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.