Pets (Microchips)

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and James Daly

1st reading
Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision regarding pets with microchips; and for connected purposes.

I am stood here because of Gizmo and Tuk. Gizmo was a cat and a much-beloved family pet. She died in a car accident on 17 July 2016 when she was 15. In the words of her owner, Heléna, she

“was disposed of like a piece of trash”.

Tuk was a healthy 16-month-old rescue dog who was euthanised on 22 December 2017. Tuk was not scanned prior to euthanasia and was presented by an individual who was not his keeper. My Bill would introduce statutory requirements on local authorities and veterinary surgeons to address the failings highlighted in the stories of Gizmo, Tuk and many—too numerous to mention—much-loved pets.

Clause 1 would introduce a legal requirement for veterinarians to scan for microchips before euthanising pets. I am delighted that last year the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons updated its code of professional conduct to require that, before euthanising an otherwise healthy dog, veterinary surgeons must first scan the animal for the presence of a back-up rescuer. While that is most welcome, it must be put on a statutory footing rather be at the discretion of the veterinarian.

Subsection (2) would require the veterinarian to scan the pet on first presentation and contact the registered owner or back-up rescuer. It is crucial to highlight the importance of that back-up. Rescue organisations and breeders register their details on the original database as a secondary contact as part of the adoption contract or bill of sale. In a time of vulnerability, the secondary contact is there to prevent the animal from being unnecessarily euthanised and to alert the veterinarian to an alternative that is in place. That also allows the rescuer or breeder to remain a constant presence and provide support to the pet should it be abandoned or sold without the rescue organisation’s or breeder’s knowledge. If the adopter or owner does not keep the information registered on the microchip up to date, the secondary back-up rescuer information will enable the rescuer or breeder to be contacted in all circumstances.

As I said, despite the change in the RCVS’s code, the scanning of microchips prior to euthanasia remains at the discretion of the veterinarian and is not a legal requirement. Animals can still be subjected to destruction on the basis of behavioural issues or accusations of such ill behaviour. I do believe that to be right. The back-up rescuer provision allows time for comprehensive assessments, healthcare checks, reforming support and guarantees that any life-ending decision is based on the animal’s best interests, with all facts and alternative options examined.

The Tuk’s law campaign was started four years ago by the brilliant Sue Williams and Dawn Ashley, and it has had the fantastic support of Dominic Dyer. More than 100,000 people from all over the country supported the campaign, leading to a parliamentary debate on 28 June last year.

Clause 2 would place requirements on local authorities to make all reasonable efforts to take steps listed in subsection (2) with regard to deceased cats found on a public highway or otherwise reported to a local authority. Those steps include: making arrangements to pick up the cat; checking for a microchip; finding ownership details; contacting the owner to inform them of what has happened; making arrangements for the owner to be reunited with the cat; and ensuring that the cat is held and preserved by the local authority for up to seven days. There would also be a requirement under subsection (3) to record certain information in a register of cat and cat owner reunification organisations.

My constituent Heléna Abrahams has been campaigning for six years for Gizmo’s law, which is encompassed in the Bill, to ensure that no other pet owner has to experience what she suffered with Gizmo. The efforts of Heléna, Wendy and the whole team at Gizmo’s Legacy have secured the support of tens of thousands of people throughout the country for the proposed change in the law, and every day they work to ensure that those sadly deceased cats—much-loved family pets—are returned to their owners. Gizmo’s law is articulated in clause 2, and it is a testament to the kindness and humanity shown every day by Heléna and her team. There will also, hopefully, be another benefit of the Bill and Heléna’s hard work. She has worked in partnership with a pet food company, which has agreed to supply the appropriate equipment to any local authority that does not have a scanner. Clearly, that is to be recommended.

I hope that the Bill is a sensible step. Steps have already been taken; the Minister is a genuinely excellent Minister and the Department has interacted with me on this issue. I have been speaking in Parliament about this for two years, so I must apologise again to the House for that. However, Sue, Dawn, Heléna and Wendy are genuinely good people who are trying to do things for the right reasons—and that is the end of that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman certainly held the attention of the House. Most remarkably, his speech came in at well under 10 minutes, so he will probably get in the “Guinness Book of Records” for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That James Daly, Jim Shannon, James Grundy, Luke Pollard, Tom Tugendhat, Mark Logan, Lee Anderson, Aaron Bell, Chris Green, Craig Tracey, Robin Millar and Sally-Ann Hart present the Bill.

James Daly accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 278).

Human Rights: Kashmir

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and James Daly

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I am an officer of the Kashmir all-party parliamentary group, and, along with the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the chair, went to Kashmir. This was within two or three months of my election, and I thought it important to go to Kashmir and the line of control, and to ask people in Kashmir about their everyday experiences of being in this appalling situation. I visited the refugee camp to which the hon. Member for Bradford South referred, and we saw the injuries and obtained at first hand testimony from people who had been victims of torture. We are not getting this information from newspaper articles; it is first-hand evidence from people to whom we spoke, and who had been treated in the most appalling manner.

We could all engage in a lengthy historical analysis of the geopolitical issues affecting Kashmir, but this debate is entitled “Human Rights in Kashmir”, and the 2018 United Nations report on the situation of human rights in Kashmir is my starting point. Paragraph 22 states:

“There remains an urgent need to address past and ongoing human rights violations”—

it is not India or Pakistan that is saying this; it is the United Nations—

“and to deliver justice for all people in Kashmir who have been suffering seven decades of conflict.”

How on earth could anyone disagree with that?

The United Nations should have it as its central mission to support a peace process that will give justice to the people of Kashmir, and in my view that is about self-determination—about the right of people to choose how they want to be governed. We can go back to revolutions from 1947 onwards, and place on them any historical interpretation that we choose, but the basic, underlying principle is that the people of Kashmir should have the right to decide their own futures. How is it possible that we can ever advance an argument to suggest that the freedoms that we enjoy in this country should not be enjoyed elsewhere? How can we possibly put forward an argument that skirts around the issue, and say that we can tolerate clear human rights abuses, whether for political reasons or for any other reason?

I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). I think that the United Nations needs to step up to the plate, at the very least. I think that it has let this region down. Resolutions are tabled for a reason. If they are not enforced—if they are not enacted—what is the point of them? If the United Nations cannot enforce or enact its own resolutions, why should we trust it in the future in respect of these issues?

I am proud to represent thousands of constituents of Kashmiri heritage. Before my election I was a councillor in Bury for a long time. I did not know about this issue. I have learned from my friends; I have learned from people on the ground; I have learned and learned and learned about the human rights abuses that happen on a daily basis. I am a lawyer, and I have heard at first hand of people being detained without trial for two years and, the day before the two years are up, they get detained for another two years. It is absolutely appalling. Rape, torture and mass killings are not being investigated. The Indian Army treats Kashmiris in any way it chooses with impunity, and we as an international community tolerate that. Can we look ourselves in the mirror if we continue to do that?

The realistic outcome is that the United Kingdom Government cannot act alone. We can, however, use our influence in the United Nations and other international bodies to support all those who wish to be part of the movement to protect universal human rights and the rule of law and to give justice to the Kashmiri people, which the United Nations says should be our central mission. We must do that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I would like to make sure that everyone who wishes to catch my eye has an opportunity to speak. Therefore, after the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to three minutes—[Interruption.] There is no point in people sighing. The debate must finish at 5 o’clock and the only way to get everyone in is to reduce the time limit to three minutes.