Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

Kevin Bonavia Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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