Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Transport
Chris Kane
Main Page: Chris Kane (Labour - Stirling and Strathallan)Department Debates - View all Chris Kane's debates with the Department for Transport
Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats
Chris Kane Excerpts(3 days, 18 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Wrigley
I tend to agree, and we will come to working animals shortly.
Cats are not on the list. Neither, I might add, are llamas or alpacas, which gives a fair idea of how old the list is. It has come down to us, almost untouched, from the Road Traffic Act 1930. The usual explanation—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) must have read my speech in advance—is that these are working animals with an economic value to their owners, whereas cats were seen as pets. Rule 286 of the highway code does advise drivers to report any collision with an animal and, where possible, to find the owner of a cat. However, that is only guidance, and a driver who hits a cat can carry on driving without breaking any law.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
In attempting to find the owner, microchipping is incredibly important. Compulsory microchipping of cats is already in place in England but remains voluntary in Scotland. Does the hon. Member agree that Scotland should catch up so that more families can be reunited with a missing cat, or at the very least be spared the uncertainty of never knowing what happened to a much-loved pet?
Brian Leishman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the start. I appreciate them; sometimes I would like it if some of my own parliamentary colleagues thought the same as he does, but that is a different matter. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: this is achievable and it should be done.
Chris Kane
As my hon. Friend’s parliamentary colleague, I agree with everything that was said. The Government’s concern that a driver may not always know that they have struck a cat is a reason why the issue might be problematic. However, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a clear distinction between an unnoticed collision and knowingly driving away from an injured animal? Why should difficulty in preventing the first stop us from placing a duty of drivers to stop safely and seek help in the second?
Brian Leishman
I thank my hon. Friend, and I understand that there is a differentiation.
This debate is well-subscribed and I do not want to take up too much more time. I will finish with a request from the good people at the Cats Whiskers that they have asked to be put to the Minister:
“We want the Government to legislate to require drivers to stop, check and report any road collisions with cats if they’re injured on the road, and hold drivers accountable if they fail to stop and report a collision involving a cat on the basis they left a cat to unnecessarily suffer. We believe asking drivers to be made responsible for seeking help for an injured cat is a perfectly reasonable & simple ask.”
As their MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, I wholeheartedly agree.