Member

Amendment 129 seeks to increase security for landlords against pet damage. While I understand the intention behind it, I have to resist this amendment, as, first, it would make it more difficult for insurers to develop suitable pet damage insurance products. By imposing rigid requirements, we risk limiting the flexibility insurers need to design affordable and effective policies. Overprescribing criteria could, for example, stifle innovation and reduce the availability of products for tenants. It could also place an additional financial burden on tenants. If insurance providers struggle to develop appropriate products, the cost of obtaining such insurance may increase, making it harder instead of easier for tenants, particularly those on lower incomes, to meet the requirements.