonably” refusing such a request. But, again, that imports a troubling degree of uncertainty into the system and gives far too much latitude for a landlord to deny a request. The provision allows landlords to reject a tenant’s request simply based on personal preferences —such as a dislike of dogs or concerns about noise, for instance—without needing to provide any clear justification or evidence to support their refusal.

Some landlords have not tried to hide their intention to do so. Before this legislation has even passed, landlord groups have outlined their plans in public forums to exploit its loopholes, specifically referencing this section of the Bill. They have listed potential reasons to deny requests, which include the risk of property damage, noise levels and issues with anti-social behaviour. This will result in frequent disputes between tenants and landlords, again placing a burden on tenants and placing potential pressure on the ombudsman, and ultimately the courts, to sort out matters that we could sort easily and cleanly in the Bill.

The amendment, therefore, simply looks to include guiding principles on what constitutes unreasonable refusal in response to a tenant’s request to keep a pet in privately rented property. It builds on the experience of countries such as Canada, France and Sweden, where similar legislation has been implemented with success. These countries have stricter regulations that exceed the protections outlined in our current Bill, including clear criteria for what constitutes unreasonable refusal. I understand that we cannot feasibly detail every reason for refusing a pet request; however, a middle ground between the current situation, which offers no guidance at all, and an attempt to cater for every possible scenario is entirely practical and proportionate. The clear guiding principles in this amendment, enabling tenants to understand their rights and landlords their obligations, achieves that.

This important Bill has the power to transform the experience of private renting for many thousands of families, but only if we act now to strengthen this legislation. Tenants and landlords need clear, fair rules that reflect this reality. Without them, there is a real risk that pet homelessness will only grow. We have the opportunity to unlock millions of homes for pets and pet owners across the country, so that no tenant will ever again have to face the heartbreaking decision of choosing between their home and their pet. I very much look forward to the debate and to hearing the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

I am always glad to support my noble friend Lord Black, with whom I have worked closely on many subjects over many years. Long ago, when we were both in the Conservative research department during a General Election campaign, we circulated a briefing note to the party’s candidates telling them what they would need to do to win the support of animals great and small if these marvellous creatures had the vote. I cannot remember whether we included rights for pets in rented property, but it would have been a grave lapse if we had omitted them.

My noble friend’s amendments do not contain a hint of Opposition to the Government’s proposals relating to pets; they seek to make the good relevant elements of the Bill even better. The amendments have two objectives: to strengthen the legal protection that the Bill confers on pets and to increase the well-being of people in rented accommodation who want to keep and cherish a pet. These two objectives, as my noble friend has explained, are intertwined. All the research carried out by the wonderful charities devoted to the welfare of pets shows that their owners in rented property not only enjoy greater contentment but lead healthier, better-disciplined lives. The upshot is that tenants who keep pets are likely to seek longer-term tenancies—something that benefits landlords by increasing rental income security.

Surely, through the Bill, we should do all that is possible to prevent responsible people in rented housing being denied unreasonably the opportunity to have a pet or pets, which those who own their homes enjoy automatically, particularly at a time when successive Governments have failed to ensure the provision of sufficient new housing for private ownership.

It is a sad and deeply regrettable fact that a significant proportion of landlords, as my noble friend has explained, are resolutely opposed to the presence of pets in their properties. A 2021 survey by YouGov, on behalf of those excellent charities the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, found that one-third of private landlords who currently refuse to allow pets in their properties are not prepared to reconsider their opposition. They must be expected to go to all possible lengths to try to flout the pet ownership provisions of this Bill.

Nothing could illustrate more clearly the need for stronger legal protection than the Bill currently provides, which could be achieved through my noble friend’s Amendment to define more firmly and tightly the circumstances in which a request to have a pet in rented property could be rejected. In the absence of a more precise definition of what would constitute acceptable grounds for a landlord’s refusal, disputes will inevitably proliferate. A lack of clarity and certainty in the law always leads to problems, as we have seen in various contexts recently. Opaque law cannot be satisfactory law.

I hope that the Government will give very careful consideration to these important and constructive amendments.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 119 and 126 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has added his name. The provisions of my two amendments simply mirror the provisions that are in Amendments 118 and 125, so that they will apply to superior landlords as well as landlords. A superior landlord is a person who, for example, owns the block of flats and has a greater interest in the tenants than does the immediate landlord. I declare an interest as I have been affected twice recently by the superior landlord being in a position to deny any pet ownership.

I fully agree with the excellent introduction to this issue from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, and all the points that he made, but, if this provision is not added to the Bill, I fear it will completely undermine the Government’s very good intentions, which we support, in bringing forward Clause 12, because the position of the superior landlord will almost always override that of the landlord.

The interests that I quote I will give as examples. The first was from when, during Covid, I rented out my flat. The family who rented it wanted to adopt a cat. The rules applying to the block of flats state that pets may not be kept, so although I as a landlord was happy that this family adopted a cat, the superior landlord rules for the block forbade it. More recently, this year, my husband and I have bought a flat, but even as owners we are subject to a rule that the superior landlord has to give permission for a pet. This means a lot of uncertainty for the vendor and for us, while the superior landlord decided whether we could keep our 15 year-old dog.

If the Government succeed in changing the position for renters, they must also address the issue of superior landlords and their ability to block any pet ownership. If the Government do not address this, the likelihood is that the good intentions behind this clause will fail because of the legal limitations for subtenants. Usually, they do not have a direct contractual relationship—that is, in legalese, no privity of contract—with the superior landlord, unless there is a direct agreement. This can mean that enforcing rights or obligations becomes very difficult if the issue lies with the superior landlord rather than with the immediate landlord.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this issue, because I fear that, otherwise, as I said, the good intentions of Clause 12 will be totally undermined.

My Lords, I am not quite sure what the Minister said earlier, but I would like to declare interest as an owner of rented property.

I shall speak to Amendments 120, 122 and 123 in my name in this group. All these amendments seek to highlight where pets could be unsuitable in a rented property. Although, as I have already said earlier during this Committee, as a landlord I have never refused a pet, a blank cheque for pets is not practical. Amendment 120 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if the allergies from that pet would have a negative impact on the landlord’s employees, their managing agents or other related persons, including future tenants. For those who suffer with allergies, this is a very serious matter and can have a debilitating effect, and it is not always possible to remove allergens through standard cleaning. We have all read and heard about the allergies from peanuts et cetera that can kill; well, the allergies from pets are not so serious, but they are very serious for people who suffer.

Amendment 122 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if they reasonably believe it is unsuitable for the property, may cause a nuisance to neighbours or may damage the property or place an unreasonable burden on its upkeep. Wooden floors get scratched and carpets get stained—if they are still there —when pets are involved, so flooring almost always needs to be replaced when a tenancy ends. Some may consider this reasonable wear and tear, and others may not, but it is certainly a much greater cost when there have been pets in a property, and it is an important factor to consider. Not every landlord is in a position always to replace everything every time there is a new tenancy. Of course, some pets are capable of causing more damage than others, and some properties are easier to upkeep than others. I think there should be some leniency and some leeway for landlords who know their properties to make a judgment on this.

Amendment 123 follows on from this and seeks to exclude pets which are inappropriate or disproportionate in size or number. I realise there will be difficulties in defining this. Are five Dobermann pinschers more or less suitable than 25 fox-terriers? Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, I am not clear whether a landlord would be free to make a judgment, which most noble Lords would agree would be very sensible, that a Great Dane could not be housed in a studio flat, or that 50 cats could not be kept in a small terraced house. Given the difficulties, will the Minister consider making it clear that the landlord has, or should have, discretion to make sensible decisions for the benefits of residents, neighbours and the pets themselves?

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.

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.

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.

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 124 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Earl, I am at a loss to understand why potential tenants in social housing are not included in the Bill. I would have thought that those seeking social housing are likely to be unable to afford to buy their own home, in which case they would not have a problem with having a pet. Why does the Bill not enable such tenants in social housing to enjoy the rights afforded to tenants in private housing? I cannot see the distinction, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this question.

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am afraid I have none of the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who spoke about cats with intimate knowledge. At this stage I should redeclare an interest that I declared in the early days of this Committee. For the last almost 30 years my wife and I, by accident, in fact, have been the landlords of five one-bedroom flats in the house next door.

While households normally have as their pet either a dog or a cat, there are some extraordinary households that have a string of other sorts of pet—for example, a snake, monkey or parrot. Looking at page 21 of the Bill, we find that a “pet” is described as “an animal”. On that basis, a talkative parrot or indeed a snake does not fall under these provisions. The assumption therefore is that the landlord is entitled to say no to snakes and, if he needs to—although one hopes it is hardly necessary—no to a talkative parrot. It is important to establish the reasonable grounds on which a landlord can refuse to permit a tenant to bring a pet into the property.

Amendments 120 to 123, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, are very helpful. If they are going to be pressed on Report, I suggest they be condensed into a single Amendment.

My wife and I have always refused to permit tenants to have a pet such as a dog or a cat, because we have been concerned about the disturbance of other tenants—a dog barking, for example—and the damage a pet can create in the household.

With that background, it has been very helpful of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, to identify circumstances in which it is reasonable or unreasonable for a landlord to refuse a pet in the premises. That continues to be a very interesting debate. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is going to educate us further on cats, but may we go on?

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, because the noble Lord, Lord Black, covered his two amendments very thoroughly. I do not have pets myself, but I declare that I have a daughter who has recently taken the tenancy of a house, and she has children, a dog and two cats. It was quite difficult for her to make sure that they could all live together, so I understand that a lot of people would have to lose their pets, and I think that is an incredible shame.

I thank the Dogs Trust, Mars Petcare and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for their briefings and work on this, which were very thorough. Amendment 118 would provide security for pet owners in rented accommodation —knowing that, once granted, consent cannot be withdrawn. If this was tabled in the other place by the current Minister, I assume that he is going to accept this amendment, and that the noble Baroness the Minister will tell us that today.

Amendment 125, which I have also signed, would go a long way towards ensuring that blanket no-pet policies cannot continue. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has described the second most common reason that pets are given up to it as because of rental restrictions. That seems extremely hard. Although I do not have any pets, I understand the value of pets to people in all sorts of ways, and I hope that we can have some success with these amendments.

I shall speak to Amendment 126A and to support the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Leicester. I had not intended to speak on this, but it is a point that there is a big difference between pets in rural properties and pets in urban properties. Speaking as someone who lets rural properties, I have never had any problem with stopping tenants bringing their pets, but I would mention that cats are a particular problem in certain areas. I think that the very carefully drafted amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, makes a great deal of sense in this respect.

My Lords, I declare my interest as entered in the register and apologise to the House for not having spoken before in Committee. I spoke at Second Reading, but the combination of the west coast main line and prior commitments has made it impossible in Committee until now.

Briefly, I make just three points, in no particular order. First, in respect of Amendment 118, the nicest, cutest little puppy can turn into a horrible adult dog, and if it is impossible for the landlord, having given consent, to change that if the cute little puppy turns into a dog from hell, that would be a very great mistake. It is a matter of balance, reasonableness and judgment. Secondly, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, because that seems to be elementary sensibleness—nothing more. Thirdly and finally, having heard the very persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black, I suddenly wondered: were they asking the Government to make it compulsory for tenants to have pets? I ask the Minister what her view about that would be.

My Lords, I speak on this group mainly in support of Amendment 124 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I wish the Committee to note my entry in the register of interests: that I am a part-owner of a large independent veterinary practice, with a significant proportion of our turnover generated from pets.

I welcome Clause 12 as it will increase the number of properties that tenants can keep pets in. With the growing number of pet owners in the past five years, it is certainly welcome. How we care for pets and how we value their companionship has changed significantly in society in the last 10 years, and that is why this clause is so important. But we must be aware that there are many in society who are allergic to pets, who find them scary and who are made nervous by them, especially children, and those who just do not like pets. Therefore, somehow, through this amendment, we need to ensure a balance between landlords, tenants and their pets, and others in society.

As previously spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the amendment gives access to all tenants, regardless of whether they are in the private rental sector or accessing social housing. This gives tenants the right to request permission to keep a pet, regardless of their landlord.

The Bill is also about improving opportunity for tenants to keep a pet; surely this simple amendment will create a level playing field between the social housing sector and private landlords. Social housing is probably the most likely first place to go for individuals on low income or who are homeless, seeking to find a home for themselves and their families, which often include a pet. This has been drawn to my attention recently by a TV advert for a homeless charity. Its website says:

“New polling from homeless charity St Mungo’s reveals new extent of the housing crisis and its impact on people sharing their lives with a pet. 50% of those surveyed reported being placed in situations where they were forced to choose between remaining with their pets or accessing housing. This situation is ever present, within the last 12 months, 43% of respondents experienced challenges in finding housing that allows pets. This is amplified for those between the ages of 18-24, where 70% experienced this”.

Therefore, to ensure that the private rental sector is not forced to take up all the housing needs of pet owners, I hope that this amendment will be considered by the Government. Surely the reasons for not allowing a pet in the home are the same for private landlords as for social housing landlords.

On the other amendments in the group, I support Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, which would ensure that a landlord cannot withdraw consent. If a pet is causing an issue for a landlord, that will surely be covered by other provisions in the Bill. The landlord could terminate a tenancy using anti-social behaviour as a reason, whether it was caused by the tenant or the pet. The amendment would ensure that the tenant, once the pet is allowed in the home, cannot be forced to remove the pet unless the tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement.

I also support Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which would ensure that a tenant in all properties, regardless of who the landlord is, can ask for the right to keep a pet at their home. Like the social housing Amendment 124, this amendment seeks to increase the number of properties available to tenants, but also ensures that all landlords, regardless of their position in the rental housing sector, are obliged to consider the request of a tenant to keep a pet.

Amendments 125 and 126 provide some clarity for landlords and tenants, with definitions of when it is unreasonable for a landlord to reject a request for a tenant to keep a pet. This clarity can only help with negotiations between landlords and tenants with regard to keeping pets, and solutions will be found more quickly, I hope, and with less bad feeling between the two parties. This clarity will reduce the number of cases that can be referred to other authorities to decide whether a landlord’s reasons for rejection are in fact reasonable. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

My Lords, I declare an interest, having a young grandson who had an affinity with snakes. When he was very young, living in central London, he had several, one of which was quite large and called Wilberforce. Wilberforce used to do what snakes do—rear up and sway when anyone came in the room, so he was quite intimidating. One day he—we think it was a he—disappeared and has never been found. I mention this as a cautionary tale, as he may one day turn up somewhere where he is not quite as welcome as he was originally.

My Lords, the provisions relating to tenants keeping pets may seem a small aspect to some, but their impact on the well-being and lives of millions of renters cannot be overstated. We on these Benches warmly welcome the Bill’s intention to make it an implied term in most assured tenancies that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet.

We support many of the amendments in this group, with the exception of Amendments 120, 122 and 123. For too long, a blanket ban on pets has been a source of needless unhappiness and stress for renters, compounding the sense that this large and ever-growing group are often treated as second-class citizens. This includes social renters, and we commend the Amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on that issue. Indeed, research estimates that pet ownership contributes considerable savings to the NHS each year, as an example, potentially as much as £2.45 billion annually across the UK through reduced doctor visits. It is simply wrong that the joy and benefits that a pet brings should be restricted to those who are fortunate enough to own their own home.

We have heard compelling evidence illustrating the scale of this issue. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which I thank for its briefing on this issue, has highlighted that housing concerns are the second most common reason why dogs are relinquished to its care. Even though I am here in fear of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on this issue, I add my thanks to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for the rescue cat that we got from Battersea, who brings us daily joy and, I reassure the noble Earl, kills a lot of rats. Despite 76% of UK private tenants owning or aspiring to own a pet, only 8% of landlords currently advertise properties as allowing pets. This creates immense difficulty for renters, forcing them into heartbreaking decisions, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.

Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13 introduce the right to request a pet and allow landlords to require insurance, but we feel that they still leave further questions about the practical implementation. Sources currently suggest that there are no readily available insurance products for tenants to cover potential pet damage. We welcome some of the probing amendments on this issue and look forward to hearing from the Minister about any clarification on that. Organisations such as Generation Rent argue that the existing tenancy deposit should be sufficient to cover those damages. We must ensure that the Bill does not disadvantage the most deprived renters, perhaps by exploring alternatives such as allowing for a higher deposit or different insurance mechanisms such as the Scottish model of an additional deposit. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this issue.

Crucially, the Bill states that consent cannot be unreasonably refused. However, what constitutes unreasonably withholding consent is not yet clearly defined. We need the reasonable grounds for refusal to be set out with more clarity, ensuring fairness and consistency in decisions, especially if the proposed ombudsman service or the courts are involved.

A particularly troubling aspect is the exemption allowing superior landlords to override a landlord’s approval for pets. This risks undermining the spirit of the legislation, especially for tenants in blocks of flats or leasehold properties where management companies or freeholders might maintain blanket bans. We on these Benches support my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer in her Amendments 119 and 126 which seek greater clarity on this issue. This exemption should be removed to ensure that the right to keep a pet applies consistently across all types of rented homes. Other practicalities, such as the proposed timeframe for landlords to respond to pet requests, also may need some scrutiny or flexibility. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has suggested that a shortening of this time might be an idea.

The intention behind these clauses is commendable, reflecting a much-needed shift towards acknowledging the important role pets play in many people’s lives. There is evidence that renting to tenants with pets can be commercially beneficial for landlords, with pet owners tending to have longer tenancies, averaging 24 months compared with 21 months for those without pets. Pet owners are also often willing to allow more regular inspections or consider covering additional costs. While concerns about damage are understandable, most evidence suggests that these fears can be exaggerated. In our view, and as other noble Lords and contributing organisations have highlighted, some refinement is needed. We must ensure that these provisions are not only well- intentioned but genuinely effective in practice, providing clear rights for tenants while addressing some of the legitimate concerns. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments.

My Lords, I will very briefly intervene. I agree that people who like pets benefit from having them, and I guess that landlords who do not like pets are going to have to put up with it, which seems fair enough. But—no pun intended—what a legal can of worms we are opening here. What is a pet? I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking: snakes are animals, as are alligators, rats, goats, snakes, and even fleas, which some people keep as pets. That is going to cause a great deal of stress and redefinition at some point.

Listening to the very interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we heard that we are also going to introduce a category called an anti-social pet. That is going to be very hard to define and prosecute, and I suspect the unreasonable grounds for refusal will, again, cause interesting legal conundrums. So this Amendment will go through, and I am happy to support it, but I wonder what legal can of worms we are opening for the future.

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.

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.

I am strongly opposed to the idea that a landlord could withdraw their consent retrospectively without reasonable grounds and force a tenant to give up their pet, which the Bill does not permit. This could leave a tenant in an impossible position and become a means for landlords to encourage the tenants to leave. For these reasons, I do not consider the amendment necessary; I hope the noble Lord will not press it.

Amendment 123 seeks to clarify that a tenant cannot keep an inappropriately sized animal or disproportionate number of animals in a property without the landlord’s express written consent. In our view, this amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already expressly requires tenants to gain written permission from their landlord to have a pet in their home. Landlords can refuse permission for such requests when it is reasonable, and decisions are best made on a case-by-case basis. There are too many variables for the Government to set them out in detail within the legislation. However, in our view, landlords are likely to be able to refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet in situations where a pet could not be kept safely in a property. That would include where the animal was too big or there were too many of them. I would therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 123.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling Amendment 124. I fully recognise the important role that domestic pets play in people’s lives. I agree with the noble Earl, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and my noble friend Lord Trees, that social tenants should not face more rigorous or less advantageous conditions around the keeping of pets because of their tenure of housing. As I have said, pets play an important role in people’s lives.

Many social landlords already set out their pet policies within their tenancy agreements, allowing tenants to keep pets where appropriate, provided that they are well cared for and do not negatively impact on neighbours or the wider community. I always remember that, when I was a councillor, someone in my ward came to say that somebody was keeping five dogs in a flat. They asked me to look into this as they were worried about the welfare of the dogs. The dogs were not causing any problems, but they were worried. When we went to have a look at the case, we found that the dogs were exceptionally well cared for. They were happy and well looked after. I am making this point because it should be decided on a case-by-case basis how these matters are dealt with.

We encourage all social landlords to adopt similar policies to ensure a fair and consistent approach. However, I acknowledge the significance of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I will reflect on these points and I would be happy to discuss the issue further with him. I said that pet ownership should not depend on the tenure of the property, and I mean that. I will give further consideration to the important issue that the noble Earl raises in his amendment. For the time being, on this basis, I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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.

Amendments 119 and 120 not moved.