Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

Cat Eccles Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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