Road Traffic Collisions Involving Cats

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Harris. I thank all those who have participated in the ongoing campaign to have the law changed to protect cats, including those who tweeted #Act4Cats, those who signed and shared the petition, and the MPs who signed my early-day motion calling for the Road Traffic Act to be amended.

I also congratulate my constituent, Olivia Holland-Rose, who is here today; her hard work and campaigning efforts led to this debate. She started this petition in response to the tragic accident that resulted in the death of her beloved pet, D’Artagnan or Dart for short. In January last year, Olivia sadly got a knock at the door. Her neighbour gave her the tragic news that Dart had been struck by a car, killed and left by the side of the road. It was only thanks to the kindness of a stranger, who found D’Artagnan’s body and proceeded to inquire about his owner, that a neighbour was able to recognise him and inform Olivia and her husband about the accident. Had the driver who hit D’Artagnan done that, and had the law required them to report the collision, there is a possibility that D’Artagnan could have been taken to the vet in time to save his life. As section 170 of the Road Traffic Act requires drivers to report accidents involving horses, cattle, mules, sheep, pigs, goats or dogs, but not cats, the driver had no legal obligation to report the collision and so drove off.

Olivia and her partner are sadly not alone in that experience, as we have heard. Statistics about cats in road collisions are getting harder and harder to gather because the driver does not have to report the incident in the first place. A recent report from Petplan revealed that approximately 230,000 cats are run over each year, equating to 630 every day, and that 35% of drivers admit to having hit a cat. There are approximately 12.2 million cats living in UK households, so those figures are likely to be considerably higher today.

We are a nation of animal lovers, so we can all sympathise with the devastation that pet owners feel when their beloved pet passes away. I do not have any pets myself, but a member of my team has a dog that often stops at our constituency office. Coincidentally, she is called Belle, although she was not named after me—she was named years before we met her. Anyone who has visited my constituency office or has been out campaigning with me is likely to have met Belle, who has become a beloved member of the team. I know that I, my team and Belle’s owners would be absolutely devastated if she were to be struck by a vehicle, but if this were to happen, at least we would have the reassurance that the driver would be legally obligated to report it and we would stand a higher chance of getting her to a vet in time, if that were possible, to potentially save her life.

Cat owners do not have that luxury because cats are inexplicably excluded from section 170 of the Road Traffic Act. It seems ridiculous that pigs, dogs, cattle and horses are protected, but cats are not. The law was created because of those animals’ status as working animals, but we have evolved beyond appreciating animals solely for their economic value, and it is time our laws changed to reflect that.

In response to the petition, the Government stated that, rather than changing the law, they wish to make roads safer and introduce compulsory microchipping. Microchipping cats is certainly a good policy—it is one that we seem to agree on right across this House—but a cat is no more likely to survive being hit by a car just because they are microchipped. The odds are already stacked against the cat. Microchipping cats will not increase their chances of survival. While I also agree with the ambition to make roads safer, in major cities, where cars are ever present and cat ownership is high, collisions are almost always going to be likely.

Those measures must be paired with a change in the law to require drivers to stop and report the collision, thereby increasing the chances of the cat getting to life-saving treatment and potentially saving another family from losing their beloved pet—or, if they do lose their beloved pet, at least giving them the closure of knowing. There is no reason that we can see for the law to exclude cats, and there are no excuses to justify not amending the law. It is such a small change; indeed, I would like the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is something that could be changed by a statutory instrument in a Delegated Legislation Committee. It would take just a few of us in this House very little time to insert that word, as we have heard. I am sure, or I hope, that we all agree that cats deserve to be treated the same as dogs, horses, pigs and all the other animals cited in the Act, and it is about time the law was changed accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that issue forward. It is an important issue, and I will take it back to the Department and write to him about it.

As I have been saying, we are looking at the holistic, best-practice approach that has been adopted in other countries, and that we have adopted for public health and health and safety legislation, in order to both minimise the impact of road traffic accidents on humans, and prevent further injury and accidents involving animals. For example, not that long ago, when I was in the Department as a special adviser, we brought forward some road signage designed to protect small mammals. The change is something that the Government are prepared to look at, but as I have said, primary legislation would be required.

I would like to speak more broadly on this issue, because Members have brought up different aspects of the legislation, including microchipping, which I would like to touch on.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Just to be clear, the Minister is saying that he is 100% sure that the change has to be made through primary legislation, so what exactly would he be getting back to us about, if that is not flexible?

[Mr Holden]

That is what I was advised, but if that is not the case, I will write to the hon. Lady and make it clear what can be done. My understanding at the moment is that primary legislation is needed.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

If the change can be made through secondary legislation, will the Minister take steps to bring that forward?

[Mr Holden]

If the change can be made through secondary legislation, we would have to look at that, but I am assured by officials that it has to be done through primary legislation. That would obviously require a significant piece of legislation to go through both Houses. It is not a quick fix. We then get into timetabling and all sorts of other issues well beyond my remit as a junior Minister. On whether the change can be made through secondary legislation, I will definitely write to the hon. Lady.

International Women’s Day

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to celebrate the trailblazers who made it possible for so many women to come through these doors and sit on these Benches: the women who fought, protested, sacrificed and put their lives on the line in their effort to secure gender equality and to grant women the right to go to school, to work, to vote, to open a bank account in our own name, which is such a simple thing, and so many other rights that we could not bear to live without. I argue those women would want us not just to celebrate but to continue agitating, because there is still a long way to go and more to be done if we are to get to a state where women can truly be considered equal to men.

This year, as on every International Women’s Day, organisations have taken to social media to share their commitment to gender equality and to breaking the bias, which is this year’s theme. In response, the “Gender Pay Gap Bot” Twitter account tweeted the pay gap of those organisations. Some organisations could hold their head high, such as Contact Company, Abbeycroft Leisure, St John Ambulance and a few others, but unfortunately these organisations were in the minority.

In 2022, we still live in a society in which 83% of the UK’s most popular jobs have a gender pay gap. Recent Labour party analysis shows that, at the current rate of progression, the gender pay gap will not close until 2059. We need urgent action to change the system and address pay inequality, which is not just plain wrong but leaves so many women vulnerable to abuse.

The representation of women in senior positions, right across society, is still woefully low. I am proud to be part of a parliamentary Labour party that is 51% women. I will not pretend that that happened overnight, but when the time came, we did not wait for attitudes to change and we did not rest on platitudes. We took action to increase representation, and the result is someone like myself, who is the product of an all-women shortlist. This is a parliamentary party that reflects society not only in its make-up, but in the quality of debate and in the policies that are put forward.

So to all those in organisations across the country who are wringing their hands and saying, “Oh, it’s so hard. What do we do on women’s equality?”, I say, “You are just making excuses”. Change does not come just because time goes on; it is something that people have to make happen. Because of the work of women in this House and across society, enforcing equality has never been easier, as we have best practice, policy and legislation—all these different things—at our disposal.

In 2022 the under-representation of women in senior roles and a gender pay gap is a choice. So I will not applaud all the colourful social media bits that have been put up by different organisations, and the events and seminars for women that have gone by in past days. I will not applaud those organisations for saying that they are trying, because they are just failing. The ones that continue to preside over these situations have made a choice. Their choice has been to discriminate against women every single day, and they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

It is right that we have discussed domestic gender inequality, as that is obviously extremely important, but we must remember that we are celebrating International Women’s Day, which is a day for all women, wherever they are in the world. Our minds rightfully turn to the plight of women in Ukraine who are facing Putin’s aggression: those women we all saw this morning in the maternity hospital; those left behind in the country, as so many women often are in this situation; and those who have fled and are currently being denied asylum by countries such as ours, alongside refugees from other countries who are also fleeing war and persecution. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) was right to say that no one could claim to support standing up for all women if we allow a heinous piece of legislation such as the Nationality and Borders Bill to go ahead, which will only worsen the situation for some of the most vulnerable women in the world.

Finally, I worry about a movement for women’s equality and a feminism that does not represent all women, of all classes, nationalities and races. I was sad to hear black women speak of being feminists but not being able to call themselves such because they do not believe that movements for women’s equality typically represent their experiences as black women. When the majority of women in the world are of colour, a women’s movement that does not recognise the impact that racism plays, and the fundamental role it has in increasing inequality among women, is not truly a movement that represents all women, and it is not worth what it says it is worth. That is not acceptable. The idea that we should fight for women’s equality but make concessions for a certain group of women first, and then later we can get to this other group of women, has been the bane of the women’s equality movement, and that absolutely has to change. We have to demand equality for all women and we have to do it right now.

In this country at the moment the equality we seek for women does not have to be so hard. In 2022, if your organisation continues to preside over under-representation and a gender pay gap, it is simply just trash. If you are not actively a part of the solution to end gender inequality, you are simply just another part of the problem.

Covid-19: Emergency Transport and Travel Measures in London Boroughs

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huq]

My hon. Friend speaks so much sense. It is true that it feels that this catastrophising, saying, “Emergency, emergency, we have to do it by the end of September”, with no time for consultation apart from six months later, is just the wrong way round, putting the cart before the horse.

We have had this vote today, and some of us have wrestled with our consciences about the lockdown. On balance, I thought it was the right thing to do, but coronavirus has greenlighted many incursions—some people call them draconian—on our civil liberties, on citizens’ freedom of movement. As I said, I strongly think that to gain consent, we should consult. Pictures have gone viral in Ealing of planters that have been vandalised and bollards that have been ripped out. Yes, that cedes the moral high ground: it is wrong to do that. Vandalism is bad, so it is a moral boost for the diehard proponents of the schemes, but it also shows this is not a consensual policy and that something has gone wrong if that is happening.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the low traffic neighbourhoods are really important in constituencies such as mine, which has the A23 running through it and has so much pollution? Does she also agree that the lack of consultation could have a negative impact on future measures as the public will almost learn to react negatively because they feel like they have not been consulted in the past? We really do need those measures to protect our environment and change the nature of traffic in our areas.

[Dr Huq]

I completely agree that we have a climate emergency, we have our net zero obligations and we have an obesity crisis, but doing this without a consultation has just got people’s backs up. It sometimes feels that these things have been formulated, not by anyone who cycles or understands local traffic flows, but just in order to satisfy the criteria for a budget where there is money available and time is running out.

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Member, and former council leader for where we are now, speaks with authority and passion and makes total sense on this. We need a collaboration between residents, stakeholders and businesses—all the different actors in this—which sometimes feels like it has not happened.

I know the Minister is a reasonable person and I have some questions for her. She is not the type to blame it all on Sadiq Khan, like some people would.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

On the matter of Sadiq Khan, does my hon. Friend agree that he should be congratulated on seeing off the Government’s plans to extend the congestion charge zone and to begin charging under-18s for travel?

[Dr Huq]

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. People would have been charged to go from Ealing to Acton, and possibly to use the A23, which goes to Brighton. It is good that that has gone, and congratulations to the Minister too, if she was involved in that.

We are told that local authorities are the final arbiters, but there is so much mistrust around this. Is there any kind of mechanism to ensure that it does not look as though people are marking their own homework? Would she, or someone, be able to swoop in? The Secretary of State wrote to councils to say that they should have had pre-implementation consultation, and should respect all road users. How will that wish be operationalised, especially in places where the consultation takes place six months after implementation? Surely there is scope for some sort of review before then if things are not working. There have been reversals—wholesale in Wandsworth, partial in Redbridge and Harrow. Could the Minister give some guidance on that? I think some councils are getting a bit entrenched; they are not for turning, or for any modifications.

In the final reckoning, does the Minister think a referendum might be a way forward? The scheme has been divisive in the way that Brexit was—sorry to bring that up, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it coloured all our lives for many years, and it has not gone away. A referendum would be completely equitable. If a council has a consultation tool on its website, only those with the right level of literacy, technology and energy will use it and make that count; what about the elderly and infirm? In a referendum, we could give as options, “Yes, with modifications, if need be”—then if “yes” wins, the modifications can be worked out—and “No” for those who want the measures removed.