Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Dobbs, for their amendments relating to the definition of a pet. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott, for their comments on this debate. Even in these two short debates this afternoon, we have seen the benefit that our House can add to legislation, including probing very intensively a definition but also the entertaining nature of the speeches we are privileged to listen to. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for his entertaining intervention. Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to allow landlords to withdraw consent for a pet if it is later found to be a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Although I of course fully support the principle that animals posing a serious risk to safety should not be kept in rental properties, this amendment is not necessary. The keeping of dangerous wild animals without a licence is already prohibited under the 1976 Act, and the 1991 Act imposes strict controls on specific dog breeds—I presume that includes the XL bullies that were mentioned by the noble Lord. These laws already provide local authorities with sufficient powers, and we would expect a request for a pet that falls foul of that legislation to give landlords a strong case for refusing consent. Local authorities have the powers to act, and the amendment would therefore duplicate existing protections and introduce unnecessary complexity into the Bill. For these reasons, we do not consider the amendment necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it. Amendment 131, from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, seeks to remove the line in Clause 12 that includes keeping animals for “ornamental purposes” within the definition of a pet. Amendment 132 is consequential to Amendment 131. I understand that these are probing amendments, intended to seek clarity on the scope of the term “pet” as used in the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, I miss Monty Python—I have watched them over and again, I must admit—but I must respectfully resist these amendments. The line in question, referring to animals kept for ornamental purposes, is a deliberate and important part of the definition. The noble Lord will be pleased to learn that it does not refer to dead parrots, but it ensures that the Bill captures a broad and inclusive understanding of what a pet may be, reflecting the wide range of animals that people may choose to keep in their homes for companionship or decorative enjoyment. I am not sure whether Wilberforce the snake was decorative, ornamental or a pet, but he is obviously now enjoying somebody else’s company than his original owner. Removing this provision could risk narrowing the scope of the definition, creating legal ambiguity and potentially excluding animals that are commonly accepted as pets, such as fish and birds—live ones. To support implementation, the Government will provide guidance, setting out examples of instances where animals are likely to fall into the definition of a pet. I hope that that will help to ensure consistency and clarity for both tenants and landlords, without placing restrictions on primary legislation. It is important to repeat that landlords are required to agree only to reasonable requests; a calf that may grow into a cow is unlikely to be reasonable in a small flat, for example. For these reasons, I do not consider these amendments necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing them.