Westminster Hall

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

Monday 26 October 2026

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

Prostate Cancer Screening

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 751472 relating to prostate cancer screening.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I begin by thanking David James, director of patient projects and influencing at Prostate Cancer Research, for creating the petition, and the 101,932 people who supported it, including 195 in my constituency in the Scottish Borders.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend thank the high number of my constituents who signed the petition, putting West Worcestershire at the top of list for the number of signers who brought it before Parliament? Will he also praise the work of the Graham Fulford Charitable Trust which, working with the Worcestershire Ambassadors, brings so many free prostate cancer screening opportunities to people in my constituency?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is a testament to the importance of the issue not just to her constituents—given the number who signed the petition—but to all our constituents who signed it that so many see the need for the Government to address this matter. All the charities do important work in the area.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Lamont]

I will make some progress, if I may, to develop a few arguments. I will take a couple of interventions, but I am conscious of the number of colleagues who are keen to speak.

The petition argues:

“Targeted screening for all high-risk men should be the starting point for building a screening programme that can ultimately protect all men.”

It also questions the decision to offer screening exclusively to men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic variants.

Since the petition was launched, the UK National Screening Committee recommendation has narrowed, and the Government have now accepted screening for a a smaller group than the petition sought. The questions for us today are: who should be included? Why have other high-risk groups been excluded? And what evidence would justify widening the programme?

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in the United Kingdom. More than 68,000 men are diagnosed annually, with over 12,000 dying from the disease each year. Patient survival hinges heavily on when it is diagnosed: if it is at stages 1 or 2, nearly 100% of men survive for five years or more, whereas if it is at stage 4, only about half live for five years or more.

Sir Chris Hoy, Scotland’s most decorated Olympian, knows this better than anyone. He was diagnosed in 2023, in his 40s, after a scan for shoulder pain. He had no prostate cancer symptoms at all, yet by then the cancer had spread to his bones and was terminal. His father and grandfather both had prostate cancer. Under the programme that the Government have now accepted, a family history like his would not, on its own, qualify a man for screening.

Last year, the broadcaster Dermot Murnaghan was diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer and, sadly, died in July this year. He said that he “fell through the gaps”, having assumed that the regular health checks he received would include a PSA—prostate-specific antigen—test. They did not. His message to other men was simple:

“Get the test. Insist on the test.”

Risk is not evenly distributed—age, family history, genetics and ethnicity all matter. One in eight men will develop prostate cancer during their lifetime, with the proportion rising to around one in four for black men. That is why the petition argues for screening to begin with men already known to be at greater risk.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents in Scotland; I have had many emails on this issue from my constituents in Wales. Does he agree that when it comes to testing, all men are at high risk? It should happen not just in England but all around the United Kingdom.

[John Lamont]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will come on to the importance of ensuring that we get a UK-wide approach, because there are subtle differences among the devolved nations.

The UK Government decision to accept the UK NSC’s final recommendation in England—to provide a PSA test every two years to men aged 45 to 61 with pathogenic BRCA2 variant and a relevant family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer—is a significant step forward, and roll-out is expected from 2027. BRCA1 carriers, however, are excluded, and BRCA2 carriers must also meet the family history criterion. The Department of Health and Social Care estimates estimates that only around 1,500 men in England will be eligible, and acknowledges that most prostate cancer cases will therefore fall outside the programme.

The final recommendation also falls well short of what Members from across the House have called for. In November 2025, a cross-party letter signed by more than 120 MPs, hand delivered to the Health Secretary by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), called on the Government to act for the men at greatest risk: black men; men with a family history of prostate, breast or ovarian cancer; and BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Its message was clear: perfection must not be the enemy of progress. The concern raised by those MPs reinforces the central question that the petition addresses: is the current screening programme too narrow?

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

As somebody who has the BRCA2 genetic abnormality, I will be eligible for the extra screening that the hon. Gentleman outlined. Unfortunately, too many men are delayed in getting screened, especially in rural and deprived areas, and the delays result in prostate cancer being identified far later. Although I am grateful to the Government for including me in the screening, does the hon. Gentleman agree that more must be done to inform men of the need for regular screening to avoid it being caught so late?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member makes an important point about awareness and the challenge in rural areas. I will come to that later in my speech.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton is present, having done so much to advance this issue. As Prime Minister, his Government backed the £42 million Transform trial, providing £16 million of Government funding to examine different approaches to prostate cancer screening.

For the benefit of Members who are not aware, Transform is the largest prostate cancer screening trial in two decades. Designed and led by Prostate Cancer UK, with Government funding through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, it is comparing combinations of PSA blood tests, fast MRI scans and genetic saliva tests to find the safest and most effective way to detect prostate cancer before it becomes incurable. Crucially, it is designed to include far more black men than previous trials. With further Government funding announced this year, it is now worth around £60 million, and its first-stage results are expected before the end of 2027.

My right hon. Friend has since become an ambassador for Prostate Cancer Research and has called for a targeted national screening programme for the groups most at risk. Prostate Cancer Research says that the final UK NSC recommendation

“falls short of what is needed”,

arguing that too many high-risk men remain outside the programme.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the former Prime Minister’s tireless campaigning on this issue. I have been deeply moved by many of my constituents whose lives were saved by early screening; all too often, though, that was the result of charity initiatives, because it was not available on the NHS. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned a lot of the advanced research in this area, which highlights every day how important screening is. Does he agree that the Government must continue to review the issue and see whether widening the screening criteria could save more lives?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member is right. There is so much work and research going on in this area, and it is imperative that the Government acknowledge that work and react once more informed evidence becomes available.

The petitioners argue that the UK NSC has “fixated on potential harms” and underweighted the benefits of earlier detection, but there are good reasons why screening programmes face a higher evidential threshold. A raised PSA level does not by itself diagnose prostate cancer, but can cause anxiety and lead to further investigation. Screening can also result in overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment, which can cause lasting harms. Prostate Cancer Research challenged the draft modelling, arguing that it relied too heavily on older evidence and did not adequately reflect modern MRI-led diagnostic pathways. The UK NSC says it considered those criticisms and updated its modelling before reaching its final recommendation.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I thank all my constituents who have contacted me about this vital point. Community diagnostic centres offer great resources to speed up screening. Does my hon. Friend agree that more emphasis should be put on those centres, particularly in rural areas like South Shropshire?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point about the importance of testing centres being available in rural areas, and about how community-based testing centres link into the NHS and the research that is being carried out.

There remains significant disagreement about the scale of harm. The UK National Screening Committee estimates that for every 1,000 men offered screening, up to 20 could be overdiagnosed, while around two lives are extended. Analysis by Prostate Cancer Research of more contemporary, MRI-led studies estimates that, roughly, for every two lives saved, three men are overdiagnosed. The updated Cochrane review published in May found that for every 1,000 men screened, PSA-based screening is likely to reduce prostate cancer mortality by around two deaths, while questions about overdiagnosis and treatment-related harms remain.

When I met researchers from the Transform team, they highlighted an important nuance: MRI has reduced unnecessary biopsies, but it has not yet been shown that those diagnostic advances sufficiently reduce overtreatment. Questions also remain about how organised screening would interact with the PSA testing that is already taking place, and about screening black men, with the UK NSC saying it has insufficient evidence to determine

“whether screening would cause more good than harm.”

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I declare an interest: my wife, Olivia, works as a radiographer in the national health service. The thrust of the Government information given to all our constituents is about catching cancer as early as possible; part of the dilemma is that the Government position on prostate cancer screening seems to run against that. Over the weekend, I had a dozen emails from constituents who either have had prostate cancer or have family members who have been touched by it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that dichotomy, the Government should perhaps play it a little safe and be prepared to look at this again?

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. My ask is that the Government continue their engagement, but also keep assessing the evidence and information coming forward, so that patients are given the best possible opportunity for survival.

The uncertainty around screening matters the most for black men, as one in four will develop prostate cancer and they are around twice as likely to die from it, but rather than being offered screening, they are being invited to take part in a trial. Transform has received up to a further £18 million to directly test several relevant questions, and to ensure that if stage 1 of the project is successful, all eligible black men aged between 45 and 74 will be invited to stage 2. Researchers told me that useful stage 1 evidence should be available before the long-term trial is complete, and will be fed back to the UK NSC.

As the MP for the Scottish Borders, I want to highlight Scotland’s experience. The Scottish Prostate Cancer Initiative, supported by Sir Chris Hoy, Sir Tom Hunter, Professor Sir Chris Evans and Kenny Logan, aims to offer free PSA tests to 25,000 men aged 40 to 80 during 2026. Sir Chris described the initiative as

“a major step forward for prostate cancer testing.”

In May, 313 men were tested in Hawick and 515 men were tested in Galashiels, meaning that across two days 828 men in my constituency were tested. The initiative is not an NHS screening programme, but its community-based model may offer useful lessons about access, uptake and reaching men who might otherwise be missed. That matters, because inequalities remain stark. Analysis from the NHS, National Services Scotland and Macmillan Cancer Support found that men in the most deprived areas had a 98% higher risk of death from prostate cancer than those in the least deprived areas.

I hope the Minister can address several points. First, will she commit to independent expert scrutiny of the UK NSC modelling, and to publish the findings and the Committee’s response in full? Secondly, as stage 1 of Transform produces significant new evidence, particularly on the screening of black men, will the Government ask the UK NSC to review its recommendation? Thirdly, how will the NHS proactively identify eligible BRCA2 carriers, particularly men whose genetic risk is not already known?

Fourthly, what lessons on improving access to testing can be drawn from community-based initiatives in Scotland? Fifthly, what discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government and the other devolved Governments to ensure that a man’s access to screening does not depend on which side of the border he lives on? Finally, what will the Government do to make sure that the many men who fall outside the programme know they can ask their GP for a PSA test and receive clear, balanced information when they do?

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I had the joy of spending time with the Kendal and South Lakes prostate cancer support group just a few weeks ago. Like the hon. Gentleman and me, its members are massively in favour of increased screening and making sure there is default screening for men over 50. Does the hon. Gentleman also think the Government need to be aware that if we test more people earlier and identify cancers earlier, more people can be treated? Does he believe the Government have done enough work, both north of the border and in the UK Parliament, to ensure that we have sufficient capacity for surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy so that we can treat the people who are diagnosed?

[John Lamont]

That is a key point, because not everybody who is diagnosed with prostate cancer will necessarily need further treatment. Some people will not die of prostate cancer but will die with prostate cancer. The challenge for the Government is getting the balance right between when it is appropriate to test and treat and when it is not.

I am conscious that many Members want to speak, so let me conclude. Screening is not simple. Finding more cancer is not automatically the same as saving more lives, but legitimate concerns about overdiagnosis should not prevent us from asking whether advances in diagnosis have changed where the balance now lies. More than 100,000 people have asked Parliament to consider targeted screening for men at higher risk. Since they signed the petition, targeted prostate cancer screening has entered policy for the first time. That is an important first step. The question now is how and when the boundary should move as the evidence develops.

The evidence I heard when preparing for this debate points both ways. Earlier detection could save lives, but questions remain over whether modern screening can reduce past harms. The Transform trial should help to provide the answers. When it reports, the Government must be ready to act quickly; that is what the petitioners asked for and what I hope the Minister will commit to. I look forward to hearing from her and from colleagues.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. Colleagues will note that the debate is vastly oversubscribed, and we will not be able to get everybody in. There will be a two-minute time limit on speeches and Front-Bench speeches will begin at 5.28 pm.

16:45

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison.

The early stage of prostate cancer frequently produces no symptoms, which means many men are diagnosed only after the cancer has progressed. Screening offers the possibility of detecting the disease before symptoms develop. The strongest case for targeted screening is for high-risk men. That includes black men, who are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer as non-black men—one in four black men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime—and they face a higher risk of dying from the disease. Equal treatment is not necessarily equitable treatment, because black men face a substantially higher risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer. Prostate cancer screening should certainly be available to all black men.

My constituent Simeon Greene shared his experience of prostate cancer and the devastating impact the disease can have on black men and their families. He is a black man of African-Caribbean heritage and the youngest of four brothers. Tragically, all four brothers were diagnosed with prostate cancer before the age of 50, and all three of Simeon’s brothers have now died from the disease. The impact on his family has extended to the next generation; the son of Simeon’s eldest brother was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the age of just 39. His family’s experience demonstrates the devastating consequences of prostate cancer, particularly when it affects men at such a young age. We owe it to families like Simeon’s to amplify efforts to raise awareness, encourage early conversations about prostate cancer, and improve earlier detection and access to appropriate care. No family should have to endure what Simeon’s family has.

We also need to provide greater support for trusted community organisations, which can play a vital role in raising awareness of prostate cancer and encouraging men to seek advice. The Wolves Foundation in my constituency recently hosted an event which used the reach of football to get men talking about the disease. They worked with local NHS specialists and those with personal experience of prostate cancer.

16:45

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I declare an interest as an ambassador for Prostate Cancer Research. In the work that I do for that charity I have spent a lot of time in the community talking to people affected by prostate cancer and those organising drives, and I am humbled by the many men I have met for whom diagnosis has come far too late to make a difference to their life, but who have chosen to dedicate themselves to this issue and to raising awareness. I think that is extraordinary of them and, as I said, humbling. The most important thing we can do to honour them is to make sure no one else loses a father, grandfather or brother to this cruel disease.

I, like many other campaigners, was disappointed with the decision of the National Screening Committee. The Budget is not until Wednesday, but colleagues know I like numbers, so I dove into the model behind that decision and found a few issues that I hope the Minister will go back and have a look at. The model assumed treatment costs of around £27,000, but most independent estimates are far higher. The model assumed that only about a quarter of men received the most advanced drugs—again, audit figures suggest that twice as many do—and that they would not receive that treatment for more than three years, when the evidence is that they receive it for longer. All those gaps understate the positive case for screening that has been verified by the independent York Health Economics Consortium.

Further to that, we heard about the concern regarding overtreatment, but modern diagnostic pathways offer ways to reduce unnecessary treatment and diagnosis. Given the time available to us, we do not need to go into all the details, but the evidence this year from the Cochrane review that looked at 800,000 men’s experience, and from the Swedish study into the success of the new Stockholm3 trial, indicated that the evidence is moving faster than the committee is moving. I am delighted that the Government have committed to a living model. Will the Minister commit to publishing the workflow perhaps by January, so that we know when the model will be updated with the new evidence and what the workstreams are for that, particularly on the new survival assumptions and costs? Will she also open up the model, as National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does, to independent experts, because then we can have real scrutiny and debate the assumptions.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Alistair Strathern.

[Alistair Strathern]

I intervened.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

All right. I call Peter Prinsley.

16:52

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Thank you for chairing this debate, Dr Murrison. I declare an interest in that I am a surgeon and appointed chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer bewilders people. They think, “Surely it must be like other cancers we know about? Find it early, treat it early and save lives.” Only lung cancer causes more death in men, but prostate cancer is not so simple. We know it to be a range of diseases that behave quite differently. At the one end is the dreadful spreading disease of cancer that kills men, sometimes quickly and sometimes very young, and at the other end are the indolent cancers that simply sit around causing little trouble, so that the patient lives with the cancer and dies of something unrelated. The great dilemma is how to distinguish which is which. If we identify cancers that are, in fact, not going to cause any trouble and we treat them, we will need to deal with the consequences of the treatments and side effects that so many men fear—incontinence and impotence—and we risk doing more harm than good. That, in simple terms, explains why the screening experts have determined that at present whole-population screening is not the way to go. People find that a little difficult to understand, and so do I, to be honest.

As we have heard, at least two former prime Ministers have been advocating for screening, as have a number of famous sportsmen. The blood test used in screening is the PSA test. What is the problem? False positives—three quarters of men with PSA greater than 4 ng/ml will on biopsy be found not to have cancer—and false negatives, as men with cancer can have normal PSA. So it is not a yes or no test, and is perhaps not massively useful. The UK National Screening Committee says we should do targeted screening of men with the BRCA2 gene and a family history of prostate cancer, but it might be best to use MRI for those men.

I would like to say that there is hope. Analysis of surgical samples of prostate cancer subjected to genetic study at the University of East Anglia, where I too lately completed an MD in medical genetics studies, will soon allow us to distinguish between bad prostate cancer and good prostate cancer. We can be proud of how British science is contributing. I urge our Government to use this Parliament to support that research and those amazing scientists in their bold endeavour.

16:54

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.

I appreciate this important debate, because for me this issue is personal. Last Christmas was particularly difficult for us as a family, because my dad had a looming prostate cancer diagnosis. He had been participating in the trial screening programme over the last 15 years, and although that is not always easy—other Members have alluded to how difficult it is—once confirmed, his early diagnosis meant that they caught it and it can be managed. Thankfully, dad is doing well.

One of my constituents, Michael from Harpenden, wrote to me ahead of today’s debate. Although he had no symptoms, he was encouraged to ask his GP for a full blood test, which found early stage prostate cancer. He tells me that under the new screening rules, he would not have been diagnosed. He calls himself one of the lucky ones, but no man’s survival should come down to luck.

As has been highlighted, prostate cancer is now one of the UK’s most common cancers, and I applaud the survivors, bereaved families and campaigners who have secured a screening programme, but that will only reach about 1,500 men, leaving out many black men and men with a family history of prostate cancer, so it must be just a first step. There are still too many men outside the programme, so I ask the Minister: learning from the stories of my dad, Michael and so many more, how do we ensure that those who need it get the screening they deserve? How can we learn from trial programmes and use new technology to make sure that it is a better screening programme for everyone involved? Will the Government urgently guarantee delivery of the targeted programme across the country and build the infrastructure to broaden screening at every possible level where it is needed? Will they look at writing into law that every cancer patient starts treatment within 62 days? Every man deserves the chance that my dad and Michael had.

16:56

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this important debate.

Each year, 63,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer in the UK and, devastatingly, more than 12,000 will die from the disease. That is why I welcome England’s first screening programme, and why we must move at pace to put it into action. We know that while lung cancer screening was recommended in 2022, that has still not been fully implemented. For this programme to make a real difference to health outcomes, we must move quickly on implementation and, more important, ensure that it reaches the men it is designed for. Roughly 30,000 men in the UK carry the BRCA variant, but the vast majority are not aware of it.

Those at the highest risk—black men—have historically been underinformed. Black men face double the risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer compared with their non-black counterparts, yet only 20% are aware of that. As such, black men are often diagnosed at a far later stage, when their cancer has become more difficult to treat and their chances of survival are considerably lower. In my role as a trustee of the black cancer care charity From Me to You, I have witnessed the devastating consequences of late-stage diagnosis and the power of early intervention within the community. I would like to ask the Minister: what steps is the Department taking to help the NHS find men who are unaware of the higher risk they face, either because of their ethnicity or because they carry the BRCA2 variant?

16:58

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Many in this House will know my previous position, but I will use my speech to talk about things I understand and things I do not.

I understand why there is such a drive to pick up the screening programme. The numbers have been stated explicitly, and I understand why the Government are citing the evidence from the committee to make sure that this is measured. If there is a test that says someone may have cancer 75% of the time but does not pick it up 15% of the time, that is a matter of concern, especially when we read the statistics about 12 men in 1,000 tested being overtreated. Nobody has talked about what being overtreated means; it means a man who is perhaps 56 and asymptomatic suddenly suffering erectile dysfunction, though he never had a cancer that needed treatment. These are important points, and it is right that we expand the trial to understand more about what is going on.

Here is what I do not understand, which I will put to the Minister. The guidance for GPs has changed: formerly, when a man who was asymptomatic and over 50 requested a PSA, they could get it. We have a test that is not very good, and it is hard enough to get men in to see a doctor, but what are they most concerned about? Cancer. I have had those conversations; they understand the risks and still want that test. Why have the Government changed that, when their own consultation says:

“There was no simple way of knowing from the data whether a PSA test had been done because of a patient’s request for one, a GP’s concern about a patient’s symptoms, as part of post-cancer treatment follow-up, or active surveillance”?

The Government do not even know why PSA test access was changed. That is important. If a man goes in to ask for a PSA test, given everything he knows, he should have the right to that test until we get further information to tell him otherwise, because if I was that GP, I would be worried he would ask for my General Medical Council number and my name.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I thank Members for their timekeeping and call Perran Moon.

17:00

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)]

Meur ras, Dr Murrison. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate, and thank the 232 constituents of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle who signed the petition.

A constituent of mine, Mike from Tolvaddon, was having a blood test for an unrelated condition when a nurse suggested adding a PSA. It detected an aggressive cancer that was fortunately treatable. That was unfortunately not the case for the husband of Jean from Tehidy Park, whose cancer was not diagnosed until it had already spread to his bones. Had he had testing, he might have been here today.

I warmly welcome the Government’s actions to establish, from 2027, the country’s first targeted prostate cancer screening programme and I welcome the £18 million investment in the Transform trial. Statistics often show that men in deprived communities have a lower prostate cancer prevalence than average, not necessarily because they do not have it but because deprivation reduces their access to testing, leaving them undiagnosed. I worry that will be the case for several of my constituents, given that we suffer some of the deepest deprivation in the country.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Prostate Cancer UK has identified that men from deprived areas are 29% more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer only at a point after the cancer has already spread, which touches exactly on the point that the hon. Member is making. Does he agree that as well as having more sensitive diagnostic tests, we must make sure that the people who are most at risk can access those tests?

[Perran Moon]

I wholly agree: efforts must focus on those areas with high levels of deprivation, wherever they are. I urge Ministers to keep further targeted expansion of screening under active review and to act as swiftly as possible as the evidence develops.

17:02

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I declare my interest as an officer of the APPG for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is a subject close to my heart: we all know that it affects black men, middle-aged men and men with a family history of it, and I tick all those boxes.

My father has prostate cancer and is undergoing treatment. I thank all the staff at Kingston hospital for their swift treatment of him, given he was under active surveillance. That is an important point: he got a PSA test, discovered that he had prostate cancer and as a result was placed on active surveillance because he was below the threshold required for treatment. When that active surveillance proved that he needed to be treated, staff were able to act quickly. That has, fundamentally, saved his life. He would not be eligible for the Transform trial, which will now include black men, until 2028. Who knows how far the cancer might have progressed by that point?

I take my health quite seriously and get a PSA test annually. I got my last PSA test last month and thankfully all is okay for me, but regular testing means I can keep track of it and pay attention to it. It is obvious that we need to encourage more men to get themselves tested. There are a lot of middle-aged men in this Chamber and I suspect that not everybody has had a PSA test, or had one recently.

In August, the Department of Health and Social Care withdrew the prostate cancer risk management programme after 24 years. PCRMP provided a dedicated framework for the informed choice model for PSA testing among asymptomatic men. New guidance removes references to men over 50 being considered to be at increased risk. Now that the guidance underpinning the framework has been withdrawn, will the Minister clarify how requests for testing for asymptomatic men will be handled in practice? I would be grateful if she would also clarify the Government’s official position, stated last week at Health parliamentary questions. I would also appreciate her confirmation that should men suspect that they have symptoms they can go to their GP and seek a PSA test for prostate cancer.

17:04

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I thank all my constituents who signed the petition. I start by paying tribute to my constituent, Graham Fulford, for the phenomenal work that his charitable trust has done to promote awareness and improve testing across the United Kingdom. Since 2004, it has been running tests, delivering more than 470,000 and finding around 4,000 cancers. The trust estimates that that has collectively added more than 32,000 years of life.

Prostate cancer is the most common kind of cancer among men, with around 12,000 dying from it every year. As we have heard, black men are more than twice as likely to die from cancer as white men.

My request to the Minister for wider and more expansive targeted screening will come as no surprise. Last week, having had a conversation with Graham Fulford and his trust to see if they would be willing to provide support, I wrote to Mr Speaker, encouraging him to consider an annual screening programme here in Parliament to raise awareness of that need. Minister, the trust would be delighted to run it, if that is of interest.

Finally, I wish to mention my constituent, Nigel Higgins, who lost his life to prostate cancer last year. Nigel was a friend of mine and was known to many in Warwick and Leamington. I promised him I would continue his campaign in his memory.

17:06

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am here today to speak on behalf of the 217 people in my constituency who have signed this petition, as well as those who have taken the time to write to me and those I met from Breconshire Friends of Prostate Cymru.

Today I want to share the experience of one constituent, Mr Peter Morris from Brecon, who contacted me following his own devastating diagnosis. At the age of just 56, Mr Morris was diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer entirely by chance after visiting his GP about an unrelated health issue. By the time his cancer was discovered, it had already spread beyond his prostate and was incurable.

Mr Morris believes that had he been offered screening at the age of 50, his cancer could have been detected before it spread, giving him a chance of curative treatment. Instead, he and his family have had to come to terms with a terminal diagnosis. I pay tribute to Mr Morris for his courage in sharing his experience and using an incredibly difficult personal situation to campaign for change that could save the lives of others.

He has expressed his deep disappointment at the UK National Screening Committee’s draft recommendations to limit screening to a very narrow group of men with specific genetic risk factors. As he rightly points out, many men will have no idea whether they carry those genetic variants, and what about men, such as Mr Morris, who have no known family history of the disease and would not qualify under the proposed criteria?

I recognise that screening is not without risks, including the potential for overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment, but we must also recognise the real and devastating consequences of cancers being diagnosed too late.

17:08

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I start by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). He is doing a fantastic job of using the convening power that comes with his former office to shed light on this subject. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) did a great job of outlining the need for a more evidence-based focus on increasing the base for screening. I will not touch on that, but I do want to talk about the inequalities associated with screening.

The national prostate cancer audit in 2025 showed that inequalities in prostate cancer treatment are deepening. Men in deprived areas are more likely to present with advanced diseases and are more likely to die. That should shame us. There is a national dynamic to this. At a recent meeting with Prostate Cancer Research, I was told about the discrepancies in late diagnosis across the UK. In Scotland, 31% of prostate cancers are diagnosed too late for curative treatment. That is higher than in any other part of the UK. In London, for example, the figure is 15%. Those differences are unacceptable and should shame us.

The current system relies too often on chance and on a patient being persistent. GP guidelines do not encourage practitioners to discuss risks with patients if they are asymptomatic. That means that too many men request a test only because of a chance conversation with friends or family—or, hopefully, they might get the opportunity to access one in Parliament. Awareness of the risks is also unequal, with the most health-literate and affluent men more likely to request a test. If men from all walks of life are not aware of the risks or their right to request a test, without a national screening programme inequality is baked into the system.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

In my constituency of Leicester South, nearly 10% of residents are from the black and Afro-Caribbean community, which is more than double the national average. Does the hon. Member agree that leaving those men in a situation where they have to know that they have to ask for a PSA test builds inequality into our system?

[Dr Arthur]

I agree and we have to be honest that this is not an issue unique to prostate cancer. With so many cancers, members of the black and ethnic minority community are much more likely to be diagnosed in accident and emergency, and that never leads to a good outcome.

Screening will not end deaths from prostate cancer completely, but it is the right way forward to minimise deaths from prostate cancer, and I think that that is something we are all agreed on today.

17:10

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Thank you for your chairmanship today, Dr Murrison.

In passing, I thank the Government for changing their mind about the Health Services Safety Investigation Body and for keeping that body, so that it can continue working as it is. I wonder what it would make of a systemic study of the safety management risks and how they are being managed with prostate cancer and screening, because I see very different experiences across different European countries and a wide variety of methods of gathering data. Blanket screening exists in very few countries.

I heard what the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) said, but my understanding is that an MRI scan followed by a needle biopsy need not necessarily have much in the way of adverse health effects. I had three MRI scans, but no needle biopsy.

[Dr Prinsley]

The problem is that that is not the screening test—the screening test is the PSA, which, as we have said, is unreliable.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Many tests for initial diagnosis of many conditions are unreliable. The problem is that the Government are telling people, “You cannot have a PSA test”, unless, of course, they buy a testing kit from some fly-by-night internet company. There is a lot of that going on, which is clogging up the health system.

If someone has a doubt about what is happening down there, it should be possible—indeed, it should be encouraged by GPs—for them to have a PSA test as a precaution. If the result is a false positive, let us find out that it is a false positive. That is a much cheaper option. I mean, look at the number of deaths. Each year, 64,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and there are 12,000 deaths from it. This is a very serious health situation and we should not be tolerating it.

What I see in the system is an excess of caution. Okay, we now have this Transform trial, but its effect will be to put off any further decisions until 2027. Why are we doing that? There is plenty of data and plenty of experience for the Government to make more flexible decisions.

One always wonders whether the committees that make these decisions are really independent or whether they are under pressure to control costs, because, of course, if there are more PSA tests, there is a need for more people to scan and to biopsy, and there will be more false positives to deal with, and all of that has a cost. Cost alone should not be the metric; that is not how safety is run in other industries.

There needs to be information, and a balanced and independent diagnosis of whether the system is generating the right data. Based on the evidence we already have, we are not testing enough people and we are not doing enough MRI scans. We should be doing much more.

17:13

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.

I start by offering my thoughts to all those in Wolverhampton North East and beyond who have lost loved ones to prostate cancer or who are themselves living with it, and their families. We owe it to them and to the men still at risk to do more to find this disease earlier. Finding prostate cancer early can save lives.

In Wolverhampton North East, more than one in five of those men were diagnosed at a late stage, when their cancer was harder to treat or even incurable. That is why I welcome England’s first targeted prostate cancer screening programme, but we must ensure that it is rolled out promptly and that we move to target all high-risk men, in order to reach those who need it most.

I am particularly concerned about the data that shows that one in four black men will develop the disease, while men whose father or brother have already had it are about two and a half times more likely to develop it than other men. That is why I was proud to support the launch of the Saving Black Men’s Lives manifesto at Molineux, led by Prostate Cancer UK and the West Midlands Cancer Alliance. Brothers Reaching Out for Support and its founder, Junior Hemans, as well as lots of campaigners and patient advocates, shared their devastating experiences.

Since then, the Government have announced around £20 million for prostate cancer research and treatment, including plans to expand the Transform research trial. Will the Minister set out a clear timetable for the screening programme, explain how eligible men will be identified and outline what more is being done to raise awareness among higher risk groups and help GPs discuss risk proactively?

17:15

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Some 310 of my constituents signed the petition, placing South West Devon eighth out of all constituencies in the country. One constituent said:

“At 73 I have lost many friends, at least 8, to this disease—and I have a few, three I know of, who were treated and survived due to early diagnosis.”

Tina wrote:

“Prostate cancer screening saved my brother-in-law; he went to the doctor for depression and was offered a routine Prostate screening test, it saved his life thankfully.”

Another constituent asked me how it is possible to have reached the age of 69 without having had a PSA check from the GP, and that person was no one other than my predecessor, Sir Gary Streeter. When he was feeling unwell for a while, he went to be tested and had a PSA of 251. He has benefited from the NHS gym scheme and specifically wanted me to ask the Minister this: what work will happen to ensure that the scheme happens right across the country, and is not a postcode lottery? He is aware that, although he has benefited from the scheme, not everybody can. Ultimately, he is doing well—just to reassure everyone.

Finally, I want to mention the Chestnut Appeal for Men’s Health, which is a local charity that works with men who are suffering from or living with prostate cancer and their families. It has done some fantastic work with Plymouth Argyle recently.

17:16

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

I want to talk about what happens after a diagnosis. A relative of mine was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and he was offered treatment through NHS Scotland. However, there was another option, focal therapy, which was not mentioned to him. He subsequently discovered that he was eligible for that treatment, but it was not available through his local health board; it was only available to him privately.

The way in which he discovered the therapy was rather unusual: he was watching “Clarkson’s Farm”. He was struck by how quickly Jeremy Clarkson appeared to have received treatment after sharing his cancer diagnosis on the programme and, given what my relative knew about both treatment and tractor suspension, how quickly he was back driving in his fields. My relative had expected that treatment would mean weeks or months of recovery, but what he saw on television prompted him to investigate, and that is how he discovered focal therapy. He eventually had the procedure and is now cancer-free, but it raises some difficult questions.

First, why was he not told about the option in the first place? As a Scottish MP, I recognise that health is devolved, but we are still part of one United Kingdom. If one part of a country is at the vanguard of new medical technology, surely we have an obligation to learn from it and share that knowledge. Whatever political or administrative boundaries we operate within, patients deserve access to information about all clinically appropriate treatment options. I am not arguing that focal therapy is suitable for every man with prostate cancer—of course, it is not. However, the availability of treatment in one part of the country should not determine whether a patient in another part even knows whether it exists, let alone whether they can access it. Surely we cannot be relying on someone watching “Clarkson’s Farm” to push for information on what their treatment options might be.

I ask the Minister: what more can be done to ensure that patients across all four nations of the United Kingdom are informed about clinically appropriate treatments, including those available beyond their own health board and national NHS system? Screening would give more men information quicker to start to make informed decisions with their doctors. However they find their way to the doctor to take a PSA test, if they are fortunate enough to find out early that they have cancer, we owe them all the information they need to make informed choices about what happens next.

17:18

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Murrison. I am particularly proud to have my constituent Dave Young in the Gallery today. Dave was diagnosed with prostate cancer without symptoms in 2024, following a PSA test, and he has since dedicated himself to helping other men catch theirs early. Around 350 men have been directly tested through his campaigning in and around St Neots, and at an event in September, 122 men were seen in a single day. Of the six investigated afterwards, four have had cancer confirmed, so I thank Dave.

The best tribute that we can pay to Dave and other campaigners like him is to get the policy right. I challenge the Minister on whether the National Screening Committee’s modelling back in May actually did that. The committee judged screening against a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year, but since April, NICE can approve a medicine for advanced prostate cancer at up to £35,000. Analysis commissioned by Prostate Cancer Research showed that treating a man diagnosed at stage 4 costs roughly 10 times as much as stage 1, so the NHS will pay more to treat this cancer once it is incurable than it is prepared to pay to find it earlier. That does not seem consistent.

The case against wider screening rests on harms, overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment. I will not repeat what Members have said on the statistics for that, but I would like to ask whether the screening was judged as the NHS would actually deliver it today, with MRI scans, or as it was delivered 20 years ago. Can the Minister publish the model on terms equivalent to NICE, so that independent experts can test it and give a dated timetable for reconsidering the decision? Dave and other men campaigning on the issue would very much appreciate that.

17:20

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I will begin with testimony from two constituents. Angela Duffill lost her dad to prostate cancer in 2019. She speaks warmly of the 20 years of NHS care he received at Russells Hall hospital, but she also writes of the time before his diagnosis, when he was sitting on his symptoms and suffering in silence, not knowing what was wrong and not going to the doctor to find out. The familiar mix of embarrassment, stoicism and a public-spirited reluctance to waste NHS time is all too common among men of his age. Angela wonders whether a comprehensive, better publicised screening programme would have encouraged her dad to seek help sooner.

Another constituent, Mervyn Jackson, wrote to me with his story. As prostate cancer ran in his family, he was encouraged to have regular tests. In 2021, those tests detected the cancer while he was still at an early stage. Mervyn said:

“The worrying thing is that I had no symptoms at all from the cancer.”

At the time of diagnosis, he felt completely well. There was nothing to tell him that he needed treatment, and nothing to prompt him to get tested, which he would not have done had it not been recommended based on his congenital risk. Following a successful round of radiotherapy, Mervyn is now 78 and in good health, living a full and active life.

When we discuss early diagnosis, that is the possibility we are talking about—finding cancer while there is still time to treat it, potentially giving someone decades more of life. I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce targeted screening for men with the BRCA2 gene and a relevant family history of cancer, but many families will still be left asking where current policies leave them. I hope the Minister will recognise the urgency behind these concerns, and the need to keep wider screening under review and give families clear guidance while that work continues.

17:22

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The National Screening Committee’s current recommendations are very restricted, limiting prostate cancer screening to every two years for men aged between 45 and 61 with pathogenic BRCA2 variant and a family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer. According to its modelling report, just one in 277 people has the variant. In total, around 1,500 men in England would be eligible for such screening.

The Transform trial is a key part of the Government’s strategy for improving detection and support for men with prostate cancer. It is a long-term commitment and I absolutely support that work, but I am concerned about the lack of strategy to support men with, and at high risk of, prostate cancer in the interim. Clearly, this impacts men today. I am concerned that the decision to withdraw the previous prostate cancer risk management programme and to direct GPs to refer to guidance in NICE clinical knowledge summaries when discussing PSA tests with patients has seriously reduced clarity for patients.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I have met many men and their families in Basingstoke who have been affected by prostate cancer. Although many of them welcome the targeted screening programme, we need reassurance from the Government. As more evidence comes to light from the fantastic Transform programme, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should commit to expanding it as the evidence allows?

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree. We clearly have to act on that, and very quickly—that is the key point that many Members have made. We cannot wait. We see so many men affected by this illness and, unfortunately, many deaths and many men suffering for a long period.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

On the hon. Member’s point about lack of clarity, my constituent Richard went to his GP with early symptoms of prostate cancer, but because he did not fit the screening profile his GP refused a PSA test. Does the hon. Member agree that Ministers could issue guidance to make sure that GPs are not misinterpreting the new situation?

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree. I recently had to work quite hard to get a PSA test. I have a very good GP, but was basically told it was a waste of time having the test. We need to make sure we have clarity so that GPs know how to deal with this and men understand that they have an entitlement to the test.

I ask the Minister to make sure that we have a clear offer to higher-risk men. Will she confirm that men aged 50 or over or at higher risk are able to discuss the pros and cons of testing with their GP, and that the entitlement to a PSA test remains even though the PCRMP has been withdrawn? Going back to the screening we have at the moment, will she explain how BRCA2 carriers will be found and invited to screening going forward?

17:27

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. In 2017, my constituent Tony Collier was training for an ultramarathon. Tony was 60, fit and otherwise well. He was the kind of man who rarely sat still long enough to think about his own health. He thought he had a groin injury from his training. He went to the doctor and was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. He was told that his cancer had been developing for around 10 years. In that moment, Tony’s life changed forever. Tony did not ignore symptoms; there were not any until it was too late.

I met Tony through his dedicated campaigning for earlier diagnosis. Along with another of my constituents, Paul, he set up the Warrington Area Prostate Cancer Alliance to support other men from Warrington living with prostate cancer. Tony is working with national cancer organisations to make the case for change so that more men like him and those at high risk can get this lifesaving test. Tony believes that if he had had regular PSA tests from the age of 50, there is a good chance he would have been diagnosed earlier, when his cancer was still curable. Tony does not campaign for sympathy; he campaigns so that other men do not have to rely on chance to find out that they have cancer.

I hope the Minister listens to Tony’s story and acts on the recommendations from Prostate Cancer Research, including by publishing a timetable for reviewing screening evidence by January 2027 and providing six-monthly updates on the model and clear decision points for black men, tied to stage one of Transform; by funding new research into who currently receives PSA tests, why and with what outcomes; by allowing independent experts to scrutinise the UK National Screening Committee’s model on terms equivalent to NICE; by publishing a protocol for confidential and emerging evidence applied consistently to every test and trial; and by confirming that a man aged 50 or over or at higher risk who has discussed the pros and cons with his GP remains entitled to a PSA test now that the PCRMP has been withdrawn.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Well done, everyone; we got all the Back Benchers in.

17:27

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this important debate.

Prostate cancer is now the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in the UK. Around 540,000 men are living with or after prostate cancer. Each year, more than 64,000 men are diagnosed and over 12,000 will die from prostate cancer. One man dies of prostate cancer every 45 minutes—two lives will be lost in the short time of this debate.

The estimated lifetime risk is one in eight for men overall, but that rises to one in four for black men. In England, black men are also twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as white men, with a lifetime risk of one in 12 compared with one in 24. Like with all cancers, the earlier the stage at diagnosis, the better the chances of survival: five-year survival rates are almost 100% at stages 1 and 2, around 95% at stage 3 and around 50% at stage 4.

Who is diagnosed late also follows a pattern. In England, men in the most deprived areas have an 11% higher chance of a metastatic diagnosis. Men in the most deprived areas also have a 19% lower chance of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis than men in the least deprived areas. Prostate cancer mortality rates in England mirror that diagnosis trend. Mortality rates are 14% higher for men in the most deprived areas than for men in the least deprived areas, and around 740 deaths from prostate cancer each year are linked with deprivation.

Incidence rates of prostate cancer have risen by 54% since the early 1990s and are projected to rise a further 14% by 2038-40. That means around 85,100 new cases of prostate cancer each year. Part of the rise in diagnoses reflects much greater awareness, with more men coming forward for PSA tests. The issue of prostate cancer screening could not be more important.

The Liberal Democrats applaud the tireless hard work of all cancer survivors, bereaved families and campaigners in securing a screening programme. However, we must do more to fight this devastating disease, and that is something the Liberal Democrats have continuously campaigned on. The Liberal Democrats are proud that our campaigning played a role in driving the Government to take action on this issue and ultimately deliver a prostate cancer screening programme. The programme will save thousands of lives, and it is unacceptable that no screening programme existed previously.

Screening programmes are standard across a range of cancers, but until recently there was no screening programme for prostate cancer at all—there is now only a targeted programme. The Government must urgently guarantee the delivery of the targeted screening programme across the country. That will lay the foundations and establish the infrastructure needed to further broaden screening as soon as possible. The Government must make improved testing for prostate cancer a priority; it is fundamental to saving lives. The Liberal Democrats will hold them to account on delivering better testing and ensuring that more men can be protected from this devastating illness.

The issue of prostate cancer testing has been handled, in many instances, very insensitively. Alongside the announcement of the screening programme, the NHS quietly tried to change the rules around a man’s right to request a PSA blood test. That is not right. It is shocking that it then told campaigners and NHS staff that that had been the case all along. It is simply not good enough.

Patients and their families deserve honesty and transparency. Is it really the Minister’s position that we should change years of standard practice and prevent men from making an informed choice to request a test? What has changed in the past few months to cause such a backward step in access? Was there any new evidence that informed the decision?

Improved screening must go hand in hand with faster treatment and a guarantee: it must be written into law and backed by investment that every patient, including those with prostate cancer, is treated within 62 days. The Liberal Democrats recognise that speed and quality of treatment are central to increasing survival rates of prostate cancer. To achieve that, we would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral, and we would replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increase their number so that no one has to travel too far for treatment. Liberal Democrat research last year found that eight in 10 hospitals are using outdated medical equipment, such as MRI scanners. Those machines are essential to fully diagnosing prostate cancer.

We would recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment. We would expand the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s capacity in order to halve the time for new treatments to reach patients. The Liberal Democrats also want to make the UK a world leader in cancer research, and we are calling for a cancer survival research Act. That would require the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into cancers with the lowest survival rates, including brain cancer.

We would also start a fellowship programme for US cancer scientists who have seen their funding slashed by President Trump. That would waive the burdensome fees and bureaucracy for international researchers on the whole. Global talent visas for top researchers currently cost £6,000 per person for a five-year visa—that is £18,000 for a family of three. That is significantly more expensive than most of our competitor countries, where a similar visa is typically £200 or £300 per person. The cost of visas for Cancer Research UK alone is £900,000 a year, which is the equivalent of setting up two new research labs every year.

The fellowship scheme would also deliver more funding for salary and research costs for researchers by expanding the share of GDP being spent on research and development to 3.5%. That would unlock hundreds of millions of pounds per year for cancer research and billions more for our life sciences sector generally. We would deliver that through a decade-long programme of public investment into R&D.

I therefore urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions and the calls made by me and my colleagues for the 540,000 men who live with or after prostate cancer, for their loved ones, and for the two men who will have lost their lives to prostate cancer in the short 90 minutes of this debate.

17:35

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing the debate and speaking on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank all Members who have spoken powerfully and in a considered manner, whichever side of the argument they are on, and the 100,000-plus people who signed the petition, including the 198 from my constituency. My thoughts go out to all those in my constituency and across the country who are affected by this terrible illness.

In November 2024, I supported Cancer Testing South—run by one of my constituents—at a free screening event in Bordon. I took a PSA test myself. It was quick and simple, and it gave me peace of mind. It showed how important it is to make testing accessible and to reach men who might never otherwise consider it.

[Rebecca Smith]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Plymouth Argyle football club on its commitment to work with the Chestnut Appeal by running community diagnostic events annually before football matches?

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work of her constituents in that important area. I must also recognise the previous Government’s work, particularly that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak)—whose commitment has continued beyond his time in office, as we have seen today—and that of my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly). With Prostate Cancer UK, we as the Conservative Government committed £42 million to launch Transform, the largest prostate cancer screening trial in the world.

I welcome some of what the current Government have done, but important questions remain about access to testing, identifying men at highest risk and how evidence will translate into policy. First, on PSA testing guidance, as raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), the guidance setting out the right of men over 50 to request a PSA test was withdrawn earlier this year. The Government say that policy has not changed and attribute the concerns to “misinformed media coverage”, yet a written answer in September confirmed that no impact assessment was undertaken because there was

“no change in policy to assess.”

If the policy had not changed, why was the guidance withdrawn? And how was it established that the change had no impact without an assessment? On 21 October, the Government said that

“officials continue to work with NICE”,

which does not clarify whether the changes to the clinical knowledge summary were discussed. Prostate Cancer Research has asked the Department to confirm that higher-risk men can still access a PSA test once informed of its risks and benefits. As of 14 October, it has had no reply. Will the Minister confirm clearly that those men can access testing?

Secondly, on support for those at the highest risk, I of course respect the committee’s independence while it reviews the evidence, but the Government can take practical steps in the meantime. Prostate Cancer UK has called for GPs to inform black men and men with a family history of their elevated risk and to offer them a PSA test. What will the Government do to improve access for such men now, rather than leaving them to wait years for the wider review?

Thirdly, on identifying BRCA2 carriers, an estimated 13,000 men carry that variant, yet most have never been tested and do not know. The Telegraph reported that only about 1,500 men will be invited for testing next year. How will the programme reach the wider population whom it is meant to benefit? The committee’s consultation document stated:

“DHSC analysts are undertaking an exercise to estimate the cost of identifying new BRCA variant carriers.”

Has that work been completed? Will it be published? What will the Government do to identify men who carry the variant without knowing it?

Fourthly, on Transform and the NSC model, the committee will work with SCHARR—the Sheffield centre for health and related research—to update its modelling in the light of the trial’s findings, in particular for black men. It will also examine risk algorithms and biomarkers, including the Stockholm3 test, and whether family history can be more tightly defined. That work of course matters, but its impact depends on how quickly findings inform decisions and whether the public can see what is happening.

Will the Minister commit to publishing by January of next year a dated programme for updating the model, covering the biomarker review and family history work, and reporting to this House every six months? Will she set a named decision point for black men, tied to the results of Transform’s first stage so that reconsideration does not default to the next scheduled review in 2029? What evidence will trigger a change to that model, and will independent experts be given access to it on terms similar to those NICE offers for medicines so that the assumptions can be tested?

Finally, I have some questions about how the value of screening is judged. Since April, NICE has been able to approve a medicine for advanced prostate cancer at up to £35,000 per quality-adjusted life year—a threshold raised as part of the trade deal with the United States. The screening committee judged earlier detection against a figure of £20,000. Why does the NHS now appear to value treating late-stage prostate cancer more highly than preventing it? Will the committee’s forthcoming methods guide bring the two thresholds into line?

In conclusion, I recognise the committee’s concerns about the harms of population-wide PSA screening, including overdiagnosis and treatment, and the uncertainties in the evidence for black men.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

We have heard several times today about the importance of making informed decisions, but we cannot make informed decisions unless we are properly informed in the first place. Therefore, while there are some valid concerns about risk, the most important duty we and the Government have is to do everything we can to raise awareness so that people can make important, informed decisions. That is our duty, and I commit to doing so on behalf of my 357 constituents who signed the petition.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, especially on this issue but on others as well. He is absolutely right that while the committee is making its evidential findings, there is nothing to stop the Government promoting a number of these ways to make sure that those at highest risk are getting treatment as soon as possible.

Cancer Research UK has highlighted the risks too. As my hon. Friend said, screening must be evidence-led, but Transform exists to address the limits of existing evidence, and improvements in testing and MRI-led pathways offer ways to improve how men are assessed, as many Members have mentioned. Uncertainty must not be the end; it must lead to research and progress, not delay.

The former shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), set out the position of His Majesty’s Opposition last August. He said we would

“back the latest evidence and research to ensure patient care remains at the heart of testing guidance.”

That is clearly the right approach: act where the evidence supports it, accelerate research where questions remain, and be clear about when decisions will be made. Men must not be disadvantaged by circumstances beyond their control. One may have no family records because his father died young, for example; another may simply want to discuss his risk with his GP. As my right hon. Friend said, no man with potential prostate cancer symptoms should be denied a test because of poor family records.

To conclude, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support targeted screening for men at highest risk, Transform and the committee’s evidence-led approach. But we need clear guidance from the Government on PSA testing, practical support for men at the highest risk, a credible plan to identify BRCA2 carriers and a dated timetable for the model, with independent scrutiny of it and transparency about how Transform will shape policy. I hope the Minister will address those questions directly now; if not, will she write to me and set out clearly what patients can expect next?

17:43

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening this important debate and setting out so clearly the questions he wants answered.

I want to begin by acknowledging the strength of feeling behind the petition. More than 100,000 people have signed it and a large number of right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber have made very powerful speeches. I will reflect on the issues raised; I will try to address as many of the points in my contribution this afternoon, but if I do not answer every question, I will reflect on them and I will certainly write to the shadow Minister.

There is a very real desire for us to do more to diagnose prostate cancer effectively, treat it earlier and ultimately save more lives. I am grateful to Members from across the House who have spoken so openly about their own experiences and those of their constituents, friends and families. I too am thinking of all those individuals facing a prostate cancer diagnosis and undergoing treatment at this time, and I was very pleased to hear that our former colleague, Gary Streeter, is doing well. I am sure that the whole House sends him our best wishes.

As we have heard, prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the United Kingdom. Around 68,000 men are diagnosed in the UK each year, and although survival rates are high, tragically, around 12,000 men still die from prostate cancer every year. Every one of those deaths is a loss to their family, friends and community. The Government are determined to improve outcomes for men with prostate cancer.

The UK National Screening Committee advises all four nations. Scottish officials are present at committee meetings and officials in the Department of Health and Social Care work with their counterparts across the devolved Governments to share information and good practice. In June, we announced England’s first targeted prostate cancer screening programme. From 2027, eligible men aged 45 to 61 with a BRCA2 gene variant and a family history of prostate, breast, pancreatic or ovarian cancer will be offered a PSA test every two years. We are working with the UK Cancer Genetics Group to identify further men who will be eligible for screening. That is an important step forward, but I recognise that for many it does not go far enough.

The petition asks the Government to go further than the UK National Screening Committee’s recommendation and introduce screening for all men at higher risk. I understand that ambition and I share the determination behind it, but we have a responsibility to ensure that the evidence tells us that, when we introduce screening, it will do more good than harm. That balance is particularly difficult with prostate cancer, as we have heard from some of the medically qualified Members. Unlike many other cancers, prostate cancer is often slow growing, and many men who develop it will never experience symptoms or come to any harm from it.

At the same time, treatment can have profound consequences. More than half of those treated experience significant side effects, including bladder leakage, bowel incontinence and erectile dysfunction. When we talk about the harms of screening and overtreatment, we are not talking about something abstract; we are talking about potentially lasting consequences affecting a man’s health, dignity and quality of life.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am going to make some progress, because I am keen to address the points that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk raised. If I have time at the end, I will take an intervention.

I want to turn to the issue of ethnic minority men. I have listened very carefully to the concerns about men at higher risk who are not included in the initial screening programme, particularly black men and men with a family history of cancer. We know that black men are twice as likely as white men to be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and that disparity rightly worries us all. What we do not yet know is whether screening black men would identify more aggressive cancers that need treatment, rather than slower growing cancers that may never cause harm. If screening leads to men being diagnosed and treated for cancers that would never have harmed them, we risk causing significant and lasting harm, and that cannot be right.

We should not accept the gaps in the evidence that prevent us from giving men the answers that they deserve. That is why the Government are investing and building on the Transform trial introduced by the previous Government by investing £34 million to identify better ways to screen for prostate cancer and enable all eligible black men to be invited to participate at stage 2. Prostate Cancer UK is working with charities and organisations experienced in working with black communities to encourage participation. That matters because we need stronger evidence built with the men most affected to inform future decisions about screening.

Family history is another important part of this picture. We know that it can increase a man’s risk, but the evidence does not yet tell us precisely which patterns of family history confer the greatest risk. Work is under way to refine the definition of family history and ensure that it is properly reflected in the UK National Screening Committee’s model. I totally accept that men need support now, which is why Cancer Research UK, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and the Royal College of General Practitioners are bringing together expertise to develop guidance to support GPs when advising men about familial risk.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will carry on because I want to make these points.

The important point is that the evidence and clinical practice are evolving, and our approach must be able to evolve with them. That is why the Government are funding the prostate cancer screening model used by the UK National Screening Committee for a further three years. Work is already under way on family history, risk algorithms and biomarkers, including Stockholm3, and significant evidence from Transform can be considered as it emerges. The initial programme is therefore not the end of the process. Where robust new evidence supports screening additional high-risk groups, that evidence can be considered and screening recommendations revisited.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will carry on because I am conscious of time and I want to make these points.

I want to address directly the concern about the evidence underpinning the current screening recommendation. The committee considered the current NHS standard of care, which includes the use of MRI before biopsy. It did not include newer and innovative approaches for which the evidence is not yet sufficiently established. There are enormously encouraging advances taking place, including more targeted approaches, such as focal therapy. Better diagnosis and less harmful treatments could change the balance between the benefits and harms of screening, and as robust evidence develops, it will be considered.

I also want to deal with the point about GPs. I have heard the strength of feeling about PSA testing for men who are not eligible for the new screening programme. I want to reassure men that the policy has not changed. Any man who is concerned about prostate cancer, including a man without symptoms, can discuss PSA testing with his GP. Separate from the decision on national screening programmes, it is my view and the Secretary of State’s view that men who ask their GP or urologist about a PSA test should be able to make an informed choice, based on good-quality information, about the likelihood of being helped or being harmed. The Secretary of State worked on this issue as a Health Minister at the Department almost 25 years ago, and personally ensured that the guidance includes references to the importance of informed choice.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Is the Minister therefore saying that a 52-year-old patient who understands the risks on both sides and wants their PSA has the right to get it, or is it the GP’s decision? The GP could deny it on a clinical basis even if the patient wants it. That is the change that people are worried about. Could she explain that point?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s experience as a GP. My understanding is that a man who requests a PSA test from a GP will have that test if he is given the information and the choice is there, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman if that is not correct. It has to be an informed choice, with the man knowing the risks and the harms but also the potential benefits.

Ultimately, everyone in this Chamber wants the same thing: we want fewer men to die from prostate cancer, cancers that need treatment to be found earlier, and every man to receive the care that is right for him; but we must achieve that while protecting men from unnecessary diagnosis and from receiving treatments that can have lifelong consequences for a cancer that might never have caused harm. The question is not whether we want to prevent more deaths from prostate cancer—of course we do. The question is how we can do so safely, effectively and fairly, using the best available evidence while continuing to build the evidence where it is not yet strong enough. As I have said, as that evidence develops, we must be prepared to act. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for raising this important issue, and all Members who have contributed to this thoughtful and powerful debate.

17:56

[John Lamont]

I thank David James, the petition creator, and Prostate Cancer Research for leading the campaign so effectively. That so many colleagues decided to contribute to this debate is a sign of its success. I thank all colleagues, who spoke passionately, albeit briefly, about the importance of the issue. Some shared very moving experiences, either personal or on behalf of their constituents.

I thank the Minister for her response. It is important to have reassurance from the Government that they will be led by the evidence. The Minister said that she will consider further evidence that emerges from the research, but it is important that the Government do more than consider the evidence; they must be led by it.

[Rishi Sunak]

I too thank the Minister for her considered response. As she can see from the attendance for this debate, there is enormous interest in the timetable for updating the model with new evidence, some of which has been published already. Does my hon. Friend agree that time is of the essence, and that we would appreciate some clarity on timelines?

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that the people involved in the campaign and those trying to ensure that men are saved from this terrible disease have some certainty. If the Minister wrote to me with a timetable for when the Government expect to respond and deal with the issue, I could share that with colleagues who participated in this debate. Last, I thank the team at Transform. They do tremendous and inspiring work, and, ultimately, they will save the lives of more men.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 751472 relating to prostate cancer screening.

Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

18:00

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 750612 relating to placing a requirement on drivers to report collisions with cats.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers—I suspect they might need to change the nameplate. The petition was started by CatsMatter, a group co-funded by Mandy Hobbis and Tiya Ivy, who are here today. I am standing in today for my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who had the privilege of meeting Mandy ahead of today’s debate and learned that both of them had lost cats on the roads. Anyone who has waited up for a pet that never came home will understand why the campaign has kept going since 2017.

I should declare an interest. I have always lived with cats and have lost several to being run over. Just a few weeks ago, a family member lost their cat, Comet, who was hit by a car in a residential cul-de-sac and just left there. As with every loss of a cat, they were devastated. My daughter Emily has a beautiful white fluffy cat that rules the Wrigley household. He is called Ignatius D Flufflesworth—not that he comes when called by that name, of course. He was, however, very fond of joining in with my Zoom calls during the pandemic and pretending he was in a James Bond movie. I know how much he means to her, and the idea of losing him to a car accident without knowing what happened does not bear thinking about.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)]

For many, particularly older, people—I know this from Cornwall and our remote coastal towns and villages—a cat is not simply a pet; it is a much loved companion and important source of comfort. Does the hon. Member agree with me and the 419 constituents of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle who signed the petition that the Government need to consider further steps to ensure that when cats are involved in collisions, they are treated in the same way as pet dogs?

[Martin Wrigley]

I agree. Cats are not just companions; they are members of the family, so, yes, collisions should be reported. Clearly, we are not alone. By the time the petition closed on 17 June, it had gathered 189,192 signatures, many of which were in my own Newton Abbot constituency.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

One of the petitioners is my constituent Hayley, whose cat sadly was killed by a vehicle overnight—probably not an untypical story. The cat was found on the pavement the next morning, apparently moved there by the driver. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that moving to a point where cats are treated in the same way as dogs would at least give some comfort to cat owners who are left grieving and without an explanation about what happened in those final moments?

[Martin Wrigley]

Yes, absolutely. It is the not knowing that is really awful. I will come on to that.

I am told that this is the largest cat welfare petition that has ever come to Parliament. That is a great many people and they deserve to have their concerns properly heard today. So where does the law stand?

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

A similar campaign before 2015 provoked a similar debate in this place. I was the Minister responsible at the time, speaking from the Dispatch Box. I can tell the hon. Member—it might come as a surprise to him— that at that time I changed the guidance so that cats killed on roads must be collected, identified with their owners and notified to the Highways Agency. One of three things has occurred: the guidance has been ignored; the Department for Transport did not bring about what I announced from the Dispatch Box, which seems unlikely; or the guidance applied only to roads controlled by the then Highways Agency, which of course excludes the local roads, which are within the purview of local authorities. That guidance is on record and can be used as the basis for dealing with this excellent petition. I speak as a proud cat owner then and as a beloved cat owner now. And, by the way, they are not just companions; they are members of my family—Caterina and Gordon.

[Martin Wrigley]

From my experience, I suspect that the right hon. Member’s third option is probably correct.

On people’s confusion about where to report a collision with a cat, section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says that a driver who hits certain animals must stop and, if necessary, report it to the police. Those animals are horses, cattle, asses, mules, sheep, pigs, goats and dogs. Cats are not on the list.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am intervening on behalf of my good friend Sandra, otherwise known as the crazy cat lady of Canford Heath. She is concerned, as I am, that the assumption is that the reason cats are not included is that they are not working animals. I can tell Members that my beloved dogs, Todd and Reggie, are absolutely not working animals—far from it—yet they would be covered. On the question of whether legislation is needed, we had a fantastic animal welfare strategy issued earlier this year, so is now not the moment to bring this issue into a new animal welfare Act?

[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?

[Martin Wrigley]

Yes, I agree—it should.

In their response to the petition, the Government noted they have “no current plans” to change the law due to the fact that cats are small and often out at dawn and dusk, so a driver may genuinely not know that they have hit one. They argued that, alongside research into how councils identify cats found on the road, compulsory microchipping offers a better way forward.

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a simple act of responsibility, requiring drivers to report collisions, could prevent suffering of injured animals, as well as give families and owners closure over what has happened to their much-loved family pets?

[Martin Wrigley]

Yes, that is a very good way forward.

The campaigners have answered the Government’s points with some care. On the working animals argument, CatsMatter has done its own sums. Using a University of Bristol study and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs farm figures, it reckons that there could be around 60,000 working farm cats in England, against roughly 65,000 working sheepdogs. It is open that those are estimates, but I represent a great many farms, and I can tell Members that farm cats in Devon work as hard as farm dogs and earn their keep.

The campaigners also make a broader point, and I have some sympathy with it: many people now think of their cats as one of the family—Ignatius is certainly part of ours. When they see that dogs are covered and cats are not, they feel that the law simply does not value their animal in the same way.

Other countries have updated their laws to include cats, including Italy and Hong Kong. CatsMatter argues that even if a new duty of stopping for cats was rarely enforced, it would tell drivers what decent behaviour on the road looks like. The question is whether the reasons for leaving cats out of section 170 still hold up in 2026.

Cats Protection, the UK’s leading cat welfare charity, wants exactly the same outcome as the petitioners. Nobody wants an injured cat to be left to suffer, or an owner to be left forever wondering. However, the charity has real concerns about using this particular piece of law.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I thank the 335 people in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough who signed this petition. My hon. Friend mentioned earlier that the Government seemingly have no plans at this point to change things, and there is the conversation around whether the Road Traffic Act 1988 is the mechanism to achieve change. Does he agree that the message that we can send today from this House is that, even if it is not legally required, the right, moral thing to do is for people to notify the police and to try to find the owner? That is a message that we can all send from here today.

[Martin Wrigley]

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is the right, moral thing to do and we need to encourage drivers to do it.

The animals in section 170 are ones whose owners are expected to keep them under control or fenced in, and the law has long accepted that cats roam. Cats Protection worries that bringing cats into a framework created for dogs and livestock could open up questions about an owner’s liability if a roaming cat causes an accident. It might also nudge people towards keeping their cats indoors—speaking as Ignatius’s feeder and door-opener, I am not sure he would take kindly to that.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals supports the aim of the petition and says it would not stand in the way of a change in the law. Its concern is a practical one. A duty to report to the police would not in itself get an injured cat to a vet, or ensure that that a dead one is scanned for a chip. Police forces are stretched, and ringing 101 will not bring help to the roadside.

The sense of unfairness that the petitioners feel is real, and I understand it. It has been fascinating to open the debate on this petition, because the fact of the matter is that everyone involved—on both sides of the petition—is united around one thing: they all care deeply about cats; they just disagree about whether changing section 170 is the right answer. What they also agree on is what should happen if a cat is hit. If the cat is alive, it needs to see a vet as quickly as possible. Alive or dead, it should be scanned for a microchip, so that its owner can be found and told.

That brings me on to what drivers actually face. Picture someone on a dark road who has just hit a cat. They are shaken and they do not know whether to ring the police, the council, a vet, a charity or highways, because responsibility is split across all of them. I would like to hear from the Minister what the Government will do to give that driver a clear answer. That may or may not mean amending the Road Traffic Act 1988. Whatever the mechanism, cats should not be left to suffer at the roadside, and their owners should not spend years wondering what happened to them.

I thank Mandy and Tiya and everyone at CatsMatter for their work, and I look forward to hearing from colleagues and the Minister’s reply.

18:12

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair this evening, Mr Vickers, and I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for introducing this e-petition debate. My family love cats, none more so than Tishy, who was our tabby cat and lived with us until the ripe old age of 20. Some years have passed, but we still miss her very much.

I thank the Cats Whiskers, a charity based in Clackmannanshire that does so much for the welfare of cats and kittens across my constituency. It has just celebrated its eighth anniversary. The fantastic work it does includes running a trap, neuter and return programme; providing temporary fostering; helping pet-owners with food, litter and practical support; rescuing, rehabilitating and rehoming abandoned, neglected and vulnerable cats; and supporting Police Scotland, local authorities, vets and other charities in animal welfare cases.

I share the frustration and dismay of the people from the Cats Whiskers at the fact that cats are not included in section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. We think it is abominable that if a cat is hit by a vehicle, the driver can just drive away and leave the animal behind injured and in pain or lying dead on the road, and that that is considered acceptable by the law. It is surely a question of basic compassion and decency to change this law.

I would not dare to speak for any other right hon. or hon. Member, but I imagine that whatever one’s worldview and politics may be, one decides to run as a candidate to come to this place to positively change the country, if not the world. I appreciate that there may be limitations, barriers or impediments to achieving that level of change as a parliamentarian, but surely making this law fairer for the benefit of people who have a cat as a beloved member of their family and changing it so that drivers must stop and report if they have hit a cat can gain universal, cross-Bench approval. The change is most certainly achievable.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman always makes such a valuable contribution to our considerations, as I told him just the other day. The guidance that I announced in this Chamber must exist. That could be made statutory, and a mechanism could be found to apply it beyond the trunk roads, as I mentioned earlier. Surely the Minister would have a fairly straightforward job—this would not require primary legislation. He may be able to do it at a stroke, following this debate.

[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.

18:17

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Petitions Committee and the 189,192 people who signed the petition, especially on behalf of my two lovely cats, Levi and Lola. They are especially indebted because their mum does not let them out—they want to, but it is not safe enough.

The list of animals in section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was not drawn up in that year; it was lifted almost word for word from the Road Traffic Act 1930. As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) said, that is probably why cats, llamas and alpacas are not mentioned in it. We are told that the list covers working animals, although perhaps not those owned by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). Dogs were included in 1930, even though most were already companions at that stage, because no driver could tell a sheepdog from a family pet. Today, a driver must report hitting a terrier or a puppy no bigger than a kitten but not a cat of exactly the same size. On working status, CatsMatter estimates that there are around 60,000 working farm cats in England, against roughly 65,000 working sheepdogs, so that distinction does not survive scrutiny any more.

Cats are not livestock or vermin—for millions of households, they are family. The cruellest part of losing a cat on the road is often not knowing and that phone call never coming. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said plainly that reporting and scanning give owners the closure that they deserve, and I agree.

In ancient Egypt, where cats were given sacred status, Diodorus Siculus reported that killing one cat, even by accident, would cost someone their life. I want to be clear that that is not what CatsMatter or any other organisation is asking for, because this is not about punishing motorists. I am certain that most drivers who hit a cat are shocked and upset. They want to do the right thing, but the problem is that they do not know what to do. They will be standing on the side of the road, searching their phone and wondering who to call, while the cat passes away. Is it the police or the council? We must have a clear pathway.

The Government argue that drivers may not know that they have hit a cat, but the court settled in Harding v. Price that the duty applies only when a driver knows or ought reasonably to have known. A Hungarian study has found that drivers were uncertain in only 2.3% of pet collisions. A duty to stop and report, paired with one clear, well publicised route to help, would give decent drivers the confidence to act. There is no need for that to be expensive. Parliament routinely passes short enabling clauses. A single amendment to a suitable Government Bill could give the Secretary of State power to add cats—and alpacas and llamas—to the list. Better co-ordination can be built with the 69 animal welfare organisations that have backed this change, with the veterinary profession and with commercial partners, at the least cost to the public purse.

Finally, the Government have made microchipping compulsory. That was the right thing to do, but a chip helps only if someone scans it. Reporting completes the system that the Government have already built and gives every owner one more reason to chip their cat and keep their details up to date. Hong Kong, Switzerland, Gibraltar and Jersey already require that. The UK is becoming an outlier. Around three quarters of cats survive the initial impact, so we could save many more. Will the Government commit to bringing forward an enabling power and to working with the sector on a single route to help? The assumptions of 1930 deserve re-examination in 2026. Nearly 190,000 people have asked us to look again. I hope the Minister will.

18:22

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I declare my interest as a loyal servant to Penny and Hugo. I pay tribute to the CatsMatter team for creating this petition, the largest ever cat-related petition to come to Parliament, and to my constituent Mandy Hobbis, who co-founded the charity. I have supported them and this campaign since becoming an MP, and have twice joined them to hand in petitions at No. 10, so it is fantastic to finally debate this issue.

This is not simply about road traffic law; it is about whether the law reflects the place that cats hold in our society. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate earlier this year on the animal welfare strategy, there are significant inconsistencies in the protections given to cats and dogs under the law. Cats are cherished members in millions of households, yet under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a driver who collides with a dog must report the incident, while the driver who collides with a cat does not have to. The origins of that legislation are almost 100 years old. Society, animal ownership and our understanding of animal welfare have changed enormously since then, so the question before Parliament is not why cats were excluded in the past, but whether their continued exclusion can be justified today.

As campaigners point out, compulsory microchipping has strengthened the case for reform, but a microchip alone cannot save a cat’s life. Importantly, the UK is increasingly becoming an outlier internationally. Jurisdictions including Hong Kong, Switzerland, Gibraltar and Jersey already require drivers to report collisions involving cats, demonstrating that such measures are practical and enforceable, and that it is neither radical nor unworkable. For many families, the most distressing outcome is not knowing what has happened to a beloved pet. The RSPCA has highlighted the heartbreak faced by owners who never discover what happens to their cat, while CatsMatter has emphasised the importance of prompt action and clearer routes to assistance for injured animals.

I recognise that organisations such as Cats Protection have raised concerns about unintended consequences if cats were simply inserted into the existing framework. Those concerns deserve careful consideration, but they should not be a reason for inaction. Instead, the Government should work with animal welfare organisations and develop a proportionate solution that improves reporting and owner notification, while preserving cats’ right to roam.

I would like to put several questions to the Minister. Does he accept that the current distinction between cats and dogs is increasingly difficult to justify, given the place cats occupy in millions of British households? What assessment has he made of the reporting requirements for cats in jurisdictions such as Switzerland, Gibraltar, Jersey and Hong Kong? Can any lessons can be learned in England and the UK more widely?

Will the Government review whether the current arrangements for microchipping are sufficient to ensure that injured or deceased cats are identified and their owners informed? If the Government do not support bringing cats into the scope of section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, what alternative measures will they consider to improve reporting?

Finally, will the Minister commit to meeting the campaigners, more welfare organisations and interested MPs to discuss possible legislative or even non-legislative solutions to this issue? The priority is preventing cats from being left to suffer unnecessarily on our roads. I urge the Government to engage constructively and set out a clear pathway for addressing this anomaly in the law.

18:26

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I hope you received my note, Mr Vickers, indicating that I could not be here at the start. I offer my apologies to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), who moved the motion, and all other colleagues. I meant no disrespect; I was chairing a Committee upstairs.

Street Farm House is on a corner opposite the village shop in a quiet, rural village. During rush hour, there is a fairly high volume of traffic. There is a 30-mile-an-hour speed limit that is hardly ever adhered to during the rush-hour. The illustrious cabinet member for highways and transport, Peter Osborne, a Reform county councillor, has chosen not to take any action to introduce traffic-calming measures, despite the fact that we have warned over and over again that it is only a question of time before a child or an elderly person—I can speak with some authority on that matter—will be killed crossing that bottleneck.

On a light, bright morning six weeks ago, Baxter, aged two-and-a-half, chose to cross the road. It was totally out of character because, so far as we are all aware, he had never done it before. He was hit by a car travelling, at a guesstimate, well in excess of 50 miles an hour. The driver did not stop. Five other drivers did not stop. Unfortunately, the village shop CCTV did not pick up the number plate.

Afterwards, one decent human being took the trouble to pull in, look after the dying cat and make sure that the owners—not me—were aware that their desperately loved family pet had been killed on the road. I have always had some strong feelings about this issue, but this incident has inevitably sharpened my attention.

I understand entirely the concerns raised by Cats Protection and others about liability. That liability applies to dogs: when a dog is out of control and causes an accident, the owner may be liable for whatever damage is caused up to and including death in that accident. Those of us who love cats and dogs must accept that it is much harder to keep a cat under control than a dog— the expression “herding kittens” is probably appropriate.

Nevertheless, cats are now microchipped. The point has been made, fairly, that the person who hits and kills or maims the animal is likely to be traumatised. Patently, that was not the case for the driver who hit the cat that I referred to. They clearly could not have given a toss; they drove straight on with gay abandon.

If it is difficult for people to grasp to whom they should report something after stopping, then I respectfully suggest that it is no harder than to know to whom to report hitting a dog, so I do not think that is a valid argument. I believe very strongly that to leave any animal, but particularly a family pet, dying in the road and go on without a care in the world is simply not acceptable. It is not decent behaviour. It is not what the British do, with their affection for animals.

I would entirely support an amendment to the Road Traffic Act or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) suggested, taking guidance and turning it into something statutory. I do not accept the argument that it cannot be done. It can be done; we have to find a way of doing it. I want to see Baxter’s law—or something similar—on a statute book as soon as possible.

18:31

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for the way in which he introduced the debate. Like other Members, I must declare an interest: I am the proud owner of a cat called Millie. She is over three years old now, but she is still a baby to me. I got her from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Balerno in my constituency before I was elected. She came to me both chipped and neutered.

When I first got Millie, my friend Denise said that I should not have got a cat because it would just climb up my curtains. Millie did do that when she was a kitten and it was incredibly cute. My wife, Mrs Arthur, was less sure about the situation. She picked Millie’s name because she promised that the cat would become a millstone around our necks. The other piece of advice we got was that one day we would let the cat out and it would not return. That is the focus of this debate: so many cats are let out and do not return because they are hit by a car, crawl off under a hedge or a bush and are never found.

To millions of households across the UK, cats are deeply loved family members and constant companions. Yet, under current law, if a driver hits a cat they can simply drive away—I know that not all do. That is not the case for collisions with dogs, which must be reported; I and many other cat owners throughout the country believe that that is an outdated distinction that no longer reflects the way we live. Each year in the UK an estimated 230,000 cats are hit by cars. I find that number absolutely incredible; I had to triple-check it. It works out at roughly one cat—and one family who have lost that cat—in every constituency in the UK every day.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

On the point about families losing cats, a constituent of mine lost her cat shortly before Christmas 2024 after he was run over and killed on Alkerden Lane. The cat was a huge part of her life and she felt very lost without him. Despite an eyewitness urging the car driver to stop they did not. My constituent cannot understand why the driver was under no obligation to do so; I urge Ministers to address that. Does my hon. Friend agree that in such a situation it is simply right and proper for the driver to stop regardless of whether the law obliges them to do so?

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. A few years ago, we looked after my daughter’s cat for a short period—three years, it turned out. It was a fantastic cat, and its pastime was chasing foxes, but one day it was in the garden and then darted across the road, almost getting run over, so I get that it is not always—or even seldom—the driver’s fault. I like to think that if it happened to me, I would stop and perhaps explain what had happened.

Lost cat signs have become common on lamp posts right across the UK. They are almost so common that we hardly see them at all now. Only last month, a constituent contacted my office, deeply distressed after a driver tragically killed her two-year-old kitten. She was left searching for answers and completely bewildered as to why the police could not intervene or help clarify what had happened. This is not about criminalising drivers; it is about compassion and accountability. Leaving an injured cat on the roadside deprives it of potentially lifesaving veterinary care and leaves owners in agonising uncertainty.

I am very proud to have a People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals hospital in my constituency. I visited it a few months ago. Two cats I saw had had had operations after they had suffered some kind of trauma, and the assumption was that that was being hit by a car. That is just two cats on one day in that one hospital. I thank the PDSA for its fantastic work to support people on low incomes being able to access excellent veterinary treatment.

Updating the legislation would not place an inordinate burden on drivers or the police. With microchipping now compulsory in England—and needed in Scotland, as we heard earlier—identifying the owner and offering closure is easier and faster than ever before. The petition shows a very real public mandate for a change that people demand. At the same time, I recognise that some voices in the animal welfare sector are concerned that amending the Road Traffic Act to include cats might have the unintended consequences of imposing criminal and civil liability on owners of cats involved in collisions. Of course, it is the job of this place to consider unintended consequences and to ensure that they are absolutely minimised or, we hope, do not happen at all. I urge the Government to explore how to update the Act in a manner that will protect owners while giving the same basic duty of care to cats that we extend to dogs. We heard that Gibraltar and Jersey already have some such provisions. They are places with close connections to the UK and I am sure we can learn lots from how they approached the problem.

Finally, as a Scottish MP, I have to acknowledge that this is a devolved matter; I appreciate that in Scotland it falls under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. I very much hope for progress at a UK level, but we can also speak to colleagues in Scotland, perhaps at the same time talking about mandating chipping in Scotland and—something else I am passionate about—heavily regulating people who choose to breed cats at home for a profit, which involves at least a lot of distress for the cats. That needs to be addressed north and south of the border.

18:37

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I thank my constituents who signed the petition or who wrote to me about the issue. It goes without saying that we are a country of animal lovers, and that while no law requires drivers to report a cat’s death on our roads, they should look to find a way to inform the owners if they are responsible for a collision. At least, that is what the Government told me when I asked them about the issue more than a year ago. That missed the point, however; unfortunately, just because they should, does not mean that everyone will.

Whether cats or dogs, pets are loved members of the family for many in our communities. I am a pet owner myself, and there is no worse feeling than not knowing where one’s pet is and whether they are okay. I have an AirTag on my pet, just to make sure I can keep a closer eye.

Susie from Chard put it best when she recently spoke out after losing her cat Tigs to a car collision last year:

“It just cannot be right that in 2026 the law allows cats to be hit by cars and left alone, scared and in pain on the roadside”.

She is absolutely right. She is also right to point out that, ultimately, we need more preventive measures. Microchipping is great, but we need to look carefully at other measures such as speed controls in residential areas, signage and many more.

Without doubt, however, although legislation is easy, to enforce reporting is not. It might seem obvious, but cats are smaller than the animals that have to be reported, they are usually out and about at dawn or dusk, and drivers of larger vehicles may not notice a collision. I still do not think that any of that is an excuse to do nothing.

The Government told me in their response last year that they would publish the conclusion of a research project on the challenges preventing some cats from being reunited with their keepers after road traffic incidents. I followed up a month later to ask when we could expect to see that research, but I was told that it is undergoing review—basically, “It will be published when it is ready, so go away.” I have not heard or seen anything since, so I would appreciate it if the Minister provided us with an update on those findings, and what action the Government have taken as a result. Pets are our family, and no should be left uncertain about the wellbeing of their family.

18:40

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on leading today’s important and popular debate. I am particularly grateful to all 190,000 people who signed the petition, including more than 400 of my own Stevenage constituents.

For many in my constituency, cats are really important. Many residents love their cats, and all of us—whether we have our own cat or not—had a very special cat in our daily routine: Nala, the Stevenage station cat. Anyone passing through the station will likely remember her perched on the ticket barriers, greeting commuters and keeping a watchful eye on the daily rush. She became a familiar face, bringing a little warmth to thousands of journeys and earning a special place in our town’s heart. Tragically, Nala passed away last year. How much her loss was felt by our community was proven by the overwhelming support given to fund a statue that will be installed outside the station to ensure that her memory lives on.

Nala’s story reminds us that cats are not simply pets; they are companions, familiar faces and much-loved members of our families and communities. When they are injured on our roads, we have a responsibility to do what we can to help them. I have heard powerful stories in the debate today, and I have also heard from several of my own constituents who feared the worst while being denied the certainty that would allow them to grieve. They were left not knowing the fate of their feline friends.

That is the result of a simple but stark discrepancy in the law that bestows an obligation on drivers to report collisions involving dogs but not cats. To grieving owners, that distinction is deeply difficult to understand. A cat injured on the road cannot call for help, and it cannot tell a passing driver where it lives or how much pain it is in. It depends on someone stopping, showing compassion and seeking help. For a driver, that may mean a few minutes out of their day, but for an injured cat, it could mean the difference between life and death. For the family waiting at home, it could mean the difference between heartbreak and bringing their beloved pet home.

I am grateful to welcome my constituents Fern, Anthony and Leo Doyle to the Gallery today. They have experienced the devastating consequences of the current law. Their cat, Buddy, disappeared in November 2024, after climbing out of a bedroom window. For nearly a year, their family searched relentlessly, distributing more than 1,000 leaflets and contacting vets, councils, rescue centres and local Facebook groups. Nearly 11 months later, they finally learned the truth—Buddy had been struck by a vehicle and the driver had left without seeking help.

Fern has spoken about the thought that, had the driver stopped, Buddy might have survived and returned home. Explaining his death to Leo was one of the hardest conversations she has ever faced. As Fern said:

“They are never ‘just a cat’. They had a soul. They were part of a family. They were deeply loved.”

That cuts right the heart of the debate. The loss of a pet is painful enough without the added anguish of wondering whether someone could have helped, or whether a beloved companion suffered alone.

Of course, we must get the law right. There are concerns that extending the Road Traffic Act could unfairly expose owners to criminal or civil liability following a collision with a cat. Those concerns deserve proper consideration. However, we have also heard about alternatives. Where there is a will, there is a way, and we have a duty in this place to find that way. We have heard about amending other legislation, such as section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act, which could require drivers to remain with an injured cat and contact the appropriate authorities, or putting the highway code provisions into statute. Whatever we do, the focus must always be on preventing unnecessary suffering.

There may be different ways to achieve these aims. I urge the Minister to work with campaigners and animal welfare organisations to find a practical solution. We should also encourage the devolved Governments to follow England’s lead on compulsory cat microchipping. We cannot prevent every collision, but we can expect drivers to stop, where it is safe, check on an injured cat and seek help.

Finally, I return to the Doyle family. No change in the law can undo their loss, but we can act to prevent other families from enduring the same uncertainty, and we can give injured cats a better chance of survival. Every cat is important to someone. Our laws should reflect that and ensure that when a cat is hurt on our roads, compassion and responsibility come before simply driving away.

18:46

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for opening this debate. I agree with him that the Members contributing to this debate have in their heart concern for the protection, welfare and wellbeing of cats. I also thank the 383 people across Paisley and Renfrewshire South who signed the petition. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats. I also declare an interest as the proud servant of two cats, Clement Cattlee and Mo Meowlam. [Laughter.] That always gets a chuckle in the House.

As someone who loves cats very deeply, this issue hits close to home. I have spent many an evening sat up wondering where Clem has got to—she is the one that wanders—and have on more than one occasion sent my husband out in his dressing gown to find her. Like every animal lover in this place, the thought of any pet being hurt or lost in a road traffic accident is truly heartbreaking. I know the agonising distress that families face when a beloved companion goes missing and hold immense sympathy for the heartfelt intentions behind the motion we are debating.

Under the current Road Traffic Act, drivers must report collisions involving dogs and livestock, but not cats, even though the highway code rightly encourages drivers to report animal accidents and contact owners wherever possible. It is entirely understandable that so many compassionate people want to close that gap, especially given the disparity in treatment between cats and dogs, which are predominantly the pets we have in households across the country.

There is a complexity to those legislative changes. I am conscious that the country’s leading cat charity, Cats Protection, warned that introducing them could have various unintended consequences, including the imposition of criminal and civil liability on the owners of cats involved in collisions, which could inadvertently harm the very animals we are all trying to protect. The owners of animals currently covered by the Act have a legal duty to keep them under control or properly contained. If they cause an accident, their owners can face criminal liability and insurance claims. As cat owners, we know that cats are different from dogs. They are uniquely independent. They are curious creatures and their instinct is to roam, explore and experience the outdoors, which is so fundamental to who they are—certainly, trying to control Clem would be a very difficult task indeed.

The current law recognises that cats have a right to roam and cannot realistically be controlled in the same way as dogs or livestock, so bringing cats into a framework designed for dogs and livestock risks creating new legal responsibilities around containment, control and liability for cat owners. That could push cat owners to keep their cats indoors, preventing them from performing the natural behaviours that they need to perform to live happy, healthy lives.

The Cats Protection charity estimates that 3% of UK cats are involved in road traffic accidents, and behind that figure is a deeply personal, painful loss for the families of those pets. However, we must ensure that our response does not create a broader harm for the millions of happy, free-roaming cats across the country. That does not mean that something cannot be done—it can and it must—but we must channel our shared compassion into solutions that truly work. As we have heard, microchipping is the most reliable way to reunite pets with their families. That is now legally mandated in England, and I urge our devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to follow suit so that every pet across the UK has that vital safeguard.

On scanning, highways bodies across England and Scotland already collect and scan cat road victims and notify their owners. Cats Protection has published a scanning guide for local authorities, and I urge local authorities across the country to ensure that they have sight of that and are utilising it. Going back to my previous point, however, that is effective in ensuring that families receive the closure they so desperately seek only when a cat has a microchip.

On drivers, we are a nation of animal lovers, so stopping to help an injured animal should not be too much to ask of any decent, moral person. A driver who hits a cat should take them to a vet for emergency treatment, where they can also be scanned for a microchip—that is the quickest way to identify the owner. Increasing driver education so that motorists know how to act quickly and who to contact will save lives, bringing injured pets to emergency care when every minute counts.

I share the deep empathy and true love for these wonderful animals that has brought us all to this Chamber. That must also mean that we protect them by preserving who they are, including their roaming instincts. Every loss on our roads is a tragedy, but taking away a cat’s freedom to roam would be a quiet tragedy experienced by many millions more.

18:52

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to CatsMatter for all its campaigning work on the issue of cat road deaths, and to every one of the almost 200,000 people, including 209 in my constituency, who signed the petition in support of a change in the law to require drivers to report collisions with cats to the police.

I am a lifelong cat lover, and I know that cats become members of our families. Whether it be my childhood cats Mitzi and Biff; Cos, the elderly ginger cat who we inherited from my husband’s grandmother when she passed away; Bella, the nervous kitten; Mr A, the rescue cat with the assertive personality; or our current cats Sylvie and Pearl, five-year-old siblings who have been with us since they were eight weeks old, I love cats. They are our companions and a constant presence in our homes, each with their own personality. I should give a special mention to Fanny, the Gipsy Hill station cat, who is loved by so many of my constituents. She oversees proceedings at our local station, makes sure that everything is in order and provides comfort and cheer to commuters as they wait for trains.

When a cat dies, we feel the loss very deeply. I know the specific anxiety and distress felt when a cat simply does not come home and we have to piece together the reasons why. In our case, we have lost two cats to dogs who were let out off the lead in the vicinity of our home. Both times, our much-loved pet simply did not return, and we discovered only much later what had happened to them. The uncertainty of having a missing animal compounded the eventual loss.

Some 230,000 cats are killed on our roads every year, and far too often, a devastating loss is compounded by not knowing what happened or by discovering an injured or dead animal after a protracted search. I know people who, after losing a cat in such circumstances, have never been able to bring themselves to get another one—not because they do not want to, but because the pain of the loss is simply too much to contemplate living through again.

The law is out of sync with the strength of public feeling on this issue, and does not adequately recognise the depth of the bonds that so many people have with their cats and how devastating their loss can be. I understand that there are some complexities about changing the law, highlighted by Cats Protection, concerning the difference between cats as roaming animals and other animals listed in the Road Traffic Act 1988, which are all required by law to be kept under control.

A duty to report collisions involving cats would primarily be about easing the pain of loss by enabling owners to understand what had happened to their cat and, where appropriate, to seek treatment for it as promptly as possible. A new duty should recognise that cats are roaming animals, and that accidents happen sometimes through no fault of the driver. It would need to recognise that a cat owner who allows a cat out to engage in its natural roaming behaviour is not at fault for doing so.

I agree with the points made by other Members about the need for clarity for drivers about which agency they should report a collision to, and that uncertainty extends to drivers who hit an animal currently reportable under the Road Traffic Act as well as under any new regulations concerning cats. I urge the Government to look very carefully at this issue and to work out a way in which the law can be updated to require collisions with cats to be reported. There is a gap between public sentiment and the current legislation. Where that occurs, the Government have a duty to work to fill it.

18:56

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for so eloquently introducing this debate and for revealing himself as a lifelong cat lover. One of the things I like about this Chamber is what we learn about our colleagues here. I have to say, if I had participated in a guessing game about some of the cat-loving Members we would hear from today, I probably would not have done very well—perhaps somebody could create one of those internet guessing games about MPs and whether they lean dog or cat. That would certainly be more savoury than some of the web applications there have been about Members of Parliament—I shall certainly not say any more about that.

I thank CatsMatter for all its hard work over many years to advance protections for cats, and the 189,192 signatories to this e-petition, including 334 of my constituents in Didcot and Wantage. I have never had a cat of my own, but I absolutely love them. I want to illustrate the very strong bonds that can be formed between humans and cats by talking about three of the cats that I have formed a strong bond with over my lifetime.

The first was called Henry. He lived primarily in another house in our cul-de-sac, but he liked to visit a number of people in the area, including us. He was a ginger and white cat. He was very friendly and intelligent, and he really enjoyed human company. He was an enormous source of companionship and comfort to me during some quite lonely and difficult times as a child and as a teenager growing up.

Where I lived a few years ago, the landlord’s cat, Puzzle, would come and visit quite often. She was quite old—I think she was 17 when she died—but you would never know it: she was full of energy and very chatty. When my doors were open in summer, she would enter and announce herself by miaowing very volubly. She was incredibly friendly.

I wish that anybody who thinks that cats are aloof or unfriendly could have met Puzzle. There was a little shop in the complex where I was renting, and when somebody would enter the courtyard she would run over, wanting to say hello to the people who were there—even children, and cats are not always the biggest fans of children. If I went too long before stroking her, she would start crawling up my leg, demanding more strokes; I was always very happy to give them, but occasionally the working day had to take priority. I learned of her death—not from being hit by a car, thankfully, but by natural causes—the same week that Putin invaded Ukraine, and it definitely added to the feelings of sadness.

The final example is my friend Freddie’s cat, Mr Whiskers. He grew up as a stray cat roaming the mean streets of Haywards Heath for much of his life until he was adopted. He became an indoor cat because he got feline immunodeficiency virus as a result of being a stray. However, he had to be given up for adoption because his owner acquired a girlfriend who had a cat allergy—a rather controversial decision. I am not sure I would have chosen a significant other over Mr Whiskers, but that is one for another time. Mr Whiskers is called that because he has very distinctive whiskers. He is a black and white cat and is very friendly and chatty.

We have heard some very powerful accounts, both from Members and from their constituents, of the strong bond that they have formed with cats. I have a constituent called Jenny who lives in Moulsford. She and her family had a cat called Mowgli, who was sadly hit by a car four years ago. The car did not stop and Mowgli was later found by a resident who was jogging through the village and recognised that the cat belonged to Jenny. He was only one year old, and Jenny’s daughters were devastated when they found out what had happened. That perfectly illustrates what many Members have said during this debate: cats are intelligent, are members of our family and have their own characters, and we can be absolutely devastated when we lose them, particularly in a manner as brutal as being hit by a car.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are sympathetic to the petition’s ask that we extend the legal requirement to report road traffic collisions involving animals to include cats. It is not right that when a cat is hit by a vehicle, there is no legal requirement for the driver to report the incident to the police. As a result of such accidents, injured cats can be left at the roadside without prompt veterinary treatment, causing unnecessary suffering. We believe that it is important to improve welfare and quality of life for household pets, while also ensuring that all animals are treated equally in legislation. We believe that, like us, animals can experience suffering, pain and fear. Experts in the field of neuroscience are confident that mammals, birds and many other creatures possess consciousness. If we accept animal sentience, then animal cruelty or accidents must be considered unacceptable. It is crucial that we change the law to better protect animals from harm.

As some Members have said, cats are also working animals. It is not just dogs who do that; the role of cats in pest control has been established for millennia and continues to be important to this day. I know that there has been debate about getting cats here in Parliament. That has been declined as a suggestion because people are worried that they could get stuck in nooks and crannies —although I think that perhaps we have underestimated their ingenuity for getting themselves out of trouble as well as into it. However, certainly those of us who have occasionally seen a mouse scurrying in the Tea Room or the Pugin Room would welcome cats here in Parliament. They would also be very good for our morale, and maybe we need to start a campaign for that as well.

The Liberal Democrats have already had success in improving pet welfare in this Parliament, with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) passing the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, which aims to protect animal welfare by restricting the importation and non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets.

I want to say a little about what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) said regarding an alternative approach advocated by Cats Protection. It is interesting that there is not necessarily unanimity among organisations that care passionately about cats that amending the Road Traffic Act is necessarily the sole solution to this challenge. As the hon. Lady said, the concern is that an amendment to include cats in the Road Traffic Act could force drivers to report collisions, but could also lead to various unintended consequences, for example, the imposition of criminal and civil liability on the owners of cats involved in collisions. I am sure that we would all agree that we would rather not open up another front of legal warfare—there are already so many as it is. Bringing cats into a framework designed for dogs and livestock could risk creating new legal responsibilities around containment, control and liability.

Cats Protection advocates an even bigger push on microchipping. It led the call, along with others, to campaign for compulsory microchipping. That was introduced in 2024 in England, and Cats Protection calls for it across the rest of the UK, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) said, along with an important duty on owners to keep their details up to date so that the chipping system can work. It also advocates for scanning. Highways agencies in England and Scotland already collect, scan and notify owners about cat road victims, and the charity has published a scanning guide for local authorities.

Finally, there is more that we can do not just within legislation but beyond it, as good citizens. A driver who hits a cat should take them to a vet for emergency treatment, where they can also be scanned for a microchip. That is the quickest way to identify the owner. Those are some options for the Minister to consider in tackling the problem. I look forward to hearing his comments.

19:05

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to you for chairing this debate. I know that many of my cat-loving constituents are deeply invested in this issue, with 363 of them having signed the petition. In common with many Members, I place on record my deep affection for my childhood cats: Scruff, Jasper, Ziggy and my personal favourite, Eartha Kitt.

Before we delve into the proposal in the petition, we should acknowledge the importance of reporting an incident through the existing channels where there has been a collision between a vehicle and a cat. Although there may not be a mandatory legislative requirement, I hope that most drivers, in the event of a collision, would show the level of British decency to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) alluded. If our own pet were involved in a collision, we would expect to receive the same British decency.

There are more than 11 million cats across the country, living in one in four households. We should always strive to protect these cherished pets. Indeed, many are a key part of their owners’ families. As my right hon. Friend the Member also said, they are not merely affectionate members of the family; they are world class at pest control, even if that can occasionally produce a messy result.

The death of any cat is naturally devastating to its owners, and we should support them by ensuring that they are informed of a collision, either so that their cat can receive treatment or so that they can achieve closure. Each person who signed the petition will feel the importance of this issue deeply. Rule 286 of the highway code states clearly:

“If you are involved in a collision which causes damage or injury to any other person, vehicle, animal or property, you MUST stop.”

I would hope that that requirement is adhered to, making it possible for someone to establish whether their cat has been involved in a collision. Reuniting cats with their owners has been made easier by the previous Government’s decision to roll out microchipping in England, ensuring that cats can be more easily identified and their owners contacted.

I am aware that DEFRA has been asked to commission a research project: first, to understand the operational challenges that prevent some cats from being reunited with their keepers after a road traffic collision, and secondly, to establish an evidence base to inform best practice for local authorities. The Government previously said that the project would report this year. I am sure that petitioners will be interested to hear from the Minister when its findings will be published and considered.

I have outlined those measures because I think we can all agree with the sentiments expressed by the petition. It would be disingenuous, however, to consider the comments made by the Government and the previous Conservative Administration and not conclude that there is currently no intention to bring forward legislation on this issue. That is not to dismiss the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) when he shared details of the provision announced in this Chamber in 2015 in response to the campaign for Harvey’s law. His note to me says that

“pets killed on the road must be collected, identified where possible, and their owners notified by the Highways Agency (now called National Highways)”,

so this provision exists already.

As a newly elected MP in 2024, I was not present when this issue was addressed in the House previously. A petition that almost mirrored this one was put forward in 2022 and followed by a debate in this Chamber in 2023. During the debate, the then Roads Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), said that the Government would look at the issue and that he would ask the Department to consider whether it would be appropriate to take further action. The Government subsequently indicated that they believed that a combination of microchipping and efforts by local authorities to reunite cats with their owners was the most effective way forward.

However, we must note a difference between today’s debate and the one in 2023. Since the election, the Labour Government have presided over a reduction in police officer numbers. Requiring the police to deal with collisions involving cats would add to an increasingly challenging workload. Any further demands on police time must be even more carefully considered as a result.

Although it would be simple to ask this Minister to show the same consideration as in 2023, the Government’s response to this petition suggests that the Department for Transport holds the same position as it did then. Furthermore, the Government’s road safety strategy does not mention animals or cats. Therefore, I will avoid reversing roles with the former shadow Minister by asking for the same things as Labour did in 2023, especially when the Government’s position appears to be clear. I will not step on the Minister’s prepared remarks by reiterating reasons given during the previous debate. Given the Department’s written petition response, I expect him to set them out again today.

Instead, I ask the Minister whether anything beyond the measures that the Government have already outlined could be considered. That means going beyond best practice and considering how existing technologies could be utilised more effectively. That might include making things easier for those who need to access microchip database information. More broadly, are there ways of utilising technologies such as GPS collars to help identify more quickly a cat that has tragically been killed during a collision? If we are to consider ways of making things easier for owners, we should consider how information already provided by the private sector could be utilised where owners consent to it being used for this reason.

As I said at the outset, we all share the sentiments set out in this petition. Cat owners are absolutely right to want their cat to be returned to them as quickly as possible. That is the least that all pet owners deserve. However, unless there has been a change of position, I am not clear on whether the Department for Transport believes that such a measure could be implemented effectively.

19:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on opening the debate and setting out the various issues that have led to us considering the petition.

We have heard a great many contributions. We heard from the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon); from my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge), for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); from the right hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale); and from the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). That indicates the widespread interest in this matter across the nation.

I welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), to her place. We have worked together on a Select Committee, and I hope that, in her new role, we can continue the constructive relationship we enjoyed on the Committee.

The strength of feeling is clear. As we have heard, 189,000 people signed the petition, many because they know at first hand the distress caused when a cat is struck on the road and the family is not given any answers. A number of Members spoke with great personal knowledge and sincerity about their own situations. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about his sad experiences and about the sense of unfairness that people feel about the different treatment, which I will come to. He also rightly pointed out that the RSPCA questions whether the resources are in place to deal with what the petitioners ask for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth had a cat who lived for 20 years, which is an incredible achievement; he obviously looked after it very well. Both he and the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich spoke clearly and passionately about the question of decency. It really is a question of decency: any decent person who hit an animal on the road would not just leave it there in pain, and would try to do something about it.

It is fair to say that there are practical considerations about how easy it would be to put on a statutory footing what I think everyone in this Chamber would instinctively feel is the right thing to do. The right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings talked about his time in office and the statutory guidance issued then. He is no longer here, but I am sure he will read Hansard in the morning. That guidance remains active across the strategic road network, and there is a requirement on National Highways operators to collect, log and scan deceased domestic pets, including cats, and to make a proactive attempt to contact the owners. The microchip registration system that we now have in place will hopefully mean that, in most cases, owners are contacted when one of those sad incidents occurs.

We heard a number of other excellent contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood gave us a long list of the cats in her family. It sounds like Fanny is a local celebrity in the constituency—I am sure she will appear on some leaflets in the not-too-distant future. My hon. Friend spoke movingly about the depth of the bond between cats and their owners, which all Members have spoken about with a great deal of sincerity, and made an important point about needing clarity on who a driver should report a collision to. I understand that officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be meeting representatives from CatsMatter to discuss that issue further, because although we may not be able to change the law in this Chamber, we can certainly pick up some of the practical measures that can be taken to make this difficult situation easier.

We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, who is clearly an active campaigner in this area. She made it clear that she is a cat lover as well, and she is, of course, the most appropriately named Member of us all. She recognised that there is a difference between cats and dogs and talked about some of the alternative measures and solutions we can consider, which I will come to. She also asked about other jurisdictions, which a couple of other Members mentioned. Most of those countries were self-contained and small, but I will ask officials to look at how the laws have operated in different countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West gave an excellent speech, giving us a little insight into his cat issues. I join him in his praise of the PDSA, which does excellent work. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage spoke with great sincerity about his constituents Fern, Anthony and Leo and their sad experience of trying to find Buddy for almost a year. His comment that cats are never just pets is a statement that all Members who have spoken would recognise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has made it clear to me on many occasions that she is very much a cat lover. She also declared her work on the APPG, which I commend. She acknowledges that there are concerns with the proposals, particularly from Cats Protection. She also made a point, which I will come to, about how it is quite problematic to have an equivalence, for the reasons she outlined. I agree that that does not mean nothing can be done. We will certainly look at what can be done.

[Dr Arthur]

I am pleased to hear that a DEFRA Minister is going to meet CatsMatter to talk about this issue. I also welcome the Minister’s talk of reviewing what other jurisdictions do; will he commit to publishing that work in some shape or form, so that we can get sight of it?

[Justin Madders]

I am sure we can find a way of publishing it. I have sprung that on my officials this evening, so I do not know exactly what form it will take, but at the very least I can commit to writing to Members who have taken part in the debate to advise on what we find from that review. As I say, I am not familiar with the other jurisdictions, and it may be that the laws and requirements are different—we know that the demography and topography of those countries is different—but it is fair for us to consider that.

As Members have pointed out, the current position is that although drivers are not required to report every animal death on the road, they should, where it is safe and practicable, try to identify the owner of a domestic animal and let them know what has happened. A number of Members spoke about wanting to make that mandatory, and I understand why, but we have to have legislation that is both workable and safe. As several Members acknowledged, cats are mostly smaller than dogs, and a driver may not actually realise that a collision has occurred—that is probably more relevant given the propensity for larger vehicles nowadays. When the nights are drawing in, if it is a rural road with high-speed traffic, it is actually quite dangerous to ask people to leave their vehicle to search for a cat. That could create more danger and injury. There are also practical difficulties—we must consider locating the animal, arranging identification and ensuring that any reporting system can be enforced consistently.

I recognise the concern that owners should have the best possible chance of knowing what has happened to their pet when cats are found by the roadside. As Members have said, any decent human being would want that to happen and would try to do their best. One of my family’s cats, Ruby, was returned to us by a good-natured neighbour who had discovered her on the roadside after she was run over. It was a very sad time but, thinking of my children’s perspective, I would rather things happened in that way than for them to discover Ruby on the roadside on the walk to school the next morning. I applaud the public spiritedness of the individual who returned Ruby to us that night.

That shows that such gestures, difficult though they are, really do go a long way to providing some comfort to people who in a distressed situation, and that is the purpose behind the public campaign known as Gizmo’s Legacy, which calls for local authorities to scan microchips so that owners can be identified and informed. We support the principle that local authorities should have effective processes in place in such circumstances, and we want to encourage councils to be as helpful as they can be in those situations. As Members have acknowledged, that is why DEFRA has commissioned research into how its processes affect the reunification of owners with cats and dogs that are found dead by the roadside, with the aim of identifying both best practice and barriers. When the findings are published, they will support the development of best practice guidance for local authorities, so that more owners can be notified, where possible.

The hon. Member for Yeovil asked when the research would be published. It is fair to say that the research project is still being reviewed, but it will be published as soon as the process has concluded. I doubt very much that he was told to go away, but I assure him that both his comments and those of other Members about their desire to see that report will be transmitted to DEFRA after the debate.

Microchipping it is clearly one of the things that makes the research much more valuable than it might have been a few years ago. As the Opposition spokesperson pointed out, since June 2024 it has been compulsory for all cats over the age of 20 weeks to be microchipped and registered on a compliant database, unless they are exempt or free-living. Microchipping supports responsible pet ownership and gives owners a better chance of being reunited with their pets if they are lost or have strayed.

I have personal experience of lost cats. A few years ago, one of our cats, Trixie, went on a six-week holiday to Chester. We were very grateful to the public-spirited individual who brought her back. Trixie has never told us what she was up to for those six weeks, or how she managed to get to Chester in the first place. I think most Members recognise that cats have quite a secretive nature.

DEFRA is working with the pet-microchipping sector to make the regime more effective, including by improving the accuracy and accessibility of records, and by strengthening the oversight of microchip databases. I am pleased to report that, from the end of last month and following close work with DEFRA, the Association of Microchip Database Operators has launched a single point of search for microchip databases. This was introduced to make it faster and easier for vets and local authorities to access microchip records. We will continue to support the roll-out of cat microchipping as part of the wider work to help owners to identify and recover their pets.

As Members recognised, and as Cats Protection has acknowledged, there could be numerous unintended consequences if we were to make stopping and reporting compulsory. Instead, our priority is to prevent collisions in the first place by making roads safer for everyone. That broader approach should reduce the number of cats that are killed or injured.

A number of reasons have been put forward as to why cats and dogs are classified differently. Clearly, the origins of the distinction are historic, but there are still pertinent differences today, and the effective right to roam is something that makes it very difficult for us to put dogs and cats on an equivalent legislative footing. Making reporting mandatory would create a new criminal offence that would be difficult to enforce. On balance, then, we believe that the existing distinction should remain.

We will continue to engage with advocates in this area. We will look at the emerging research and do what we can to encourage responsible actions from the wider public. On that note, Mr Vickers, I will give the hon. Member for Newton Abbot an opportunity to respond to the debate.

19:28

[Martin Wrigley]

I thank Mandy Hobbis, Tiya Ivy, CatsMatter and the nearly 200,000 people who signed the petition, which has enabled us to have this debate. I also thank Members from across the House for their contributions.

Some significant themes have emerged from the debate, including cats being part of the family; people not knowing what has happened to their lost cat adding to the trauma of the situation; people loving their cats; and too many cats being hit by cars. I particularly noted the statistic that every day in every constituency two cats are hit by cars. That is just too many for nothing to happen.

Two members of this robust institution have not been mentioned today—I am surprised they were not referred to, although I loved hearing about Clem Cattlee, Mo Meowlam and the other cats around the place—and they are Larry in No. 10 and Mr Speaker’s cat Attlee. They might, like me, be slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response to the debate.

I have great sympathy for all those Members from across the House who talked about the issues with their own animals and those of their constituents. When I was elected, I promised to stand up for cats, and I am pleased to be able to do so—

19:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).