Baroness Coffey (Con)

My Lords, I put my name to these amendments. I must confess I did not quite understand Amendments 193 and 198, so I did not put my name to them, but I am grateful for the explanation that my noble friend has given. There is no doubt that the availability of private rental in having pets is considerably smaller. I am conscious that when I moved to Suffolk, I think it was back in March 2010, when I was looking for places to rent—not to holiday rent, but to rent properly as a home—had I not had my dog Rizzo at the time, more than 200 properties would have been available, but when it came to any landlord that would even encounter having a dog, the number was reduced to four, and this in an area of 300 square miles. It gave me a clear insight into the restrictions placed on people who want to move with their family—and pets are considered often part of that family. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there was certainly a premium to pay, as a consequence of what property was available, for the opportunity to have Rizzo come and visit on a regular basis. I was struck by one issue in the amendments that my noble friends have tabled, to do with mortgaged premises. I have been pretty horrified to learn, in the variety of casework that I have undertaken over the years, about the artificial restrictions placed on mortgages that people have taken up. They have simply told me, “I’m not allowed to do this”. I felt that this was too good an opportunity to miss; that is why I signed my noble friend’s amendment. As my noble friend Lord Lexden said, this is plain discrimination against people who have not yet been able to secure a home in a particular area. These are sensible additions to the Bill. I am aware that your Lordships have, overall, welcomed the opportunity to try to remove these exclusions on keeping pets in homes that people are renting. I hope the Minister will look kindly on these amendments to make sure that this part of the potential loophole is addressed and filled.