Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

Debate between John Hayes and Brian Leishman

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir John Hayes]

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

[Brian Leishman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the start. I appreciate them; sometimes I would like it if some of my own parliamentary colleagues thought the same as he does, but that is a different matter. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: this is achievable and it should be done.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Brian Leishman

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

When I was a shadow Minister for many years, I found that some of the Labour Ministers I shadowed did the job I just described very well, and some did not. When I became a Minister, I saw that some Conservative Ministers engaged in the kind of process I have described, and some did not. There has always been variability in the way that power has been exercised across political parties. I invite the hon. Gentleman to speak to any of the people who shadowed me when I was a Minister to see if they would validate how I described the way I acted in those days. The authority of Parliament, the authority of our constitution and the authority of Government are all at stake as we consider these matters.

I return to where I started in terms of efficacy. The last time we considered these matters, Members will remember that I quoted Proust. It was a bit too rich a diet for the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He is not a Proustian. I think it stretched the canon of his reading matter beyond breaking point. Today, I am going to test him a little more and refer to G. K. Chesterton, who I think might be more within his scope. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, he is acknowledging that. Chesterton said:

“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”

It is certainly true that, based on their mandate, the Government have the right to bring this legislation, but I am not sure that they are right in doing it, measured against my tests of dignity, legitimacy, continuity and authority. For as Chesterton also said, before you take a fence down, you consider why it was put up in the first place. The balance that exists at the moment, both within the House of Lords, and between the House of Lords and this House, is precious. It works. It ain’t broke and we don’t need to fix it.

Before I finish, let me say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar. We must vote against the Bill on Third Reading, because whether we are in favour of more reform—as some of my colleagues are—or no reform, the Bill does not meet the standards we would expect of good legislation. It is therefore vital that the official Opposition make their position crystal clear by opposing this undesirable and unnecessary legislation.

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

For the record, when we talk about more reform, it is with a lower case “r”.

For many people, the other place in its current format embodies what Britain really should not be: it is undemocratic, it is unelected and—to touch on this only very lightly—it has had its fair share of controversial appointments. There is a suggestion of nepotism here and a dash of financial scandal there, not to mention a sprinkling of oligarchy. Therefore, it represents what a classist society of haves and have-nots can produce. As we know, some Members are there on a hereditary basis, and some are there on the whim and wishes of political leaders who, of course, have their own political motives for having them in position. It is also clear that the different regions that make up the United Kingdom do not have fair representation. The other place does not just have a geographical imbalance, but a gender one—none of which I care for.

I believe that there should be an upper Chamber. In Scotland, we have seen some ill-thought-out political policy that has been financially costly. An upper Chamber would likely have prevented that with the benefit of added scrutiny.

Like British society, the other place needs transformational change. What the Government propose is only a step in the right direction to what I, as a Labour party member, will continue to campaign for from within the party, which is ultimately to change the other place into an elected Chamber where class and privilege are not the entry requirements, but where talent and ability are what get you there.