Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) I beg to move, That this House has
considered e-petition 607317, relating to requirements to stop and
report road traffic collisions involving cats. It is indeed a great
pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Harris. The petition
calls for Parliament to amend legislation “to make it a legal
requirement for a driver to stop & report accidents involving
cats.” It has been signed by 102,436 people throughout the
UK,...Request free trial
(Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 607317, relating to
requirements to stop and report road traffic collisions involving
cats.
It is indeed a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms
Harris. The petition calls for Parliament to amend
legislation
“to make it a legal requirement for a driver to stop & report
accidents involving cats.”
It has been signed by 102,436 people throughout the UK, with the
highest number in Tunbridge Wells. It is often said that Britain
is a nation of animal lovers. As I am sure all Members’ inboxes
will attest, issues of animal welfare, from the use of animals in
research to livestock transport, move people from all walks of
life to engage with their representatives.
As a nation, we are particularly attached to our pets. According
to the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, around 52% of UK
adults own a pet. Our pets play a huge part in our lives and many
of us consider our pet another member of the family. Although
dogs are the most common pet in the UK, cats are not far behind:
one in four households are home to at least one cat. The choice
of a cat as a pet is often not understood; non-cat owners may
wonder what is to be gained from a pet who operates completely on
their own terms. Cat owners will know that that is just one part
of the mystique of having a cat. Cats Protection’s 2022 “Cats and
Their Stats” report found that
“companionship, reducing loneliness, and reducing stress were
collectively the top reasons for owning a cat”.
(Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have seen, certainly during the
covid pandemic, the ownership of cats and dogs increase because
of the companionship that they offer? That is particularly
important for people who live on their own. I am sure my hon.
Friend will agree that it is heartbreaking for an animal to be
run over, whether it be a dog or a cat, and for the owner in many
cases never to find out what actually happened. Cats are pets and
should be treated in the same way as dogs.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. It is true: we
love our pets and they are a huge part of the fabric of our
families and our lives. He is right that we saw an increase in
ownership during in covid, and that the necessary measures must
be put in place so that there is not such heartache—I will go on
to talk about that—when pets disappear and are unaccounted
for.
We have spoken about the importance of pet cats for the wellbeing
of their owners, especially during covid, and in relation to
loneliness. The Cats Protection report also showed that 92% of
owners see their cat as part of the family and that 67% say their
cat gives them something to get up for in the morning. Alongside
their independent nature, inquisitiveness and aloofness, that has
helped them to be one of our favourite pets.
It is a reflection of the nation’s love of animals that the UK
ranks highly on the world stage in respect of animal welfare, but
there are gaps in the legislation, particularly in relation to
our feline companions. We do all that we can to protect our pets,
but sometimes it is not enough. The sadness of losing a pet—a
part of the family—is only exacerbated by not knowing what has
happened. That sad state of affairs is the reality for many cat
owners across the United Kingdom. For many of them, a missing pet
will lead to an assumption that the cat been hit by a vehicle and
simply left by the roadside to be picked up by the local
authority’s refuse services. I know that is a blunt
description.
(East Kilbride, Strathaven
and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making such an important speech, and this debate
is vital to many constituents. Does she agree that further
support should be given to local authorities to ensure they have
the necessary resources to scan cats when they are found—and dogs
too—and make sure that owners are notified?
I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. I will go on to talk
about local authorities, but it is a case of them having the
necessary resources to be able to scan animals and know that they
are accounted for.
The petitioner, Olivia, is here in the Gallery and is an avid
campaigner for the protection of cats. When we spoke before
Christmas she was thankful that the situation when she lost her
cat was not the same as the one I have described. Their beloved
cat, who was very much part of the family, was killed by a car;
however, a good-hearted neighbour who found the cat knocked on
all the doors until the owner was found in order to let them
know. It should not be down to luck or a good Samaritan.
(East Renfrewshire)
(SNP)
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Most residents of our
communities would want to do the right thing. They would want to
make an owner aware of the tragedy that had happened because they
would appreciate the hurt and sadness the family would feel and
would not want to leave them in the dark. Does the hon. Lady
agree that groups such as Cats Protection Giffnock in my
constituency have done really valuable work on this issue? They
ought to be commended for making sure that it is kept in the
public eye. I hope we see some progress.
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. Doing the right
thing gives us heart, does it not? The work of Cats Protection
and all the organisations that have campaigned for cats is to be
commended, because it is excellent in keeping the issue in the
public eye, which is really important.
(Gillingham and Rainham)
(Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work on this issue. I
introduced a presentation Bill on the compulsory microchipping of
cats, and we are waiting for legislation to come in. I thank the
Government for that.
The second part of my Bill was on the issue of reporting after an
accident. Of course the great majority of people in our great
country would do the right thing, but it comes down to a basic
principle: parity of esteem. People love their dogs and cats. We
currently have legislation under section 170 of the Road Traffic
Act 1988 that covers horses, cattle, asses, mules, sheep, pigs,
goats and dogs, but not cats. People in my constituency and
throughout the country ask, “Why not?” If the primary objective
is to alleviate pain and suffering, we need to make sure we have
parity for cats.
I thank the hon. Member for his very good contribution.
Unfortunately, the 1988 Act was not put in place with this issue
in mind, but I am going to talk about the microchipping issue
that he has done significant work on.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
Following on from what the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham
() said, the Government
previously committed to bringing forward regulations to make cat
microchipping compulsory before the end of last year. Many
charities are concerned that they have not yet been laid; does
the hon. Lady share those concerns?
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. That is exactly
what I am going to talk about. I agree that the microchipping
legislation should be brought forward.
Under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, drivers are
required to stop and report incidents of hitting a horse, cattle,
ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog, as mentioned by the hon.
Member for Gillingham and Rainham (). The Act reflects an
understanding of animals as having a financial value attached to
them as livestock or working animals. As such, cats are not
covered. The petitioner, Olivia, and organisations including
Battersea and the Blue Cross want this to change.
Because there is currently no legal requirement to report, we do
not know how many cats are killed by vehicles. One needs only to
have a quick search through their local area’s Facebook groups to
know that. It is sadly very commonplace. Some 52% of respondents
to the Petitions Committee’s survey for this debate said they had
lost a cat as a result of a road traffic accident, with a further
40% suspecting that their cat had been killed but without any
proof.
The reality is that not all drivers comply with the 1988 Act as
it stands. For example, one particular road in my constituency
has become notorious for cattle deaths at night, with the
deceased animals being found by other drivers in lighter hours
and reported then. Whether or not there is a place for cats in
the Act, we know that it is not fully fit for purpose as it
stands. How can the Government help to ensure that cat owners
such as Olivia are not left in limbo when it comes to losing
their beloved pet?
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
I had the pleasure of hosting a Cats Protection event just before
Christmas. Some 76 MPs and peers turned up, which shows where the
sympathies of Members lie. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a
shame the Government are out of step with the view of Members and
that they should look at this matter again? They have dismissed
it rather out of hand in their response to the petition, but this
issue goes hand in hand with microchipping. The Government said
they would bring forward microchipping by the end of last year;
they should now do so, in tandem with introducing provisions on
reporting.
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and for hosting Cats
Protection before Christmas. That event really was well attended.
The point of such events is to raise awareness of legislation
that is not fit for purpose and to talk to peers and Members of
Parliament about the importance of cats. We do not need a huge
uprooting of legislation to get this right: small changes would
make a huge difference to cats and cat owners.
First, we need the Government to finally make good on their
promise to make it a legal requirement for cats to be
microchipped. In its 2022 “Cats and Their Stats” report, Cats
Protection estimated that 2.8 million cats are not microchipped,
meaning they do not have any permanent identification.
Microchipping is a hugely important part of responsible pet
ownership, and making it compulsory for cat owners would send a
vital message that it is an integral part of looking after a cat.
The Government had planned to lay regulations by the end of 2022
to bring compulsory cat microchipping into force after a
transition period, but sadly that has not yet happened. I would
be most grateful if the Minister could confirm a timetable for
the enactment of that legislation. He has a wonderful opportunity
to come forward with that change, which the Government have
supported.
Secondly, requiring local authorities to scan and log cat
fatalities would make a huge difference. National Highways
contracts already include a requirement to identify and inform
the owner of any domesticated animal fatality on main trunk
roads, with keepers given the opportunity to come forward and
collect their pet’s remains. The local authorities that cover the
rest of the road network are duty-bound to remove deceased
animals but not to scan and log, although many do—the situation
is inconsistent across the United Kingdom, but the infrastructure
already exists.
By requiring local authorities to make attempts to identify cat
fatalities, comfort and certainty can be given to owners whose
cats are killed in accidents. A freedom of information request
carried out by Cats Protection in May 2019 found that 92% of
local councils in England have some sort of arrangement in place
to scan cats, but only 75% inform the chip company. It is clear
that there is a lack of consistency on this front, and
intervention from the Government would only improve the
situation.
It is true that cats and dogs, while both beloved choices of pet,
have different legal standings. We should be creating parity
between the two and making things less difficult. Dog owners are
legally required to keep their dog under control in public,
whereas cats are said to have the right to roam, although owners
are still responsible for making sure that their cats do not
cause injury or damage to property. The so-called right to roam
has often ended conversations on cat welfare legislation, for
reasons I have already discussed, but that need not be the
case.
Unlike so many of the issues we discuss within these walls, this
is not a complex problem. The infrastructure needed to implement
the changes already exists and charities such as Cats Protection
are already working with local authorities to provide scanners
and support their work. The changes requested may not save cats,
but they can prevent any added heartbreak. I extend my deepest
thanks to Olivia for starting the petition and starting the
conversation. She is asking not for an overhaul of legislation
but just the chance for other owners to feel the closure that she
has felt at such a traumatic time.
(in the Chair)
I remind Members that should they wish to speak they need to
bob.
4.46pm
(Bury North) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris—I
genuinely mean that.
It is a pleasure to follow a speech that I did not disagree with
a word of. I congratulate Olivia, who is sat in the Gallery. This
is probably one of the easiest legislative exercises in the whole
of this Parliament: we simply add the word “cat” into legislation
and achieve what has been set out in this debate. As much as we
all love goats, we should not be differentiating between animals
in respect of their value. We differentiate and judge things in
this House on their meaning to our fellow citizens. To me, it is
utterly bizarre that the law does not take into account cats,
considering how many people in this country own cats and how
important they are to our fellow citizens.
I hope the Minister, well-known animal lover that he is, will
listen to this debate and look into doing something
straightforward that will make a lot of people very happy.
Although we struggle from time to time in this House, we have the
opportunity to do something that will make people extremely
happy.
My hon. Friend has made the point clearly that this change is
easily done if we consider the purpose behind the legislation.
The Government have put forward the argument that one type of
animal is a working animal of financial value; does my hon.
Friend agree that legislation to require people to stop and
report should be designed with regard to the alleviation of pain
and suffering, irrespective of what animal it is? That ties into
the Government’s commitment to animal welfare. We can move
forward and do the right thing. Does he agree that that principle
needs to be behind the legislation?
I am probably going to agree with everything that everybody says
in this debate. My hon. Friend makes a very articulate point. If
it is the Government’s position that the change is not
enforceable—in the sense that stopping and reporting if a car
hits a cat is somehow not an enforceable legal responsibility
compared with hitting another animal—I just do not accept that.
In my view, there is not a logical argument in respect of the
criminal-law side of this issue. I was a criminal lawyer for a
long time and it is a straightforward matter to enforce
reporting. There is no ambiguity.
Let me speak to and develop some of the points colleagues have
made about criminal law, and what happens afterwards. I recognise
Members present who have listened to what I have had to say at
least two or three times previously. I think I am on my third or
fourth time of trying to persuade the Government about my private
Member’s Bill. I have not been successful yet, but I continue to
live in hope. My nattily titled Pets (Microchips) Bill relates to
Gizmo’s law, the campaign for which was begun many years ago by
Heléna Abrahams in my constituency. In essence, the proposed law
would do what has been articulated in this debate. It is a
campaign for a legal requirement, which sounds like a grand
statement, but it basically asks local authorities to do the
right thing.
When a deceased cat is found, whether on the highway or
elsewhere, the proposed law would require the local authority to
scan the chip, if there is one—that relates to the point that my
hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham () made about the Government’s
commitment to the microchipping of cats, which would clearly
help. It is a simple thing. People want to know what has happened
to their pet—what has happened to their cats. I spoke today to
Heléna, who works 20 hours a day in her job. She has set up a
website for this purpose and works with local authorities to
reunite cats with their owners. That is a wonderful thing to do,
because it is about love, care, commitment and doing something
for people who have no other way of finding out what has
happened.
As the hon. Member for Gower () said, local authorities
approach this matter very differently. Some just do not scan and
do not make any effort whatever—I will not name and shame
them—and some are better. We are simply asking for there to be a
duty to take the cat and scan it. A pet food company has agreed
to provide scanners for every local authority in the country that
does not have one, so there is no cost to that. All they need is
a fridge or deep freezer. The cost and time involved is
absolutely negligible. There is no cost.
My Pets (Microchips) Bill and Olivia’s proposal are about care,
love and doing the right thing. We sometimes miss those things in
our debates in this House. This is very simple and
straightforward. An amendment could quite easily be made to
criminal law and could quite easily be enforceable. We can
certainly trust our police and other law enforcement bodies to
ensure that cats have parity of treatment with other animals, and
we can legislate for that. On Gizmo’s law, I hope Members will
support the Pets (Microchips) Bill, which would cost nothing but
would do a lot of public good and make a difference to a lot of
people’s lives.
4.51pm
(Streatham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Harris.
I thank all those who have participated in the ongoing campaign
to have the law changed to protect cats, including those who
tweeted #Act4Cats, those who signed and shared the petition, and
the MPs who signed my early-day motion calling for the Road
Traffic Act to be amended.
I also congratulate my constituent, Olivia Holland-Rose, who is
here today; her hard work and campaigning efforts led to this
debate. She started this petition in response to the tragic
accident that resulted in the death of her beloved pet,
D’Artagnan or Dart for short. In January last year, Olivia sadly
got a knock at the door. Her neighbour gave her the tragic news
that Dart had been struck by a car, killed and left by the side
of the road. It was only thanks to the kindness of a stranger,
who found D’Artagnan’s body and proceeded to inquire about his
owner, that a neighbour was able to recognise him and inform
Olivia and her husband about the accident. Had the driver who hit
D’Artagnan done that, and had the law required them to report the
collision, there is a possibility that D’Artagnan could have been
taken to the vet in time to save his life. As section 170 of the
Road Traffic Act requires drivers to report accidents involving
horses, cattle, mules, sheep, pigs, goats or dogs, but not cats,
the driver had no legal obligation to report the collision and so
drove off.
Olivia and her partner are sadly not alone in that experience, as
we have heard. Statistics about cats in road collisions are
getting harder and harder to gather because the driver does not
have to report the incident in the first place. A recent report
from Petplan revealed that approximately 230,000 cats are run
over each year, equating to 630 every day, and that 35% of
drivers admit to having hit a cat. There are approximately 12.2
million cats living in UK households, so those figures are likely
to be considerably higher today.
We are a nation of animal lovers, so we can all sympathise with
the devastation that pet owners feel when their beloved pet
passes away. I do not have any pets myself, but a member of my
team has a dog that often stops at our constituency office.
Coincidentally, she is called Belle, although she was not named
after me—she was named years before we met her. Anyone who has
visited my constituency office or has been out campaigning with
me is likely to have met Belle, who has become a beloved member
of the team. I know that I, my team and Belle’s owners would be
absolutely devastated if she were to be struck by a vehicle, but
if this were to happen, at least we would have the reassurance
that the driver would be legally obligated to report it and we
would stand a higher chance of getting her to a vet in time, if
that were possible, to potentially save her life.
Cat owners do not have that luxury because cats are inexplicably
excluded from section 170 of the Road Traffic Act. It seems
ridiculous that pigs, dogs, cattle and horses are protected, but
cats are not. The law was created because of those animals’
status as working animals, but we have evolved beyond
appreciating animals solely for their economic value, and it is
time our laws changed to reflect that.
In response to the petition, the Government stated that, rather
than changing the law, they wish to make roads safer and
introduce compulsory microchipping. Microchipping cats is
certainly a good policy—it is one that we seem to agree on right
across this House—but a cat is no more likely to survive being
hit by a car just because they are microchipped. The odds are
already stacked against the cat. Microchipping cats will not
increase their chances of survival. While I also agree with the
ambition to make roads safer, in major cities, where cars are
ever present and cat ownership is high, collisions are almost
always going to be likely.
Those measures must be paired with a change in the law to require
drivers to stop and report the collision, thereby increasing the
chances of the cat getting to life-saving treatment and
potentially saving another family from losing their beloved
pet—or, if they do lose their beloved pet, at least giving them
the closure of knowing. There is no reason that we can see for
the law to exclude cats, and there are no excuses to justify not
amending the law. It is such a small change; indeed, I would like
the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is
something that could be changed by a statutory instrument in a
Delegated Legislation Committee. It would take just a few of us
in this House very little time to insert that word, as we have
heard. I am sure, or I hope, that we all agree that cats deserve
to be treated the same as dogs, horses, pigs and all the other
animals cited in the Act, and it is about time the law was
changed accordingly.
4.56pm
(South East Cornwall)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I
have to declare an interest as the owner of two very pampered and
special cats: Milly, who is 14 years old, and Louie, who moved
into his forever home with us during lockdown, from the comfort
of the Cats Protection adoption centre in Exeter. I should also
make Members aware that I have another interest, as co-chair of
the all-party parliamentary group on cats.
In my mind, a home is not a home without a cat. Both my cats
could be described as sharing their house with my husband and me.
They have Natalie and Caroline, who visit and look after them
while we are in London, and they certainly greet us on our
return—although that is probably just to secure more
Dreamies.
I believe that cats should receive the same treatment as other
animals under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, under
which, as has been described,
“a driver is required to…report an accident involving specified
animals including horses, cattle, asses, mules”
—I will not go on; it has already been said—
“but not cats or wild animals.”
The Government have said:
“This requirement arises from their status as working animals
rather than as domestic pets.”
But let us not forget that cats often do work, particularly in
the countryside, where they keep vermin down, so I cannot see how
a cat cannot be described as a working animal. The Government
also say:
“To introduce such a measure within the provision of section 170
would require primary legislation.”
I would ask the Government to consider introducing the required
legislation at the earliest possible time.
I would like to share something I witnessed happening in my
division when I was at Cornwall county councillor. It involved a
cat called Topsy, who belonged to my son’s best friend. I was
following a car that hit a cat and saw the driver get out and
carefully place the cat in his car. It looked like Topsy, but I
was not sure. The mother of that five-year-old told me the next
day that her son was distraught at the loss of his pet, who had
not returned home. I relayed to her that I may have witnessed an
accident involving Topsy the cat, but had not been able to get
the car registration number. This story has a happy ending. The
young man who had lifted the cat carefully into his car had taken
her to the vets. She received treatment and an advert was placed
in the local shop window, calling for the owner to come forward—I
emphasise that this incident happened before social media was
widely used to publicise things. Topsy was reunited with her
owner and lived a long and happy life.
My own experience does not have such a happy outcome. I had a
little black cat called Biscay. He would happily hunt in and
around the gardens and the neighbourhood. One day, a neighbour
informed me that little Biscay was seen in the driveway of a
house behind mine, and when I got there, I realised that he had
been injured and had died. Many more cats in my neighbourhood
have suffered the same fatal ending to their lives, and as the
local councillor, I explored what could be done to make this very
narrow lane safer for both pets and pedestrians. I explained to
council officers that the road was regularly used by primary
school children, and that each cat that had suffered a fatal
accident could have potentially been a child. I was told that
there were no statistics kept for cats, as these incidents were
not reportable. Fortunately, I persevered and managed to get road
traffic calming in place on the road, to slow the traffic. This
would have been far easier if each accident involving a cat had
been reportable and official statistics readily available.
It is a shame that we do not hear more positive stories, such as
that of Topsy. It is essential that we remember that cats are
more often than not family members, and we should ensure that
they are respected. We should also remember that, as I have
mentioned, statistics can often be used to introduce road safety
measures that help pedestrians, and I urge the Minister to
explore introducing legislation as soon as possible.
5.01pm
(Great Grimsby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairpersonship, Ms
Harris.
Cats get a bad rap. They are working animals. The reason that
cats are in this country and widespread around the world is
because they had, and still have, a job to do in many different
guises, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East
Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said, is to keep vermin down. But they
constantly get a bad rap. I am loyally owned by two rescue cats,
and my family have constantly had cats throughout our lives. As a
child growing up, my cats were my constant companions, and it was
devastating when a cat ended up being knocked over and left for
dead.
Sadly, while I was walking around my constituency with a friend
this autumn, we came across a cat in a very bad state on a
pavement. The cat was still alive, so I suggested that my friend
went to get her car, and I did what the car owner who hit the cat
should have done: I randomly knocked on doors to see who would
answer. It is quite a nerve-wracking thing to do—how do you tell
somebody you have never met before that they may have a very
poorly pet in front of them?—but as a good neighbour and somebody
who knows what it is like to lose a pet, I hope that somebody
would do that for me.
I knocked on doors and managed to find the owner, and I said, “If
you’ve got a black and white cat, he is still alive, but sadly I
think he has been hit by a car.” Quite a few people owned black
and white cats, but when I took the owner to see him, it was
their family pet Stevie. Stevie was in a really bad way. I took
my jacket off and cradled him with my constituent Helen Bampton,
and we were able to take him to the Blue Cross. The Blue Cross
was absolutely fantastic but, sadly for Helen and her family and
for Stevie, his injuries were too terrible for him to survive.
Sadly, he had to be put to sleep
It is really sad that, but for the insertion of just one more
animal into the legislation, we are not making sure that cats are
protected, although we know that that is not a panacea. Thanks to
organisations such as Cats Protection, there are very few stray
cats in this country; most have an owner and a family. Anyone can
be involved in an accident involving a cat or another animal—it
can happen suddenly because cats can move very quickly,
especially if their owner is calling them and they are trying to
get home—but we want people to realise that that cat is usually a
pet. The police have told me that if a cat were stolen, they
would treat the case as theft. I do not understand why cats are
viewed as possessions important enough for the police to
investigate if stolen, but are not considered important enough
for it to be a legal requirement for drivers to report a
collision involving one.
The hon. Member is making a good point. National Highways
requires its contractors, where possible, to identify cats in
such situations. That seems entirely anomalous. As far as the
Government are concerned, if they require reporting in relation
to collisions on major trunk roads and motorways, why do they not
require it generally?
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There is another anomaly.
Rule 286 of the highway code advises that drivers need to report
any accident involving an animal to the police and, if possible,
to make inquiries to ascertain the owner of domestic animals such
as cats to advise them of the situation. I do not quite
understand why that is already advised in the highway code but we
have no legal protections for owners and their cats. I would like
the Minister to go back to his Department and really ask that
question.
As hon. Members have said, there are more than 12 million cats in
this country, which means that about 28% of homes own a cat or
cats. This issue is important to people, especially to those who
have experienced the loss of their cat—either never knowing or,
sadly, knowing that somebody has hit their pet and deemed it not
important enough to take care of the situation. Even if it is not
currently a legal requirement to report such an incident to the
police, people should at least be neighbourly, have some
community heart, knock on a door and find out who the owner is,
and provide them with some consolation. That is just the right
thing to do, as everybody knows these things are rarely done on
purpose. Will the Minister consider the fact that the highway
code already advises such reporting for road users anyway?
5.07pm
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
I welcome you to your place, Ms Harris. I am delighted to
participate in this important debate, which arises from the
e-petition relating to requirements to stop and report road
traffic collisions involving cats. I thank the hon. Member for
Gower () for opening the debate
with a comprehensive overview of the situation. I also pay
tribute to charities such as Cats Protection, Blue Cross and
Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which do so much to promote the
wellbeing of animals and have provided us with some important
briefings for the debate. I should declare that today I am using
my Cats Protection pen, which I received at the charity’s event
just before Christmas.
Everyone appreciates the importance of family pets, and we can
all appreciate the distress and trauma when a family pet goes
missing. Thankfully, many cats who wander off on their adventures
soon return home safely when they are hungry enough. However,
there are cat owners whose cats wander off and never see them
again; sadly, on occasion, that is due to the cat being knocked
down by a car and left on a roadside, or staggering away from the
scene of an accident only to die before it can reach home. Owners
are left distressed, often with no information, and, sadly, as
those who have pets will understand, they feel as though a
beloved family member has simply vanished. Those who own pets—as
I once did; I owned the much-missed Kitty sand Misty, and hope to
own cats again at some point—benefit from them in so many ways.
That is why they are loved as members of our families. They
provide huge comfort and health benefits, and also go a long way
to combating loneliness; I speak as a vice-chair of the all-party
parliamentary group on cats.
This petition is not party political, as has been shown by the
consensus in this Chamber. It is about doing the right thing—a
simple thing that will do so much for cat owners. It calls for
cats to be accorded the same legal recognition as dogs, and for
the same obligations to apply to collisions involving cats as to
those involving dogs, under the Road Traffic Act 1988, which
requires drivers to stop and report accidents involving a cat. It
is not in any way a controversial request for our feline friends
to be accorded parity in law with dogs when it comes to road
collisions. We last debated the issue in 2019, and I honestly
cannot understand why we are still debating it.
We all understand that for such a change in the law to really
work, we would need joined-up thinking. We need to get to the
compulsory microchipping of cats, so that their owners can be
informed if they are involved in an accident. Compulsory
microchipping of cats has not yet happened, but I remind the
Minister—I am sure that I do not need to, but I will—that the
Tory manifesto in 2019 committed to
“bring forward cat microchipping, giving cat owners peace of
mind”.
That is a Tory policy that I and everybody else in this Chamber
can support—and it is not often that the Minister will hear that!
However, there has been no movement on that commitment, and that
needs to change.
The Government’s stance has been that there is no need to
legislate and create a requirement for local authorities to scan
cats for microchips, because the majority already do so as best
practice. Does she share my concern that that leaves policies at
local authority level too open to change, for example where
budgetary restrictions mean there are fewer staff available to
perform the task?
Yes. Many local authorities currently work very hard to screen
cats for microchips, where possible; I will talk about that in
more detail later. Local councils are under pressure, but it is
important that there is leadership and support from a central
Government level in both Scotland and across the UK. I will talk
a wee bit later about how Cats Protection provides very important
support in that regard.
The Scottish Government recommend that all cat owners should
microchip their pets, so that they can be reunited with their
owners if they are lost or injured, but they have not yet moved
towards compulsory microchipping, which is a move I want to see.
However, the Scottish Government are willing to examine and
reflect on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
call for evidence and the recent public consultation on the
matter. I am confident that we will get to a place where cat
microchipping will be a compulsory element of cat ownership, just
as it is with dog ownership. Like many others, I am keen to reach
that point as soon as possible, because the responsibility of
owning a cat and the responsibility towards cat owners ought not
to be different from the rights and benefits currently accorded
to dogs and their owners.
In the UK Government’s action plan for animal welfare, which was
published in May 2021, the commitment to cat microchipping was
repeated. The plan said:
“We will introduce compulsory cat microchipping to ensure lost or
stolen cats can be reunited with their owners as quickly as
possible.”
But we are still in the dark as to what is happening with the
implementation of that plan, just as we are—incidentally—with the
Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which ought to legislate on
very important aspects of animal welfare; undoubtedly, we will
debate that Bill again soon. It matters, because it is all part
of the same conversation about the small amendment required to
the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The vast majority of cats in Scotland—around 70%—are
microchipped, which demonstrates that most cat owners understand
the benefits of doing so. About 29% are still not microchipped,
which amounts to about 227,000 cats with no permanent form of
identification; that is a problem.
We have heard from around the Chamber of the heartbreak of cat
owners who either do not know what has happened to their cat, or
who have to deal with their cat being struck by a car and finding
that out—sometimes by accident. The sad reality is that we do not
know how many cats are involved in road traffic accidents,
because it is a not a legal requirement for a driver to report a
collision with a cat, but Petplan believes that about 630 cats
are run over every day. That is a huge amount. Some 35% of
drivers admit to having hit a cat, and it is believed that
between 7 million and 9 million cats are at risk every day of
being involved in a road traffic accident, given the free-roaming
nature of our feline friends.
If we are seeing an increasing number of cats being microchipped,
and seeking to move to a point where all cats are microchipped as
soon as possible, it is important that measures are in place so
that those microchips can be scanned. I applaud the work of Cats
Protection, which has worked with some local authorities to
provide scanners to ensure that cats found on roads can be
identified. Local authorities are also working hard to ensure
that they are able to do this, as revealed by the Cats Protection
freedom of information request, but there is still some way to
go.
The call for the creation of best practice guidance for local
councils will be supported by all responsible cat owners, because
it will ensure that all cats found on our roads are scanned for a
microchip and have their details logged, and that owners are
informed so that—as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby () said—as heartbreaking as that
news can be, they can find out what has become of their beloved
pet.
Why use best practice guidance rather than the legal
requirement?
I think we are speaking at cross purposes. As I said, there
should be a legal requirement for microchipping, but we want to
look at the best way that local authorities can manage that
information and roll it out so that it can be completed as soon
as possible. I believe that microchipping should be a legal
requirement.
I echo the eminently sensible concerns expressed by Blue Cross
that if all this work is done in the way we wish, in the
interests of cats and cat owners—picking up on the point made by
the hon. Member for Bury North ()—there must be
well-administered and efficient communication between database
companies to ensure that microchip details and information on
lost, stolen or injured pets is properly shared and centrally
available.
The suggestion of a single point of access would considerably
streamline and simplify the current database situation,
incomplete though it is, and make it more user-friendly for the
designated approved users. It would save time and resources, and
provide the best outcomes for cats and their owners should the
worst happen.
It is no surprise that over 102,000 people signed this petition
to appeal to the UK Government to amend legislation in a simple
and straightforward way to make it a legal requirement for
drivers to stop and report accidents involving cats as they are
already required to do with dogs. Many of us engage in the debate
about whether we prefer cats or dogs, but I think we would all
agree that cats deserve parity under the law when it comes to
road traffic accidents. Across the UK, we love our pets, and
animal welfare is important to every one of us. We just need to
look at our inboxes to see that; every single Member of this
House receives more emails about various aspects of animal
welfare than any other issue. I have to say, that took me a
little by surprise when I was first elected in 2015.
Animal welfare really matters to our constituents, and it matters
to MPs across the House. Our pets keep us healthy and add to our
happiness, and they are treasured family members. Cats do this
just as much as dogs; some would say even more so, but that would
start a whole UK-wide argument that would keep us here all day.
It is clear that if we can give protection to dogs through
compulsory microchipping and reporting of accidents when
collisions happen, we can certainly do it for cats. There is no
reason for us not to do so.
I urge the Minister and the UK Government to make the required
amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and give our cats and
their owners the consideration they deserve. Alongside that we
need to ensure that cat microchipping is an integral part of cat
ownership so that they are given the protection currently
accorded to dogs. Let us get on with it and stop any further
delays. A promise was made in the Government’s 2019 manifesto.
This is one of those rare measures that will have support from
across the House—from every MP in every party—so there is no
reason to delay. It will encounter no opposition, so I urge the
Minister to speak to his colleagues and get it done.
5.20pm
(Sheffield, Brightside and
Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Harris.
I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing this important
debate, which will be closely followed by many of our
constituents. I also thank all Members who have contributed; they
have all made extremely relevant points. I particularly thank my
hon. Friend the Member for Gower (), who eloquently
explained the issue, and Olivia, who some time ago started the
petition, which 102,000 people have signed.
We are a country of cat lovers. I have had cats since I was a
toddler and have gone through very many. I have been in the
position where my cat has gone missing and we did not know what
had happened to her, even though we scoured the streets and she
was chipped. I only found out what had happened a few years
later, by accident, when I was at the vet’s with another cat, and
the woman I was sitting next to, who lived near me, could
remember seeing my missing cat dead on the roadside. It took me a
bit of time to get to the bottom of it, but, like most people
when their cat does not come home, I eventually came to the
conclusion that it had come to harm. As an animal lover, I know
the pain caused by losing a pet.
Believe it or not, one day I found a cat behind my bin. I took it
to the vet and had it scanned, but unfortunately it did not have
a microchip. I eventually managed to rehouse it with another
member of my family, as I already had three by then and had been
told I could not have any more. If that cat had had a chip—if it
had been compulsory for it to be chipped—we very likely would
have been able to return it to its owner instead of having to
rehouse it, albeit with a very nice family.
Under rule 286 of the highway code, drivers involved in an
accident involving a domestic pet are advised to make inquiries
to find the owner. However, the wording of the rule is quite
vague and covers a wide range of driving incidents. It is time to
change that and include cats. It is true that many owners ensure
their beloved cats are microchipped, but it should be legislated
for. Will the Minister look into updating the legislation to
ensure that drivers are aware of what to do if they collide with
a cat? The vast majority of drivers would want to do the right
thing in such situations, but the highway code offers little in
the way of guidance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower mentioned the local authority
resources that will be needed if they are to take on the
responsibility of scanning animals and informing owners of the
fate of their cats. I thank Cats Protection, which has done so
much work to talk to people about the issue and raise owners’
awareness.
The point about local authorities needing resources for scanning
absolutely needs to be looked at, but my hon. Friend the Member
for Bury North () mentioned the principle that
local authorities should scan deceased cats so that they can be
identified. How that is done across the country is a different
matter, but the principle is that all deceased cats should be
scanned so that they can be reunited with their loved ones; that
is the change required, so that there is consistency and not a
postcode lottery around the country.
I totally agree with the hon. Member’s sentiment that it should
be put into legislation that it is compulsory for all cats to be
scanned. That is the only way they can be identified.
I wonder how we can get around the problem about which we heard
earlier—that 70% of cats who are scanned have not been registered
with the microchipping company. The Government and the House
should look at ways of encouraging registration or of doing
microchipping differently, to ensure that it is not a waste of
time or money. We must ensure that microchipping means that cats
will be reunited with their owners, or that their owners will be
informed of what has happened to them.
I was a little disappointed that, in their response to the
petition, the Government say that they want to make roads safe
for everyone. The reality is often quite different: road safety
targets are non-existent; the road safety strategic framework has
been delayed; and highway maintenance funding has been cut. After
four decades of progress in reducing in road fatalities, since
2010 the numbers have plateaued. The Government are dragging
their feet on measures to protect road users—human and feline
alike.
We all know about the enormous pressures facing local
authorities, and the cost of living crisis means that scarce
resources are rightly focused on supporting struggling
households. However, that means that if we are to be serious
about this issue, additional resources for road safety, and
particularly scanning, should be given to local authorities so
that they can carry out the vital job of identifying cats and
informing cat owners of what has happened. For that to work,
there has to be some resource attached.
While we have the Minister here, I want to ask when his
Department will publish the long-awaited road safety strategy
framework. It would be good to see something about animal welfare
in that, because it is so important to our constituents. I am
also somewhat disappointed by the Government’s wider record on
protecting animals, which seems to be one of delays and broken
promises. Where is the ban on keeping primates as pets? Where is
the action to tackle puppy smuggling? Where is the ban on fur
imports? Those measures all have overwhelming public support, but
this Government have been dragging their feet on all of them for
too long.
I hope that the Minister will carefully consider all the points
raised by Members today. The motivation behind the petition is
one we all share: for beloved family pets to be better protected.
We do not need more empty promises that are destined to be
dropped or kicked into the long grass; we need the Government
finally to take the wheel and deliver real progress to improve
road safety for all users of any species, including cats. In
particular, we need the Government to amend the Road Traffic Act
1988—I hope that they can do so by statutory instrument—so that
no one has to wonder what has happened to their beloved cat, and
that cats have the same protection as other animals.
5.29pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport ( )
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms
Harris. As the hon. Member for Gower () pointed out, Britain is
a nation of animal lovers, and Members on both sides have made
heartfelt speeches. I want to acknowledge the work of my hon.
Friend the Member for Bury North (), who has had to leave early,
on Gizmo’s law and the private Member’s Bill that he introduced.
I am grateful to Members who have spoken in this debate on the
subject of making it a legal requirement for drivers to stop and
report collisions with cats. I also thank Olivia, and the
thousands of people across the country who signed the petition
that brings us here.
As a Back Bencher, I spoke out in support of microchipping in
Westminster Hall less than two years ago. I reassure right hon.
and hon. Members that the Government take road safety extremely
seriously; it is at the core of the Department’s agenda, and any
death or serious injury on our roads is unacceptable. Our deepest
condolences go out to the victims of road traffic incidents and
their families. A focus of the Government is to make roads safer
for all users; that will in turn help reduce the risk to all
animals on them. We must all be clear about the heartbreak that
the loss of pets—particularly cats, as we have discussed—cause
people. For many, it is like losing a family member, as my hon.
Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said.
Other Members reflected on how, during the pandemic, in what was
a particularly difficult time, pets, especially cats and dogs,
were particularly important to people’s mental health and
physical wellbeing.
The Department is working on the road safety strategic framework,
which—to give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and
Hillsborough () some assurance —we hope to
publish in spring this year. That framework will be based on a
safe system approach, and we are considering what supporting
indicators on casualty reduction might be appropriate. The key
principle in a safe system approach is to recognise that people
make mistakes and things can go wrong. The approach accepts that
responsibility is shared, and that collisions can be the result
of a combination of factors that can be mitigated. The road
safety strategic framework provides the instruction needed to
deliver a safe system approach effectively and efficiently. That
approach has been accepted in many other sectors, including
health and safety and public health. It is already adopted as
best practice in other countries that have gone on to make
further significant reductions in road deaths and casualties.
While Britain has some of the safest roads in the world, we can
always do more, and we intend to do just that.
Let me quickly address an issue raised by the hon. Members for
Streatham (), and for Sheffield,
Brightside and Hillsborough: I have been advised by officials
that primary legislation, and not a simple statutory instrument,
would be required to change the law in this area. However, if
that does not prove to be the case, I will write to both hon.
Members to clarify further.
I thank the Minister for giving way, and for all he does on road
safety. On stopping and reporting after an accident, is the
Minister saying that the road safety review will specifically
look at what parliamentarians have said today about adding cats
to section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988? At the moment, it is
not clear whether it will.
Mr Holden
I am happy to take that question back to the Department, and will
write to my hon. Friend about that, as well as to the hon. Member
for Gower. That is something that we need to look at
urgently.
I am most grateful to the Minister for clarifying that the
question will be taken back to the Department. The Prime Minister
said in his speech in January that the Government would look at
doing things differently—at innovation, and at trying new ideas.
Will the Minister look at amending the legislation, so that it
does not simply deal with the value of the animal or whether it
is wildlife, and so that its aim is to alleviate pain and
suffering and ensure parity? That would be in line with the Prime
Minister’s commitment, and with what has been said today.
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that issue forward. It is an
important issue, and I will take it back to the Department and
write to him about it.
As I have been saying, we are looking at the holistic,
best-practice approach that has been adopted in other countries,
and that we have adopted for public health and health and safety
legislation, in order to both minimise the impact of road traffic
accidents on humans, and prevent further injury and accidents
involving animals. For example, not that long ago, when I was in
the Department as a special adviser, we brought forward some road
signage designed to protect small mammals. The change is
something that the Government are prepared to look at, but as I
have said, primary legislation would be required.
I would like to speak more broadly on this issue, because Members
have brought up different aspects of the legislation, including
microchipping, which I would like to touch on.
Just to be clear, the Minister is saying that he is 100% sure
that the change has to be made through primary legislation, so
what exactly would he be getting back to us about, if that is not
flexible?
Mr Holden
That is what I was advised, but if that is not the case, I will
write to the hon. Lady and make it clear what can be done. My
understanding at the moment is that primary legislation is
needed.
If the change can be made through secondary legislation, will the
Minister take steps to bring that forward?
Mr Holden
If the change can be made through secondary legislation, we would
have to look at that, but I am assured by officials that it has
to be done through primary legislation. That would obviously
require a significant piece of legislation to go through both
Houses. It is not a quick fix. We then get into timetabling and
all sorts of other issues well beyond my remit as a junior
Minister. On whether the change can be made through secondary
legislation, I will definitely write to the hon. Lady.
Mrs Murray
Will my hon. Friend confirm that if primary legislation is
needed, Members may be able to bring forward a ten-minute rule
Bill or private Member’s Bill that amends the Act?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If primary legislation is
needed, then the way to change the law could indeed be via a
private Member’s Bill. Whether it would get Government support
and time is a matter for others, but that would be a way to do
it.
While we must do all we can to improve the safety of our roads,
we must be careful not to make any decisions that could make
things worse or have unforeseen effects in a rush to resolve
concerns about how the law operates. Hon. Members from across the
House have made important points about doing the right thing. My
hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby () gave the personal example of
Stevie, and set out how she stepped in and did the right
thing.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire () also said that doing the
right thing is particularly important. As hon. Members have
pointed out, although there is no obligation to report all animal
collisions on the road, rule 286 of the Highway Code advises
drivers to report any collision involving an animal to the
police; if possible, they should make inquiries to ascertain the
owner of a domestic animal, so as to advise them of the
situation.
As Members, including the hon. Member for Gower, have made clear,
cats tend to roam unaccompanied and are likely to go out at
night. Drivers may not realise that they have had a collision
with a cat in some instances, as they are small animals, similar
to rabbits or other wild animals that can cross roads late at
night. There are also hazards associated with stopping to check
whether animals are alive after people have knocked them over,
especially with very small animals. A requirement to report road
collisions involving a cat would be difficult to enforce,
especially when, as hon. Members have made clear, Petplan
suggests there might be hundreds of thousands of these incidents
brought forward a year.
In 2021, there were 348 reported road collisions in which both an
animal and a person were involved directly. That is just an
animal and a person. If we were talking about hundreds of
thousands of cases, there would be a huge extra impact and
administrative burden, especially given the free-roaming nature
of cats. It is for that reason that the Government do not plan at
present to make it a legal requirement for drivers to stop and
report collisions with cats, but I would like to go into what we
are attempting to do in this space, because we recognise how
painful it is for owners to lose a pet. I remember going home
from school as a youngster and learning—this was when I first
realised that animals could die—that my family dog had sadly
passed away. I think we have all had that experience at some
point in our life.
In the last few years, we have pushed microchipping. It is the
best way of reuniting owners with pets that have been tragically
killed, stolen, or had a variety of other issues. Since the
introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs in 2016, over
90% of the dog population has been microchipped. That has been
particularly successful in increasing reunification rates for
stray dogs.
As hon. Members from across the House have pointed out, we have a
manifesto commitment to introduce compulsory cat microchipping,
and we consulted on that last year. The consultation showed that
there was well over 99% support for that measure, which is
fantastic. I spoke about the issue in Westminster Hall a couple
of years ago, and both my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham
and Rainham () and the hon. Member for
Rutherglen and Hamilton West () mentioned it. We are
committed to introducing it, and we will lay the legislation for
England before Parliament in the coming weeks. I hope that the
devolved Administrations will follow closely, as this is a
devolved issue in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I welcome the words of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and
Arran (). She has used her
platform in this place to press for similar action in Holyrood
and across the rest of the United Kingdom. I recognise that it is
terribly sad when a cat is injured or killed on the roads, and it
does not matter what side of the border it is on.
As the hon. Member for Gower mentioned, National Highways already
requires its contractors to record details of any cats or dogs
found on the roadside, and the location in which they were found.
Some of that is due to the importance of strategic roads. We do
not want stray animals on the national highways, so we want to
know of any gaps in fences and so on. There is a different health
and safety dynamic to that, but it is something that we
implemented. National Highways is under the Department for
Transport and so is a direct responsibility of the Government.
National Highways must also scan for a microchip, and store the
animal, with the aim of reuniting it with its owner where
possible.
Similarly, we understand that the overwhelming majority of local
authorities have arrangements in place to scan cats and dogs
found by the roadside, and to endeavour to reunite the animal
with its keeper. Many pets will therefore be reunited, but we
recognise that there may be challenges to successful
reunification in some cases. For example, sadly reunification may
not be possible if the nature of the animal’s injuries affect the
functionality of the microchip, or if a microchip’s records are
out of date. That is particularly the case with cats.
I am delighted to hear the Minister talking about moving towards
making microchipping compulsory for cats. Does he share the view
put forward by Blue Cross, which is that cats should be
registered on a single database, to make attempts at
reunification as efficient and successful as possible?
Mr Holden
The hon. Member makes a very good point, and I am just about to
come on to the best practice issues that she raised. The
legislation on compulsory microchipping that will be brought
forward is England only, because this matter is devolved to
Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I hope that these issues
will be looked at by the devolved Administrations in the coming
months.
Local authorities may adopt different approaches to reuniting
cats and dogs found by the roadside. As the hon. Member for Gower
mentioned, 92% of local authorities have the necessary
facilities, but only 75% use them. It is important that we
address that inconsistency. To show our commitment to the issue,
we will shortly commission a research project to help us better
understand any barriers and to explore best practice. We will
then work with local authorities and other stakeholders to
develop and promote best practice in this area, which is
particularly important.
I pay tribute to Cats Protection and other volunteers, including
Mandy and her team from CatsMatter, Heléna Abrahams and the team
behind Gizmo’s legacy campaign, and my hon. Friend the Member for
Bury North for their tireless efforts to help reunite animals
found by the roadside with their owners. We recently consulted on
improvements to the pet microchipping regime, which the hon.
Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned. We are analysing
the results and will publish them soon.
A key area of the consultation was about how to make it easier
for approved users, including local authorities, to access
database records, and that will be covered in the response to the
consultation. We also consulted on the introduction of a single
point of portal search, which would allow approved users to
quickly search compliant databases for animal records without
needing to contact the database operator directly, which can
obviously be time-consuming and can act as a deterrent, as I
found when speaking about this issue to vets in my constituency
of North West Durham. Quicker access to database records also
supports other campaigns that seek to make better use of
microchip scanning, as we have all discussed.
I pay particular tribute to Sue and Dawn, who are behind the
Tuk’s law campaign, which would require vets to scan microchips
and check for rescue back-up contact details prior to euthanising
a healthy animal. Members from both sides of the House have been
glad to get behind that. We worked closely with the campaign and
the veterinary profession to find an approach that worked for
everyone, and have incorporated the principle of scanning before
euthanasia into the guidelines that underpin the code of
professional conduct for veterinary surgeons. That is now in
place.
The new single point of search will also support the aims of the
Fern’s law campaign, led by Debbie Matthews, which calls on vets
to scan the microchip of an animal at the first presentation to
check whether it is stolen. That issue can also affect cats,
which, as we know, have a tendency to roam a little further than
other animals.
In summary, the Government believe that microchipping is the most
effective and quickest way of returning a cat to its owner. We
are progressing further with it, both through the call for
evidence and through the new best practices guidelines that are
coming down the line. In coming weeks, microchipping legislation
for England is being introduced, and we hope to see that happen
across the rest of the United Kingdom as well. We remain
committed to microchipping; we look forward to the introduction
of legislation that will make it compulsory, and to making
further improvements later in the year.
5.47pm
Ms Harris, I know how much your cat, Benji, means to you and your
beloved husband and family. I am 51 years of age, and we have
always had a pet in the family; I know how much it hurts to lose
a pet. I thank the Minister for what he said about the
legislation on compulsory microchipping that will be introduced
in the coming weeks. On behalf of our petitioner, Olivia, I hope
that Members from across the House will seek to introduce a
ten-minute rule Bill or private Member’s Bill to amend the Road
Traffic Act 1988, because it is not fit for purpose.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury North () for his private Member’s Bill,
which goes a long way to helping pets owners, including cat
owners, to be reunited with their pet. I thank everyone who
signed the petition, the Petitions Committee for bringing about
the debate, and all Members who participated.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 607317, relating to
requirements to stop and report road traffic collisions involving
cats.
|
