Westminster Hall
Monday 26th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
472 relating to prostate cancer screening. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Doctor Morrison. I begin by thanking David James, director of Patient Projects and influencing at Prostate Cancer Research, for creating this petition and the 101,932 people who supported it, including 195 from my own constituency in the Scottish Borders. The. Yes. Gosh.
16:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Can I very much thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. And will he thank the high number of West Worcestershire constituents who signed this petition? Putting West Worcestershire at the top of the petition signers for this particular petition, bringing it to Parliament. And will he praise the work of the Graham Fulford Charitable Trust, which, working with the Worcestershire Ambassadors, brings so many free prostate screening opportunities to people in West Worcestershire.
16:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I think it's a testament to the importance of this issue, not just to her constituents, given the number that's signed, but for all of our constituents who signed this petition, that they see it as an important issue that the government needs, needs to address, and all the charities that do such important work in this area, doctor. So I'm going to just make a little bit of progress, if I may, just just to let me develop a few arguments. I will take a couple of interventions, but I'm very conscious of the number of colleagues who are keen to speak.
Doctor Morrison The petition argues that targeted screening for all high risk men should be the starting point for building a screening programme that can ultimately protect all men. It questions the decision to exclusively offer screening to men with BRCA one two genetic variants. Since the petition was launched, the UK National Screening Committee, the NSC recommendation has narrowed and the government has now accepted screening for a small for a smaller group than the petition sought. The question for us today is who should be included? Why other high risk groups have 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. Patients survival hinges heavily on when it is diagnosed at stages one and two. Nearly 100% survive for five years or more at stage four. Only around 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, the government has now accepted a family history like his would not, on its own, qualify a man for screening. The broadcaster Dermot Murnaghan was diagnosed with stage four prostate cancer last year and sadly died in July this year. He said he fell through the gaps, having assumed that the regular health checks he received included a PSA 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, ethnicity all matter.
1 in 8 men will develop prostate cancer during their lifetime, rising to around 1 in 4 black men. That is why the petition argues for screening to begin with, men already known to be at greater risk.
Doctor Morrison The petition argues that targeted screening for all high risk men should be the starting point for building a screening programme that can ultimately protect all men. It questions the decision to exclusively offer screening to men with BRCA one two genetic variants. Since the petition was launched, the UK National Screening Committee, the NSC recommendation has narrowed and the government has now accepted screening for a small for a smaller group than the petition sought. The question for us today is who should be included? Why other high risk groups have 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. Patients survival hinges heavily on when it is diagnosed at stages one and two. Nearly 100% survive for five years or more at stage four. Only around 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, the government has now accepted a family history like his would not, on its own, qualify a man for screening. The broadcaster Dermot Murnaghan was diagnosed with stage four prostate cancer last year and sadly died in July this year. He said he fell through the gaps, having assumed that the regular health checks he received included a PSA 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, ethnicity all matter.
1 in 8 men will develop prostate cancer during their lifetime, rising to around 1 in 4 black men. That is why the petition argues for screening to begin with, men already known to be at greater risk.
16:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'm very grateful to Germany. It speaks very powerfully on behalf of his constituents in Scotland. I have had many emails from my constituents in Wales. So does he agree with me that when we're looking at testing all men at high risk, it shouldn't be just in England, it should be all around the United Kingdom.
16:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The honourable member makes an important point. I will come on to that in terms of the importance of ensuring that we get a UK wide approach to this, because there are subtle differences between the devolved nations. The UK government's decision to accept the Nsc's final recommendation in England to provide a PSA test every two years to men aged 45 to 61, with pathogenic BRCA two variants and a relevant family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer is a significant step forward, with roll out expected from 2027. However, BRCA one carriers are excluded and BRCA two carriers must also meet the family history criterion.
The Department of Health and Social Care estimates that only around 1500 men in England will be eligible, and acknowledges that most prostate cancer cases will therefore fall outside the programme. It 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 hon. Friend the member for Richmond. My right hon. Friend the member for Richmond and Northallerton 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 BRCA one BRCA two carriers.
Its message was clear perfection must not be the enemy of progress. This concern raised by those MPs reinforces the central question this petition addresses. Is the current screening programme too narrow?
The Department of Health and Social Care estimates that only around 1500 men in England will be eligible, and acknowledges that most prostate cancer cases will therefore fall outside the programme. It 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 hon. Friend the member for Richmond. My right hon. Friend the member for Richmond and Northallerton 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 BRCA one BRCA two carriers.
Its message was clear perfection must not be the enemy of progress. This concern raised by those MPs reinforces the central question this petition addresses. Is the current screening programme too narrow?
16:35
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The hon. Gentleman for giving way. And as somebody who has the Brca2 genetic abnormality, I will be eligible for the extra screening that he outlined. But too many men, unfortunately, delay getting the screening in rural areas and deprived areas, especially. We know that those delays result in. When prostate cancer being identified. It is identified at a far later level. And while I am grateful to the government for including myself in the screening, does he agree with me that more needs to be done to inform men of the need of regular screening, to avoid it being caught so late?
16:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Honourable member makes an important point both about the awareness but also the challenge in rural areas. And again, I will come on to that a little bit later in my speech. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the member for Richmond and Northallerton is here with us today. Having done so much to advance this issue as Prime Minister. His government backed a £42 million transform trial, providing £16 million of government funding to examine different approaches to prostate cancer screening. If 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 genetic saliva tests to find the safest and most effective way of detecting 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 called for a targeted national screening programme for the groups most at risk prostate Cancer research says.
The final UK NSC recommendation falls short of what is needed needed, arguing that too many high risk men remain outside the programme. Yes, I will give way. Thank you for giving way. I echo his praise for the former Prime Minister's tireless campaigning on this. I, like him, have been deeply moved by many of my constituents whose lives have been saved by early screening. But all too often this is a result of charity initiatives because it was not available to them on the NHS. He rightly highlights a lot of the advanced research going on on this, which every day is highlighting the strength of screening and how important it can be.
Does he agree with me that it is so important that the government continues to review this, to see whether widening the screening criteria could save more lives? The honourable member is right. There is so much work and research going on on this, and I think the imperative for the government, and again, this is going to be one of my asks later in my speech, is to ensure that the government acknowledges that work and reacts. Once the evidence, the more informed evidence becomes, 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 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 challenge 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.
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 genetic saliva tests to find the safest and most effective way of detecting 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 called for a targeted national screening programme for the groups most at risk prostate Cancer research says.
The final UK NSC recommendation falls short of what is needed needed, arguing that too many high risk men remain outside the programme. Yes, I will give way. Thank you for giving way. I echo his praise for the former Prime Minister's tireless campaigning on this. I, like him, have been deeply moved by many of my constituents whose lives have been saved by early screening. But all too often this is a result of charity initiatives because it was not available to them on the NHS. He rightly highlights a lot of the advanced research going on on this, which every day is highlighting the strength of screening and how important it can be.
Does he agree with me that it is so important that the government continues to review this, to see whether widening the screening criteria could save more lives? The honourable member is right. There is so much work and research going on on this, and I think the imperative for the government, and again, this is going to be one of my asks later in my speech, is to ensure that the government acknowledges that work and reacts. Once the evidence, the more informed evidence becomes, 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 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 challenge 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.
16:39
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I thank the honourable member for giving way and all the constituents in South Shropshire who contacted me about this vital point and about the diagnostic community. Diagnostic centres offer great resources to speed up this screening. Does he agree with me that more emphasis should be put around those centres, particularly in rural areas like South Shropshire?
16:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
My hon. Friend makes a crucial point both about the importance of the availability of those testing centres in rural areas, but also, I think, the link between those community based testing centres and how that links into the NHS, and also how that links into the research that is being done, because there still remains a significant disagreement over the scale of harm. The National Screening Committee estimates that for every 1000 men offered, screening, up to 20 could be overdiagnosed, while around two lives are extended. Prostate cancer researchers analysis of more contemporary MRI led studies estimates that three men overdiagnosed for roughly two lives saved.
An updated Cochrane review, published in May, found that PSA based screening likely reduces prostate cancer mortality by around two deaths for every 1000 men screened. What questions over while questions over 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 PSA testing already taking place and about screening black men, where the UK NSC says there is insufficient evidence to determine whether screening would do more good than harm.
The. Yeah.
An updated Cochrane review, published in May, found that PSA based screening likely reduces prostate cancer mortality by around two deaths for every 1000 men screened. What questions over while questions over 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 PSA testing already taking place and about screening black men, where the UK NSC says there is insufficient evidence to determine whether screening would do more good than harm.
The. Yeah.
16:41
16:41
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The whole thrust of government information towards all of our constituents is to catch cancer as early as possible. And part of the dilemma here is the government's position in some way seems to run against that. I've had a dozen emails just over the weekend from constituents who either have had prostate cancer or have family members who were touched by it. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, given this dichotomy, perhaps the government should play a little safe here and be prepared to look at this again?
16:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Makes an important point. I think the task for me today, certainly from the government, is for them to continue their engagement also to keep assessing the evidence and the information that's coming forward so that patients are given the best possible opportunity of survival. Now , I just look a little bit more progress that that uncertainty matters most for black men. 1 in 4 will develop prostate cancer, and they are around twice as likely to die from it. Yet rather than being offered screening, they're being invited to take part in a trial. Transform is directly testing several of these questions.
It has received up to a further £80 million to do so, with all eligible black men, aged between 45 and 74 invited to stage two of this project of stage one is successful researchers. Researchers told me that the useful stage one evidence should be available before the long term trial is complete and will be fed back to the UK NSC. Now, as the MP for the Scottish Borders, I also 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 aim to offer 25,000 men aged between 40 to 80 free PSA tests during 2026.
Sir Chris has described this as a major step forward for prostate cancer testing. In May, 313 men tested in Hawick and 515 in Galashiels, 828 men across two days in my constituency. This is not an NHS screening programme, but it's 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 by NHS National Services Scotland and Macmillan Cancer Support found that men in the most deprived areas had a 98% risk of death from prostate cancer, so a 98% higher risk of death from prostate cancer than those in the least deprived areas.
I therefore hope the minister can address several points. Firstly, will the Minister commit to independent expert scrutiny of UK nsc's modelling with the findings and the committee's response published in full? Secondly, if stage one of transform reduces significant new produces significant new evidence, particularly on screening black men, will the government commit to asking the UK NSC to review its recommendation? How will the NHS proactively identify eligible BRCA two carriers, particularly men whose genetic risk is not already known? Fourthly, what lessons can be drawn from community based initiatives in Scotland and improving access to testing? What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government and other devolved governments so that the men's.
A man's access to screening does not depend on which side of the side of the border he lives. And finally, for the many men who fall outside the programme, what will the government do to make sure they know they can ask their GP for a PSA test and receive clear, balanced information when they do? Doctor. Yes, we have been so generous. I had the joy.
It has received up to a further £80 million to do so, with all eligible black men, aged between 45 and 74 invited to stage two of this project of stage one is successful researchers. Researchers told me that the useful stage one evidence should be available before the long term trial is complete and will be fed back to the UK NSC. Now, as the MP for the Scottish Borders, I also 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 aim to offer 25,000 men aged between 40 to 80 free PSA tests during 2026.
Sir Chris has described this as a major step forward for prostate cancer testing. In May, 313 men tested in Hawick and 515 in Galashiels, 828 men across two days in my constituency. This is not an NHS screening programme, but it's 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 by NHS National Services Scotland and Macmillan Cancer Support found that men in the most deprived areas had a 98% risk of death from prostate cancer, so a 98% higher risk of death from prostate cancer than those in the least deprived areas.
I therefore hope the minister can address several points. Firstly, will the Minister commit to independent expert scrutiny of UK nsc's modelling with the findings and the committee's response published in full? Secondly, if stage one of transform reduces significant new produces significant new evidence, particularly on screening black men, will the government commit to asking the UK NSC to review its recommendation? How will the NHS proactively identify eligible BRCA two carriers, particularly men whose genetic risk is not already known? Fourthly, what lessons can be drawn from community based initiatives in Scotland and improving access to testing? What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government and other devolved governments so that the men's.
A man's access to screening does not depend on which side of the side of the border he lives. And finally, for the many men who fall outside the programme, what will the government do to make sure they know they can ask their GP for a PSA test and receive clear, balanced information when they do? Doctor. Yes, we have been so generous. I had the joy.
16:45
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Of spending time with the Kendal and South Lakes Prostate Cancer Support Group just a few weeks ago, and they like I and like he massively in favour of increased screening and making sure actually there is default screening for people men aged over 50. But does he also think that the government needs to be aware of the fact that if we test more people early and we identify cancers more early, there'll be more people to treat who can be treated? And does he believe the government has done enough work, both north of the border and in the UK Parliament, to ensure that we have sufficient capacity for both surgery, for radiotherapy and for chemotherapy, so we can treat those people who are diagnosed?
16:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'm grateful to the honourable member for that point. Maybe that is the key point to this, because not everybody who gets diagnosed with prostate cancer will necessarily need further treatment. Some people will not die of prostate cancer, but will die with prostate cancer. And it's getting the balance right between the appropriate point to test and treat and where it's not appropriate to do that. And that is the challenge that the government has. To conclude, Doctor Morrison, I am conscious of who else wants to speak. 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 that 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 that boundary should move as the evidence develops. The evidence I have heard in preparing for this debate points both ways. Earlier detection could save lives, but questions remain over whether modern screening can reduce past harms.
Transform should help to provide those answers. When transform reports, the government must be ready to act on it quickly, and that is what the petitions are asking for. And that is what I hope the minister will be able to commit to today. I look forward to hearing from the minister and colleagues during the rest of this debate. Thank you.
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 that 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 that boundary should move as the evidence develops. The evidence I have heard in preparing for this debate points both ways. Earlier detection could save lives, but questions remain over whether modern screening can reduce past harms.
Transform should help to provide those answers. When transform reports, the government must be ready to act on it quickly, and that is what the petitions are asking for. And that is what I hope the minister will be able to commit to today. I look forward to hearing from the minister and colleagues during the rest of this debate. Thank you.
16:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The subscribe. We won't be able to get everybody in. There will be a two minute limit on speeches, and front bench will be called at 1728. The question is that this House is considered E-petition 751472 relating to prostate cancer screening. I call were integers. Thank you, Doctor Morris under your chair.
16:47
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Early stage of the prostate cancer disease frequently produces no symptoms at all, which means that many men are diagnosed only after the cancer has progressed. And that means that screening offers the possibility of detecting the disease before symptoms develop. The strongest case for targeted screening is for high risk men, and that includes black men who are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer as other men. And 1 in 4 black men will be diagnosed during their lifetime. They also 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, and so prostate cancer should certainly be available to all black men.
I want to refer to my constituent, Simeon Green, who shared his family experience of prostate cancer with me and the devastating impact that that disease can have on black men and their families. He's 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 also been extended to the next generation because Simeon's eldest brother's son was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the age of just 39, and his family experienced demonstrate the devastating consequences of prostate cancer, particularly when it affects men at such a young age.
We owe it to families such as Simeon's to amplify efforts to help raise awareness, encourage early conversations about prostate cancer, and support efforts to improve early detection and access to appropriate care. No family should have to endure what Simeon's family did. We also need to provide greater support for trusted community organisations who can have a vital role in raising awareness of prostate cancer and encouraging men to seek advice. Wolves Foundation in my constituency of Wolverhampton West recently hosted an event which used the reach of football to get men talking about the disease and working with local NHS specialists and those with personal experience of prostate cancer.
I want to refer to my constituent, Simeon Green, who shared his family experience of prostate cancer with me and the devastating impact that that disease can have on black men and their families. He's 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 also been extended to the next generation because Simeon's eldest brother's son was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the age of just 39, and his family experienced demonstrate the devastating consequences of prostate cancer, particularly when it affects men at such a young age.
We owe it to families such as Simeon's to amplify efforts to help raise awareness, encourage early conversations about prostate cancer, and support efforts to improve early detection and access to appropriate care. No family should have to endure what Simeon's family did. We also need to provide greater support for trusted community organisations who can have a vital role in raising awareness of prostate cancer and encouraging men to seek advice. Wolves Foundation in my constituency of Wolverhampton West recently hosted an event which used the reach of football to get men talking about the disease and working with local NHS specialists and those with personal experience of prostate cancer.
16:49
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
To serve under your chairmanship, I declare my interest as an ambassador for prostate Cancer Research in the work that I do for that charity. I've spent a lot of time in the community talking to those affected, those organizing drives, and I'm 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, to raising awareness. I think that is extraordinary of them. And as I said, humbling. I think we owe it to them. In fact, the most important thing we can do for them, to honour them is to make sure that no one else loses a father, a grandfather, a brother to this cruel disease.
So I, like many other campaigners, was disappointed with the decision of the National Screening Committee. The budget is not until Wednesday. Colleagues know I like numbers and I dove into the the model behind that decision. I think there are a few issues which I hope the Minister can go back and and have a look at that. The model assumed treatment costs of around £27,000. Most independent estimates put that number far higher. The model assumed only about a quarter of men received received the most advanced drugs. Again, audit figures suggest that that number is twice as much, and the model assumed that they would not receive that for more than three years.
When the evidence is that they receive it for longer. All of those gaps understate the positive case for screening that's been verified by the Independent York Economics Consortium. Further to that, we heard about the concern of overtreatment. However, modern diagnostic pathways offer ways to reduce unnecessary treatment and diagnosis. We won't need to go into all the details and the time we've got, but the evidence this year from the Cochrane Review that looked at 800,000 men's experience, but also the Swedish study, which looked at the success of the new Stockholm three trial, indicated that the evidence is moving faster than the committee is moving.
I'm delighted that the government has committed to a living model, and could I ask the Minister to commit to, maybe by January, publishing the workflows that we know, when that model is going to be updated with the new evidence and the work streams for that, particularly the new survival assumptions and costs, but also open up the model like nice does to independent experts, because we can have real scrutiny and debate over the assumptions.
So I, like many other campaigners, was disappointed with the decision of the National Screening Committee. The budget is not until Wednesday. Colleagues know I like numbers and I dove into the the model behind that decision. I think there are a few issues which I hope the Minister can go back and and have a look at that. The model assumed treatment costs of around £27,000. Most independent estimates put that number far higher. The model assumed only about a quarter of men received received the most advanced drugs. Again, audit figures suggest that that number is twice as much, and the model assumed that they would not receive that for more than three years.
When the evidence is that they receive it for longer. All of those gaps understate the positive case for screening that's been verified by the Independent York Economics Consortium. Further to that, we heard about the concern of overtreatment. However, modern diagnostic pathways offer ways to reduce unnecessary treatment and diagnosis. We won't need to go into all the details and the time we've got, but the evidence this year from the Cochrane Review that looked at 800,000 men's experience, but also the Swedish study, which looked at the success of the new Stockholm three trial, indicated that the evidence is moving faster than the committee is moving.
I'm delighted that the government has committed to a living model, and could I ask the Minister to commit to, maybe by January, publishing the workflows that we know, when that model is going to be updated with the new evidence and the work streams for that, particularly the new survival assumptions and costs, but also open up the model like nice does to independent experts, because we can have real scrutiny and debate over the assumptions.
16:52
16:52
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you. I declare an interest. First of all, thank you for your chairship doctor, I declare interest. I'm a surgeon and I'm appointed the chair of the Appg on prostate cancer. So prostate cancer bewilders people. 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, the dreadful spreading disease of cancer that kills men, sometimes quickly and sometimes very young.
And at the other end, the indolent cancers that simply sit around causing little trouble so that the patient lives with the cancer and they die of something quite unrelated. So the great dilemma is how to distinguish which is which. For if we identify cancers that are in fact actual fact, not going to cause any trouble and treat them, will need to deal with the consequences of the treatments and the side effects , which so many men fear incontinence, impotence, and we risk doing more harm than good. And that, in simple terms, explains why the screening experts have determined that at present, whole population screening is not the way to go.
But people find this a little difficult to understand and so do I. To be honest, we have at least two former prime ministers who have been advocating for screening and a number of famous sportsmen. As we've heard now, PSA is the blood test which is used in screening. What's the problem? False positive. Three quarters of men with a PSA greater than four will not have cancer on biopsy. False negative men with cancer have a normal PSA, so it's not a yes or no test. Maybe not massively useful now. UK National Screening Committee says do targeted screening for men with the Brca2 genetics and a family history, but may be best to use MRI for those men.
But I'd like to say that there is hope. Analysis of surgical samples of prostate cancer subject to genetic study at the University of East Anglia, where I too lately completed an MD in medical genetics studies soon allow us to distinguish between bad prostate cancer from good prostate cancer and we can be proud of how British science is contributing and I would urge our government to use this Parliament to support this research and these amazing scientists in their bold endeavour. Thank you.
And at the other end, the indolent cancers that simply sit around causing little trouble so that the patient lives with the cancer and they die of something quite unrelated. So the great dilemma is how to distinguish which is which. For if we identify cancers that are in fact actual fact, not going to cause any trouble and treat them, will need to deal with the consequences of the treatments and the side effects , which so many men fear incontinence, impotence, and we risk doing more harm than good. And that, in simple terms, explains why the screening experts have determined that at present, whole population screening is not the way to go.
But people find this a little difficult to understand and so do I. To be honest, we have at least two former prime ministers who have been advocating for screening and a number of famous sportsmen. As we've heard now, PSA is the blood test which is used in screening. What's the problem? False positive. Three quarters of men with a PSA greater than four will not have cancer on biopsy. False negative men with cancer have a normal PSA, so it's not a yes or no test. Maybe not massively useful now. UK National Screening Committee says do targeted screening for men with the Brca2 genetics and a family history, but may be best to use MRI for those men.
But I'd like to say that there is hope. Analysis of surgical samples of prostate cancer subject to genetic study at the University of East Anglia, where I too lately completed an MD in medical genetics studies soon allow us to distinguish between bad prostate cancer from good prostate cancer and we can be proud of how British science is contributing and I would urge our government to use this Parliament to support this research and these amazing scientists in their bold endeavour. Thank you.
16:54
16:54
16:54
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Important debate because this issue is personal for me. This Christmas was particularly difficult for us as a family. When my dad had a looming prostate cancer diagnosis, he'd been participating in the trial screening programme over the last 15 years. Although not always easy, and I think many members have alluded to how difficult that has been. Once confirmed, this early diagnosis has meant that they've caught it early enough to manage, and thankfully, dad is doing well. One of my constituents, Michael from Harpenden, also wrote to me ahead of today. He had no symptoms, but he was encouraged to ask his GP for a full blood test and found early stage prostate cancer.
He tells me that under the new screening rules, he would never have been diagnosed. He calls himself one of the lucky ones and no man 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 it will only reach around 1500 men. And leaving out, as we've highlighted, many black men and men with a family history, and it has to be just a first step. And so there are still too many outside of this programme.
So I asked the minister, learning from stories of my dad and Michael and so many more, how do we ensure that those who do need it get the screening they deserve? Also, how can we learn from these trial programmes and use that new technology to make sure that it is a better screening programme for everyone involved? And will the government urgently guarantee delivery of the targeted programme across the country? Building the infrastructure to broaden screening at every possible level where needed? And will they look at writing into law that every cancer patient starts treatment within 62 days?
Because every man deserves a chance that my dad and Michael had.
He tells me that under the new screening rules, he would never have been diagnosed. He calls himself one of the lucky ones and no man 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 it will only reach around 1500 men. And leaving out, as we've highlighted, many black men and men with a family history, and it has to be just a first step. And so there are still too many outside of this programme.
So I asked the minister, learning from stories of my dad and Michael and so many more, how do we ensure that those who do need it get the screening they deserve? Also, how can we learn from these trial programmes and use that new technology to make sure that it is a better screening programme for everyone involved? And will the government urgently guarantee delivery of the targeted programme across the country? Building the infrastructure to broaden screening at every possible level where needed? And will they look at writing into law that every cancer patient starts treatment within 62 days?
Because every man deserves a chance that my dad and Michael had.
16:56
16:56
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Serve under your chairmanship. I also thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Each year, 63,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in the UK and devastatingly, more than 12,000 will die from this disease. That's why I fundamentally welcome England's first screening programme. But it's also why I strongly believe that we must move at pace to put into action. We know that while lung cancer screening was recommended in 2022, it is still not been fully implemented for this programme. To make a real difference to health outcomes, we must move quickly on implementation and more importantly, ensure that the programme can actually reach 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. What's more, those at the highest risk black men have historically been under informed. Black men face double the risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer compared to their non-black counterparts, yet only 20% are aware of this. As such, black men are often diagnosed at a far later stage when their cancer has become more difficult to treat and the chances of survival considerably lowered. In my role as a trustee of the Black Cancer Care charity From Me to You, I've witnessed both the devastating consequences of late stage diagnosis and the power of early intervention within the community.
May I ask the minister what steps the department is taking to help the NHS find men who are unaware of the high risk they face, either because of their ethnicity or because they carry the BRCA two variant? Thank you.
Roughly 30,000 men in the UK carry the BRCA variant, but the vast majority are not aware of it. What's more, those at the highest risk black men have historically been under informed. Black men face double the risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer compared to their non-black counterparts, yet only 20% are aware of this. As such, black men are often diagnosed at a far later stage when their cancer has become more difficult to treat and the chances of survival considerably lowered. In my role as a trustee of the Black Cancer Care charity From Me to You, I've witnessed both the devastating consequences of late stage diagnosis and the power of early intervention within the community.
May I ask the minister what steps the department is taking to help the NHS find men who are unaware of the high risk they face, either because of their ethnicity or because they carry the BRCA two variant? Thank you.
16:58
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Doctor Luke Evans. My previous position. So I'm going to use my speech to talk about things I understand and things I don't. When it comes to understanding, I understand why there's such a drive to pick it up. We've heard the numbers explicitly, but I do understand why the government is citing the evidence from the committee to make sure this is measured. After all, if you've got a test that 75% of the time says that you may have cancer but also doesn't pick up 15%, that is a matter for concern, especially when we hear the statistics about 12 people being overtreated.
No one has talked about what overtreated means. That means someone who was asymptomatic, who could be 56, suddenly suffers erectile dysfunction when they never had a cancer that needed treatment. These are really important points. So it's right we expand the trial to understand more about what is going on. But here's the bit I don't understand the last minute for my speech. I'm simply going to put this to the minister because the guidance has changed for GPS over when a man who's asymptomatic over 50 requests a PSA, they used to be able to get it. Now, this for me is really, really important because if we've got a test that isn't very good and it's hard enough to get men in to see a doctor, what are they most concerned about?
Cancer. And I've had those conversations and they understand the risks and they still want that test. Why has the government changed that when its own consultation simply says there was no simple way of knowing from the data whether a PSA test has been done because a patient requested one, a GP has concerns about patients symptoms, or was it part of a post-cancer treatment, follow up or active surveillance? So the government doesn't even know why PSA tests were being changed? For me, this is really important because actually, if a man is going in to ask for a PSA test, given everything he knows, he should have the right to have that test until we get further information to tell him otherwise.
Because if I was that GP, I'd be worried they'd ask for my GMC number and my name. Thank you for your time keeping colleagues Paramount. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And may I thank the member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for leading this debate, debate and 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 and it detected an aggressive cancer, but fortunately it was treatable. Unfortunately not the case for Gene from Tehidy Park.
Her husband's cancer was diagnosed, wasn't diagnosed until it had already spread to his bones and had he had testing. He may have been here today, but I warmly welcome the government's actions to establish the country's first targeted prostate cancer screening programme from 2027, and also 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 because that is necessarily the case, but because deprivation reduces their access to testing, leaving them undiagnosed. I worry that this will be the case for several of my constituents, given that we suffer some of the deepest deprivation in the country.
I therefore urge ministers to keep further targeted. Yes.
No one has talked about what overtreated means. That means someone who was asymptomatic, who could be 56, suddenly suffers erectile dysfunction when they never had a cancer that needed treatment. These are really important points. So it's right we expand the trial to understand more about what is going on. But here's the bit I don't understand the last minute for my speech. I'm simply going to put this to the minister because the guidance has changed for GPS over when a man who's asymptomatic over 50 requests a PSA, they used to be able to get it. Now, this for me is really, really important because if we've got a test that isn't very good and it's hard enough to get men in to see a doctor, what are they most concerned about?
Cancer. And I've had those conversations and they understand the risks and they still want that test. Why has the government changed that when its own consultation simply says there was no simple way of knowing from the data whether a PSA test has been done because a patient requested one, a GP has concerns about patients symptoms, or was it part of a post-cancer treatment, follow up or active surveillance? So the government doesn't even know why PSA tests were being changed? For me, this is really important because actually, if a man is going in to ask for a PSA test, given everything he knows, he should have the right to have that test until we get further information to tell him otherwise.
Because if I was that GP, I'd be worried they'd ask for my GMC number and my name. Thank you for your time keeping colleagues Paramount. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And may I thank the member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for leading this debate, debate and 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 and it detected an aggressive cancer, but fortunately it was treatable. Unfortunately not the case for Gene from Tehidy Park.
Her husband's cancer was diagnosed, wasn't diagnosed until it had already spread to his bones and had he had testing. He may have been here today, but I warmly welcome the government's actions to establish the country's first targeted prostate cancer screening programme from 2027, and also 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 because that is necessarily the case, but because deprivation reduces their access to testing, leaving them undiagnosed. I worry that this will be the case for several of my constituents, given that we suffer some of the deepest deprivation in the country.
I therefore urge ministers to keep further targeted. Yes.
17:01
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Doctor L Pinkerton. I am very grateful to the honourable gentleman. Prostate cancer UK have identified that 29% more men from deprived areas are likely only to be diagnosed with prostate cancer, at a point after which the cancer has already spread. Which touches exactly on the point that he is making. So does he agree with me that as well as having more sensitive diagnostic tests, we also need to make sure that people who are most at risk are able to access those tests.
17:01
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank him for his intervention, and I wholly agree with him that this must focus on those areas of higher levels of deprivation, wherever those those areas are, and I therefore urge ministers to keep further targeted expansion under active review and to act as swiftly as possible as the evidence develops.
17:02
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Mark Francois. Oh, he's gone, he's gone. Gosh, Ben Objekte, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. If I may start by declaring my interest. I'm also an officer on the Appg for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is a subject close to my heart. I think we all know here that it affects black men, middle aged men and men with a family history of prostate cancer. And I took all those boxes. My father has prostate cancer and is undergoing treatment at the moment, and I would like to thank all the staff at Kingston Hospital for their treatment of him and their swift treatment of him, given that he was under active surveillance.
I think that's an important point because he got a PSA test. He 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 it needed to be treated, they were able to act quickly, and that has fundamentally saved his life. He wouldn't be eligible for the transform trial. That would now include black men until 2028. And by that point, who knows how far that cancer might have progressed as a result. I take my own health quite seriously, and it means that I regularly get a PSA test.
I say regularly, annually. I got my last PSA test last month and thankfully it's all okay for me, but it means that I can keep track of that and keep and pay attention to it. I think it's clearly obvious that we need to encourage more men to get themselves tested. There's a lot of middle aged men in this room, and I suspect that not everybody in here has had a PSA test or had a PSA test recently. But in August, the Department of Health withdrew the Prostate Cancer Risk Management programme after 24 years. PCR MP has provided a dedicated framework for the Informed Choice model regarding PSA testing among asymptomatic men, and removes previous references to men over 50 being considered to be at increased risk.
Now that the guidance underpinning the framework has been withdrawn, could the Minister clarify how requests for testing for asymptomatic men will be handled in practice? I'd be grateful if the minister could also clarify the official position of the government that last week at health Opcw's should men suspect that they have symptoms, they can go to their GP and seek a PSA test for prostate cancer? If she could clarify that that is the case, that would be very, very much appreciated.
Thank you.
I think that's an important point because he got a PSA test. He 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 it needed to be treated, they were able to act quickly, and that has fundamentally saved his life. He wouldn't be eligible for the transform trial. That would now include black men until 2028. And by that point, who knows how far that cancer might have progressed as a result. I take my own health quite seriously, and it means that I regularly get a PSA test.
I say regularly, annually. I got my last PSA test last month and thankfully it's all okay for me, but it means that I can keep track of that and keep and pay attention to it. I think it's clearly obvious that we need to encourage more men to get themselves tested. There's a lot of middle aged men in this room, and I suspect that not everybody in here has had a PSA test or had a PSA test recently. But in August, the Department of Health withdrew the Prostate Cancer Risk Management programme after 24 years. PCR MP has provided a dedicated framework for the Informed Choice model regarding PSA testing among asymptomatic men, and removes previous references to men over 50 being considered to be at increased risk.
Now that the guidance underpinning the framework has been withdrawn, could the Minister clarify how requests for testing for asymptomatic men will be handled in practice? I'd be grateful if the minister could also clarify the official position of the government that last week at health Opcw's should men suspect that they have symptoms, they can go to their GP and seek a PSA test for prostate cancer? If she could clarify that that is the case, that would be very, very much appreciated.
Thank you.
17:04
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, Doctor Muir. And I thank all my constituents who signed the petition. Can I start by paying a special tribute to Graham Fulford, who is a constituent of mine, for the phenomenal work that his charitable trust has been doing to promote awareness and improve testing across the United Kingdom. Since 2004, it has been running tests, delivering over 470,000. And that's they found 4000 cancers, and they estimate that they've actually added over 32,000 years of life. Collectively. Prostate cancer, as we've heard, is the most common cancer among men, around 12,000 dying every year from it.
And of course, as we've heard, black men also twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as white men. Chair, my specific request to the minister is really for wider and more expansive, targeted screening. It will come as no surprise. Indeed, last week, Doctor Morrison, I wrote to the speaker, having had a conversation with the Graham Fulford and Graham Fulford and his trust to see if they would be willing to support. But I wrote to the speaker encouraging him to consider an annual screening programme here in Parliament to simply raise awareness of this need and Minister.
They would be delighted to run that. If that was of interest. Doctor Morrison finally, I'd just like to mention a constituent, Nigel Higgins, who lost his life to prostate cancer last year. Nigel was a friend of mine. He was known to many in Warwick and Leamington, and I promised him that I would continue his campaign in his memory. Thank you, David Chadwick.
And of course, as we've heard, black men also twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as white men. Chair, my specific request to the minister is really for wider and more expansive, targeted screening. It will come as no surprise. Indeed, last week, Doctor Morrison, I wrote to the speaker, having had a conversation with the Graham Fulford and Graham Fulford and his trust to see if they would be willing to support. But I wrote to the speaker encouraging him to consider an annual screening programme here in Parliament to simply raise awareness of this need and Minister.
They would be delighted to run that. If that was of interest. Doctor Morrison finally, I'd just like to mention a constituent, Nigel Higgins, who lost his life to prostate cancer last year. Nigel was a friend of mine. He was known to many in Warwick and Leamington, and I promised him that I would continue his campaign in his memory. Thank you, David Chadwick.
17:06
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you, chair Championship. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the 217 people who have signed this petition in my constituency of Brecon and Radnor and Tower, as well as those who have taken the time to write to me and those I met with from Breconshire Friends of Prostate Cymru. Today, I particularly 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 four prostate cancer entirely by chance after visiting his GP about an unrelated health issue.
By that time, his cancer. 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 want to pay tribute to Mr. Morris for his courage in sharing his experience, and for using what is 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 recommendation 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 these genetic variants. And what about men like Mr. Morris, who have no known family history of the disease and will 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 very real and devastating consequences of cancers being diagnosed too late.
By that time, his cancer. 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 want to pay tribute to Mr. Morris for his courage in sharing his experience, and for using what is 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 recommendation 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 these genetic variants. And what about men like Mr. Morris, who have no known family history of the disease and will 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 very real and devastating consequences of cancers being diagnosed too late.
17:07
17:07
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Peterson. It's a pleasure to serve under you today. And I do want to start by paying tribute to the Right Honourable member for Richmond and Northallerton. I think he does a fantastic job using the convening power that comes with his former office to shed light on this subject, and also the member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk did a great job outlining the need to have a more evidence based focus on increasing the base for screening. So I'm not going to touch on that, but I do want to talk about the inequalities associated with screening.
The national prostate cancer in 2025 shows that inequalities in prostate cancer treatment are deepening. Men in deprived areas are more likely to present with advanced diseases and more likely to die. This is something that should shame us. There is a national dynamic to this. At a recent meeting with Prostate Cancer Research, they told me about the discrepancies in late diagnoses across the UK. In Scotland, 31% of prostate cancers are diagnosed too late for curative treatment. This is higher than any other part of the UK. In London, for example, it's 15%. These differences are unacceptable and they should shame us.
Mr. Morrison the current system relies too often on a chance. A patient on too often on a chance and a patient being persistent. GP guidelines do not encourage practitioners to discuss risks with patients if they are asymptomatic. This means too many men only request a test because of a chance conversation with friends or family, or hopefully we get 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 risk or their right to request a test without a national screening programme, inequality is baked into the system.
Screening will be very happy to.
The national prostate cancer in 2025 shows that inequalities in prostate cancer treatment are deepening. Men in deprived areas are more likely to present with advanced diseases and more likely to die. This is something that should shame us. There is a national dynamic to this. At a recent meeting with Prostate Cancer Research, they told me about the discrepancies in late diagnoses across the UK. In Scotland, 31% of prostate cancers are diagnosed too late for curative treatment. This is higher than any other part of the UK. In London, for example, it's 15%. These differences are unacceptable and they should shame us.
Mr. Morrison the current system relies too often on a chance. A patient on too often on a chance and a patient being persistent. GP guidelines do not encourage practitioners to discuss risks with patients if they are asymptomatic. This means too many men only request a test because of a chance conversation with friends or family, or hopefully we get 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 risk or their right to request a test without a national screening programme, inequality is baked into the system.
Screening will be very happy to.
17:09
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Honourable member giving way on that. But in my constituency of Leicester South, nearly 10% of the residents are from the black and Afro-Caribbean community, which is more than double the national average. Does the honourable member agree with me that leaving these men to know to ask for a PS PSA test builds inequality into our system?
17:10
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I do agree, and we have to be honest as well , that this is not an issue unique to prostate cancer. So many cancers, 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. Mr. Morrison screening will not end the deaths from prostate cancer altogether. However, it is the right way forward to minimise the deaths and I think that is something we are all agreed on here today.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
17:10
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Sir Bernard Jenkin, thank you. Championship. And I. thank the government for changing its mind about the health services safety investigation body and keeping that body to continue working as it is. And I wonder what it would make of a study, a systemic study of the safety management risks and how they're being managed when it comes to prostate cancer and screening, because I see across different European countries very different experiences and a wide variety of methods of gathering data, a blanket screening exists in very few countries. I hear what the honourable member for Bury St Edmunds says, but my understanding is an MRI scan followed by a needle biopsy needn't necessarily have much in the way of adverse health effects, and I had three MRI scans and then no needle biopsy.
I gave way to the honourable gentleman, Peter Brinsley. Thank you. I'm grateful to my friend for.
I gave way to the honourable gentleman, Peter Brinsley. Thank you. I'm grateful to my friend for.
17:11
17:11
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Many, many tests are for initial diagnosis of many, many conditions are unreliable. The problem is you're telling that government is at the moment telling people you cannot have a PSA test unless, of course, you buy a kit from some fly by night internet company. And there's a lot of that going on, and they're clogging up the whole system. It should be possible and it should be encouraged by GPS. If you've got a doubt about what's happening down there, have a PSA test as a precaution. If it's a false positive, let's find it out. If it is a false positive, that is much cheaper.
I mean, look at the death. 64,000 men diagnosed 12,000 deaths a year. This is a very, very serious health concern. And and we shouldn't be tolerating it. What I see in the system is an excess of caution. Okay. We're now having this transformed trial, but the effect of that is to put off any further decisions until 2027. Why are we doing that? There's plenty of data and plenty of experience for the government to make more flexible and decisions. One always wonders whether these committees that make these decisions are really independent, or whether they're under pressure to control costs, because, of course, if you have more PSA tests, there will be more people to scan.
That will mean more people to biopsy, there will be more false positives to deal with, and that has a cost. But but that shouldn't be the metric, just cost. That's not how you run safety and other industries. You need information and you need a balanced and independent diagnosis of the system as to whether it's generating the right data. But based on the evidence we already have, we're not testing enough people. We're not doing enough MRI scans, and we should be doing much more.
Serena Brackenridge.
I mean, look at the death. 64,000 men diagnosed 12,000 deaths a year. This is a very, very serious health concern. And and we shouldn't be tolerating it. What I see in the system is an excess of caution. Okay. We're now having this transformed trial, but the effect of that is to put off any further decisions until 2027. Why are we doing that? There's plenty of data and plenty of experience for the government to make more flexible and decisions. One always wonders whether these committees that make these decisions are really independent, or whether they're under pressure to control costs, because, of course, if you have more PSA tests, there will be more people to scan.
That will mean more people to biopsy, there will be more false positives to deal with, and that has a cost. But but that shouldn't be the metric, just cost. That's not how you run safety and other industries. You need information and you need a balanced and independent diagnosis of the system as to whether it's generating the right data. But based on the evidence we already have, we're not testing enough people. We're not doing enough MRI scans, and we should be doing much more.
Serena Brackenridge.
17:13
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Pleasure to serve. Under your chairmanship, I would like to start by offering my thoughts to all those in Wolverhampton, North, East and beyond who have lost loved ones or themselves living with prostate cancer or their families to. And 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 1 in 5 of those men were diagnosed at a late stage when their cancer was harder to treat or incurable. And that is why I welcome England's first targeted prostate cancer screening programme.
But we must ensure it is rolled out promptly. Moved to target all high risk men to reach those who need it most. I am particularly concerned about data behind the 1 in 4 black men who will develop the disease, while men whose father or brother has had it face around two and a half times the risk. That is why I was proud to support the launch of the Saving Black Men's Lives manifesto at the Molineux, led by Prostate Cancer UK and the West Midlands Cancer Alliance. Bros 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 has 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 screening 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.
But we must ensure it is rolled out promptly. Moved to target all high risk men to reach those who need it most. I am particularly concerned about data behind the 1 in 4 black men who will develop the disease, while men whose father or brother has had it face around two and a half times the risk. That is why I was proud to support the launch of the Saving Black Men's Lives manifesto at the Molineux, led by Prostate Cancer UK and the West Midlands Cancer Alliance. Bros 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 has 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 screening 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
17:15
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Serve under your chairmanship, 310 of my constituents signed the petition, placing South West Devon eighth out of all constituencies in the country. Now, one constituent has said, at 73, I have lost many friends, at least eight to this disease, and I have a few three I know of who were treated and survived early due to 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. Now another constituent has asked me, how is it possible to reach the age of 69 without having had a PSA check by the GP?
That is no one other than my predecessor, Sir Gary Streeter, who, when he was feeling unwell, unwell for a while, 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 what what work is going to happen to ensure that that takes place right across the country and isn't a postcode lottery, because he's aware that whilst he's benefited from that scheme, not everybody is able to. But ultimately he is doing well. Just to reassure everybody. Is that my two minutes already?
Sorry, did they not press time?
That is no one other than my predecessor, Sir Gary Streeter, who, when he was feeling unwell, unwell for a while, 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 what what work is going to happen to ensure that that takes place right across the country and isn't a postcode lottery, because he's aware that whilst he's benefited from that scheme, not everybody is able to. But ultimately he is doing well. Just to reassure everybody. Is that my two minutes already?
Sorry, did they not press time?
17:16
17:16
17:16
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Chris Kane, thank you. 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. But there was another option, focal therapy, which was not mentioned to him. He subsequently discovered that he was eligible for this treatment, but it was not available through his local health board and it was only available to him privately. And the way he discovered it 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 in the programme, and given what he knew of treatment and of 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's how he discovered focal point therapy.
He eventually had the procedure and he is now cancer free. But it does raise some difficult questions. First, why was he not told about the option in the first place? As a Scottish MP, I recognised that health is devolved, but we are still part of one United Kingdom and if one part of our country is at the vanguard of new medical technology, surely we have an obligation to learn from it and share that knowledge wherever 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 isn't, but the availability of treatment in one part of the country should not determine whether a patient in another part of the country even knows if it exists, let alone 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. So I would 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 , will give more men information quicker to start to make informed decisions with their doctors.
But 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 of the information that needs to be all that. We owe them, all of the information that they need to make informed choices about what happens next. Here, here.
He eventually had the procedure and he is now cancer free. But it does raise some difficult questions. First, why was he not told about the option in the first place? As a Scottish MP, I recognised that health is devolved, but we are still part of one United Kingdom and if one part of our country is at the vanguard of new medical technology, surely we have an obligation to learn from it and share that knowledge wherever 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 isn't, but the availability of treatment in one part of the country should not determine whether a patient in another part of the country even knows if it exists, let alone 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. So I would 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 , will give more men information quicker to start to make informed decisions with their doctors.
But 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 of the information that needs to be all that. We owe them, all of the information that they need to make informed choices about what happens next. Here, here.
17:18
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
I did serve under your chairmanship today, and I'm 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 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 a seniors event in September, 122 men were seen in a single day. Of the six that were investigated afterwards, four have had cancer confirmed. So thank you to Dave. But the best tribute that we can pay to Dave and other campaigners like him is to get the policy right.
And I would like to challenge the Minister on whether the National Screening Committee's modelling back in May actually did do 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, and analysis commissioned by Prostate Cancer Research showed treating a man diagnosed at stage four costs roughly ten times as much as stage one. So the NHS will pay more to treat this cancer once it is incurable than it was prepared to pay to find it earlier.
That doesn't seem consistent now. The case against wider screening rests on harms, overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment, and I won't repeat what many other members have said on the statistics around 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 dedicated a dated timetable for reconsidering the decision? Dave and other men campaigning on this would very much appreciate that.
And I would like to challenge the Minister on whether the National Screening Committee's modelling back in May actually did do 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, and analysis commissioned by Prostate Cancer Research showed treating a man diagnosed at stage four costs roughly ten times as much as stage one. So the NHS will pay more to treat this cancer once it is incurable than it was prepared to pay to find it earlier.
That doesn't seem consistent now. The case against wider screening rests on harms, overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment, and I won't repeat what many other members have said on the statistics around 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 dedicated a dated timetable for reconsidering the decision? Dave and other men campaigning on this would very much appreciate that.
17:20
17:20
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm going to begin with testimony from two of my constituents. Angela Duffill lost her dad to prostate cancer in 2019, and she speaks warmly of the 20 years of NHS care he received at Russells Hall Hospital. But she also writes 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 . This 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, Mervin Jackson, wrote to me with his story because prostate cancer ran in his family, he was encouraged to have regular tests and 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 into getting tested had he not been recommended.
So based on his congenital risk. But 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're talking about fighting cancer while there is still time to treat it, potentially giving someone decades more of life. So I welcome the government's decision to introduce targeted screening for men with the BRC, a two gene and a relevant family history of cancer. But many families will still be left asking where current policies leave them. So I hope the minister will recognise the urgency behind these concerns, the need to keep wider screening under review and to give families clear guidance whilst that work continues.
Thank you, Sir Paul Davis.
Angela wonders whether a comprehensive, better publicised screening programme would have encouraged her dad to seek help sooner. Another constituent, Mervin Jackson, wrote to me with his story because prostate cancer ran in his family, he was encouraged to have regular tests and 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 into getting tested had he not been recommended.
So based on his congenital risk. But 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're talking about fighting cancer while there is still time to treat it, potentially giving someone decades more of life. So I welcome the government's decision to introduce targeted screening for men with the BRC, a two gene and a relevant family history of cancer. But many families will still be left asking where current policies leave them. So I hope the minister will recognise the urgency behind these concerns, the need to keep wider screening under review and to give families clear guidance whilst that work continues.
Thank you, Sir Paul Davis.
17:22
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Excuse me. Thank you, Doctor Morrison. It's a pleasure to serve. Under your chairmanship, the UK National Screening Committee's current recommendations are indeed very restricted, limiting prostate cancer screening to every two years for men aged between 45 and 61, with pathogenic BRCA two variant and a family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer, according to his own modelling report, just 1 in 27 people have this variant. In total, around 1500 men in England would be eligible for screening now. The transform trial is a key part of the government's strategy for improving detection and support for men with prostate cancer.
This is a long term commitment and I absolutely support this in the work that is doing. However, my concern is the lack of strategy being put in place to support men with and at high risk of prostate cancer in the interim. Clearly, this is something that impacts men today. So I'm concerned that the decision to withdraw the previous prostate cancer risk management programme and direct GPS to refer to guidance in nice clinical knowledge summaries when discussing PSA tests with patients, has seriously reduced clarity for patients.
This is a long term commitment and I absolutely support this in the work that is doing. However, my concern is the lack of strategy being put in place to support men with and at high risk of prostate cancer in the interim. Clearly, this is something that impacts men today. So I'm concerned that the decision to withdraw the previous prostate cancer risk management programme and direct GPS to refer to guidance in nice clinical knowledge summaries when discussing PSA tests with patients, has seriously reduced clarity for patients.
17:24
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
I thank the member for giving way. What like many members I've been contacted by and met with many men in Basingstoke and their families who have been affected by prostate cancer. And as he was eloquently pointing out, I think while many of them welcome the targeted screening programme, we do need reassurance from the government. And does he agree that we need reassurance from the government that as more evidence comes to light from the fantastic transform programme, the government will be committed to expanding the programme as the evidence allows?
17:24
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
I'd like to thank my hon. Member for that intervention. I absolutely agree, clearly have to act on that and act on that very quickly. I think that's the key point, and many speakers have made that point. Many members have made that point, but we can't wait. We see so many men affected by this illness and unfortunately, many deaths and many people, many men suffering for a long period as well. So I would ask the minister.
Okay.
Okay.
17:25
17:25
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
It's just on this point of lack of clarity that that that the honourable member was making. My constituent, Richard, went to his GP with early symptoms of prostate cancer, but because he didn't fit the screening profile, his GP refused a PSA test even though he demonstrated early symptoms. Does the honourable member agree that ministers could perhaps issue guidance to make sure that GPS are not misinterpreting the new situation?
17:25
17:25
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Again, I'd like to thank the member for the intervention. Absolutely agree. I know from my own personal experience, I recently had a PSA test, and actually I had to work quite hard to get that. And I have a very good GP and, you know, frankly was basically told it's a waste of time having the test. I really think we need to make sure that we've got clarity so that GPS know how to deal with this and that men absolutely understand they have an entitlement to that test. So I'd ask the minister in her response to make sure that we have now a clear offer to higher risk men at this point, and to confirm that men aged 50 or over are at higher risk are able to discuss, as we've just said, the pros and cons of testing with their GP, with that entitlement to a PSA test remaining, even though the PCR MP has been withdrawn and going back as well.
In terms of the screening that we have at the moment. Also to explain how Brca2 carriers will be found and will be invited to screen in going forward.
In terms of the screening that we have at the moment. Also to explain how Brca2 carriers will be found and will be invited to screen in going forward.
17:26
17:26
17:26
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Doctor Morrison, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship . In 2017. my constituent, Tony Collier, was training for an ultra marathon. Tony was 60, fit and otherwise. Otherwise, well, he was the kind of man who rarely sat long, 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 that's how it was . Diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. He was told his cancer had been developing for around ten years. In that moment, Tony's life changed forever. Tony did not ignore symptoms. There weren't any until it was too late.
Now, I met Tony through his dedicated campaigning for earlier diagnosis, along with 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's working with national cancer organisations to make the case for change, show more men like him and those at high risk can get this life saving test. Tony believes that if he had had regular PSA tests from the age of 50, there's a good chance he would have been diagnosed earlier when his cancer was still curable. Tony doesn't campaign for sympathy.
He campaigns so other men don't have to rely on chance to find out that they have cancer. I hope the minister listens to Tony's story today and acts on the recommendations from prostate cancer research, including to publish a timetable for reviewing screening evidence by January 2027, keeping the model updated with six monthly updates and clear decision points for black men tied to stage one of transform funding new research into into who currently receives PSA tests, why and with what outcomes, allowing independent experts to scrutinise the UK National Screening Committee's model on terms equivalent to Nice, and publishing a protocol for confidential and emerging evidence.
Apply consistently, consistently to every test and trial and confirm, finally, 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 PCR MP has. The PCR MP has been withdrawn. Thank you.
Now, I met Tony through his dedicated campaigning for earlier diagnosis, along with 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's working with national cancer organisations to make the case for change, show more men like him and those at high risk can get this life saving test. Tony believes that if he had had regular PSA tests from the age of 50, there's a good chance he would have been diagnosed earlier when his cancer was still curable. Tony doesn't campaign for sympathy.
He campaigns so other men don't have to rely on chance to find out that they have cancer. I hope the minister listens to Tony's story today and acts on the recommendations from prostate cancer research, including to publish a timetable for reviewing screening evidence by January 2027, keeping the model updated with six monthly updates and clear decision points for black men tied to stage one of transform funding new research into into who currently receives PSA tests, why and with what outcomes, allowing independent experts to scrutinise the UK National Screening Committee's model on terms equivalent to Nice, and publishing a protocol for confidential and emerging evidence.
Apply consistently, consistently to every test and trial and confirm, finally, 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 PCR MP has. The PCR MP has been withdrawn. Thank you.
17:29
17:29
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Thank you. And it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, doctor Morrison and I thank the honourable member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for securing this very important debate today. 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 today. The estimated lifetime risk is 1 in 8 for men overall, but this rises to 1 in 4 for black men in England.
Black men are also twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as white men. This is a lifetime risk of 1 in 12 compared to 1 in 20 for 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 one and two, around 95% at stage three, and around 50% at stage four. But who is diagnosed late also follows a pattern. In England, men in the most deprived areas have 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 living in the least deprived areas.
Prostate cancer mortality rates in England mirror this diagnosis trend. Mortality rates are 14% higher for men living in the most deprived areas than for men living in the least deprived areas, and around 740 deaths from prostate cancer each year are linked with deprivation. Incident rates of prostate cancer have risen by 54% since the early 1990s, and they're projected to rise a further 14% by 2038 to 2040. This 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, and the Liberal Democrats applaud the tireless hard work of all cancer survivors, bereaved families and campaigners in securing a screening programme. But we must do more to fight this devastating disease, and this is something that the Liberal Democrats have continuously campaigned on. The Liberal Democrats are proud that our campaigning helped play a role in driving the government to take action on this issue and ultimately deliver a prostate cancer screening programme. This program will save thousands of lives, and it's 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 and now only a targeted programme. The government must urgently guarantee the delivery of the targeted screening programme across the country. This will lay the foundations and establish the infrastructure that is needed to further broaden screening as soon as possible. The government must make improved testing for prostate cancer a priority. This is fundamental to save 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 tests. This is not right. It's shocking that they then told campaigners and NHS staff that this had been the case all along. This 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 making an informed choice to request a test?
What's changed in the past few months to cause such a backward step in access? Was there any new evidence that informed this decision? But improved screening must go hand in hand, with faster treatment and a guarantee that 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 this, we would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral, replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increasing their number so that no one has to travel too far for treatment.
Liberal Democrat research last year found that 8 in 10 hospitals are using outdated medical equipment, such as MRI scanners. These machines are essential to fully diagnosing prostate cancer. We'd recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment. We'd expand the medicines and healthcare products regulatory agencies capacity 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're calling for a Cancer Survivor Research Act. This will require the government to coordinate and ensure funding for research into cancers with the lowest survival rates, including brain cancer.
We'd also start a fellowship programme for US cancer scientists who have seen their funding slashed by President Trump. This would waive the burdensome fees and bureaucracy for international researchers on the whole, global talent visas for top researchers currently cost £6,000 for a five year visa per person, or 18,000 for a family of three. This is significantly more expensive than most of our competitor countries, where a golden talent visa is typically 200 or £300 per person. The cost of visas for Cancer Research UK alone is 900,000 a year. This 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 going on R&D to 3.5%. This would unlock hundreds of millions of pounds a year for cancer research and billions more for our life sciences sector. Generally, we deliver this through a decade long programme of public investment into research and development. So I urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions and calls made by myself and my colleagues here today for the 540,000 men who are living with or after prostate cancer and their loved ones.
For the two men who will have lost their lives to prostate cancer. In the short 90 minutes of this debate.
Black men are also twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as white men. This is a lifetime risk of 1 in 12 compared to 1 in 20 for 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 one and two, around 95% at stage three, and around 50% at stage four. But who is diagnosed late also follows a pattern. In England, men in the most deprived areas have 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 living in the least deprived areas.
Prostate cancer mortality rates in England mirror this diagnosis trend. Mortality rates are 14% higher for men living in the most deprived areas than for men living in the least deprived areas, and around 740 deaths from prostate cancer each year are linked with deprivation. Incident rates of prostate cancer have risen by 54% since the early 1990s, and they're projected to rise a further 14% by 2038 to 2040. This 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, and the Liberal Democrats applaud the tireless hard work of all cancer survivors, bereaved families and campaigners in securing a screening programme. But we must do more to fight this devastating disease, and this is something that the Liberal Democrats have continuously campaigned on. The Liberal Democrats are proud that our campaigning helped play a role in driving the government to take action on this issue and ultimately deliver a prostate cancer screening programme. This program will save thousands of lives, and it's 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 and now only a targeted programme. The government must urgently guarantee the delivery of the targeted screening programme across the country. This will lay the foundations and establish the infrastructure that is needed to further broaden screening as soon as possible. The government must make improved testing for prostate cancer a priority. This is fundamental to save 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 tests. This is not right. It's shocking that they then told campaigners and NHS staff that this had been the case all along. This 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 making an informed choice to request a test?
What's changed in the past few months to cause such a backward step in access? Was there any new evidence that informed this decision? But improved screening must go hand in hand, with faster treatment and a guarantee that 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 this, we would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral, replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increasing their number so that no one has to travel too far for treatment.
Liberal Democrat research last year found that 8 in 10 hospitals are using outdated medical equipment, such as MRI scanners. These machines are essential to fully diagnosing prostate cancer. We'd recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment. We'd expand the medicines and healthcare products regulatory agencies capacity 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're calling for a Cancer Survivor Research Act. This will require the government to coordinate and ensure funding for research into cancers with the lowest survival rates, including brain cancer.
We'd also start a fellowship programme for US cancer scientists who have seen their funding slashed by President Trump. This would waive the burdensome fees and bureaucracy for international researchers on the whole, global talent visas for top researchers currently cost £6,000 for a five year visa per person, or 18,000 for a family of three. This is significantly more expensive than most of our competitor countries, where a golden talent visa is typically 200 or £300 per person. The cost of visas for Cancer Research UK alone is 900,000 a year. This 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 going on R&D to 3.5%. This would unlock hundreds of millions of pounds a year for cancer research and billions more for our life sciences sector. Generally, we deliver this through a decade long programme of public investment into research and development. So I urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions and calls made by myself and my colleagues here today for the 540,000 men who are living with or after prostate cancer and their loved ones.
For the two men who will have lost their lives to prostate cancer. In the short 90 minutes of this debate.
17:35
17:35
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Thank you very much, doctor. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk on securing this debate and speaking on behalf and to all honourable and right honourable members who have spoken very powerfully and in a very considered manner, whichever side of the argument they're on. I also want to thank the 100,000
17:35
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Be very powerfully and in a very considered manner, whichever side of the argument they are on. I also want to thank the 100,000 plus people who've signed this petition, including the 198 who come from my constituency of Farnham and Bordon. And of course, my thoughts go to all of those in my constituency and across the country who are affected by this terrible illness. In November of 2024, I supported cancer testing South, run by one of my constituents at a free screening event in Bordon and took a PSA test myself. It was quick and simple and gave me the peace of mind.
It showed how important it is to make testing accessible and to reach men who might never otherwise consider it. I will.
It showed how important it is to make testing accessible and to reach men who might never otherwise consider it. I will.
17:36
17:36
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Well, I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and and for the work that her constituents are doing in this very important area. Now, I must recognise the previous government's work, particularly my right hon. Friend the member for Richmond and Northallerton, whose commitment has continued beyond his time in office. As we've seen today, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and my right hon. Friend the member for Braintree with Prostate Cancer UK. We as conservative government committed £42 million to launch transform, the largest prostate cancer screening trial in the world. Now, I welcome some of what the current government has done, but there are still important questions remaining about access to testing, identifying men at highest risk and how evidence will translate into policy.
So firstly, as raised by my hon. Friend the member for Hinckley and Bosworth and for Huntingdon around PSA testing guidance earlier this year. Guidance setting out the right of men over 50 to request a PSA test was withdrawn. The government say policy has not changed and a tribute concerns to, and I quote, misinformed media coverage. Yet a written answer in September confirmed that no impact assessment was undertaken because there was, again, a, quote, no change in policy to assess if the policy is not changed. Why was the guidance withdrawn and if the change has no impact, how was that established without an assessment?
On the 21st of October, the government said 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 the 14th of October, it has had no reply. So will the Minister confirm today clearly that these men can access testing? Secondly, support for those with highest risk. I, of course, respect the committee's independence while it reviews the evidence. But there are practical steps the government can take 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 offer them a PSA test. So what will the government do to improve access for these men now, rather than leaving them to wait years for the wider review? Thirdly, identifying Brca2 carriers, an estimated 13,000 men carry that variant, yet most have never been tested and do not know. The Telegraph newspaper reported that only around 1500 men will be invited for testing next year. How will the programme reach the wider population it is meant to benefit?
The committee's consultation document said that the DHS analysis were again a, quote, undertaking an exercise to estimate the cost of identifying new BRCA variant carriers. So has that work been completed? Will it be published? And what will the government do to identify men who carry the variant without knowing it? Fourthly, transform the committee's model. The committee will work with Shah to update its modelling in light of the trial's findings, particularly for black men. It will also examine risk algorithms and biomarkers, including Stockholm three, 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.
So 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 to reporting to this House every six months. Will she set a name 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, some questions around how the value of screening is judged. Since April, Nice has been able to approve a medicine for advanced prostate cancer up to at up to £35,000 per qualified adjusted life year quality adjusted life year quality a threshold raised as part of the trade deal with the United States. The screening committee judged early detection against a £20,000 figure. So 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, Mr.
Morrison Doctor Morrison I recognise the committee's concerns about the harms of population wide PSA screening, including overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and the uncertainties in the evidence for black men. Yes, I will give way.
So firstly, as raised by my hon. Friend the member for Hinckley and Bosworth and for Huntingdon around PSA testing guidance earlier this year. Guidance setting out the right of men over 50 to request a PSA test was withdrawn. The government say policy has not changed and a tribute concerns to, and I quote, misinformed media coverage. Yet a written answer in September confirmed that no impact assessment was undertaken because there was, again, a, quote, no change in policy to assess if the policy is not changed. Why was the guidance withdrawn and if the change has no impact, how was that established without an assessment?
On the 21st of October, the government said 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 the 14th of October, it has had no reply. So will the Minister confirm today clearly that these men can access testing? Secondly, support for those with highest risk. I, of course, respect the committee's independence while it reviews the evidence. But there are practical steps the government can take 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 offer them a PSA test. So what will the government do to improve access for these men now, rather than leaving them to wait years for the wider review? Thirdly, identifying Brca2 carriers, an estimated 13,000 men carry that variant, yet most have never been tested and do not know. The Telegraph newspaper reported that only around 1500 men will be invited for testing next year. How will the programme reach the wider population it is meant to benefit?
The committee's consultation document said that the DHS analysis were again a, quote, undertaking an exercise to estimate the cost of identifying new BRCA variant carriers. So has that work been completed? Will it be published? And what will the government do to identify men who carry the variant without knowing it? Fourthly, transform the committee's model. The committee will work with Shah to update its modelling in light of the trial's findings, particularly for black men. It will also examine risk algorithms and biomarkers, including Stockholm three, 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.
So 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 to reporting to this House every six months. Will she set a name 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, some questions around how the value of screening is judged. Since April, Nice has been able to approve a medicine for advanced prostate cancer up to at up to £35,000 per qualified adjusted life year quality adjusted life year quality a threshold raised as part of the trade deal with the United States. The screening committee judged early detection against a £20,000 figure. So 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, Mr.
Morrison Doctor Morrison I recognise the committee's concerns about the harms of population wide PSA screening, including overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and the uncertainties in the evidence for black men. Yes, I will give way.
17:40
17:40
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
The honourable friend and my hon. Friend is making a really important point. We've heard several times today about the importance of making informed decisions, but you can't make informed decisions unless you are properly informed in the first case. And therefore, whilst there are some valid concerns about risks, the most important thing and the duty we all have the government has, is to do everything we can to raise awareness and inform so that people can make these really important, informed decisions, which is our duty today. And certainly I commit to doing so on behalf of the 357 people who signed this petition.
17:41
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Well, I know my hon. Friend is is a great champion for his constituents, especially around this issue, but on others as well. And he's absolutely right that whilst 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, especially those with highest risk, are getting treatment as soon as possible. Cancer research UK has highlighted that there are these risks too. And I have to say back to my hon. Friend that 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 hon. Members have mentioned. Uncertainty mustn't be the end. It must lead to research and progress, not delay now. My right hon. Friend the member for Daventry, who was in his place, the former shadow Health Secretary, set out His Majesty's opposition's position back in 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, disadvantaged by circumstances beyond their control. 1st 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 has said, no man with potential prostate cancer symptoms should be should be denied a test because of poor family records. So Mr. Morrison, to conclude, Doctor Morrison to conclude His Majesty's loyal opposition supports targeted screening for men at highest risk. Transform and the committee's evidence led approach. But from the government, we need clear guidance on PSA testing.
We need practical support for men at the highest risk. We need a credible plan to identify Brca2 carriers and a stated timetable for the model, with independent scrutiny of IT and transparency about how transform will shape policy. I do hope the minister will address these questions directly now, but if not in writing to me and set out clearly what patients can expect next.
LED pathways offer ways to improve how men are assessed, as many hon. Members have mentioned. Uncertainty mustn't be the end. It must lead to research and progress, not delay now. My right hon. Friend the member for Daventry, who was in his place, the former shadow Health Secretary, set out His Majesty's opposition's position back in 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, disadvantaged by circumstances beyond their control. 1st 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 has said, no man with potential prostate cancer symptoms should be should be denied a test because of poor family records. So Mr. Morrison, to conclude, Doctor Morrison to conclude His Majesty's loyal opposition supports targeted screening for men at highest risk. Transform and the committee's evidence led approach. But from the government, we need clear guidance on PSA testing.
We need practical support for men at the highest risk. We need a credible plan to identify Brca2 carriers and a stated timetable for the model, with independent scrutiny of IT and transparency about how transform will shape policy. I do hope the minister will address these questions directly now, but if not in writing to me and set out clearly what patients can expect next.
17:43
17:43
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you, Doctor Morrison, and it's a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon. I'm very grateful to the honourable member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for opening this important debate and for setting out so clearly the questions that he would like to have answers to. I want to also begin by acknowledging the strength of feeling behind this petition. With more than 100,000 people signing it, and the large number of honourable and right honourable members who are in the chamber today, and many of the speeches, I think, have been very powerful, and I will reflect on the issues that have been raised.
I'm going to try and address as many of the points in my contribution this afternoon, but if I don't get to answer every question, I will reflect on them, and I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the opposition. I think there's a very real desire to see us do more to diagnose prostate cancer effectively, treat it earlier and ultimately save more lives. I'm really grateful to members from across the House who have spoken so openly about their own experiences and about those of their constituents, friends and families, and I, too, would like to say that I'm thinking of all those individuals facing a prostate cancer diagnosis and undergoing treatment at this time, and I was very pleased to hear about the our former colleague, Gary Streeter, that he was he was doing well, and I'm sure the whole House would like to send our best wishes to him.
As we've 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 is high, tragically, around 12,000 men still die from prostate cancer every year. And every one of those deaths is a loss to a family, to friends and to their community. And the government is determined to improve outcomes for men with prostate cancer. I just wanted to address the point about the UK National Screening Committee that it advises all four nations and Scottish officials are present at those 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.
So 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. And 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 also recognise that for many it does not go far enough. The petition, as has been said, 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 also have a responsibility to make sure that when we introduce screening, the evidence tells us it will do more good than harm. That balance is particularly difficult with prostate cancer, as we've heard from some of our medically qualified members in this place. 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 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.
So when we talk about the harms of screening and overtreatment, we are not talking about something abstract. We are talking about consequences that can have a lasting effect on a man's health, dignity and quality of life. I'm going to make some progress, because I'm keen to address the point that the honourable gentleman raised in the debate. If I have time at the end, I will. I will take an intervention. I want to just turn to this issue around ethnic minority men, and I've 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.
We know that black men are twice as likely as white men to be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and that disparity rightly concerns all of us. What we do not yet know is whether the screening, 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. So we shouldn't, of course, accept the gaps in the evidence and that and that, and that prevents us from giving men that the answers that they deserve.
And that's why the government is investing and building on the transform trial, which the previous government introduced 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 two. 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 most, with the men most affected to inform future decisions about screening. And of course, family history is another important part of this picture. We know that it can increase a man's risk, but the evidence evidence does not yet tell us precisely which patterns of family history confer the greatest risk.
Work is underway to refine the definition of family history and ensure that it is properly reflected in the UK National Screening Committee's model. Now, I totally accept that men need support now and that is why Cancer Research UK, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and the Royal College of GPS are bringing together expertise to develop guidance to support GPS when advising men about familial risk. I am just going to carry on because I do want to make these points. The important point is this the evidence is evolving. Clinical practice is evolving, and our approach must be able to evolve with it.
And that is why the government is funding the prostate cancer screening model used by the UK National Screening Committee for a further three years. Work is already underway on family history, risk algorithms and biomarkers, including Stockholm three, which has been referred to, 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. I also just wanted to address directly a concern that I am just going to, because I'm very conscious of time and I do want to make these points.
I want to address directly a concern that has been raised about the evidence underpinning the current screening recommendation. The committee considers the current NHS standard of care that includes the use of MRI before biopsy. What it did not include were the newer and innovative approaches where the evidence is not yet sufficiently established. There are enormously encouraging advances , 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 that robust, robust evidence develops, it will be considered. I also want to deal with this point about GPS.
I have heard very strongly the strength of feeling today about PSA testing for men who are not eligible for the new screening programme. I do 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 to the decision on national screening programmes. It is my 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 and the likelihood of being harmed.
The Secretary of State worked on this issue as a health minister at the department almost 25 years ago, and personally ensuring that the guidance includes references to the importance of informed choice. I will, on that point.
I'm going to try and address as many of the points in my contribution this afternoon, but if I don't get to answer every question, I will reflect on them, and I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the opposition. I think there's a very real desire to see us do more to diagnose prostate cancer effectively, treat it earlier and ultimately save more lives. I'm really grateful to members from across the House who have spoken so openly about their own experiences and about those of their constituents, friends and families, and I, too, would like to say that I'm thinking of all those individuals facing a prostate cancer diagnosis and undergoing treatment at this time, and I was very pleased to hear about the our former colleague, Gary Streeter, that he was he was doing well, and I'm sure the whole House would like to send our best wishes to him.
As we've 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 is high, tragically, around 12,000 men still die from prostate cancer every year. And every one of those deaths is a loss to a family, to friends and to their community. And the government is determined to improve outcomes for men with prostate cancer. I just wanted to address the point about the UK National Screening Committee that it advises all four nations and Scottish officials are present at those 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.
So 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. And 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 also recognise that for many it does not go far enough. The petition, as has been said, 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 also have a responsibility to make sure that when we introduce screening, the evidence tells us it will do more good than harm. That balance is particularly difficult with prostate cancer, as we've heard from some of our medically qualified members in this place. 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 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.
So when we talk about the harms of screening and overtreatment, we are not talking about something abstract. We are talking about consequences that can have a lasting effect on a man's health, dignity and quality of life. I'm going to make some progress, because I'm keen to address the point that the honourable gentleman raised in the debate. If I have time at the end, I will. I will take an intervention. I want to just turn to this issue around ethnic minority men, and I've 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.
We know that black men are twice as likely as white men to be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and that disparity rightly concerns all of us. What we do not yet know is whether the screening, 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. So we shouldn't, of course, accept the gaps in the evidence and that and that, and that prevents us from giving men that the answers that they deserve.
And that's why the government is investing and building on the transform trial, which the previous government introduced 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 two. 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 most, with the men most affected to inform future decisions about screening. And of course, family history is another important part of this picture. We know that it can increase a man's risk, but the evidence evidence does not yet tell us precisely which patterns of family history confer the greatest risk.
Work is underway to refine the definition of family history and ensure that it is properly reflected in the UK National Screening Committee's model. Now, I totally accept that men need support now and that is why Cancer Research UK, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and the Royal College of GPS are bringing together expertise to develop guidance to support GPS when advising men about familial risk. I am just going to carry on because I do want to make these points. The important point is this the evidence is evolving. Clinical practice is evolving, and our approach must be able to evolve with it.
And that is why the government is funding the prostate cancer screening model used by the UK National Screening Committee for a further three years. Work is already underway on family history, risk algorithms and biomarkers, including Stockholm three, which has been referred to, 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. I also just wanted to address directly a concern that I am just going to, because I'm very conscious of time and I do want to make these points.
I want to address directly a concern that has been raised about the evidence underpinning the current screening recommendation. The committee considers the current NHS standard of care that includes the use of MRI before biopsy. What it did not include were the newer and innovative approaches where the evidence is not yet sufficiently established. There are enormously encouraging advances , 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 that robust, robust evidence develops, it will be considered. I also want to deal with this point about GPS.
I have heard very strongly the strength of feeling today about PSA testing for men who are not eligible for the new screening programme. I do 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 to the decision on national screening programmes. It is my 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 and the likelihood of being harmed.
The Secretary of State worked on this issue as a health minister at the department almost 25 years ago, and personally ensuring that the guidance includes references to the importance of informed choice. I will, on that point.
17:52
17:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Patient who understands the risk on both sides who is 52, who wants the PSA? Is she saying that patient has the right to get it, or is it the GPS decision? Even if the patient wants it, because the GP could therefore deny it on a clinical basis, that is the change that people are worried about. Could she explain that point?
17:53
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I recognise his experience as a as a GP. My understanding is with the informed the information given to the. The man requesting a PSA test that the GP would. If the. If the choice is there and the individual wants to have that test, that he would have that test. That's my understanding. I will write to him if that's not correct, but that's my understanding. But it has to be informed and informed choice, knowing the risks and the harms, but also the potential benefits. That's my understanding. I think ultimately, everybody in this room today in this chamber wants to see the same thing.
We want fewer men to die from prostate cancer. We want cancers that need treatment to be found earlier. And we want every man to receive the care that is right for him. But we must achieve that while also protecting men from unnecessary diagnosis and from treatments that can leave lifelong consequences for a cancer that may never have caused harm. So the question before us is not whether we want to prevent more deaths from prostate cancer. Of course we we do. The question is how we do that safely, effectively, and fairly, using the best available evidence while continuing to build the evidence where it is not yet strong enough.
And as that evidence develops, as I've said, we must be prepared to act. Again, I would like to thank the honourable member for bringing this important issue before the House, and I thank all members who have contributed to what has been, I think, a very thoughtful and powerful debate this afternoon.
We want fewer men to die from prostate cancer. We want cancers that need treatment to be found earlier. And we want every man to receive the care that is right for him. But we must achieve that while also protecting men from unnecessary diagnosis and from treatments that can leave lifelong consequences for a cancer that may never have caused harm. So the question before us is not whether we want to prevent more deaths from prostate cancer. Of course we we do. The question is how we do that safely, effectively, and fairly, using the best available evidence while continuing to build the evidence where it is not yet strong enough.
And as that evidence develops, as I've said, we must be prepared to act. Again, I would like to thank the honourable member for bringing this important issue before the House, and I thank all members who have contributed to what has been, I think, a very thoughtful and powerful debate this afternoon.
17:54
17:54
17:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Very much. Can I start just by briefly thanking David Jones again? The petition and prostate cancer research for leading this this campaign so effectively, and the fact that so many colleagues decided to contribute to this debate is a sign of, of the success of of that campaign. I thank all colleagues who spoke so passionately, albeit briefly, about the importance of of this issue, some sharing very, very moving personal experiences and also experiences on behalf of their constituents. I also thank the Minister for her for her response. I think for all of us, I think it's important to have a reassurance from the government that this is going to be evidence led.
At one point, I think the minister said she will consider further evidence that emerges from from the research. I think it's important. It's more than just considers. It has to be led by by that evidence and very briefly. Yes.
At one point, I think the minister said she will consider further evidence that emerges from from the research. I think it's important. It's more than just considers. It has to be led by by that evidence and very briefly. Yes.
17:55
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Just on that point, and I thank the minister as well for her considered response. But as she can see from the room, there is an enormous amount of interest in the timetable for updating the model with this new evidence, some of which has already been published and well. Does he agree with me that time is of the essence here, and we would appreciate some clarity on timelines.
17:56
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It's for the people involved in this campaign, and also those people who are trying to ensure that people that men are saved from this terrible disease. There are some certainty moving forward. So perhaps the minister could write to me with a timetable as to when the government expects to, to respond and deal with this moving forward. I can share that with colleagues who participated in this, in this debate. And then lastly, can I just thank the team at the transform study who do tremendous work in this in this area, really, really inspiring work and who will ultimately save more men's lives.
Thank you.
Thank you.
17:56
18:01
18:01
18:01
Speaker 31
-
Speaker 31
Gentleman for giving way. For many particularly older people, and I know this from from Cornwall and our remote coastal towns and villages. A cat is not simply a pet, it's a much loved companion and an important source of comfort. So does the honourable member agree with me? And the 419 constituents of Camborne and Redruth and Hayle, who signed this petition, that the government needs to consider further steps to ensure that when cats are involved in collisions, they are treated in the same way as pet dogs.
18:02
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I thank the honourable member for his intervention and agree. Cats are, moreover, often not just companions, they are members of the family. And so yes, they should be reported. And clearly we are not alone. By the time the petition closed on 17th June, it had gathered 189,192 signatures, many of which were in my own Newton Abbot constituency. Yes, I will give way.
18:02
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I'm grateful to the honourable member for giving way. One of those petitioners is my constituent Hayley, who sadly was killed by a vehicle overnight. I think probably not an untypical story. The cat was found on the pavement the next morning, apparently moved there by the driver. Does the honourable gentleman agree with me that by moving to a point where cats were treated in the same way as dogs, that this would at least give some comfort to cat owners who are left grieving and without an explanation as to what happened in those final moments.
18:03
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I thank the honourable lady for her intervention. And yes, absolutely. Is that not knowing? That is really awful. I will come on to this. 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? I will give.
18:03
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
Way. A similar campaign before 2015 provoked a similar debate in this place. I was the minister responsible at the time. Speaking from that despatch box, I can tell him, and it may 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. Now either one of three things has occurred. The guidance has been ignored. The Ministry of Transport did not actually bring about what I announced from the despatch box. That seems unlikely. Or it only applied to those roads controlled by the then Highways Agency, which of course excludes the local roads, which are 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 a proud and beloved cat owner now. And by the way, they're not just companions. They're members of my family. Katarina and Gordon.
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 a proud and beloved cat owner now. And by the way, they're not just companions. They're members of my family. Katarina and Gordon.
18:04
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, and I suspect his third option is probably correct from my experience. And I come on to the confusion about people not knowing where to report a cat. Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says that a driver who hit certain animals must stop and, if necessary, report it to the police. These animals are horses, cattle, asses, mules, sheep, pigs, goats and dogs. Cats are not on the list.
What I shall.
What I shall.
18:05
18:05
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
For my honourable friend for giving way. And I'm doing so on behalf of my good friend Sandra, otherwise known as the crazy Cat Lady of Canford Heath. And she's concerned, as I am, that the assumption is that the reason cats aren't included is because they're not working animals. But I can tell you that my beloved dogs, Todd and Reggie, are absolutely not working animals. Far from it. And they would be covered. So the idea that there's legislation needed with a fantastic animal welfare strategy issued earlier this year is now not the moment to bring this into a new animal welfare act.
18:06
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I thank my honourable friend for her intervention and tend to agree, and we will come on to working animals shortly. Cats are not on the list. Neither, I might add, are llamas or alpacas, which gives you a fair idea of how old the list is. It's come down to us almost untouched from the Road Traffic Act of 1930. The usual explanation, as my honourable friend must have been reading 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, but that is only guidance.
A driver who hits a cat today can carry on driving without breaking any law. The government, in their response to the petition. I shall.
A driver who hits a cat today can carry on driving without breaking any law. The government, in their response to the petition. I shall.
18:06
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
In order to make make an attempt to find the owner. Microchipping is incredibly important and compulsory microchipping of cats is already in place in England, but it remains voluntary in Scotland. Does the honourable member agree that Scotland should catch up so that more families can be reunited with their missing cat, or at very least be spared the uncertainty of never knowing what happened to a much loved pet.
18:07
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
Honourable member for that intervention. And yes, I agree it should. Where was I? The government, in their response to the petition, noted that 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.
18:07
18:07
18:07
18:07
18:08
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I thank the honourable lady for that intervention. Yes, I think that is a very good way forward. These points that the government raised, the campaigners have answered these points with some care on working animals argument. Cats matter have done its own sums using a University of Bristol survey study and Defra's farm figures. They reckon there could be around 60,000 working farm cats in England, against roughly 65,000 working sheepdogs. They are open that. These are estimates, but I. But represent. I represent a great many farms. I can tell the room that in Devon farm cats work as hard as the farm dogs and earn their keep.
They 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 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. Cats matter agree 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 for us, then, is whether the reasons for leaving cats out of section 170 still holds up in 2026.
Cats protection The UK, the UK's leading cat welfare charity, wants exactly the same outcome as the petitioners. Nobody wants an injured cat left to suffer or an owner left for ever wondering. However, the charity has real concerns about using this particular piece of law. Honourable member give way. I will. I thank my honourable.
They 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 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. Cats matter agree 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 for us, then, is whether the reasons for leaving cats out of section 170 still holds up in 2026.
Cats protection The UK, the UK's leading cat welfare charity, wants exactly the same outcome as the petitioners. Nobody wants an injured cat left to suffer or an owner left for ever wondering. However, the charity has real concerns about using this particular piece of law. Honourable member give way. I will. I thank my honourable.
18:09
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Friend for giving way. And the 335 constituents in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough who signed this petition. He mentioned in his speech earlier about the government seemingly have no plans at this point, and the conversation around whether the Road Traffic Act is the mechanism to do this. Does he agree with me that the message that we can send today from this House is, even if it is not legally required, the right moral thing to do is for people to notify the police and try to find the owners. And that is a message that we can all send here today.
18:10
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I thank my hon. Friend and yes, I agree that is the right moral thing to do, and we need to encourage drivers to do that. 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 built for dogs and livestock could open up questions about owners liability if a roaming cat causes an accident. It might also nudge people towards keeping their cats indoors. Speaking as Ignatius is feeder and door opener, I'm not sure he would take kindly to that.
The RSPCA 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 make sure a dead one is scanned for a chip. Police forces are stretched and ringing. 101 will not bring help to the roadside. I think the sense of unfairness the petitioners feel is real, and I understand it. This has been a fascinating petition to open, as the fact of the matter is that everyone involved on both sides of the petition are united around one thing they all deeply care about cats.
They just disagree about whether changing section 170 is the right answer. What they also agree on is what should happen when 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 the owner can be found and told. That brings me 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 or 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. 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 Ty and everyone at Cat's Matter for their work, and I look forward to hearing from colleagues and to the minister's reply here.
The RSPCA 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 make sure a dead one is scanned for a chip. Police forces are stretched and ringing. 101 will not bring help to the roadside. I think the sense of unfairness the petitioners feel is real, and I understand it. This has been a fascinating petition to open, as the fact of the matter is that everyone involved on both sides of the petition are united around one thing they all deeply care about cats.
They just disagree about whether changing section 170 is the right answer. What they also agree on is what should happen when 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 the owner can be found and told. That brings me 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 or 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. 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 Ty and everyone at Cat's Matter for their work, and I look forward to hearing from colleagues and to the minister's reply here.
18:12
18:12
18:12
18:12
Speaker 35
-
Speaker 35
Mr. Vickers. It is a pleasure to have you in the chair this evening, and my thanks go to my honourable friend from Newton Abbot 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. Now, in preparation for this debate, I would like to thank The Cat's Whiskers, a charity based in Clackmannanshire, who do so much for the welfare of cats and kittens across our constituency. I have just celebrated their eighth anniversary.
Some of the fantastic work that they do include running a trap, neuter and return programme, providing temporary fostering, helping pet owners with food, litter and practical support. The rescuing, rehabilitation and rehoming of abandoned, neglected and vulnerable cats and supporting Police Scotland local authorities, vets and other charities in animal welfare cases. Mr. Vickers I share the same frustration and dismay as the people from the cat's whiskers, with the fact that cats are not included in section 170 of the Road Traffic Act of 1988. We think that it is abominable that if a cat is hit by a vehicle, then the driver can just drive away and leave the animal behind, injured in pain or lying on the road dead.
And that that is considered acceptable by law. It is surely a question of basic compassion and decency to change this law. Now, I would not dare to speak for any other right, honourable or honourable member, but I imagine that that whatever one's worldview in politics may be, that when one decides to run as a candidate to come to this place, it is to positively change the country, if not the world. Now, of course, I appreciate that there may be limitations and barriers and impediments to achieving that level of change as a parliamentarian, but surely making this law fairer for the benefit of people that have a cat as a beloved member of their family, to change this law so that drivers must stop and report if they were to hit a cat, is something that can gain Universal crossbench approval and is most certainly achievable.
Certainly.
Some of the fantastic work that they do include running a trap, neuter and return programme, providing temporary fostering, helping pet owners with food, litter and practical support. The rescuing, rehabilitation and rehoming of abandoned, neglected and vulnerable cats and supporting Police Scotland local authorities, vets and other charities in animal welfare cases. Mr. Vickers I share the same frustration and dismay as the people from the cat's whiskers, with the fact that cats are not included in section 170 of the Road Traffic Act of 1988. We think that it is abominable that if a cat is hit by a vehicle, then the driver can just drive away and leave the animal behind, injured in pain or lying on the road dead.
And that that is considered acceptable by law. It is surely a question of basic compassion and decency to change this law. Now, I would not dare to speak for any other right, honourable or honourable member, but I imagine that that whatever one's worldview in politics may be, that when one decides to run as a candidate to come to this place, it is to positively change the country, if not the world. Now, of course, I appreciate that there may be limitations and barriers and impediments to achieving that level of change as a parliamentarian, but surely making this law fairer for the benefit of people that have a cat as a beloved member of their family, to change this law so that drivers must stop and report if they were to hit a cat, is something that can gain Universal crossbench approval and is most certainly achievable.
Certainly.
18:15
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
It always makes such a valuable contribution to our considerations. As I told him just the other day. The guidance I described 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, which I mentioned earlier. So surely the minister has got a fairly straightforward job. This wouldn't require primary legislation. It may be able he may be able to do it following this debate as a stroke.
18:16
Speaker 35
-
Speaker 35
I thank the honourable member for his very kind words at the start there, I appreciate them. I would like it if some of my parliamentary colleagues thought the same as you sometimes, but that's a different matter and I do agree with you on this matter as well. Is it really? It is achievable, as I say, and it is something that really should be done.
18:16
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
So on that point, well, I just thank you very much. I want to say that as one of his parliamentary colleagues, I agree with everything that was said there. So there we go. The government's concerned that a driver may not always know they have struck a cat is a reason that this might be problematic. But does the member agree that there is a clear distinction between an unnoticed collision and knowingly driving away from an injured animal? And why should difficulty preventing the first prevent us from placing a duty on drivers to stop safely and seek help in the second?
18:16
Speaker 35
-
Speaker 35
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and his contribution. I understand that there is a differentiation there as well. So in finishing, because I can see the debate is so well subscribed, I want to take too much more time. I would just like to finish with the request from the good people at the Cat's whiskers that they have asked to put towards the government Minister. We want the government to legislate to require drivers to stop, check and report any road collisions with cats if they are injured on the road and hold drivers accountable if they fail to stop and report a collision involving a cat on the basis that they left a cat to unnecessarily suffer.
We believe that asking drivers to be made responsible for seeking help for an injured cat is a perfectly reasonable and simple ask, and as their MP for allowing Grangemouth, I wholeheartedly agree.
We believe that asking drivers to be made responsible for seeking help for an injured cat is a perfectly reasonable and simple ask, and as their MP for allowing Grangemouth, I wholeheartedly agree.
18:17
18:17
18:17
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
This is such an honor to serve under your Chairship and it's also. I'd like to thank the Petitions Committee and the 189,192 people who have signed this petition, especially on behalf of my two lovely cats, Liver and Lola, who are especially indebted to you because their mum just doesn't let them out. And they do want to go out, but they're not safe enough to go out. And this is precisely why she doesn't allow them to. Mr. chair, the list of animals in section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was actually not drawn up.
In 1988 it was lifted almost word for word from the Road Traffic Act of 1930. And as the honourable member for Newton Abbot has said, that's probably why cats and llamas and alpacas are not mentioned in it. We are told that the list covers working animals. Maybe not my honourable friend who's not in her place at the moment, but 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. So today, a driver must report hitting a terrier or a puppy. No bigger than a kitten, but not a cat for exactly the same size and on working status.
Cat matters, as we've been told, 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 anymore. Cats are not livestock and they are not vermin. So for millions of households, they are family. And the cruellest part of losing a cat on the road is often not knowing. And that phone call never coming. The RSPCA has said plainly that reporting and scanning give owners the closure that they they deserve. And I agree, Mr. Chair. Historically, in ancient Egypt, who held cats in completely sacred status, said that Diodorus Siculus, who reported that killing one cat, even by accident, could cost you your life.
I want to be clear. This is not what Cat matters or any other organisation is asking for. But it's not about punishing motorists because most drivers essentially, I'm certain, who would hit a cat, are shocked and upset and they want to do the right thing. But the problem is they actually don't know what to do. They will be standing on the side, searching for their phones and wondering who to actually call, while at that time the cat itself would be passing away. Is it the police? The council? So we must have a clear pathway. The government argues that drivers may not know that they have hit a cat, but the court settled that in Harding versus price.
The duty applies only when a driver knows or ought reasonably to have known. And a Hungarian study has found drivers were uncertain in only 2.3% of pack collisions. A duty to stop and report, paired with one clear, well publicised route to help, would give decent drivers the confidence to act. Now there is no need for this to be also expensive. Parliament routinely passes, 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 coordination can be built with a 69 animal welfare organisations that have backed this change with the veterinary profession and with commercial partners, at least cost to the public at the least.
Cost to public purse. Finally, the government has made microchipping compulsory. That was the right thing to do, but a chip only helps if someone scans it. Reporting completes the system the government has already built, and it 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 this. The UK is becoming an outlier. Around three quarters of cats survive the initial impact. Many of them could have been saved. So I ask the minister, will the government commit to bringing forward an enabling power and to work with the sector on a single route to help?
The assumptions of 1930 deserve re-examination in 2026. Sorry, the assumptions of 1930 deserve re-examination in 2026. Nearly 190,000 people have asked us to look again. I hope the Minister, will.
In 1988 it was lifted almost word for word from the Road Traffic Act of 1930. And as the honourable member for Newton Abbot has said, that's probably why cats and llamas and alpacas are not mentioned in it. We are told that the list covers working animals. Maybe not my honourable friend who's not in her place at the moment, but 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. So today, a driver must report hitting a terrier or a puppy. No bigger than a kitten, but not a cat for exactly the same size and on working status.
Cat matters, as we've been told, 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 anymore. Cats are not livestock and they are not vermin. So for millions of households, they are family. And the cruellest part of losing a cat on the road is often not knowing. And that phone call never coming. The RSPCA has said plainly that reporting and scanning give owners the closure that they they deserve. And I agree, Mr. Chair. Historically, in ancient Egypt, who held cats in completely sacred status, said that Diodorus Siculus, who reported that killing one cat, even by accident, could cost you your life.
I want to be clear. This is not what Cat matters or any other organisation is asking for. But it's not about punishing motorists because most drivers essentially, I'm certain, who would hit a cat, are shocked and upset and they want to do the right thing. But the problem is they actually don't know what to do. They will be standing on the side, searching for their phones and wondering who to actually call, while at that time the cat itself would be passing away. Is it the police? The council? So we must have a clear pathway. The government argues that drivers may not know that they have hit a cat, but the court settled that in Harding versus price.
The duty applies only when a driver knows or ought reasonably to have known. And a Hungarian study has found drivers were uncertain in only 2.3% of pack collisions. A duty to stop and report, paired with one clear, well publicised route to help, would give decent drivers the confidence to act. Now there is no need for this to be also expensive. Parliament routinely passes, 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 coordination can be built with a 69 animal welfare organisations that have backed this change with the veterinary profession and with commercial partners, at least cost to the public at the least.
Cost to public purse. Finally, the government has made microchipping compulsory. That was the right thing to do, but a chip only helps if someone scans it. Reporting completes the system the government has already built, and it 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 this. The UK is becoming an outlier. Around three quarters of cats survive the initial impact. Many of them could have been saved. So I ask the minister, will the government commit to bringing forward an enabling power and to work with the sector on a single route to help?
The assumptions of 1930 deserve re-examination in 2026. Sorry, the assumptions of 1930 deserve re-examination in 2026. Nearly 190,000 people have asked us to look again. I hope the Minister, will.
18:21
18:22
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, and may I declare my interest as a loyal servant to Penny and Hugo. I'd like to pay tribute to the Cats Matter team who created this petition, the largest ever cat related petition to come to Parliament. And my constituent, Mandy Hobbs, who co-founded the charity. And I've supported them and this campaign since becoming an MP. I've also joined them twice to hand in petitions at number ten. So it is really fantastic to finally be here today debating this issue. And this is not simply about road traffic law.
It is about whether the law reflects the place that cats hold in our society. And 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. And yet, under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act, a driver who collides with a dog must report the incident, while he who collides with a cat does not have to do so. And as we've heard, 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 still be justified today. And as campaigners rightly 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 both practical and enforceable, and it is neither radical or 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 happened to their cat. While Cats matter have emphasised the importance of prompt action and clearer routes to assistance for injured animals. I do recognise that organisations like Cats Protection have raised concerns about unintended consequences. If cats were simply inserted into the existing framework, and those concerns do deserve careful consideration. However, it 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.
So 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? And what assessment has he made of the reporting requirements for cats in jurisdictions such as Switzerland, Gibraltar, Jersey and Hong Kong, and whether any lessons can be learned here in England and the UK more widely. And 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?
And if the government does not support bringing cats within section 170 of the Road Traffic Act, what alternative measures will it consider to improve reporting? And finally, will the Minister commit to meeting with the campaigners, animal welfare organisations and interested MPs to discuss possible legislative or even non-legislative solutions to this issue? The priority here is preventing cats being left to suffer unnecessarily on our roads, and I therefore urge the government to engage constructively and set out a clear pathway for addressing this anomaly in the law.
It is about whether the law reflects the place that cats hold in our society. And 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. And yet, under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act, a driver who collides with a dog must report the incident, while he who collides with a cat does not have to do so. And as we've heard, 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 still be justified today. And as campaigners rightly 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 both practical and enforceable, and it is neither radical or 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 happened to their cat. While Cats matter have emphasised the importance of prompt action and clearer routes to assistance for injured animals. I do recognise that organisations like Cats Protection have raised concerns about unintended consequences. If cats were simply inserted into the existing framework, and those concerns do deserve careful consideration. However, it 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.
So 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? And what assessment has he made of the reporting requirements for cats in jurisdictions such as Switzerland, Gibraltar, Jersey and Hong Kong, and whether any lessons can be learned here in England and the UK more widely. And 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?
And if the government does not support bringing cats within section 170 of the Road Traffic Act, what alternative measures will it consider to improve reporting? And finally, will the Minister commit to meeting with the campaigners, animal welfare organisations and interested MPs to discuss possible legislative or even non-legislative solutions to this issue? The priority here is preventing cats being left to suffer unnecessarily on our roads, and I therefore urge the government to engage constructively and set out a clear pathway for addressing this anomaly in the law.
18:26
18:26
18:26
Speaker 36
-
Speaker 36
And could I first, I hope you've received the note indicating that I could not be here at the start of the meeting, but I offer my apologies to the gentleman who moved the motion and to all other colleagues. I mean no disrespect, but I was in the chair in a committee upstairs doing the job that you are doing now, sir. Street farmhouse is on a corner. Opposite the village shop in a quiet rural village at rush hour times. There is a fairly high volume of traffic. There's a 30 mile an hour speed limit , which is hardly ever adhered to during the rush hour.
And the illustrious cabinet member for highways, Peter Osborne, a former county councillor, has chosen not to take any action to introduce traffic calming measures. In spite of the fact that we have warned over and over again that it will be only a question of time before a child or an elderly person. And I think I can speak with some authority on that matter. Crossing that road, that bottleneck will be killed. On a light, bright morning six weeks ago, Baxter aged two and a half. Totally out of character because so far as we're all aware, he'd never done this before.
Chose to cross the road. He was hit by a car travelling. The guesstimate is 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. Then one decent human being took the trouble to pull in. Look after the dying cat and make sure that the owners, not me. The owners were aware that their desperately loved family pet had died, had been killed on the road. I've always had some strong feelings about this, but inevitably that has sharpened my attention.
I understand entirely the concerns that have been raised by cats protection and others about liability. That liability does, of course, apply to dogs. Where 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. And we all have to accept those of us who love cats and dogs, that it is much harder to keep a cat under control than it is to keep a dog under control. I think the expression herd herding kittens is probably appropriate. Nevertheless, these animals are now microchipped.
The point has been made very fairly that the person who hits the animal and kills or maims , it is likely to themselves be traumatised or patently. In the case of the driver that hit the cat in question that I have referred to, that was not so. They clearly couldn't have given a toss. They just drove straight on with gay abandon. If it is difficult for people to grasp who to stop and report something to, then I would respectfully suggest, sir, that it is no harder than to know who to report something to if you hit a dog.
So I don't think that's a valid argument. But I do believe very strongly that to leave any animal actually, but particularly a family pet dying in the road without a care in the world is simply not acceptable. It is not decent behaviour. It is not what the British do. In the terms of their affection for animals. So, sir, I am entirely in support of an amendment, whether it be to the Road Traffic Act or, as my right hon. Friend has said, whether it is by way of taking guidance and turning it into something statutory. But I don't accept the argument that it can't that it can't be done.
It can be done. We have to find a way of doing it. And I want to see Baxter's Law or something similar on the statute book as soon as possible.
And the illustrious cabinet member for highways, Peter Osborne, a former county councillor, has chosen not to take any action to introduce traffic calming measures. In spite of the fact that we have warned over and over again that it will be only a question of time before a child or an elderly person. And I think I can speak with some authority on that matter. Crossing that road, that bottleneck will be killed. On a light, bright morning six weeks ago, Baxter aged two and a half. Totally out of character because so far as we're all aware, he'd never done this before.
Chose to cross the road. He was hit by a car travelling. The guesstimate is 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. Then one decent human being took the trouble to pull in. Look after the dying cat and make sure that the owners, not me. The owners were aware that their desperately loved family pet had died, had been killed on the road. I've always had some strong feelings about this, but inevitably that has sharpened my attention.
I understand entirely the concerns that have been raised by cats protection and others about liability. That liability does, of course, apply to dogs. Where 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. And we all have to accept those of us who love cats and dogs, that it is much harder to keep a cat under control than it is to keep a dog under control. I think the expression herd herding kittens is probably appropriate. Nevertheless, these animals are now microchipped.
The point has been made very fairly that the person who hits the animal and kills or maims , it is likely to themselves be traumatised or patently. In the case of the driver that hit the cat in question that I have referred to, that was not so. They clearly couldn't have given a toss. They just drove straight on with gay abandon. If it is difficult for people to grasp who to stop and report something to, then I would respectfully suggest, sir, that it is no harder than to know who to report something to if you hit a dog.
So I don't think that's a valid argument. But I do believe very strongly that to leave any animal actually, but particularly a family pet dying in the road without a care in the world is simply not acceptable. It is not decent behaviour. It is not what the British do. In the terms of their affection for animals. So, sir, I am entirely in support of an amendment, whether it be to the Road Traffic Act or, as my right hon. Friend has said, whether it is by way of taking guidance and turning it into something statutory. But I don't accept the argument that it can't that it can't be done.
It can be done. We have to find a way of doing it. And I want to see Baxter's Law or something similar on the statute book as soon as possible.
18:31
18:31
18:31
18:31
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
It's a pleasure to serve under you today. And I do want to thank the member for Newton Abbot for the way in which she introduced the debate. Like others, I have to declare an interest in that. I am the proud owner of a cat called Millie. She is over three years old now. Mr. Vickers, but she's still a baby to me. I have to say, I got her from the SPCA in my constituency before I was elected, and she came to me both chipped and neutered when I when I first got her, a friend said to me two things.
She said. One friend, Denise said to me, I shouldn't get a cat. They'll just cry. I'll just climb up your curtains. Millie did do this when she was a kitten, Mr. Vickers, and it was incredibly cute. It was incredibly cute. My wife, Mrs. Arthur, she was less sure about the situation. She picked a name, actually, because she did promise me the cat would become a millstone millstone around our necks. And that's why we should call it Millie. And the other piece of advice I got, Mr. Vickers, was that one day we would let it out and it wouldn't return.
And I think that's really the focus of the debate today about how so many cats are let out, and they do not return because they have been hit by a car , and they crawl off under a hedge or under a bush and are never really found. So 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 not all do. This is not the case for collisions with dogs, which must be reported, and I and many other cat owners throughout the country believe that this is an outdated distinction that no longer reflects the way we live today.
Each year in the UK, an estimated 230,000 cats are hit by cars, a number I find absolutely incredible. I had to double then triple check it, and that works out as roughly one cat in every constituency in the UK every day. And that is one family that has lost that cat in every constituency in the UK. So very happy to.
She said. One friend, Denise said to me, I shouldn't get a cat. They'll just cry. I'll just climb up your curtains. Millie did do this when she was a kitten, Mr. Vickers, and it was incredibly cute. It was incredibly cute. My wife, Mrs. Arthur, she was less sure about the situation. She picked a name, actually, because she did promise me the cat would become a millstone millstone around our necks. And that's why we should call it Millie. And the other piece of advice I got, Mr. Vickers, was that one day we would let it out and it wouldn't return.
And I think that's really the focus of the debate today about how so many cats are let out, and they do not return because they have been hit by a car , and they crawl off under a hedge or under a bush and are never really found. So 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 not all do. This is not the case for collisions with dogs, which must be reported, and I and many other cat owners throughout the country believe that this is an outdated distinction that no longer reflects the way we live today.
Each year in the UK, an estimated 230,000 cats are hit by cars, a number I find absolutely incredible. I had to double then triple check it, and that works out as roughly one cat in every constituency in the UK every day. And that is one family that has lost that cat in every constituency in the UK. So very happy to.
18:33
Speaker 34
-
Speaker 34
Can I thank my hon. Friend very much for giving way. Just on that point of families losing cats, a constituent of mine lost her cat shortly before Christmas in 2024, after he was run over and killed on Alcott and Lane. The cat was a huge part of her life, and she lost. She felt very lost without him. Despite an eyewitness urging the car driver to stop, they did not. And my constituent can't understand why they were not under any obligation to do so, and I urge ministers to address this. But would my hon. Friend agree that in a situation like this, it simply the right and proper thing to do for a driver to stop, regardless of whether the law obliges them to do so or not.
18:34
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Yeah, I absolutely do agree. A few years ago, we looked after my daughter's cat for a short period of time. Three years, it turned out. And it was a fantastic. But one day it was in the garden and its pastime was chasing foxes. And it just absolutely darted across the road and almost got run over. So I do get that it's not always the driver's fault. Perhaps that's very seldom the case, but I do like to think if it happened to me, I would stop and perhaps explain what had happened. And lost cat signs have become quite common in lampposts right across the UK that are almost so common.
We hardly see them at all now. Just last month a constituent contacted my office, deeply distressed after a driver tragically killed her two year old kitten. They were left searching for answers and completely bewildered as to why the police could not intervene or help clarify what happened. This is not about criminalising drivers, it is about compassion and accountability. Leaving an injured cat on the roadside deprives them of the potentially life saving veterinary care, and leaves owners in agonising uncertainty. Mr. Vickers, I do have to say I am very proud of our PDSA hospital in my constituency, and I visited them a few months ago and there were two cats that had seen that were had had operations, who had suffered some kind of trauma, and the assumption was that it was hit by a car.
So that's just two cats on one day in one hospital. And I do thank them for the fantastic work they do supporting people on low income 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. This petition shows that there is. There is very real. There is a very real public mandate for the 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 could have unintended consequences of imposing criminal and civil liability on owners of cats involved in collisions.
And of course, it is the job of this place to consider unintended consequences and make sure that absolutely minimised and hopefully do not happen at all. So I would urge the government to explore how they can update the Road Traffic Act in a manner that will protect owners, whilst also giving cats the same basic duty of care that we extend to dogs. We have also heard that Gibraltar and Jersey already have some provisions in this manner. These are places that are very close connections to the UK. I am sure there is lots we can learn from how they have approached this problem.
And finally, Mr. Vickers, as a Scottish MP, I do have to acknowledge that this is a devolved matter and I appreciate that in Scotland it will fall under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006. So I very much hope that there is. If there is progress at the UK level, we can also speak to colleagues in Scotland and at that time perhaps we could also talk about mandating chipping in Scotland. And also something else I am quite passionate about is really heavily regulating people who choose to breed cats at home for a profit at least.
Quite a lot of distress for the cats and it is something that needs to be addressed. North and south of the border. Thank you, Mr. Vickers. Madam. Dance.
We hardly see them at all now. Just last month a constituent contacted my office, deeply distressed after a driver tragically killed her two year old kitten. They were left searching for answers and completely bewildered as to why the police could not intervene or help clarify what happened. This is not about criminalising drivers, it is about compassion and accountability. Leaving an injured cat on the roadside deprives them of the potentially life saving veterinary care, and leaves owners in agonising uncertainty. Mr. Vickers, I do have to say I am very proud of our PDSA hospital in my constituency, and I visited them a few months ago and there were two cats that had seen that were had had operations, who had suffered some kind of trauma, and the assumption was that it was hit by a car.
So that's just two cats on one day in one hospital. And I do thank them for the fantastic work they do supporting people on low income 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. This petition shows that there is. There is very real. There is a very real public mandate for the 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 could have unintended consequences of imposing criminal and civil liability on owners of cats involved in collisions.
And of course, it is the job of this place to consider unintended consequences and make sure that absolutely minimised and hopefully do not happen at all. So I would urge the government to explore how they can update the Road Traffic Act in a manner that will protect owners, whilst also giving cats the same basic duty of care that we extend to dogs. We have also heard that Gibraltar and Jersey already have some provisions in this manner. These are places that are very close connections to the UK. I am sure there is lots we can learn from how they have approached this problem.
And finally, Mr. Vickers, as a Scottish MP, I do have to acknowledge that this is a devolved matter and I appreciate that in Scotland it will fall under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006. So I very much hope that there is. If there is progress at the UK level, we can also speak to colleagues in Scotland and at that time perhaps we could also talk about mandating chipping in Scotland. And also something else I am quite passionate about is really heavily regulating people who choose to breed cats at home for a profit at least.
Quite a lot of distress for the cats and it is something that needs to be addressed. North and south of the border. Thank you, Mr. Vickers. Madam. Dance.
18:37
18:37
18:37
Speaker 37
-
Speaker 37
To thank the Yeovil constituents who signed this petition or who have written to me about this issue. It goes without saying that we are a country of animal lovers, and that while there is no law requiring drivers to report the cats death on our road, drivers 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 over a year ago. But I think that sort of misses the point because unfortunately, just because you should does not mean everyone will.
Whether it is cats or dogs, our pets are loved members of the family. For so many in our communities, and as a pet owner myself, there is no worse feeling than not knowing where your pet is and if they are okay. I have an air tag on my pet just to make sure I can keep a closer eye. Suzy from Chard put it best when she recently spoke out about this after she lost 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 a car and left alone, scared and in pain on the roadside.
She is absolutely right. She is also right to point out that ultimately what we need is more preventative measures. Microchipping is great, but we need to look carefully at other measures like speed controls in residential areas, signage and many more. Because there is no doubt that while legislation on this is easy, enforcing reporting is not. It may seem obvious, but cats are smaller than animals that currently have to be reported. They are usually out and about at dawn or dusk, and drivers of
Whether it is cats or dogs, our pets are loved members of the family. For so many in our communities, and as a pet owner myself, there is no worse feeling than not knowing where your pet is and if they are okay. I have an air tag on my pet just to make sure I can keep a closer eye. Suzy from Chard put it best when she recently spoke out about this after she lost 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 a car and left alone, scared and in pain on the roadside.
She is absolutely right. She is also right to point out that ultimately what we need is more preventative measures. Microchipping is great, but we need to look carefully at other measures like speed controls in residential areas, signage and many more. Because there is no doubt that while legislation on this is easy, enforcing reporting is not. It may seem obvious, but cats are smaller than animals that currently have to be reported. They are usually out and about at dawn or dusk, and drivers of
18:39
Speaker 38
-
Speaker 38
To do nothing. The government told me in their response last year that they would publish the conclusion of a research project on the changes, preventing some cats from being reunited with their keepers after road traffic incidents. I followed up a month later asking when we could to see that research. I was told it is undergoing review and basically it will be published when it is ready, so go away. I have not heard or seen anything since, so I would appreciate if the Minister could provide us with an update on these findings and what action the government has taken as a result.
Because pets are our family and no one should be left in certain about the wellbeing of their family. Thank you.
Because pets are our family and no one should be left in certain about the wellbeing of their family. Thank you.
18:40
18:40
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Vickers. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair today. And I congratulate the honourable member for Newton Abbot for leading today's really important and popular debate on this issue. And I'm particularly grateful to all 190,000 people who signed this petition, including more than 400 of my own constituents in Stevenage. For many in my constituency, cats are really important. Many residents love their cats and all of us, whether we had a cat or not, had a cat, a very special cat in mind in our daily routine. And that was 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 is proven by the overwhelming support given to fund a statue, which will be installed outside the station to ensure her memory lives on. Nala's story reminds us that cats are simply not only pets, they are companions, familiar faces, and much loved members of our families and our communities.
And when they are injured on our roads, we have a responsibility to do what we can to help them. I have heard powerful stories today, and from several of my own constituents who feared the worst, while denied the certainty that would allow them to grieve, left not knowing the fate of their feline friends. It is a result of a simple but stark discrepancy in the law that bestows an obligation upon drivers to report and report collisions involving dogs, but not cats, to grieving owners. This distinction is simply, deeply difficult to understand. A cat injured on the road cannot call for help.
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 for an injured cat. It could mean the difference between life and death . And 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, in the audience here 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 1000 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. And that cuts right to the heart of this 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. But 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've heard about amending other legislation such as section four, the Animal Welfare Act, which could require drivers to remain with an injured cat and contact the appropriate veterinary authorities, or putting the Highway Highways Code provisions into into statute.
But whatever we do, the focus must always be on preventing unnecessary, unnecessary suffering. There may be different ways to achieve these aims, and 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 microchipping. As we've heard today, ultimately, Mr. Vickers, we cannot prevent every collision, but we can expect drivers to stop where it is safe to check on an injured cat and to seek help. I finally returned 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 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.
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 is proven by the overwhelming support given to fund a statue, which will be installed outside the station to ensure her memory lives on. Nala's story reminds us that cats are simply not only pets, they are companions, familiar faces, and much loved members of our families and our communities.
And when they are injured on our roads, we have a responsibility to do what we can to help them. I have heard powerful stories today, and from several of my own constituents who feared the worst, while denied the certainty that would allow them to grieve, left not knowing the fate of their feline friends. It is a result of a simple but stark discrepancy in the law that bestows an obligation upon drivers to report and report collisions involving dogs, but not cats, to grieving owners. This distinction is simply, deeply difficult to understand. A cat injured on the road cannot call for help.
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 for an injured cat. It could mean the difference between life and death . And 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, in the audience here 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 1000 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. And that cuts right to the heart of this 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. But 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've heard about amending other legislation such as section four, the Animal Welfare Act, which could require drivers to remain with an injured cat and contact the appropriate veterinary authorities, or putting the Highway Highways Code provisions into into statute.
But whatever we do, the focus must always be on preventing unnecessary, unnecessary suffering. There may be different ways to achieve these aims, and 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 microchipping. As we've heard today, ultimately, Mr. Vickers, we cannot prevent every collision, but we can expect drivers to stop where it is safe to check on an injured cat and to seek help. I finally returned 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 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
Speaker 39
-
Speaker 39
Mr. Vickers, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the honourable member for Newton Abbot for opening the debate today, and I agree with him that those who are contributing to this debate have, at their heart the protection and concern for the welfare and wellbeing of cats. I also thank the 383 people across Paisley and Renfrewshire South for signing this petition. Mr. chair, I would draw the house's attention to my entry in the Register of Interests as the chair of the All-Party parliamentary Group for Cats. I also declare an interest as the proud servant of two cats, Clement Catley and Mo Mowlam, and so I.
That always gets a chuckle in this house. And as someone who loves cats very deeply, this is an issue that hits very close to home. I have also spent many an evening sat up wondering where Clem has got to, because she is the one that wanders and have, on more than one occasion, sent my husband out in his dressing gown to find her. So 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 that agonising distress that families face when a beloved companion goes missing, and I hold immense sympathy for the heartfelt intentions behind the motion we are debating today.
As we have heard 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 therefore entirely understandable why so many compassionate people want to close this gap, especially given the disparity in treatment between cats and dogs, who are predominantly the pets that we hold in our households across the country. There is a complexity to this legislation, and I am conscious that the country's leading cat charity, Cats Protection, warned that introducing these specific legislative changes could have various unintended consequences, including the imposition of criminal and civil liability on the owners of cats involved in collisions, and that these 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. We as cat owners 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 that is 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 live happy, healthy lives. Whilst the cats protection charity estimates that 3% of UK cats are involved in road traffic accidents, behind that figure is a deeply personal, painful loss for the families of those pets. We must ensure our response does not create a broader harm for the millions of happy, free roaming cats across the country, but that does not mean that nothing can be done.
It can and it must. We must channel our shared compassion into solutions that truly work. Microchipping, as we have heard, is the most reliable way to reunite pets with their families. Whilst that's now legally mandated in England. 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 across England and in Scotland already. Collect, scan and notify owners about cat road victims. Cats protection has published a scanning guide for local authorities, and I would urge local authorities across the country to ensure that they have sight of that and are utilizing it.
But for that to be effective again goes to my previous point. It can only scan where a cat does have a microchip to ensure that families receive the closure they so desperately seek. But on drivers, we are a nation of animal lovers, so stopping to help an injured animal should not be too much to ask 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 microchip. That is the quickest way to identify the owner. Increasing driver education so motorists know how to act quickly.
Who to contact will save lives and bring injured pets to emergency care when every minute counts. Mr. chair, I share the deep empathy that has brought us all to this chamber today. Our true love for these wonderful animals. That also must mean that we protect them in terms of preserving who they are, 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.
Thank you.
That always gets a chuckle in this house. And as someone who loves cats very deeply, this is an issue that hits very close to home. I have also spent many an evening sat up wondering where Clem has got to, because she is the one that wanders and have, on more than one occasion, sent my husband out in his dressing gown to find her. So 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 that agonising distress that families face when a beloved companion goes missing, and I hold immense sympathy for the heartfelt intentions behind the motion we are debating today.
As we have heard 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 therefore entirely understandable why so many compassionate people want to close this gap, especially given the disparity in treatment between cats and dogs, who are predominantly the pets that we hold in our households across the country. There is a complexity to this legislation, and I am conscious that the country's leading cat charity, Cats Protection, warned that introducing these specific legislative changes could have various unintended consequences, including the imposition of criminal and civil liability on the owners of cats involved in collisions, and that these 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. We as cat owners 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 that is 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 live happy, healthy lives. Whilst the cats protection charity estimates that 3% of UK cats are involved in road traffic accidents, behind that figure is a deeply personal, painful loss for the families of those pets. We must ensure our response does not create a broader harm for the millions of happy, free roaming cats across the country, but that does not mean that nothing can be done.
It can and it must. We must channel our shared compassion into solutions that truly work. Microchipping, as we have heard, is the most reliable way to reunite pets with their families. Whilst that's now legally mandated in England. 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 across England and in Scotland already. Collect, scan and notify owners about cat road victims. Cats protection has published a scanning guide for local authorities, and I would urge local authorities across the country to ensure that they have sight of that and are utilizing it.
But for that to be effective again goes to my previous point. It can only scan where a cat does have a microchip to ensure that families receive the closure they so desperately seek. But on drivers, we are a nation of animal lovers, so stopping to help an injured animal should not be too much to ask 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 microchip. That is the quickest way to identify the owner. Increasing driver education so motorists know how to act quickly.
Who to contact will save lives and bring injured pets to emergency care when every minute counts. Mr. chair, I share the deep empathy that has brought us all to this chamber today. Our true love for these wonderful animals. That also must mean that we protect them in terms of preserving who they are, 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.
Thank you.
18:52
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair today. I am grateful to Katsumata for all their campaigning work on the issue of cat road deaths, and to every one of the almost 200,000 people who signed the petition in support of a change in the law to require drivers to report collisions with cats to the police, including 209 in my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood. I am Mr. Vickers, a lifelong cat lover, and I know that cats become members of our families. From my childhood cats, Mitzi and Biff cos the elderly ginger cats 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 cat, Sylvie and Pearl, five year old siblings who have been with us since they were eight weeks old. We love our cats. They are our companions, a constant present in our homes, each with their own personality. And I should give a special mention to Fanny, the Gypsy Hill station cat who is so loved by so many of my constituents. She oversees proceedings at the station. She makes sure that everything is in order, and she provides comfort and cheer to commuters as they wait for trains at our local station.
When a cat dies, we feel the loss very deeply. I know the specific anxiety and distress when a cat simply does not come home, and you 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 only discovered much later what had happened to them. The uncertainty of having a missing animal compounded the eventual loss. 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 having to discover 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 don't want to, but because the pain of the loss is simply too much to contemplate living through again. Mr. Vickers, I believe 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 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 the Cats Protection League, 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 has 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, and 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 that have been made by other honourable members about the need for clarity for drivers about which agency they should report a collision to, and that that uncertainty extends to drivers who hit an animal.
Currently reportable under the Road Traffic Act 1988, as well as to any new regulations concerning cats. But 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, and where that occurs, the government has a duty to work to fill it.
Bella the nervous kitten. Mr. A, the rescue cat with the assertive personality. Or our current cat, Sylvie and Pearl, five year old siblings who have been with us since they were eight weeks old. We love our cats. They are our companions, a constant present in our homes, each with their own personality. And I should give a special mention to Fanny, the Gypsy Hill station cat who is so loved by so many of my constituents. She oversees proceedings at the station. She makes sure that everything is in order, and she provides comfort and cheer to commuters as they wait for trains at our local station.
When a cat dies, we feel the loss very deeply. I know the specific anxiety and distress when a cat simply does not come home, and you 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 only discovered much later what had happened to them. The uncertainty of having a missing animal compounded the eventual loss. 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 having to discover 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 don't want to, but because the pain of the loss is simply too much to contemplate living through again. Mr. Vickers, I believe 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 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 the Cats Protection League, 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 has 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, and 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 that have been made by other honourable members about the need for clarity for drivers about which agency they should report a collision to, and that that uncertainty extends to drivers who hit an animal.
Currently reportable under the Road Traffic Act 1988, as well as to any new regulations concerning cats. But 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, and where that occurs, the government has a duty to work to fill it.
18:56
18:56
18:56
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
It's a pleasure to serve under your chair. Can I thank my hon. Friend the member for Newton Abbot for so eloquently introducing this topic to us and also revealing himself to me as a lifelong cat lover, as one of the things I like about Westminster Hall is what we learn about our colleagues in the process. And I have to say, if I had participated in a guessing game about some of the cat lover members that we've heard today, I probably wouldn't have done very well. Perhaps that's an idea for somebody to pursue one of these internet guessing games about MPs as to whether they lean, lean, or lean cat.
That would certainly be certainly be more savoury than some of the web applications there have been about Members of Parliament than than others, but I shall certainly not say any more about that. I want to thank Cat matters for all of their hard work over many years advancing protections for cats and the 189,192 signatories to this e-petition, including 334 of my constituents in Didcot and Wantage. I've never had a cat of my own, but I've absolutely loved them, and I just do want to illustrate the very strong bond 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 in another house, primarily in our cul de sac, but he did like to visit a number of people in the in the area, including including us and Henry. He was a ginger and white cat, very friendly, very intelligent and very, really enjoyed human company. And he was an enormous source of companionship and comfort to me during some quite lonely and difficult times. Growing up as a child and as a teenager. Where I lived a few years ago, the landlord's cat called puzzle would come and visit quite often. She was quite old.
I think she was 17 when she died, but she'd never know it. She was. She was full of energy, very, very chatty. She would. When my doors were opened in summer, she would enter and announce herself, meowing very volubly. She was incredibly friendly. I mean, anybody who thinks that cats are aloof or unfriendly, I wish they could have met puzzle, because in the courtyard of this area where I was renting, when somebody would enter the courtyard, there was a little shop in this. In this complex. She would. She would run wanting to say hello to people who were there.
Even children and cats are not always the biggest fans of children. And if you went. If I went too long before stroking her, she would start crawling up my leg, demanding more strokes, which I was always very happy to give. But of course, occasionally the working day had to take priority. I learnt of her death not from being hit by a car, thankfully, but through natural causes the same week that Putin invaded Ukraine. And it definitely didn't add to the feelings of sadness. And 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, and he became an indoor cat because he got five as a result of being a stray.
But he had to be given up for adoption because his owner acquired a girlfriend who had a cat allergy. A rather controversial decision there. I'm not sure I would have chosen a significant other over Mr. Whiskers, but that's one for another time anyway. Now, now, Mr. Whiskers, he is called that because he does have very distinctive whiskers. Black and white cat, again, very friendly, very chatty. And we've heard some very powerful accounts here, both from honourable members and their constituents of the of the strong bond that they have formed with cats. And I have a constituent called Jenny, who lives in Malford.
They had a she and her family had a cat called Mowgli, who was sadly hit by a car four years ago. The car didn't 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, and that perfectly illustrates what many honourable members have said during this debate that cats are intelligent. They're members of our family, they have their own characters, and we can, of course, be absolutely devastated when we lose them, particularly in a manner as brutal as being hit by a car.
So that's why when the Liberal Democrats, we are sympathetic to the petition to ask to 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 the welfare and quality of life for household pets, while ensuring all animals are treated equally in legislation, and we believe that, like us, animals can experience suffering, pain and fear.
Experts in the field of neuroscience are confident that animals that mammals, birds and many other creatures possess consciousness. If we accept animal sentience, then animal cruelty or accidents must be considered unacceptable, and it is crucial that we change the law to better protect animals from harm. And as some honourable members have said, cats are working animals. It's not just dogs who do that. Cat's role in pest control has been established for millennia and continues to be very important to this day. I know there has been debate about getting cats here in Parliament, and that's been declined as a suggestion because they where people are worried that they could get stuck in nooks and crannies.
I think perhaps we have underestimated their ingenuity for getting themselves out of trouble as well as into it. But certainly those of us who have occasionally seen a mouse scurrying in the tea room or in the Pugin room would would welcome cats here in Parliament, and they'd also be very good for our morale. So maybe we need to start a campaign for that as well. Our Liberal Democrats have already had success in improving pet welfare. This Parliament with my hon. Friend the member for Winchester passing the animal welfare brackets. Import of cats, Dogs and Ferrets bill, which is now an act and aims to protect animal welfare by restricting the importation and non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets.
Now, I do want to just say a little bit about what the member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire South said, which is an alternative approach advocated by cats protection. It is interesting that perhaps isn't necessarily unanimity amongst organisations that care passionately about cats that are mending. The Road Traffic Act isn't necessarily the sole solution to this challenge. And now, as as she said, the the concern is that an amendment to include cats in the Road Traffic Act could force drivers to report collisions, but it could lead to various unintended consequences. For example, the imposition of criminal and civil liability on the owners of cats involved in collisions.
And I'm sure we would all agree we'd rather not open up another front of legal warfare, which there are already so many as it is, and bringing cats into a framework designed for dogs and livestock could risk creating new legal responsibilities around containment, control and liability. So cats protection advocate an even bigger push on microchipping. They led the call, along with others, to campaign for compulsory microchipping that was introduced in 2024. And they in England, and they call for it across the rest of the UK. As the honourable member for Edinburgh South West said, with an important duty on owners to keep their details up to date for the chipping system to work, cats protection also advocate for scanning highways.
Agencies in England and Scotland already collect, scan and notify owners about cat road victims, and they have published a scanning guide for local authorities. And finally, of course, there is more that we can do, not just within legislation but but beyond it as as good citizens that a driver who hits a cat should take them to a vet for emergency treatment, where they can also be scanned for a microchip. And that is the quickest way to identify the owner. So some options there are for the minister in terms of what can be done to tackle this problem, and I look forward to hearing his comments.
That would certainly be certainly be more savoury than some of the web applications there have been about Members of Parliament than than others, but I shall certainly not say any more about that. I want to thank Cat matters for all of their hard work over many years advancing protections for cats and the 189,192 signatories to this e-petition, including 334 of my constituents in Didcot and Wantage. I've never had a cat of my own, but I've absolutely loved them, and I just do want to illustrate the very strong bond 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 in another house, primarily in our cul de sac, but he did like to visit a number of people in the in the area, including including us and Henry. He was a ginger and white cat, very friendly, very intelligent and very, really enjoyed human company. And he was an enormous source of companionship and comfort to me during some quite lonely and difficult times. Growing up as a child and as a teenager. Where I lived a few years ago, the landlord's cat called puzzle would come and visit quite often. She was quite old.
I think she was 17 when she died, but she'd never know it. She was. She was full of energy, very, very chatty. She would. When my doors were opened in summer, she would enter and announce herself, meowing very volubly. She was incredibly friendly. I mean, anybody who thinks that cats are aloof or unfriendly, I wish they could have met puzzle, because in the courtyard of this area where I was renting, when somebody would enter the courtyard, there was a little shop in this. In this complex. She would. She would run wanting to say hello to people who were there.
Even children and cats are not always the biggest fans of children. And if you went. If I went too long before stroking her, she would start crawling up my leg, demanding more strokes, which I was always very happy to give. But of course, occasionally the working day had to take priority. I learnt of her death not from being hit by a car, thankfully, but through natural causes the same week that Putin invaded Ukraine. And it definitely didn't add to the feelings of sadness. And 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, and he became an indoor cat because he got five as a result of being a stray.
But he had to be given up for adoption because his owner acquired a girlfriend who had a cat allergy. A rather controversial decision there. I'm not sure I would have chosen a significant other over Mr. Whiskers, but that's one for another time anyway. Now, now, Mr. Whiskers, he is called that because he does have very distinctive whiskers. Black and white cat, again, very friendly, very chatty. And we've heard some very powerful accounts here, both from honourable members and their constituents of the of the strong bond that they have formed with cats. And I have a constituent called Jenny, who lives in Malford.
They had a she and her family had a cat called Mowgli, who was sadly hit by a car four years ago. The car didn't 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, and that perfectly illustrates what many honourable members have said during this debate that cats are intelligent. They're members of our family, they have their own characters, and we can, of course, be absolutely devastated when we lose them, particularly in a manner as brutal as being hit by a car.
So that's why when the Liberal Democrats, we are sympathetic to the petition to ask to 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 the welfare and quality of life for household pets, while ensuring all animals are treated equally in legislation, and we believe that, like us, animals can experience suffering, pain and fear.
Experts in the field of neuroscience are confident that animals that mammals, birds and many other creatures possess consciousness. If we accept animal sentience, then animal cruelty or accidents must be considered unacceptable, and it is crucial that we change the law to better protect animals from harm. And as some honourable members have said, cats are working animals. It's not just dogs who do that. Cat's role in pest control has been established for millennia and continues to be very important to this day. I know there has been debate about getting cats here in Parliament, and that's been declined as a suggestion because they where people are worried that they could get stuck in nooks and crannies.
I think perhaps we have underestimated their ingenuity for getting themselves out of trouble as well as into it. But certainly those of us who have occasionally seen a mouse scurrying in the tea room or in the Pugin room would would welcome cats here in Parliament, and they'd also be very good for our morale. So maybe we need to start a campaign for that as well. Our Liberal Democrats have already had success in improving pet welfare. This Parliament with my hon. Friend the member for Winchester passing the animal welfare brackets. Import of cats, Dogs and Ferrets bill, which is now an act and aims to protect animal welfare by restricting the importation and non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets.
Now, I do want to just say a little bit about what the member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire South said, which is an alternative approach advocated by cats protection. It is interesting that perhaps isn't necessarily unanimity amongst organisations that care passionately about cats that are mending. The Road Traffic Act isn't necessarily the sole solution to this challenge. And now, as as she said, the the concern is that an amendment to include cats in the Road Traffic Act could force drivers to report collisions, but it could lead to various unintended consequences. For example, the imposition of criminal and civil liability on the owners of cats involved in collisions.
And I'm sure we would all agree we'd rather not open up another front of legal warfare, which there are already so many as it is, and bringing cats into a framework designed for dogs and livestock could risk creating new legal responsibilities around containment, control and liability. So cats protection advocate an even bigger push on microchipping. They led the call, along with others, to campaign for compulsory microchipping that was introduced in 2024. And they in England, and they call for it across the rest of the UK. As the honourable member for Edinburgh South West said, with an important duty on owners to keep their details up to date for the chipping system to work, cats protection also advocate for scanning highways.
Agencies in England and Scotland already collect, scan and notify owners about cat road victims, and they have published a scanning guide for local authorities. And finally, of course, there is more that we can do, not just within legislation but but beyond it as as good citizens that a driver who hits a cat should take them to a vet for emergency treatment, where they can also be scanned for a microchip. And that is the quickest way to identify the owner. So some options there are for the minister in terms of what can be done to tackle this problem, and I look forward to hearing his comments.
19:05
19:05
Speaker 40
-
Speaker 40
Is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Vickers, and I'm grateful to you for chairing this debate. And this is an issue in which I know many of my cat loving constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are deeply invested. Indeed, 363 have signed the petition and in common with many members here today, I also want to place on record my deep affection for my childhood cat's scruff. Jasper, Ziggy and my personal favourite, Eartha Kitt. But 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.
Whilst there may not be a mandatory legislative requirement, I hope most drivers will show the level of British decency that my right hon. Friend the member for Herne Bay and sandwich alluded to earlier in reporting this. In the event of a collision, it is for for for owners that we would expect that if our own pet were involved in a collision, that we would receive the same British decency. There are over 11 million cats across the country living in one of over four. Sorry, 1 in 4 households. And we should always strive to protect these cherished pets.
Indeed, many are a key part of their owners families. And as my, my, my my honourable friend has 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. But 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 they are kept their cat can receive treatment, or be given the news of their cat's death so that they can achieve closure. Each person who signed this petition will feel the importance of this issue deeply.
Rule 286 of the Highway Code states very clearly that if you're involved in a collision which causes damage or injury to any other person, vehicle, animal or property, you must stop. I would hope that this 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 also been made easier by the previous government's decision to roll out microchipping in England. This should also ensure that cats can be more easily identified and their owners contacted, and I'm aware that Defra has been asked to commission a research project, firstly, 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 the project would report this year, and I'm sure petitioners will be interested to hear from the minister when its findings will be published and considered. And I've outlined these these measures because I think we can all agree with the sentiments expressed by the petition. However, it would be disingenuous 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. And that's not to dismiss the point that the right. My right hon. Friend the member for South Holland and the Deepings made earlier when he shared details of the regulations passed in this chamber in 2015.
Harvey's law, which by by his by his note to me, told me that if a pet is killed on the road, they must be collected, identified where possible, and their owners, identified by the Highways Agency, now called National Highways. And so these regulations do exist already. But as a newly elected MP in 2024, I wasn't present when this issue was was addressed previously in the House, and a petition that almost mirrored this one was put forward again in 2022, followed by a debate in this chamber in 2023. During the debate, the then roads minister said 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 it believed a combination of microchipping and efforts by local authorities to reunite cats with their owners was the most effective way forward. But we must note a difference between today's debates and the 1 in 2023. Since the election, the Labour government has 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. So while it would be simple to ask the minister to show the same consideration as in 2023, the government's response to this petition suggests the Department for transport holds the same position as it did then.
Further, the government's road safety strategy does not mention animals or cats, so I will avoid reversing roles with the former Labour shadow minister by asking for the same things as they 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 the previous debate, given the department's written petition response, I expect these will be set out by the minister again today. Instead, I ask the minister whether there is anything beyond the measures the government has already outlined that could be considered.
That means going beyond best practice and considering how existing technologies could be utilised more effectively, this might include making it easier for those who need to access microchip database information more broadly. Are there ways of utilizing technology, such as GPS collars, to help identify more quickly a cat that has tragically been killed during a collision? If we're considering if we are to consider ways of making it 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, Mr.
Vickers, we all share the sentiments set out in this. 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 is, unless there has been a change of position, I'm not clear whether the Department of Transport believes that such a measure could be implemented effectively.
Whilst there may not be a mandatory legislative requirement, I hope most drivers will show the level of British decency that my right hon. Friend the member for Herne Bay and sandwich alluded to earlier in reporting this. In the event of a collision, it is for for for owners that we would expect that if our own pet were involved in a collision, that we would receive the same British decency. There are over 11 million cats across the country living in one of over four. Sorry, 1 in 4 households. And we should always strive to protect these cherished pets.
Indeed, many are a key part of their owners families. And as my, my, my my honourable friend has 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. But 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 they are kept their cat can receive treatment, or be given the news of their cat's death so that they can achieve closure. Each person who signed this petition will feel the importance of this issue deeply.
Rule 286 of the Highway Code states very clearly that if you're involved in a collision which causes damage or injury to any other person, vehicle, animal or property, you must stop. I would hope that this 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 also been made easier by the previous government's decision to roll out microchipping in England. This should also ensure that cats can be more easily identified and their owners contacted, and I'm aware that Defra has been asked to commission a research project, firstly, 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 the project would report this year, and I'm sure petitioners will be interested to hear from the minister when its findings will be published and considered. And I've outlined these these measures because I think we can all agree with the sentiments expressed by the petition. However, it would be disingenuous 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. And that's not to dismiss the point that the right. My right hon. Friend the member for South Holland and the Deepings made earlier when he shared details of the regulations passed in this chamber in 2015.
Harvey's law, which by by his by his note to me, told me that if a pet is killed on the road, they must be collected, identified where possible, and their owners, identified by the Highways Agency, now called National Highways. And so these regulations do exist already. But as a newly elected MP in 2024, I wasn't present when this issue was was addressed previously in the House, and a petition that almost mirrored this one was put forward again in 2022, followed by a debate in this chamber in 2023. During the debate, the then roads minister said 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 it believed a combination of microchipping and efforts by local authorities to reunite cats with their owners was the most effective way forward. But we must note a difference between today's debates and the 1 in 2023. Since the election, the Labour government has 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. So while it would be simple to ask the minister to show the same consideration as in 2023, the government's response to this petition suggests the Department for transport holds the same position as it did then.
Further, the government's road safety strategy does not mention animals or cats, so I will avoid reversing roles with the former Labour shadow minister by asking for the same things as they 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 the previous debate, given the department's written petition response, I expect these will be set out by the minister again today. Instead, I ask the minister whether there is anything beyond the measures the government has already outlined that could be considered.
That means going beyond best practice and considering how existing technologies could be utilised more effectively, this might include making it easier for those who need to access microchip database information more broadly. Are there ways of utilizing technology, such as GPS collars, to help identify more quickly a cat that has tragically been killed during a collision? If we're considering if we are to consider ways of making it 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, Mr.
Vickers, we all share the sentiments set out in this. 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 is, unless there has been a change of position, I'm not clear whether the Department of Transport believes that such a measure could be implemented effectively.
19:13
19:13
Speaker 41
-
Speaker 41
Thank you, Mr. Vickers. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair this evening. Can I start by congratulating the honourable member for Newton Abbot for opening the debate and for setting out, I think, the various issues that have brought the petition before us this evening. We've had a great many contributions. We've heard from the member for Camborne and Redruth, Carlisle, Wolverhampton, North East , Stirling and Southport, Stourbridge, Edinburgh, South West, Dartford, Stevenage, Paisley and Renfrewshire, South and West Norwood, South Holland and the Deepings, Herne Bay and Sandwich, Mid Dorset and North Poole, Harrogate and Knaresborough, Yeovil and Leicester South.
I think indicating Mr. Vickers that there is widespread interest in this matter across the nation. And can I also, on that point, welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the Honourable Lady for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to her place. We have worked together previously on a select committee and I hope we are able to continue the constructive relationship we enjoyed on that select committee. In her new role, Mr. Vickers, the strength of feeling is clear. As we have heard, 189,000 people have signed this petition, many because they know first hand the distress that is caused when a cat is stuck on the road and is not provided with any answers to the family.
And I think a number of members have spoken with great personal knowledge and sincerity about their own situations. The honourable member for Newton Abbot, when he opened the debate, spoke about his own sad experiences and he spoke about the sense of unfairness that people have, about the different treatments, which I will go on to. He did, quite rightly, though, point out that the RSPCA do question whether the resources are in place to deal with the requirements that the petitioners are asking for. The hon. My hon. Friend the member for Alloa and Grangemouth, I think, had a cat who lived for 20 years, which is quite an incredible achievement.
He's obviously been looking after it very well and both he and the honourable member for Herne Bay and sandwich, I think, spoke very passionately and clearly about this question of decency. Mr. Vickers, it really is a question of decency that if you hit an animal on the roadside, any decent person would not just leave them there in pain and would try and do something about it. I think it's fair to say that there are practical considerations about how easy that would be to put what I think everyone in this chamber would instinctively feel is the right thing to do on a statutory footing, and the right hon.
Member for Hayes and Harlington did talk about his time in office and the statutory guidance that was issued at the time that I know is no longer here, but I'm sure he will be reading Hansard in the morning. That guidance does remain active across the strategic road network, and it is a requirement on national highways operators to collect, log and scan deceased domestic pets, including cats, and make a proactive attempt to contact the owners. The microchip registered system that we've now got in place will hopefully mean that most of those cats are now being contacted when one of those sad incidents occurs.
We heard a number of other excellent contributions today. My hon. Friend the member for Dawlish and West Norwood had a long list of cats in her own family, and it certainly sounded like Fanny was a local celebrity in her own constituency. I'm sure she'll be appearing on some leaflets in the not too distant future, but she spoke, I think, very movingly, about the depth of the bond between a cat and their owners, which I think actually all members have spoken about with a great deal of sincerity. She did make an important point about needing clarity on who a driver should report a collision to, and I understand officials from the Department for environment, Food and Rural Affairs are going to be meeting with representatives from Cat matters to discuss that particular issue further, because whilst we may not be able to change 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's clearly an active campaigner in this area. She made it very clear she's a cat lover as well, and of course, is the most appropriately named member of us all. She she recognized that there is a difference between cats and dogs, and did talk about some of the alternative measures and solutions that we can consider, which I will go on to discuss. She asked about other jurisdictions as well. I think a couple of members mentioned those. Now, I think most of the countries that were mentioned were actually very self-contained and small, but it is something that I am going to be asking officials to go away and have a look at.
So we'll see how the laws have operated in different countries. My hon. Friend the member for Edinburgh South West gave gave an excellent speech as well, giving us a little insight into his own cat issues, and I actually wanted to just join him in his praise of the PDSA, who I think do excellent work. My hon. Friend the member for Stevenage also spoke with great sincerity about his constituents and Anthony and Leo and their sad experience of trying to find Woody for almost a year. And I think his comments that cats are never just a pet is a statement.
I think all members who have spoken tonight would recognise my hon. Friend the member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South made it clear to me on many occasions previously that she is very much a cat lover, and she also declared tonight her work on the a PGPG, which I commend. I think she she did, I think, acknowledge that there are concerns about the proposals, particularly from the cats protection, who. And I think the point that she's made, which we'll go on to in a little bit about it, is quite problematic to have have an equivalence because of the reasons that she's outlined, but I agree with her when she said that doesn't mean that nothing can't be done.
And we'll certainly look at what can be done. So I did want to pay. I will I do.
I think indicating Mr. Vickers that there is widespread interest in this matter across the nation. And can I also, on that point, welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the Honourable Lady for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to her place. We have worked together previously on a select committee and I hope we are able to continue the constructive relationship we enjoyed on that select committee. In her new role, Mr. Vickers, the strength of feeling is clear. As we have heard, 189,000 people have signed this petition, many because they know first hand the distress that is caused when a cat is stuck on the road and is not provided with any answers to the family.
And I think a number of members have spoken with great personal knowledge and sincerity about their own situations. The honourable member for Newton Abbot, when he opened the debate, spoke about his own sad experiences and he spoke about the sense of unfairness that people have, about the different treatments, which I will go on to. He did, quite rightly, though, point out that the RSPCA do question whether the resources are in place to deal with the requirements that the petitioners are asking for. The hon. My hon. Friend the member for Alloa and Grangemouth, I think, had a cat who lived for 20 years, which is quite an incredible achievement.
He's obviously been looking after it very well and both he and the honourable member for Herne Bay and sandwich, I think, spoke very passionately and clearly about this question of decency. Mr. Vickers, it really is a question of decency that if you hit an animal on the roadside, any decent person would not just leave them there in pain and would try and do something about it. I think it's fair to say that there are practical considerations about how easy that would be to put what I think everyone in this chamber would instinctively feel is the right thing to do on a statutory footing, and the right hon.
Member for Hayes and Harlington did talk about his time in office and the statutory guidance that was issued at the time that I know is no longer here, but I'm sure he will be reading Hansard in the morning. That guidance does remain active across the strategic road network, and it is a requirement on national highways operators to collect, log and scan deceased domestic pets, including cats, and make a proactive attempt to contact the owners. The microchip registered system that we've now got in place will hopefully mean that most of those cats are now being contacted when one of those sad incidents occurs.
We heard a number of other excellent contributions today. My hon. Friend the member for Dawlish and West Norwood had a long list of cats in her own family, and it certainly sounded like Fanny was a local celebrity in her own constituency. I'm sure she'll be appearing on some leaflets in the not too distant future, but she spoke, I think, very movingly, about the depth of the bond between a cat and their owners, which I think actually all members have spoken about with a great deal of sincerity. She did make an important point about needing clarity on who a driver should report a collision to, and I understand officials from the Department for environment, Food and Rural Affairs are going to be meeting with representatives from Cat matters to discuss that particular issue further, because whilst we may not be able to change 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's clearly an active campaigner in this area. She made it very clear she's a cat lover as well, and of course, is the most appropriately named member of us all. She she recognized that there is a difference between cats and dogs, and did talk about some of the alternative measures and solutions that we can consider, which I will go on to discuss. She asked about other jurisdictions as well. I think a couple of members mentioned those. Now, I think most of the countries that were mentioned were actually very self-contained and small, but it is something that I am going to be asking officials to go away and have a look at.
So we'll see how the laws have operated in different countries. My hon. Friend the member for Edinburgh South West gave gave an excellent speech as well, giving us a little insight into his own cat issues, and I actually wanted to just join him in his praise of the PDSA, who I think do excellent work. My hon. Friend the member for Stevenage also spoke with great sincerity about his constituents and Anthony and Leo and their sad experience of trying to find Woody for almost a year. And I think his comments that cats are never just a pet is a statement.
I think all members who have spoken tonight would recognise my hon. Friend the member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South made it clear to me on many occasions previously that she is very much a cat lover, and she also declared tonight her work on the a PGPG, which I commend. I think she she did, I think, acknowledge that there are concerns about the proposals, particularly from the cats protection, who. And I think the point that she's made, which we'll go on to in a little bit about it, is quite problematic to have have an equivalence because of the reasons that she's outlined, but I agree with her when she said that doesn't mean that nothing can't be done.
And we'll certainly look at what can be done. So I did want to pay. I will I do.
19:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Think you'll forgive me. And I'm really pleased to hear that the Prime Minister is going to meet with cat matters or cats Matter, one of the two of them to talk about this issue. But I also welcome that he's talking about doing a review of what other jurisdictions do. Will they commit to publishing that in some shape or form so that we can get sight of it?
19:21
Speaker 41
-
Speaker 41
I'm sure we can find a way of publishing. I mean, I have sprung that on the officials tonight, so I don't know exactly what form it will take, but I think at the very least, I can commit to write to members who have taken part in the debate this evening to to advise on what we find from that review. As I say, I I'm not familiar with the other jurisdictions, and it may be the laws are are slightly different. The requirements are different. Certainly, we know the demography and topography of those countries is different, but it's something it's something I think it's fair, fair for us to consider.
So as members have quite rightly pointed out, the position is that all low 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. And of course, a number of members have spoken tonight about wanting to make that mandatory, and I understand why. But we have to have legislation that is both workable and safe, as I think a number of members acknowledged, cats are mostly smaller than dogs, and a driver may not actually realise that a collision has occurred.
And I think that's probably something that's more relevant with the propensity for larger vehicles that we see nowadays. Of course, also when the nights are drawing in, if it's a rural road at high speed as well, it's actually quite dangerous to ask people to leave their vehicle and search for a cat that could actually create more danger and injury than we would want. There are also practical difficulties locating the animal, arranging identification and ensuring that any reporting system can be enforced consistently must also be considered. But I also recognise that the concern where cats are found by the roadside, that owners should have the best possible chance of knowing what's happened to their pet.
And I think, as members have said tonight, any decent human being would want that to happen and would actually try and do their best to do that. So I recall one of my family's own cats, Ruby, was returned to us by a good, good natured neighbour who had discovered her on the roadside after being run over. And I think that it was, of course, a very sad time. But I think from my children's perspective, actually, I would rather them come across this that way than discover her on the roadside on the walk to school the next morning.
So I do applaud the public spiritedness of the individual who returned Ruby to us that night. And I think it does show actually that those gestures, difficult though they are, really do go a long way to adding some comfort to people who are clearly distressed situation. And that's the purpose behind the public campaign known as Gizmo's legacy, that calls for local authorities to scan microchips so that owners can be identified and informed. We do support the principle that local authorities should have effective processes in place in these circumstances, and we want to encourage councils to be as helpful as they can be in these situations.
And as members have acknowledged, that's the reason why Defra have commissioned research into how their processes affect the reunification of owners, with cats and dogs found dead by the roadside, with the aim of identifying barriers, but also of identifying best practice. And those findings, when they're published, will support the development of best practice guidance for local authorities so that we do see more owners notified where it is possible to do so. Now. The honourable member for Yeovil asked when that research would be published, and I think it's fair to say that the research project is still being reviewed, but that it will be published as soon as that process is concluded.
I doubt very much that they told him that he had to go away, but I can assure him that both his and the number of honourable members comments on the desire to see that report will be transmitted to Defra after the debate tonight. I just want to say a few words about microchipping, Mr. Vickers, because that is clearly one of the things that makes this research much more valuable than it might have been a few years ago. And as the opposition spokesperson quite rightly pointed out, it was compulsory from June 2024 for all cats over 20 weeks old to be microchipped and registered on a compliant database, unless they are exempt or free living.
This does support responsible pet ownership and gives owners a better chance of being reunited with their pets if it is lost or strayed. Once again, I've got personal experience of lost cats. One of our cats, Trixie, went on a six week holiday to Chester a few years ago, and again, we were very grateful for the public spirited individual who brought brought her back. She's never told us what she was up to for those six weeks or how. How indeed she managed to get to Chester in the first place, but I'm afraid I think most members would recognise cats do do have a little secretive nature of their own, but Defra are working with the pet microchipping sector to make the regime more effective, including by improving the accuracy and accessibility of records and strengthening oversight of microchip databases.
So I am pleased to report that from the end of last month, 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, and we will continue to support the rollout of cat microchipping as part of the wider work to help owners identify and recover their pets. And I think as members have recognised and as the Cats Protection League have mentioned, there are 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 killed or injured. I appreciate Mr. Vickers. I will want to give the mover an opportunity to to respond at the end of the debate. There have been a number of reasons put forward as to why cats and dogs are classified differently. Clearly, the origins of this are very historic, but there are still, I think, pertinent differences today. And I think that effective right to roam is something that makes it very difficult for us to put the dogs and cats on an equivalent legislative footing, because making mandatory reporting would create a new criminal offence.
And it would also, I think, be difficult to enforce. So on balance, we believe the existing distinction should remain. We will have a continue to engage with advocates in this area. We look at the emerging research and do what we can to encourage responsible actions from the wider public. So on that note, Mr. Vickers, I'll give the mover an opportunity to respond.
So as members have quite rightly pointed out, the position is that all low 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. And of course, a number of members have spoken tonight about wanting to make that mandatory, and I understand why. But we have to have legislation that is both workable and safe, as I think a number of members acknowledged, cats are mostly smaller than dogs, and a driver may not actually realise that a collision has occurred.
And I think that's probably something that's more relevant with the propensity for larger vehicles that we see nowadays. Of course, also when the nights are drawing in, if it's a rural road at high speed as well, it's actually quite dangerous to ask people to leave their vehicle and search for a cat that could actually create more danger and injury than we would want. There are also practical difficulties locating the animal, arranging identification and ensuring that any reporting system can be enforced consistently must also be considered. But I also recognise that the concern where cats are found by the roadside, that owners should have the best possible chance of knowing what's happened to their pet.
And I think, as members have said tonight, any decent human being would want that to happen and would actually try and do their best to do that. So I recall one of my family's own cats, Ruby, was returned to us by a good, good natured neighbour who had discovered her on the roadside after being run over. And I think that it was, of course, a very sad time. But I think from my children's perspective, actually, I would rather them come across this that way than discover her on the roadside on the walk to school the next morning.
So I do applaud the public spiritedness of the individual who returned Ruby to us that night. And I think it does show actually that those gestures, difficult though they are, really do go a long way to adding some comfort to people who are clearly distressed situation. And that's the purpose behind the public campaign known as Gizmo's legacy, that calls for local authorities to scan microchips so that owners can be identified and informed. We do support the principle that local authorities should have effective processes in place in these circumstances, and we want to encourage councils to be as helpful as they can be in these situations.
And as members have acknowledged, that's the reason why Defra have commissioned research into how their processes affect the reunification of owners, with cats and dogs found dead by the roadside, with the aim of identifying barriers, but also of identifying best practice. And those findings, when they're published, will support the development of best practice guidance for local authorities so that we do see more owners notified where it is possible to do so. Now. The honourable member for Yeovil asked when that research would be published, and I think it's fair to say that the research project is still being reviewed, but that it will be published as soon as that process is concluded.
I doubt very much that they told him that he had to go away, but I can assure him that both his and the number of honourable members comments on the desire to see that report will be transmitted to Defra after the debate tonight. I just want to say a few words about microchipping, Mr. Vickers, because that is clearly one of the things that makes this research much more valuable than it might have been a few years ago. And as the opposition spokesperson quite rightly pointed out, it was compulsory from June 2024 for all cats over 20 weeks old to be microchipped and registered on a compliant database, unless they are exempt or free living.
This does support responsible pet ownership and gives owners a better chance of being reunited with their pets if it is lost or strayed. Once again, I've got personal experience of lost cats. One of our cats, Trixie, went on a six week holiday to Chester a few years ago, and again, we were very grateful for the public spirited individual who brought brought her back. She's never told us what she was up to for those six weeks or how. How indeed she managed to get to Chester in the first place, but I'm afraid I think most members would recognise cats do do have a little secretive nature of their own, but Defra are working with the pet microchipping sector to make the regime more effective, including by improving the accuracy and accessibility of records and strengthening oversight of microchip databases.
So I am pleased to report that from the end of last month, 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, and we will continue to support the rollout of cat microchipping as part of the wider work to help owners identify and recover their pets. And I think as members have recognised and as the Cats Protection League have mentioned, there are 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 killed or injured. I appreciate Mr. Vickers. I will want to give the mover an opportunity to to respond at the end of the debate. There have been a number of reasons put forward as to why cats and dogs are classified differently. Clearly, the origins of this are very historic, but there are still, I think, pertinent differences today. And I think that effective right to roam is something that makes it very difficult for us to put the dogs and cats on an equivalent legislative footing, because making mandatory reporting would create a new criminal offence.
And it would also, I think, be difficult to enforce. So on balance, we believe the existing distinction should remain. We will have a continue to engage with advocates in this area. We look at the emerging research and do what we can to encourage responsible actions from the wider public. So on that note, Mr. Vickers, I'll give the mover an opportunity to respond.
19:28
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Vickers. I'd like to thank Mandy, Mandy and tier IV and Cats Matters for the nearly 200,000 people who signed the petition for helping us have this debate this evening, and I'd like to thank the members across the House for their contributions. We've seen some real themes come out tonight with cats being part of the family. Not knowing what happens adds to the trauma of the situation. People love their cats and too many cats are hit by cars. I was struck by the statistic of , I think it was two cats in every constituency, every day, and that is just too many to have nothing happen to it.
There's two two members of this robust institution that haven't been mentioned today that I'm surprised didn't come up, although I do love hearing about Clem Attlee and Mew Mowlem and the other cats around the place, Larry in number ten and Attlee, of course, Mr. Speaker's cat. And they would be , perhaps like me, slightly disappointed with the Minister's response, but sympathy across the House, and I have great sympathy across the House for all of those members who have relayed issues with their their own animals. And those are their constituencies. And when I was elected, I promised to stand up for cats, and I'm pleased to be able to do so.
There's two two members of this robust institution that haven't been mentioned today that I'm surprised didn't come up, although I do love hearing about Clem Attlee and Mew Mowlem and the other cats around the place, Larry in number ten and Attlee, of course, Mr. Speaker's cat. And they would be , perhaps like me, slightly disappointed with the Minister's response, but sympathy across the House, and I have great sympathy across the House for all of those members who have relayed issues with their their own animals. And those are their constituencies. And when I was elected, I promised to stand up for cats, and I'm pleased to be able to do so.
19:30