Grabbing Hansards House Commons Get Britain Cycling debate with its warts and all; and throwing all into tagxedo.com, it appears MPs really
DID discuss cycling on 2 September in the House of Commons. How refreshing! Gold star!
Here's the raw text for the doubters and cynics (I know you are out there). So you can test and replicate results.
Cycling
6.2 pm
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): I beg to move,
That
this House welcomes the recommendations of the All-Party
Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”;
endorses the target of 10 per cent of all journeys being by bike by
2025, and 25 per cent by 2050; and calls on the Government to show
strong political leadership, including an annual Cycling Action Plan
and sustained funding for cycling.
It is a great pleasure to move this motion. I thank the Backbench
Business Committee for agreeing to schedule a debate on this subject
after the success of our very well-attended debate last year in
Westminster Hall, which showed just how many Members of this House
care about cycling. We discussed all forms of cycling, from sport to
commuting, leisure, utility and all-access cycling. It was clear from
that debate that Members agreed that cycling was an energy-efficient
form of transport, a healthy way to get around, a cheap means of
travelling, and fun as well. No one who was there will forget the
tale we heard of romance on a tandem.
Since that debate, the all-party parliamentary cycling group, which I
have the great pleasure of co-chairing with the hon. Member for
Dudley North (Ian Austin), has conducted a detailed inquiry to make a
series of recommendations on what Government ought to do to get
Britain cycling, and we are now debating the resulting report. To
produce it, we spoke to a wide range of people.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab): I am
not at all surprised that this debate is so well attended. I want to
put on record the representations that I have received from at least
one constituent who wants us to focus still more on cycling as part
of an improved environment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that
improving the road structure, pathways and so on is important not
only because individuals want to take part in cycling but because it
is a great attraction and opportunity for tourism in the areas we
represent?
Dr Huppert: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.
I completely agree that there are huge benefits, some of which I will
outline. He is absolutely right that tourism can benefit and that
environmental concerns can be addressed. There are lots of benefits
in getting Britain cycling.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman is
absolutely right to stress the benefits, but does he accept, as I
hope most in the House would, that there are also associated
tragedies? One thinks of Mary Bowers, who is still in a coma, and one
thinks of the excellent campaign run by
The Times, “Cities
fit for cycling”. Does he accept that cycling is not only a
marvellous, fit and healthy way to travel but should be protected and
that cyclists should be safe?
Dr Huppert: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There
have been a number of tragedies. Part of what we ought to do is to
make sure that it is safe for people to cycle. In fact, it is fairly
safe at the moment, but the perception is a problem. I agree that
there are far too many tragic incidents such as that of Mary Bowers.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 67
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Huppert: Let me make a bit more progress and then I will
give way.
We spoke to a wide range of people—not only cycling organisations,
which I thank for their assistance throughout the process, but the
police, the freight industry, Living Streets, the president of the
Automobile Association, and many others. I thank them all, and
particularly those parliamentarians from both Houses who served on
the panel, many of whom are here today, and Adam Coffman, who
co-ordinated the entire process. There were hundreds of suggestions
for recommendations, and those and more analysis can be found in the
companion report by Professor Phil Goodwin, together with transcripts
of the entire session.
Currently, only about 2% of trips are made by bike—a tiny fraction,
well below the levels found in many countries. A huge range of short
trips that could easily be walked or cycled are driven. That is why
we set a long-term ambition to try to increase that from 2% to 10% by
2025 and to 25% by 2050. That is entirely do-able and still below
what the Dutch, for example, manage to achieve.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op): As the
hon. Gentleman highlights, very few people cycle, but in my borough
of Hackney we have a far higher percentage—more than 10% of people
regularly cycle. Does he agree that that is testament to what can be
done with forward thinking, good planning and a political will to
achieve a change?
Dr Huppert: I thank the hon. Lady for her comment and for her
work on the report. She is absolutely right that there are exemplars.
In my constituency of Cambridge, about a third of trips are now made
by bike. We are hoping to increase that to 40% with the money that
has been given by the Government through the ambition grant. Some
places are showing that they can do this, and the rest of the country
can as well.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con): My hon. Friend is absolutely
right that the Government must provide funding, and they have been
doing so, but it is also important for local authorities to be doing
more. Let me quote what my constituent Adrian Lawson, the chairman of
the Reading Cycling Campaign, said about Reading borough council:
“We
identified a lot of simple things that would make it immeasurably
better for cyclists. This was over a year ago. Not a single thing has
happened.”
Does that not show that we also need local councils to implement
measures?
Dr Huppert: Absolutely; local authorities have a crucial role
to play.
If more people were to cycle and walk, we would all benefit. We would
be healthier, saving huge amounts of money—billions of pounds—for
the NHS. There would be less congestion on the roads, making travel
times faster and more reliable for those who are in cars. There would
be less pressure on city centre parking, helping people to get to the
shops and keep the economy going. The economy would grow. Cycling
already contributes
2 Sep 2013 : Column 68
about £3 billion to the UK economy, but it is not always seen as
significant as that. We all win by promoting cycling and walking.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): I applaud the hon.
Gentleman for securing this debate and the Members who added their
name to the motion. Cycling can be promoted not only in Cambridge but
in extremely hilly and mountainous areas such as the constituency of
Ogmore, with the right investment by the local authority and the
voluntary sector in things such as safe routes to school, which link
to safe routes to work, which then link to the Afan Argoed mountain
bike track.
Dr Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Cycling
can indeed be encouraged anywhere in the country; the area does not
have to be flat and dry like Cambridge.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Ealing has a very
strong reputation as a cycling borough. Schools there are playing
their part in training young people using travel plans. Eight schools
in Ealing have travel plans that are considered outstanding. Does my
hon. Friend agree that using travel plans is an imaginative way for
schools to train youngsters in cycling?
Dr Huppert: Travel plans are critical and the hon. Lady is
right to highlight the role of schools, because training in schools
makes a big difference. The Government have protected Bikeability
funding. I received my own Bikeability training during the summer
from Outspoken! Cycle Training in Cambridge. I learned quite a lot
from that and it would be good to see other people receive it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Huppert: I will take one more intervention from a
Government Member and one more from an Opposition Member, and then I
will make some progress.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): I am grateful to my
hon. Friend, who I think now has the distinction of being
fashionable. I am glad that page 15 of the report refers to the
bridge over the railway tracks in Cambridge, which I funded and was
delighted to be part of opening. On the issue of risk, does my hon.
Friend agree that comparisons of risk per distance travelled are
ludicrous when comparing walking, cycling, driving and flying? We
ought to have risk per hour exposed, which would give people a far
greater sense of the relative safety of cycling.
Dr Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I thank
him for his support for Cambridge cycling. Statistics can say all
sorts of things. The most dangerous form of travel per trip is a
space shuttle, and the safest per passenger mile is also the space
shuttle. That shows the extremes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Huppert: I am going to make some progress, because a lot of
Members wish to speak in this debate.
Our report makes 18 recommendations on five key themes. The first is
for sustained investment in cycling in order to improve the
infrastructure. The European
2 Sep 2013 : Column 69
standard is for funds to the order of £10 per person per year,
hopefully rising to £20 per person per year. That is the sort of
level the Dutch have sustained and that is what we need to make the
difference. It will not happen overnight, but the benefits will
substantially outweigh the costs according to almost every single
study.
Many of the improvements that would benefit cyclists, such as
improvements to road quality, segregated cycle tracks and junction
changes, would also benefit pedestrians and other road users. No
conflict is necessary in improving the infrastructure.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab): Will the hon.
Gentleman give way?
Dr Huppert: The hon. Lady has been patient, so I will take her
intervention.
Rushanara Ali: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this
debate. I want to draw the House’s attention to the death in my
constituency in July of Philippine De Gerin-Ricard, a 20-year-old
student who was tragically killed while cycling. In the previous
year, two others were killed on the ring road. I fully support the
hon. Gentleman’s point about the need for investment to make roads
safer, for drivers as well as cyclists. What can be done to reduce
the number of minor and major injuries, which have increased by 29%
in the past year—a dramatic increase since the period between 2005
and 2009?
Dr Huppert: The point of a lot of what I will say will be
about how we can reduce that number. Some of that is about
infrastructure and some is about measures such as making heavy goods
vehicles safer, which I will come on to discuss in detail.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Will the hon.
Gentleman give way on that very point?
Dr Huppert: No. I want to make progress; otherwise I am afraid
others will not have the chance to speak.
We have to make sure that other local and national bodies, such as
local authorities and the Highways Agency, allocate proportionate
funds to cycling, so that major road schemes such as the A14 in my
constituency include appropriate cycle facilities along or across
them. Other Departments should also get involved: there are benefits
to health, education, sport and business. They should step out of
their silos and get involved.
We need to make our roads and cities fit for cyclists. Planners need
to give consideration to cyclists and pedestrians right at the start
of all developments, whatever they are. We also need new design
guidance to provide a modern standard, not just paint on a pavement,
which annoys cyclists and pedestrians alike. Local authorities can
get on with the small schemes, as can the Highways Agency, which has
agreed to our call for a programme to reduce the barriers its roads
can cause to cycling.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): Will the hon.
Gentleman give way?
Dr Huppert: No. I am not going to give way for a bit longer.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 70
Road travel is never perfectly safe and there is a lot we can do to
make it safer. Infrastructure is key, but we can do other things,
too. For example, 20 mph zones, which this Government support, are
clearly beneficial, not only for the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists, but for the perceptions of safety for people who want to
cycle or take their children cycling. Some rural lanes could be
appropriate for a 40 mph speed limit.
Hon. Members have talked about the number of tragic deaths. Sadly,
too many of them have involved cyclists and HGVs. Steps have been
taken by the Mineral Products Association, Cemex and others, but we
need to push further for better vehicle design and better controls,
and encourage HGVs not to use busy roads at peak times. Crossrail has
led the way on much of that.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con): Will my
hon. Friend give way?
Dr Huppert: I am sorry, but I want to make some more progress.
Road traffic laws are broken too often and they should be enforced
for all road users. When a serious driving offence takes place,
especially if it results in death or injury, it must be treated
seriously by police, prosecutors and judges. Far too often the
sentences proposed are, frankly, trivial.
We also need to encourage people to ride positively. Cycling should
be seen as a safe and normal activity for people of all ages and
backgrounds, as is the case in the Netherlands.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Huppert: I want to make more progress, but I will give way
later.
Education will help. Bikeability should be available at all schools,
and adults should also have the chance to learn to ride. We also need
political leadership, and it is good to see the Transport Secretary
enter the Chamber at this point. We need not just nice words from
senior politicians—although I am pleased that the Prime Minister
wanted personally to announce the recent substantial extra
funding—but sustained support, including a cross-departmental
action plan, with annual progress reports, a national cycling
champion, a clear ambition to increase cycling and for Government at
all levels to have a lead politician responsible for cycling.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Huppert: I will take one intervention from each side of the
Chamber.
Mr Sheerman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his
colleagues on securing this debate. He will know of my long-term
interest, as chairman of the parliamentary advisory council for
transport safety, in safety on the roads. Is he worried that at least
a third of youngsters who get on a bike do not have any Bikeability
training?
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about HGVs. What are
we going to do about those whose steering wheels are on the other
side of the vehicle, who have terrible blind spots and who cause many
terrible accidents?
2 Sep 2013 : Column 71
Dr Huppert: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention
and for the support that PACTS, along with many other organisations,
has given to our report. I think that more training should be made
available. It should not be compulsory, but we want to encourage
people to feel comfortable. There is a lot more we can do to deal
with HGVs.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I thank my hon.
Friend for giving way. I have cycled in the UK and in Holland. Does
my hon. Friend share my concern about meaningless bits of paint on
pavements and trees in the middle of cycle routes, and does he agree
that what we really need are segregated cycle paths?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I can see the
hon. Gentleman is in free wheel, but I am going to put on the brake.
We said 10 to 15 minutes, so I am sure Dr Huppert will have finished
in a couple of minutes.
Dr Huppert: We all benefit from improving the take-up of
cycling. To quote the president of the Automobile Association, Edmund
King:
“Implementation
of the
Get Britain Cycling recommendations would bring
tangible business and economic benefits by reducing congestion,
absenteeism, NHS costs and by producing a more creative and active
workforce.”
There speaks the voice of the automobile, and I entirely agree with
him.
Despite these benefits, Governments for decades have not sufficiently
supported cycling. There has been massive investment in road
infrastructure, but little for cycling; cyclists have often had
small-scale provision, if any. Individual Ministers have tried, but
they have not always received the support they need. I pay great
tribute in particular to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport,
my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who I believe is
the longest ever serving Minister with responsibility for cycling.
However, he is not able to deliver as much as he or I would like. He
has done things such as announce extra money over the summer for the
local sustainable transport fund, but we need more and it needs to be
sustained.
Many Ministers face a culture that points the other way—that
focuses on car drivers only, to the detriment of others and without
realising that fewer cyclists will result in more cars on the roads.
I hope that one of the outcomes of our report and this debate will be
to provide support for Ministers of all parties who want to make that
difference—to turn welcome comments, such as those made by the
Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition, into reality.
On 12 August the Prime Minister said that cycling will be at the
heart of future road developments. I hope we can make sure, through
the impetus of this debate, the “Cities fit for cycling” campaign
run by
The Times, the excitement of the Olympics and the
double Tour de France victory, that that will become a reality.
6.18 pm
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): I thank the Backbench
Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place. I also
thank everybody who took part in the three-month inquiry and British
Cycling, the CTC, Sustrans and the other organisations that helped us
run
2 Sep 2013 : Column 72
it. I thank in particular Chris Boardman MBE—an Olympic gold
medallist, world champion, great man and fantastic campaigner for
cycling—for everything he does to promote cycling in Britain and
for supporting our inquiry. Phil Goodwin and Adam Coffman pulled the
report together and organised the inquiry.
I thank News International for sponsoring the inquiry. Its
involvement came about as a result of
The Times’ brilliant
campaign for cycling, which has been a breakthrough for cycling. I
pay tribute to the current editor, John Witherow, and his
predecessor, James Harding, and to Kaya Burgess, Phil Pank and Phil
Webster, who have worked so hard on this campaign. It is brilliant
campaigning journalism at its best.
That campaign, as we heard a moment ago, was triggered by the tragic
incident in 2011 that injured their colleague, Mary Bowers, so badly
that she has still not regained consciousness. The driver who hit her
was getting directions over the phone at the time. Mary was in his
direct line of sight for at least 10 seconds, but he failed to spot
her. He was found guilty of careless driving, fined £2,700 and
banned from driving for just eight months. I therefore welcome the
review by the Ministry of Justice of the all too often derisory
sentences that are handed down to drivers when cyclists are killed or
injured. We also need a comprehensive review of the justice system,
from beginning to end, to ensure that the police enforce the law
properly and that the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes people on
stronger charges.
Meg Hillier: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had a lower
speed limit for all road users, it would make life safer for cyclists
and pedestrians?
Ian Austin: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our report
recommended 20 mph speed limits in urban areas—something for which
The Times has been campaigning. I pay tribute to the
contribution that she made to the inquiry. It would not have been
such a success and the report would not have been written in the way
that it was if she had not done so much work.
Mr Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot more
can be done in schools to promote cycling proficiency, because safety
is a very big element of this matter? Equally, should local
authorities not do more through traffic management schemes?
Ian Austin: My hon. Friend is completely right. He did a lot
of work on this matter when he was the leader of Coventry city
council, before he became a Member of Parliament.
I do not want to criticise the Minister for cycling. He is a good
man, he fights hard for cycling and he is a keen cyclist himself.
However, the Government’s response to our inquiry was disappointing
to say the least. The Government have promised that
“cycling
will be at the heart of future road development”
and their response stated:
“The
Government is committed to turning Britain into a cycling nation to
rival our European neighbours.”
If the Minister answers one question in this debate, I want him to
tell us how those two promises can be taken seriously when the
Netherlands spends £25 per head on cycling while the UK spends just
£2 per head, and when
2 Sep 2013 : Column 73
the highways budget in the UK is £15 billion, but the funds
announced for cycling are just £159 million, with no dedicated
funding stream that allows local authorities to plan for more than
two years.
Our report makes a series of recommendations to boost cycling from
less than 2% of journeys in 2011 to 25% by 2050. I ask the Minister
why his Department’s response did not commit the Government to that
target. We also want a national cycling champion to lead a drive for
10% of all journeys in Britain to be made by bike by 2025. As I said,
the Minister fights hard for cycling and has done a good job of
putting it on the agenda to the extent that it is. Although I do not
want to criticise him personally, I point to the fact is that he is a
junior Minister from the junior party in the coalition, so it will
always be difficult for him. We need someone with Cabinet-level clout
to get different Departments working together.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Promote him to the Cabinet!
[Laughter.]
Ian Austin: Okay. I also want to ask the Minister why the
Government have not agreed to the appointment of a cycling champion.
Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr
Smith) cannot be here because two members of his family have health
issues. He wanted to call for a more comprehensive cycling strategy.
He welcomes the £835,000 grant to improve the cycling safety of the
Plain in Oxford, but wanted to point out that that is a tiny fraction
of the money that is needed to bring Oxford’s cycle network up to
an entirely safe standard.
We think that more of the transport budget should be spent on
supporting cycling, with an initial rate of at least £10 per person
per year. That would increase as the level of cycling goes up. I
welcome the recent announcement by the shadow Secretary of State for
Transport that she would use a proportion of road spending to build
long-term cycling infrastructure. Most of the spending that was
mentioned in the Government’s response had already been announced.
Why will the Minister’s Department not shift resources in that way?
London has spent five times as much on cycling per person as the rest
of the UK in the past 10 years. The benefits of that are clear from
the huge growth in cycling in the capital.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Austin: I will not take any more interventions, because I
want to allow everybody else to speak.
Given the benefits of cycling to the economy and the huge savings it
could bring to the NHS, there could be huge benefits in the long run.
Cyclists are fitter and healthier than the population as a whole and
less of a demand on the NHS, so will the Minister say why the
Department of Health, which has a budget of £1 billion, last week
committed just £1 million to cycling over the next two years? Making
cycling safer in local residential streets would also help. That is
why our report calls for lower speed limits in urban areas. The
campaign by
The Times calls for 20 mph to be the default limit
in residential areas that do not have cycle lanes.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 74
The Government need to ensure that cycling provision and safety are
considered at the outset of all major developments. That is the
central point in British Cycling’s road safety manifesto. I am
therefore pleased that the shadow Secretary of State is committed to
the introduction of new cycle safety assessments for all new
transport schemes. Given that local roads and planning are the
responsibility of local councils, it is a shame that the Secretary of
State for Communities and Local Government has indulged in populist
calls for councils to ignore cycling and to do more to help
motorists.
I am a cyclist and a motorist. Most of us are both. In fact, cyclists
are more likely to own a car than the general population, so let us
have no more of the cheap, populist nonsense that tries to set
drivers against cyclists. We should all be working together to
improve safety on the roads.
Finally, this debate is just the next stage of our campaign to get
Britain cycling. We should use the inquiry and today’s debate to
drive cycling up the agenda. It is fantastic that so many MPs are
here for this debate on the first day back when there is a one-line
Whip. Let us make cycling an election issue, with local cyclists
getting candidates to sign pledges and with the parties competing to
produce the best manifesto for cycling. Let us continue the campaign
to get Britain cycling.
6.26 pm
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): I was fortunate to sit on the
“Get Britain Cycling” inquiry earlier this year. There was huge
interest in what we were doing. When we started the inquiry, we were
the best trending name on Twitter. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend
the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for securing this debate and to
Adam Coffman, who put so much work into making it a professional,
Select Committee-style inquiry.
In the short time available to me, I will focus on three areas:
vision and leadership, which for me is where it starts and ends; the
design issue; and the summer of cycling in my constituency. I am
extremely proud of the report and believe that it stands up really
well. Having read it again in writing these remarks, I think that it
will age well. We launched the report in April and the Government
responded last week. In the light of everything that has happened
since we produced the report, I think that is more relevant now than
when we launched it.
On leadership, it is no coincidence that one of the first points in
the report is the need for
“vision,
ambition and strong political leadership”.
As the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) said, we recommend
the appointment of a national cycling champion. I share his regret
that that recommendation was not accepted in last week’s Government
response. It is all too easy to regard such things as somebody else’s
responsibility. The Minister need not look further than City hall,
where Andrew Gilligan is the Mayor’s cycling champion, for a good
example of how a cycling champion can work.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con): I thank my hon. Friend for his
comments. Does he agree that leadership at a local level is
important? I have seen the difference in my borough as the political
leaders have started to take this issue much more seriously and to
engage much more vigorously with local cycling campaigners. That
really makes a difference.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 75
Steve Brine: It is funny that my hon. Friend should say that,
because my next line states that our report says that every local
authority should appoint a lead politician who is responsible for
cycling. I want the report to give birth to mini Borises across the
country. Bearing in mind that we did not launch the report until
April, that is quite a short gestation period.
I find it bizarre that we even needed to say that each local
authority should have a lead politician. Winchester had a cycling
champion long before the report was produced. This must not be about
just giving somebody a new line on their letterhead. The cycling
champion must be a councillor who is at the heart of the
administration, as they should be at the national level. They must
have the necessary political clout and authority to drive things
through with their colleagues at cabinet level and with the key
officers and the chief executive.
The cycling action plan should not be marked as being in the cycling
folder; it should be part of the council’s health, tourism and
economic strategy, and an integral part of the council’s strategy
should be to make it work. How many MPs in the House have sent a copy
of the report, or an e-mail with the link, to their chief executive
or leader of their local council? How many know who the cycling
champion is for their area and—more importantly—what they do?
I am not trying to be the lead councillor for cycling in my
constituency—if I wanted to be a councillor, I could have a far
easier life. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I notice the double-hatters
looking at me—how to win friends and influence councillors. I am
trying to push the issue up the agenda locally, working with the
marvellous councillors I have in my constituency. I hope soon to sit
down with councillors from Winchester and Hampshire county council,
and start putting some lines on maps.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): I think my hon.
Friend is genuine in his praise for councillors such as the lead
member in Swindon, Councillor Keith Williams, who is a triathlete and
passionate cyclist. Does my hon. Friend agree that with local
leadership such as that which I have described we will improve
cycling facilities in towns such as Swindon? Department for Transport
funding for improved links between west Swindon and the town centre
is an example of how cyclists will find things safer in the long
term.
Steve Brine: Yes, I agree. What I said about putting lines on
maps is an expression I borrowed from Andrew Gilligan, who came to
see the all-party cycling group on the eve of launching the Mayor’s
cycling strategy for London. One thing he took us through was that
putting lines on maps is not easy; land belongs to Transport for
London or to the boroughs, and somebody had to try and pull that
together. It was the leadership of the Mayor and of Andy—
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): Will my hon. Friend give
way?
Steve Brine: I will not because time is tight and I know other
hon. Members want to get in. The way in which Crossrail for cyclists
was chiselled out is impressive and a blueprint of what people should
be doing—I know what is being done in Swindon.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 76
In my constituency we have made significant progress, for example
with national cycle network route 23. However, somebody needs to grab
the bull by the horns—or perhaps grab the highlighter pen—and sit
down and put those lines on the maps. Then the leadership can really
shine through. Will that happen? Well, ultimately it requires the
leader of the council to do that. Councillor Keith Wood, who leads
the majority council in my constituency, is interested in cycling and
keen on cycling, but as he knows, I want to see passion and more
leadership from him on that issue.
On design and planning, I am a passionate believer in segregated
cycle routes, especially on main busy roads. I have seen them in
other parts of the continent and they have to make sense,
particularly if we are hopeful of getting children to stay cycling,
especially after they have got their driving licence. As those who
have read it will know, the report recommends a statutory requirement
that cyclists’ needs are considered at an early stage of all new
development schemes, and I welcome the new national planning policy
framework introduced in 2011. It sets out clearly that including
facilities for cycling and walking should be part of delivering
sustainable development, but as we know, too often at present those
things are not included, which in my book is a wasted opportunity.
What is set out in the NPF needs to catch up quickly and become the
norm.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): Will the hon.
Gentleman give way?
Steve Brine: I will not if the hon. Lady does not mind.
I have one opportunity in my constituency right now where the
developer, CALA Homes, has permission for 2,000 houses on the highly
controversial—to put it mildly—Barton farm site. The developer
was an early recipient of a copy of this report, and my challenge
today is this: “Make us proud of your development at Barton farm.
Put cycling at the heart of your development, not just in new cycle
routes into and through the area, but by linking up with existing
cycle connections. You will make a lot of people very pleased with
you, after gathering planning permission in the way you did.”
The report also states that local authorities should seek to deliver
cycle-friendly improvements across existing roads, including small
improvements and segregated routes. Of course they should. I am not a
dyed-in-the-lycra person on this—imagine! I am realistic:
Winchester’s ancient Saxon streets will not suddenly all have
segregated cycle routes, but there are great opportunities in my
constituency to do that.
Finally, the Highways Agency should draw up a programme to remove the
barriers to cycling. Junction 9 of the M3, which the Minister knows,
has received significant Government funding for pinch-point
improvements that will be done later this year. We are increasing two
lanes to three and bringing traffic closer to cyclists, which seems a
missed opportunity. Therefore, my other challenge to the Minister and
the Highways Agency is to see whether we can look again at junction 9
of the M3 on the edge of my constituency and come up with something
that is a compromise for cyclists and for drivers.
In conclusion, the report is about getting Britain cycling and much
good stuff is taking place in my constituency and across the country.
The VC Venta
2 Sep 2013 : Column 77
cycling club in Winchester has seen its membership rise by 300%
since the Olympics, and the Winchester CycleFest this summer, which
culminated in the Criterium high-speed cycle race through Winchester
on 11 August, was fantastic. “Get Britain Cycling”—yes, we are
doing it, but we must scale it up and this report is part of the
blueprint for how we do that.
6.35 pm
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): In 2006, four members of
the Rhyl cycling club in my constituency were killed in the worst
ever cycling accident in British history. They were Tom Harland, aged
14, Maurice Broadbent, aged 61, Dave Horrocks, aged 55, and Wayne
Wilkes, aged 42. Two years before that accident young Tom Harland
visited the House of Commons and I took him round. His father, John
Harland, is a personal friend of mine. The club and families involved
were faced with the decision of whether to crumple—both personally
and as a club—or whether to thrive. They chose to thrive and I
would like to outline some of the successes for cycling in my
constituency since 2006, which I think could be replicated around the
country.
John Harland got together a group of people, including a chap called
Gren Kershaw, who was the ex-head of our local health board, and they
had an idea, a vision, for cycling in my constituency, based around
Marsh Tracks. In the intervening years, Marsh Tracks has opened, and
includes a five-star BMX track with an Olympic starting gate and a
£1.2 million floodlit off-road cycleway. It is now being extended
with a mountain bike track over a 3 km area. Those are fantastic
cycling facilities. The local authority has developed miles and miles
of off-road cycleways connecting the towns of Rhyl, Prestatyn,
Rhuddlan, St Asaph, Dyserth and Bodelwyddan, and connecting Rhyl
college, the local hospital and St Asaph business park—all those
key sites are connected off road to the cycleways.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab): Will my
hon. Friend give way?
Chris Ruane: Yes, because I want the extra minute.
Catherine McKinnell: I thank my hon. Friend for his
generosity. He is making a powerful speech. Many constituents have
asked me to come to this debate to make representations on their
behalf, and in particular on behalf of their children. As cyclists,
my constituents worry not only for themselves and their safety, but
for that of their children, and many of them have asked me to press
the Minister on making cycle urban infrastructure development
compulsory as part of the legislation on cycling and urban planning.
Does my hon. Friend agree?
Chris Ruane: I think I have lost that minute—
[Laughter.]
My hon. Friend owes me 15 seconds but I agree with her and will come
to the education side of that point in a moment.
We were also successful in getting £4.5 million for a purpose-built
cycling bridge over Foryd harbour in my constituency. That will be
part of the Sustrans national coastal cycling network around the UK.
On 26 September I will meet Network Rail to see whether we can get a
disused railway to connect the coastal path to the
2 Sep 2013 : Column 78
country paths further inland. They are currently cut across by a
railway bridge, and we want to use an adjacent railway bridge to
connect the coastal path to the country, so that the coast will be
connected to the castles and cathedrals in my constituency.
I recently met Adrian Walls, a cycleways officer from Denbighshire
county council, who is developing a mountain bike route in my
constituency. He has not finished yet—it will be probably be
finished in about six weeks and will be a state-of the-art mountain
bike route. However, I do not think that the fantastic facilities I
have outlined in my speech are being used sufficiently. The task is
getting pupils in our schools and colleges, and workers, to use those
facilities—those multi-million pound investments—which I believe
are under-utilised in my constituency. How do we make the most of
them? I have met council officers and enthusiasts, who have come up
with a vision for a centre of cycling excellence in my constituency,
which will be tied in to the back-to-work agenda. It will include
cycle maintenance, and importing, assembling and selling cycles. That
fantastic facility on our doorstep will be used to train local
people, including unemployed people from some of the poorest wards in
Wales.
Hon. Members have spoken of tying the cycling agenda to the health
agenda. Denbighshire has high obesity levels. How do we get general
practitioners to write cycling prescriptions? That has been done in
other areas, including in London—Brent and Tower Hamlets have done
it. People who suffer from diabetes, arthritis and a range of
illnesses would benefit tremendously from cycling. If cycling
prescriptions are available in Brent and Tower Hamlets—
Stephen Pound: And Ealing.
Chris Ruane: And Ealing. If it has been done in those places,
why can it not be done throughout the country? If we have fantastic
and safe facilities in my constituency, why can we not use them? They
are floodlit. We could use them for 16 hours a day.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): My hon. Friend is outlining the
need for co-operation to achieve an outcome across policy areas, from
health and local government to sport and recreation. That will be
achieved only if there is a cross-Government message from the top.
The message needs to be not only on cycling, but on sport, and on
recreational and physical activities across the board.
Chris Ruane: All hon. Members would have been sent to swimming
lessons when they attended school. Cycling lessons should be on a par
with those.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Chris Ruane: I am afraid I will not.
People are much more likely to cycle than they are to go to their
local baths. The profile of cycling therefore needs to be raised in
education, which needs leadership from the top. Departments should
talk to Departments, including the Department of Health, the
Department for Education and the Department for Transport. We could
train young people properly and to cycle safely. One idea we
discussed in recent meetings was having a
2 Sep 2013 : Column 79
safe area where people can take toddlers as young as two or three
years old to teach them how to cycle. In centres such as the one we
are developing in Rhyl, we could teach 90-year-olds to regain the
confidence to get back on their bikes. We should advocate
cradle-to-grave cycling.
A lot has been done in my constituency and a lot more needs to be
done. Cycling could transform tourism in many areas. My home town,
Rhyl, is a seaside town. The Prime Minister said a few weeks ago that
it was neglected—he has visited only once, for 10 minutes, in his
whole life. We are having £200 million-worth of investment in my
home town, including a £17 million new harbour with a £4.5 million
dedicated cycle bridge. The potential of cycling tourism is massive.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con): I agree with the hon.
Gentleman. My constituency has had Government money for our “Pedal
Peak” project. We look forward to welcoming an influx of cyclists
of all abilities who will come to enjoy the benefits of the Peak
district.
Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman is right.
We want cyclists of all abilities and ages, including the people who
learned to cycle when they were children but who have lost their
confidence. Millions of people will not go back on a bicycle because
they have lost that confidence. We have a chance of developing
throughout the country facilities such as those in my constituency to
give back that confidence.
I reflect on the terrible tragedy we experienced in 2006. It was a
bad thing that happened, but good came of it.
6.44 pm
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD): I congratulate my hon. Friend
the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this fantastic
debate. He has long been a vocal advocate of cycling, and I pay
tribute to his tireless work. I congratulate all members of the
all-party group, who have done such a fantastic job. I will not speak
for very long—I do not have long, so that is okay and I am sure
hon. Members are pleased about that. I shall emphasise the health and
economic benefits, which hon. Members have mentioned, and describe my
experience of cycling.
I used to cycle a lot when I was less well off and gave up when I
could afford a car, but I have cycled into my local town of Eastleigh
for shopping and other things. It does not feel that safe. One of my
best friends, a physicist by profession, has cycled all over the
country. His comments and knowledge are invaluable. The uncertainty
principle applies to his cycling, too.
I remember disagreeing with my daughter on whether she should wear a
helmet. Helmets are contentious. Some say that wearing a helmet is
good and some say it is bad. Whatever one’s views, one must admit
that parents, rightly or wrongly, feel their hearts in their mouths
when they see their child go out cycling. That is probably one of the
constraints on children cycling.
Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend makes an important point on
wearing cycle helmets. Independent studies have shown clearly that
wearing cycle helmets saves
2 Sep 2013 : Column 80
lives and cuts down on injuries. Last year, I called on the
Department for Transport to issue a definitive and independent report
on the benefits and costs of introducing a law requiring children to
wear cycle helmets. Would he welcome such a report?
Mike Thornton: There is a difficulty with wearing cycle
helmets. I tried to get my daughter to wear one, and she stopped
cycling. I do not know whether I did the right or wrong thing in
trying to force her to wear a helmet. I worried a bit less, but she
stopped cycling.
Ian Austin: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman says his
daughter stopped cycling when she was forced to wear a helmet,
because that is exactly what happened in Australia. When a law
requiring people to wear helmets was introduced there, cycling
numbers plummeted. We can make cycling safe by getting more people to
do it. The more people cycle, the safer it is. That is how we make
cycling safer in Britain.
Mike Thornton: I admit that I do not know the answer. My
brother came off a bicycle and was badly injured because he was not
wearing a helmet. I am in two minds about the argument, but I
understand both sides.
Chris Ruane: You’re a Liberal. What do you expect?
Mike Thornton: I am also a father and a brother, so what do
you expect?
We are fortunate in the borough of Eastleigh to have more than 44
km—30-odd miles—of dedicated cycling routes. It is difficult to
have such routes because of the criss-crossing motorways, railway
lines and watercourses. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester
(Steve Brine), my constituency neighbour, has mentioned some of the
problems. Part of the Sustrans cycle network 24 is routed directly
behind my constituency office in Leigh road—hon. Members will
remember that from a certain election. National cycle route 23, which
was also mentioned by my hon. Friend, stretches from Reading to the
Isle of Wight. National cycle route 2 runs along the coastline all
the way to St Austell in Cornwall—my hon. Friend the Member for St
Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) has left the Chamber. We are
immensely proud to have Dani King, one of our gold medal winners.
With all that, hon. Members might think that cycling in Eastleigh
would be on the up. Unfortunately, the number of people cycling to
work has continued to stick at around 2%. One would think it would be
a lot better, especially when one considers how effective the
borough’s environmental and green policies have been under the
leadership of Councillor Bloom.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): I thank the hon. Gentleman for
giving me the opportunity to intervene in this important and popular
debate. Does he agree that the link between cyclists and the public
transport network is the real issue in getting people to cycle to
work, and that we should make it easier to store bikes in places such
as railway stations? That would encourage people to link up with
public transport.
Mike Thornton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I have
noticed that it is sometimes difficult to get a bicycle on to a
train, which is a great shame. That should
2 Sep 2013 : Column 81
be encouraged as much as possible. Perhaps there should be more
areas for bicycles on trains and buses, and for locking up bicycles.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con): Will my
hon. Friend give way?
Mike Thornton: May I keep going?
We need more areas where people can leave their bicycles safely when
they go to work.
The report of the all-party group on cycling sets out perfectly why
the status quo is maintained. Nearly half of all Britons own or have
access to a bike, but we do not use them. Safety is the No. 1
concern. We are still frightened for ourselves and our children, even
if not for a rational reason. Extending 20 mph zones, as the report
proposes, is therefore extremely important.
As other hon. Members have mentioned, we need to do something about
HGVs. We cannot always blame HGVs for not seeing cyclists. We need to
ensure better visibility and sensors to minimise the risks to
cyclists, and make cyclists realise that they cannot necessarily be
seen. That is particularly difficult with children, who do not have
the same road sense as grown-ups.
Many of my constituents have told me how dangerous road surfaces are.
Trying to swerve around a pothole or street furniture can cause all
sorts of problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester mentioned
indicative lines that do not tell us anything. When one comes into
Winchester—it is outside my constituency, so I apologise—there
are some nice pictures of bicycles. One says, “Yes, that’s a
lovely picture of a bicycle. What good on earth is that doing?”
Segregated bicycle lanes, as has been mentioned, are vital.
I agree entirely that new developments should be cycle-proofed.
Cycling should be incorporated into all planning policies. When there
is a new development—we are getting one in my constituency—it
should be cycle-proofed. I think we would all agree that that will
pay for itself. The report states that cycling demonstration towns
saw a 27% increase in cycling from 2005 to 2009. The financial
benefits were estimated to be nearly £64 million, from a cost of £18
million—a particularly strong piece of evidence. The report also
shows that every pound spent on cycling can save the NHS £4—again,
economics wins the argument.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent announcement to increase
funding for cycling, but the lion’s share will go to eight select
cities, seven of which already exceed the national average for
cycling. In addition, the funding has been earmarked for only two
years. The announcement was welcome, but what about the rest of us?
My constituents in Eastleigh could do with some dosh. We need a
nationwide commitment to increase the per head cycling budget. I
think we are looking for £10 per head by 2025 and up to—what is
it?—£50. That is vital.
What I have heard today is a remarkable degree of consensus among
cycling organisations, cyclists, local authorities and hon. Members
about what needs to be done. That is extremely positive. We must
ensure that we capitalise on that and that something is done. I fully
support the motion and the report’s recommendations, and I thank
the group for its hard work.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 82
6.52 pm
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab): It is a pleasure
to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton). I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin)
and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the co-chairs of the
all-party group, of which I am a member, on the report. It is
sponsored by
The Times, which I congratulate too. I should
declare that
The Times is still in Wapping in my constituency,
so there is a little bit of self-interest there. Other national
newspapers—
The Guardian and
The Independent—have
been trying to catch up and are supporting the campaign. My comments
will be made as a Londoner and as a London cyclist, and will not
necessarily reflect issues in other parts of the country.
I invited my constituents, through the social media of Twitter,
Facebook and the
East London Advertiser,to contribute to the
debate by raising issues that they thought I might want to mention. I
was staggered by the response—more than 50 people e-mailed or
tweeted issues that are of importance to them. I am very limited for
time and cannot name them all, but I will list some of them. Before
doing that, I want to thank the cycle firms in my constituency, in
particular Bikeworks, a social entrepreneurial group that does great
work and made a running repair to my bike in half an hour last
Wednesday morning to get me back on the road, and also Halfords and
Evans, which are national organisations that support cycling in Tower
Hamlets and in the community.
I will run through the list of issues raised by my constituents:
keeping cycle routes clear when there are roadworks and parking
problems; cycle superhighways not being up to the necessary
standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow
(Rushanara Ali) raised the incident of the Aldgate East fatality—with
just a coat of paint on a road and nothing more; and lower speed
limits, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley
North. Cycle training and education in schools was mentioned by
several hon. Members. That is critical. I am doing an Industry and
Parliament Trust Fellowship on logistics. I spent some time with TNT,
which trains its postal delivery people to ride bikes. When they have
down time, they partner local schools to train the kids there. If TNT
can do it, the question to the Minister is this: is Royal Mail doing
it? There must be other companies out there that could contribute,
too.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): Royal Mail is doing that. It
has a cycle workshop in my constituency, which maintains 500 bicycles
used by the Royal Mail in the Greater York area.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the extra
time he has given me; I knew that somebody would respond positively
on behalf of Royal Mail.
Questions have been raised about HGVs and the fear factor, a road
deaths investigation board and improved statistics on serious
injuries and fatalities. The Home Office and the Department for
Transport have always resisted a fatalities inquiry board for road
traffic fatalities because there are just too many of them, but we
have to raise the bar and look more seriously at investigating more
thoroughly the fatalities on our roads.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 83
Other issues raised include: congestion charging and road closures to
force traffic to surrender more space to cyclists; advanced stop
areas; earlier green lights for cyclists; blitz enforcement of
transgressors—whether car drivers or cyclists—in advance areas;
cycle storage; and mandatory helmets. I know that many people are
opposed to making helmets mandatory. I am in favour, but it is not
going to happen. The evidence against it coming from Australia and
America is somewhat time-limited. If we get our kids using helmets in
schools, they will graduate into wearing them.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): No one who is favour of
cycling should be against encouraging people to wear helmets, but
will my hon. Friend accept that the overwhelming evidence—not just
in Australia, but from all over the world—is that where cycle
helmets have been made compulsory the impact on cycling has been
negative, and therefore the overall public health impact has been
negative?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I hear what my right hon. Friend says and
there is a cultural question here. I am sure we all watched the 100th
Tour de France this year. All the way down the decades of historic
footage, none of the cyclists were wearing helmets. Every Tour de
France rider now wears a helmet. That is professional leadership.
They are in the game of minimising and mitigating risk, and they give
a lead to all cyclists.
Dr Huppert rose—
Jim Fitzpatrick: If I have time at the end I will certainly
give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to get through the points
raised by my constituents.
The last two negatives raised related to fatalities and punishment to
fit the crime. We all hear tragic stories from constituents about
punishments that do not fit the crime. On the conversion of wider
pavements, Boris Johnson certainly has that in London, particularly
on the Embankment.
What I find fascinating is the counter-culture that comes through
from my cyclist constituents. They complained about bad cycling
behaviour and said that the cycle demographic in our country is
mainly young, white, aggressive and male. That is why we do not “go
Dutch” and why many people are put off cycling: they see a race
track and do not want to join it. We need to address that problem,
and the only way we are going to do so is through enforcement against
those who cross red lights and pedestrian crossings.
People complained about cyclists who disregard the rules by wearing
earphones; running red lights; crashing pedestrian crossings; not
signalling whether they are turning left or right; not warning when
they are overtaking; riding on pavements; using mobile phones;
speeding on the Thames path; not ringing to alert pedestrians or
other cyclists that they are overtaking on tow paths; swearing at
pedestrians—some cyclists, like some drivers, think that they are
entitled to a free run at the road; not dismounting in foot tunnels;
not having lights; not having bells and not wearing high-visibility
clothing. Cyclists are not perfect. We have to give a lead to
2 Sep 2013 : Column 84
cyclists to say, “We should show a better example in the way we
behave, to ensure that drivers behave in the way we want them to.”
In conclusion, my wife Sheila and I visited Amsterdam and Copenhagen
recently. There is less racing, more sensible cycling and a much
wider demographic; there is a different culture. We must have that
more varied cycling demographic in our country. My hon. Friend the
shadow Secretary of State recently asked two questions of the
Government. First, why do we have annual road and rail budgets to
2021, but not one for cycling? Secondly, why do we not have cycle
safety assessments, similar to economic and equality impact
assessments, for all road schemes?
My final question is about something that is raised in the report—I
am not quite clear about the Government’s response—which said
that we should have champions.
Dr Huppert: The issue with cycle helmets is that although they
might save some lives, the countervailing loss of life from people
not cycling and being less fit massively outweighs that. Indeed, one
academic analysis suggested an extra 250 or so deaths a year net.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for that intervention. That
discussion needs to be had, and I am happy to ensure that we are
raising it tonight.
My final question to the Minister is this. The report says that we
should have national, regional and city champions. It is not clear
from the Government’s response whether he is the national champion
or not. If he is not, he should be. When will he recruit his regional
and city-wide teams?
7.1 pm
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): First, the good news: if
people start cycling in middle age, they will have a fitness level
that makes them effectively 10 years younger. Hon. Members should
think what that would achieve for everybody in the Chamber. Not only
that, but the life expectancy of those people will increase by two
years, so the benefits-to-risk ratio is around 20:1. Therefore,
whatever else happens in this debate and our discussions about
reducing the risks and improving the safety of cyclists, let us not
forget the benefit and the joy of cycling, and persuade as many
people as possible to get cycling.
If we are to get Britain cycling, we have to consider the persuasive
arguments and the benefits. For instance, problems with obesity are
currently costing the NHS around £5 billion a year. Even if cycling
does not necessarily make people skinny—I am speaking from personal
experience—it is better to be fit and a little bit flabby than not
fit and a little bit flabby. However, this is not just about the
physical health benefits; it is also about mental health benefits and
the effects that have been shown on brain ageing among people who
manage to keep fit. The health economic assessment tool, or HEAT,
which is adopted by the World Health Organisation, shows a £4
benefit for every £1 spent. Will the Minister say in his response
whether such an assessment has been made for, say, High Speed 2? I
cannot help thinking that we would leave a far happier, more lasting
and healthier legacy for Britain if we spent just a fraction of what
we are spending on HS2 on this issue—or possibly even on both.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 85
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con): I am listening
carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. What she said about the
miracle improvements to one’s health is fascinating. A lot of money
will be spent in the conurbations and in London, but does she agree
that it is important that rural areas are not neglected in the great
drive to get more people cycling? Does she also agree that cyclists
are obviously at a big disadvantage on small rural lanes? We need
more rural speed limits and more investment in safer highways in
rural areas.
Dr Wollaston: I thank my hon. Friend. Rural speed limits are
important. In fact, the introduction of networks of 40 mph speed
limits on rural roads had a great benefit in Holland. There is a lot
of evidence to support their use, but this is about money. I welcome
the £10 a head in the eight cities that will benefit and the
spending in, for example, the Dartmoor national park in my part of
the world, but that is not what the report called for. Our report
called for £10 a head nationally and for us to think of the
benefits—a real, lasting legacy—that that could achieve.
However, this is also about speed, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Let
us look at the benefits we would see if we had 20 mph speed limits in
urban areas. Too often, highways departments look at accident data
before making decisions about speed limits. However, we all know that
parents will not let their children cycle in the first place if they
do not feel they are safe, and the perception of safety is strongly
linked to the speed at which the traffic is travelling. We should
look at speed limits across the board. I recently visited Falcon Park
in Torbay, which is a park home development with many elderly
residents who cannot walk down the road, let alone cross it, because
of high-speed traffic. In any other residential area, the speed limit
would have been reduced to 30 mph.
This is not only about 20 mph limits in towns and cities on a network
of roads; it is about reducing speed across the board and assessing
our priorities. Whom do we prioritise? Are we prioritising vulnerable
road users like pedestrians and cyclists, or are we prioritising the
motorist and speed? We need to change our priorities completely to
achieve that. It does not take a great deal of money to reduce speed
limits—everyone recognises that there is a financial imperative—but
the issue is not just reducing the speed limit, but enforcing it. We
heard shocking evidence in our inquiry about a level of complacency
towards enforcement. What discussions have taken place across
Departments to ensure that welcome changes in the issuing of fixed
penalty notices for careless driving will be extended to penalising
people who breach speed limits directly? It is immediate consequences
that will drive change.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): I am sure that,
like me, my hon. Friend is delighted to see the Government Chief Whip
in his place. He must be the grandfather of parliamentary cycling. On
enforcement, does she agree that although motorists should absolutely
do the right thing and obey the rules, it is also incumbent on
cyclists to obey rules, and that a small minority of cyclists give
most cyclists a bad name on occasion by not obeying The Highway Code?
2 Sep 2013 : Column 86
Dr Wollaston: I certainly agree with that. Indeed, if hon.
Members want to see evidence of how cycling makes people look 10
years younger, they only have to look at the Chief Whip.
[Laughter.]
[Hon. Members: “He’s only 80!] He does not look a day over 80.
Of course segregated cycling routes are the best option, and of
course they are expensive, but sometimes they are not as expensive as
they look. In many areas we see examples of small groups of
individuals being allowed to stand in the way of low-cost options to
create off-road routes. We need to get to grips with that.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Will my hon.
Friend give way?
Dr Wollaston: I am sorry, but if my hon. Friend will forgive
me, I have taken two interventions.
In my area, the South Devon Railway, which was given a bridge that
was built half with public money, has treated the River Dart as
though it were some kind of moat and has prevented the sharing of
that bridge. Such situations are simply unacceptable. That bridge
must be the only one in Devon that keeps communities apart rather
than brings them together. I call on the South Devon Railway and
those involved in all such examples around the country to recognise
that they have an opportunity to increase the sum of human happiness.
In Totnes, the South Devon Railway has an opportunity to create a
link that would join up the national cycle network and, in so doing,
increase the footfall for its business. I think we all recognise that
cycling has enormous benefits beyond health, with economic benefits
for communities. I hope that the South Devon Railway will listen to
this debate and take a generous step forward by helping us to create
that link.
I would like to deal briefly with the issue of cycle helmets, which
has been brought up today. I agree with the right hon. Member for
Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) that the trouble with making them compulsory
would be a net reduction in cycling. Of course, it is sensible for
anyone who has a helmet to wear it, but what would happen to the
wonderful Boris bikes scheme in London if we made the wearing of them
compulsory? No one would use it. Yes, if people have a helmet, they
should wear it, but they should not be put off if they do not. Most
important, they should not feel that they need special kit. Cycling
is for everyone. The statistics show that it will make us live longer
and be happier, so let us remember the joys of cycling. Let us get
Britain cycling and find the money to make that happen.
7.10 pm
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): As a previous chairman of the
all-party parliamentary cycling group, in what seems like the distant
past of the 1997 Parliament, I am delighted by the profile that
cycling has gained in the past 16 years. I believe that this is the
best-attended debate on cycling that the House has ever had, and I
understand that, outside this place, we are witnessing the biggest
ever pro-cycling demonstration that this country has ever seen.
I have always cycled. As a youngster, my bike gave me independence
and the freedom to roam. I cycled to school, I have always cycled to
work and I use my bike daily in Exeter and in London. It is simply
the best form
2 Sep 2013 : Column 87
of transport. When asked why I am still slim at 53, when I eat so
much, I tell people that the answer is simple: my bike. My elderly
Dawes Audax is the most important thing in my life, except—I should
add, as he is outside with the demonstrators—my husband.
When I first worked in London in 1991, I cycled to work because it
was the quickest and most reliable way to get there. It helped to
keep me fit and to keep my carbon emissions down, but I felt like a
bit of a freak. It was a very unusual thing to do. I remember
fighting in this place during the 1997 Parliament for a single cycle
route through Kensington Gardens. It was a hard battle, but we won.
When I suggested to my local authority in Exeter that it should apply
to the then Labour Government to be one of their cycle demonstration
towns, I was told, “You won’t get anyone cycling here, it’s too
hilly.” Well, Exeter did apply, and we got the extra investment.
Between 2006 and 2011, cycling rates in Exeter rose by a fantastic
50%.
Stephen Pound: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, were his
council to introduce a 20 mph speed limit, there could be even more
dramatic improvements?
Mr Bradshaw: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. There is
actually a 20 mph limit through much of Exeter, but the problem is
that the Conservative county council and, I have to say, Devon and
Cornwall police, do not enforce it. This problem has already been
raised by several Members, and it needs to be stressed further. It is
vital to have 20 mph limits, but they must be enforced.
Not only has cycling increased by 50% in Exeter, but more than 20% of
school children there now cycle to school, whereas hardly any did
before. In London, too, the situation has been transformed. Thanks to
the congestion charge and other policies initiated by Ken
Livingstone, there has also been a cycling revolution here. It warms
my heart to see banks of cyclists at all the main junctions at
commuting time, particularly young women and even parents with child
seats and trailers. However—and this is the hub of the report we
are debating today—in spite of the progress that we have made in
the past 16 years or so, we are still far behind the best practice of
the rest of northern Europe, and without sustained investment and
political leadership from the top, we will never catch up.
I am delighted that the Labour party has today launched its Labour
for Cycling campaign. I hope that those on my Front Bench will sign
up fully to implement the recommendations in our report, but we need
the Government to act as well. Without that, we will not see the
growth in cycling of recent years sustained; nor will we see a
reversal of the worrying recent trend of increased cyclist deaths and
injuries on our roads.
I am pleased with some of the things that the Government have
announced and done. The recent commitment to supporting cycling in a
number of selected towns and cities is welcome, but it is basically a
smaller-scale version of Labour’s cycle demonstration towns
programme, and instead of happening in a few places, it should be
happening everywhere. It would take only a fraction of the annual
roads budget to achieve that. I would also like to know why the
scheme was available only in
2 Sep 2013 : Column 88
places that were already part of the Government’s separate city
deal programme. That ruled out cities such as Exeter from applying,
which means that now, under this Government, only a quarter of the
amount of money is being invested in cycling in Exeter than was the
case when Labour was in power.
I deeply regret the abolition of Cycling England, and I believe that
the Government do, too. It was the body that drew all the disparate
cycling organisations together and it was a vital co-ordinating voice
and deliverer of policy. I also think that the Government were
fatally mistaken to go soft on road safety, in abandoning Labour’s
road death reduction targets and declaring their ridiculous war on
speed cameras.
I am encouraged that the noises coming out of the Government more
recently on road safety have been more sensible, but I am still
concerned that they are not speaking with one voice. If they are
serious about cycling, why are they allowing the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government to make the ludicrous suggestion
that vehicles should enjoy a free-for-all by parking on double yellow
lines, without even mentioning the impact that that would have on
cyclists, pedestrians and road safety? The Secretary of State went on
to say that the only people who were bothered about cycling were the
“elite”. I do not know whether his animus towards cycling is a
result of some deep Freudian consciousness that he is probably the
Cabinet member who would benefit the most from cycling’s
health-giving and girth-narrowing magic, but his comments are
signally unhelpful and they should not go unchallenged if the
Government are really serious about cycling.
Steve Brine: Does that not underline the point that we made in
our report about the need for a national cycling champion with
real—dare I say it—weight behind him, to force the right way of
thinking through every level of Government?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, and the hon. Gentleman might even be that
person in the future. He is absolutely right. During the hearings, I
told the inquiry that when I was a Minister, the only time we really
got pedalling on this issue, to excuse the pun, was when the
Secretaries of State in the Department of Health, the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office and the Department for
Transport—all the important Departments —were committed to it and
were working together to make things happen. Otherwise, nothing would
happen.
That leads me to my final point. Time and again, when our Committee
was taking evidence on cycling, our witnesses came back to the
importance of long-term, sustained investment and joined-up political
leadership. We need more than a Prime Minister who cycles to work for
a photo opportunity while his limo drives behind him with his papers.
We need a Prime Minister, and the whole Government from him down, who
will make it clear that cycling is a priority across Government. It
is cheap, and it will save lives, improve health and boost
productivity. It will also reduce congestion, air pollution and
carbon emissions. This is a no-brainer, and the infinitesimal cost of
doing it would be more than recouped in the form of a happier,
healthier, safer, greener, cleaner, thinner and more productive
nation in a very short time indeed.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 89
7.17 pm
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con): First, I should like to
congratulate the all-party parliamentary cycling group on its report.
I have to acknowledge a slight sense of guilt, as I should be a fully
paid-up member of the group. I shall try to rectify that afterwards.
I fully support its broad aims and the ambitions of the
recommendations set out in the report. It is good to see cycling
being debated and very much on the agenda.
Cycling has many virtues. It has health benefits, it is sustainable
and environmentally friendly, it has many economic benefits and it is
a wonderful social activity. Quite simply, it is an effective means
of transport. It is encouraging to see the Government taking a
greater interest in cycling, getting involved in the debate and
putting some funding into cycling.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): I support what my hon.
Friend is saying. The Government have put funds into a cycling bridge
over the River Thames in my constituency, but the big problem is that
the local authority does not join up the cycle networks. It thinks
that simply putting white paint on the roads is enough to create safe
cycleways, but that is not good enough.
John Stevenson: Indeed. We should remember that this is not
just about funding coming from the centre; we should not always be
looking to central Government to take the lead. Local government also
has a critical role to play, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out.
Its activities can encourage or discourage cyclists, and the
resources that it is willing to provide are important. Local
authorities can provide innovation and leadership in their own
communities to improve the opportunities for cycling.
Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend support the massive
transformation that has happened in my North West Leicestershire
constituency, where redundant coal mines have been transformed into
part of the new national forest and are criss-crossed by numerous
well-used and attractive cycle paths, particularly the Hicks Lodge
national forest cycle centre, which allows thousands of families to
have traffic-free cycling each year?
John Stevenson: It is good to know that these things are
happening, and it demonstrates the role for both national and local
government in improving cycling.
I would describe myself as an irregular but enthusiastic cyclist with
a tendency to go for the long cycles rather than the daily commute.
Prior to the general election of 2010, I made a pledge to my local
constituents that if I were elected, I would cycle from my
constituency to London. After being elected, the very first question
I received from a reporter was, “And when do you intend to cycle to
London?” I finally carried out that cycle, and this year I took an
even longer cycling trip from Land’s End to John O’ Groats. On
both those trips, the experience was very good. I got a bit fitter,
lost a little weight and found it to be a great social activity,
doing it with friends. It is a great way to see the diversity of our
own country and, indeed, to raise a little money for charity along
the way.
I want to make two serious observations coming out of those two cycle
trips. First, there were potholes everywhere, and it would be helpful
if local governments
2 Sep 2013 : Column 90
could do their best to try to rectify that, which makes it so
difficult for cyclists. Secondly, I have mixed views on fellow
drivers when cycling along the roads. I shall come on to that later.
I appreciate that many Members will speak about the report, its views
and its recommendations, but I want to make two specific observations
and suggestions, both of which will, I suspect, be highly
controversial. First, cyclists must take responsibility for their own
safety. We must ride our bikes sensibly and appropriately. It is
vital for cyclists to respect other road users, especially cars and
lorries, as well as pedestrians and other cyclists. I also believe
that we cyclists should wear a helmet.
On that last point, I would go further. Some have campaigned to make
it compulsory for children to wear helmets. I believe that that
should be extended to everyone: everyone who uses a bike should use a
helmet. If adults are seen to wear helmets, that will encourage
children to do so, but I see no reason why that should not be made
compulsory in the interests of safety. I appreciate that there are
counter-arguments and that some take the view that it would reduce
the number of people taking up cycling. I am of the view that safety
is important and that, gradually, the opposition to wearing helmets
would be overcome as people get used to the idea. We have all got
used to wearing safety belts in cars and helmets on motorbikes.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con): Does my hon. Friend
agree that it would be a good idea to encourage training for children
in schools to encourage cycle riding and explain how best to be safe
on the roads? Even if the children were not to go on to cycle or
drive cars themselves, it would still teach about the risks of poor
or dangerous cycling while cars are on the road. Would my hon. Friend
encourage such teaching in schools?
John Stevenson: Absolutely; I completely concur.
My second point, which I think will be seen as equally controversial,
is that I am not convinced by the arguments about speed limits,
enforcement or the education of drivers. Yes, it may be a laudable
aim, but I question whether enough drivers would pay attention to
those speed limits in practice, which would be necessary to make
cycling a much safer occupation or leisure activity. I fully accept
that many drivers are responsible and take care when cyclists are
around. They drive appropriately and safely, keeping their distance,
slowing down, giving cyclists a wide berth and so forth. On my
cycling trips, I noted many car drivers who did precisely that,
taking their time and being patient with cyclists. Equally, however,
a large number of drivers think cyclists are a nuisance on the road,
so they drive too close or too fast and endanger cyclists. From my
experience, that is far more common than we would like to think.
I therefore believe that there should be a simple change in the law.
In the event of an accident, there should be a presumption in favour
of the cyclist over the driver. Clearly, any driver of a car has the
right to rebut such a claim and we have to accept that there are
irresponsible cyclists who take inappropriate care and attention when
they cycle. However, I believe that such a change in the law would
mean that car drivers, lorry drivers and other motorists would take
far greater care and would make every effort to keep their distance
from
2 Sep 2013 : Column 91
a cyclist. All of a sudden, cyclists would become road users of
whom motorists would have to be very careful and wary, as their
insurance claims could be affected and there would be the potential
for criminality. Such a presumption is, in fact, accepted in some
European countries, and I see no reason why it could not be
introduced in this country.
If we want to reduce the number of accidents, we need to alter the
approach that many drivers have to cyclists. We have to get to the
stage where cycling is seen as safe, and I believe that the only way
to do that is to make car drivers far more aware of the dangers of
hitting, affecting or coming into contact with cyclists. If we want
to make cycling safe and therefore encourage others to start cycling,
we have to change the relationship between the driver and the
cyclist. With those two simple changes to the law, we could
effectively do that; cyclists would be encouraged to cycle safely by
wearing a helmet, and they would be given confidence in the fact that
drivers would be taking far more care when they pass them on the
road.
I congratulate the all-party group once more on its report. It will
be interesting to see whether it will take up the two ideas that I
have set out.
7.25 pm
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab): I am pleased to follow my
right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). I thank the
all-party parliamentary cycling group for this excellent report and
for securing this debate.
I am speaking in this debate not just because many of my constituents
have urged me to take part, but because I believe I bring a
particular perspective to it as a recent convert to cycling. Hon.
Friends have advised me that the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr
Wollaston) might have had to inform me in advance that she was going
to describe me in the Chamber—as middle-aged, overweight and
desperately attempting to get back in shape. That is, indeed, one of
the reasons why I took up cycling.
As the report says,
“Britain
needs to re-learn how to cycle.”
That is exactly what I have been doing, by cycling on holiday in
Holland. I have holidayed with my family in Holland for the last five
years, and learned much more about cycling for leisure purposes. That
has encouraged me, but before I started cycling again, I must admit
that I shared the disregard for cyclists that many people have. It
was a wholly inappropriate view, but I admit to having had it. The
report makes it clear that we need to change our attitudes towards
cyclists, and I am one of those who was guilty of needing to do so
before I started cycling again.
I will not rehearse all the arguments about why it is beneficial to
cycle in Holland or issues relating to segregation, prioritising
cyclists and all the rest of it. Another important point—my hon.
Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) referred to this—is
that many more cyclists in Holland are also drivers, and many more
drivers are also cyclists. Much greater priority is therefore given
to cyclists.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 92
Mr Bellingham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Holland.
Indeed, I have holidayed there many times, too. Local councils there
are very much aware of the need to ensure that new schemes are
cycle-friendly. Is he aware that in some areas, including mine, there
are problems where community infrastructure funding schemes? These
can result in very safe school cycling routes being converted into a
dedicated bus route, with no alternative cycle route being put in
place. Does he agree that when these community infrastructure funding
schemes are put in place, alternative like-for-like cycle-friendly
arrangements should be made?
Simon Danczuk: That is an excellent point, and it leads on to
my next one. I have been cycling in the United Kingdom, primarily in
Rochdale, for just six months now, and I have encountered many good
examples of provision for cycling. The Rochdale canal, for example,
has a great cycling path, but even that can be seen to be falling
into disrepair. The work was done some years ago and needs re-doing.
Kingsway business park, a new development, caters very well for
cyclists, but not all new schemes have cycling provision designed
into them. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need
for that to happen.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): My hon. Friend is
making a powerful case for action of the sort that has already made a
real difference in my community. Our Waltham Forest cycling campaign,
and work done by the local authority under the leadership of
Councillor Clyde Loakes, have given cyclists an insight into what
makes for a good system, and as a result they have been able to give
feedback to the council. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should
learn at a national level from such partnerships between local
community cycling groups and councils?
Simon Danczuk: My hon. Friend is right, and I agree with my
right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that we need to discuss with
local authorities, in consultation with cyclists and other road
users, how better road layouts and better systems for cyclists can be
designed in our towns and cities. That is crucial, because there is
still a long way to go, certainly in places such as Rochdale.
Unlike the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), I hold local
councillors in high esteem, and I have good things to say about them.
There has been much talk in the report and in the Chamber about the
need for political leadership on cycling, and that is exactly right.
Let me now put on record something that I have never put on record
before: a Liberal Democrat councillor in Rochdale has done an
excellent job in championing cycling. [Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”]
I will not withdraw that remark. Councillor Wera Hobhouse really
pushed the boundaries in persuading the local authority to do more
for cycling in Rochdale, and that does credit to her. She is still a
councillor, but is no longer in a position of power. We need such
local champions, as well as national champions. We need political
leadership to ensure that cycling is given a fair shout at a local
level.
I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group, and strongly
support the campaign that it has initiated.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 93
7.31 pm
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): One of the objectives of today’s
debate is to increase the proportion of journeys that are made by
bike, and to persuade people to use their bikes more regularly. That
makes me part of the target market. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member
for Carlisle (John Stevenson), I am not a regular cyclist. I would
describe myself as a fair-weather cyclist who cycles infrequently on
country lanes for the purpose of exercise or enjoyment.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): Let me make this announcement
immediately: I am going to dust off my old bike and get cycling. That
will help me to live for two more years.
Mark Pawsey: The debate has already achieved part of its
objective, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a new cyclist on our
Benches. However, if we are fully to realise the objectives set out
in the motion, people like me must be encouraged to ride their bikes
more.
The inspiration that led me to use my bicycle more came during the
recess. A couple of weeks ago, on a Thursday, I read an article in
The Times by Dame Kelly Holmes, encouraging Members of
Parliament to ride our bikes before participating in the debate. I
had intended to drive the six miles or so from my home to the
constituency office, but that day I decided to cycle. I should add
that the weather was very good during August, and that the sunshine
made my decision a great deal easier.
I have a number of observations to make following that experience.
Travelling down Dunchurch road in Rugby in a cycle lane, I noticed
that other cyclists were still on the road. I asked myself why those
guys were still on the road when I was going down the cycle lane,
which is half on the footpath. Then I realised that there were “Give
way” lines on the side roads, and that I was having to give way to
the cars that were coming out of them. Had I been on the road, I
would not have had that problem. The other cyclists were making much
faster progress than I was. Perhaps the Minister will explain why
cars coming out of a side road have priority over the cyclists on a
cycle way.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): Could local
authorities perhaps be given more discretion to depart from national
guidance and come up with imaginative solutions that will work in
their own areas?
Mark Pawsey: I should certainly like cyclists to be given more
encouragement to use cycle ways when they are provided.
I encountered another problem on that occasion. I had some
constituency duties to fulfil. It was a warm day, and it occurred to
me that I ought to carry an extra shirt, so I put one in a rucksack
which I carried on my back. I still arrived soaked in sweat, not
looking much like a Member of Parliament. I tweeted about the
experience and received some useful advice on Twitter, namely that I
should put some panniers on my bike so that I need not stick a
rucksack on my back which would make my back wet. I now know that if
I am to use my bike regularly, I shall need to invest in some
panniers.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 94
I also found that, in many instances, the cycle way was in pretty
poor condition, with very unclear markings. It had probably been
constructed three or four years earlier. Local authorities need to
invest in ensuring that the markings on cycle ways are clear. On more
than one occasion, overgrown trees rendered the cycle way useless and
forced me out on to the road.
One or two Members have mentioned vehicles parked in cycle ways.
Again on more than one occasion, I was forced on to the road by an
illegally parked car or van. I agree with what has been said about
the need for flexibility on the part of car users who are currently
causing difficulties for cyclists.
I took my life in my hands on a slip road on a dual carriageway.
There was fast traffic to my right, and as I progressed along to the
slip road, to my left, coming up on the inside. Fortunately it was a
quiet day, but I should hate to be on that road in different
circumstances. Provision should be made for cyclists on slip roads
off dual carriageways. I also felt very uncomfortable on roundabouts,
which I know have caused concern to the all-party group. I hope that
the debate will result in better designed road schemes that make
allowances for cyclists.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con): Will my
hon. Friend give way?
Mark Pawsey: I have already given way twice, so I shall
continue, if I may.
There has been some discussion today about the use of helmets. I made
my decision about whether to wear one when I hired a bike in the Lake
district. When I told the young gentleman who served me that I should
be more than happy not to bother with a helmet, he said “Sir, how
many brains have you got?” I know that there is a Member who goes
by the nickname “Two Brains”, but it is not me, and I found the
sales assistant’s case very persuasive.
If we are to make progress towards achieving the aims of this debate,
the targets should be not people making my journey of six miles or
so, but people making journeys of up to three miles in towns such as
the one that I represent. It is far too easy, indeed instinctive, for
people who need to travel from a suburb such as Hillmorton or Bilton
to the centre of Rugby—a journey of no more than a couple of
yards—to get into their cars. Those are the people whom the cycling
campaign needs to target. We have already heard about the health and
cost benefits that accrue to those who decide to cycle, and the
benefits to the environment if more people do so more generally.
Planning has also been mentioned. Rugby borough council has launched
a green travel plan. During the recess, I visited a business that had
been forced by the plan to include a cycle shed in the development
that it had built recently, but regrettably there was not a single
bike in it. It is clear that the policies need to be “joined up”.
There are, however, some fantastic cycle ways in my constituency.
Last Thursday, the mayor officially reopened a 173-year-old railway
viaduct that had previously been derelict. It had been 60 years since
trains last travelled on the route. It was opened by Sustrans, using
a grant from the Big Lottery Fund, as a new cycle way linking
2 Sep 2013 : Column 95
northern parts of the town to the railway station and town centre.
That is a fantastic initiative that supports Rugby’s regeneration
strategy, and I am sure that the route will be used by many more
cyclists.
We have heard about cyclists sharing their road space with other
users, and in particular about the problems created by heavy goods
vehicles. One Member asked whether something could be done about
them. Their impact on cyclists is taken seriously by the logistics
industry and the country. I draw the attention of hon. Members to
Cemex, a company in my constituency that ships cement around the
country. At last year’s Conservative party conference—I hope it
was at other conferences, too—Cemex parked one of its vehicles and
allowed people to get into the cab so that they could see exactly the
blind spot that lorry drivers suffer from when driving. I hope that
more and more logistics companies will do precisely that; another one
did it at a fête I attended.
I thank the all-party group for bringing about this debate and I look
forward to progress on cycling in the years to come.
7.40 pm
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): I, too, congratulate the
hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and my hon. Friend the Member
for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on all their work in the all-party
group. I also congratulate my constituent Adam Coffman on all he has
done to raise the issue of cycling in our national life. In these
debates it is easy to get a sense that people are paying lip service
to cycling, but the profound and cultural change we need in this
country has not yet happened and now has to arrive. It is important
that we recognise that the debate about cycling, certainly here in
London, is being had against the backdrop of people having to wrestle
with issues of not only quality of life, but the cost of
living—petrol prices, transport costs, and rises in bus and tube
fares. Transport costs beyond London mean that people want cycling to
be a serious option.
For many of the reasons hon. Members have raised, and for some that I
will touch on, cycling does not feel like a realistic option. I think
that hon. Members want the Government to get behind the vision behind
this report to make it one. We need long-term commitments and aims,
not simply the short-term and headline-grabbing initiatives we have
had in the past. The target of a 10% modal share for cycling by 2025
is good, but that will not happen by itself. Shockingly, just 6% of
people in Britain cycle for more than 30 minutes once a week and only
2% use a bike to get to work.
Hon. Members will recall that, sadly, the Labour party lost the
election in 2010. It has been said about Ministers, “You know
you’re no longer a Minister when you get into the back of a car and
it does not start.” I found myself in that situation, but at that
point, when I was 30-whatever, I was not a driver. When I hit 40, I
decided that I would learn to drive and I could be found driving up
Barnet high road trying to do so. On my third attempt, I recently got
my driving licence—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.] But I hate
driving, and I have not really been back in a car since.
What I like doing is cycling. I, too, took my family to Holland this
summer on a cycling holiday. I took a five-year-old and a
seven-year-old, and we did about
2 Sep 2013 : Column 96
80 km in 10 days. I do not think I could do that in this country.
I certainly do not think I could do it easily in London, because I
simply would not feel secure enough about the safety of a
five-year-old and a seven-year-old on their bikes on the cycleways.
Parents up and down the country want this report to be taken
seriously, because they want to see their children cycling.
Nobody has touched on this next point, but I am concerned that the
cycling proficiency training, which many hon. Members will recall
from when they were younger, seems to be patchy across the country;
it varies from school to school, and from local authority to local
authority. We have raised this debate about helmets, but we also have
to invest in proper cycling proficiency training if we want cycling
to increase among young people.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con): Will the
right hon. Gentleman accept from me that one superb way of commencing
on the cycling pathway is to have an electric bicycle? I have one and
they are a wonderful way of commencing cycling and getting people
interested in it. They have not received much attention in this
debate until now, but I urge him to plug the advantages and merits of
electric bikes.
Mr Lammy: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very good
point. I knew nothing about electric bikes until I saw some in
Holland just a few days ago. I thought that perhaps I should get one,
but as I want to get rid of this girth I decided against it.
Nicola Blackwood: I wish to take the right hon. Gentleman back
to his point about cycling proficiency. Would another point of
transition for introducing cycling proficiency be when young people
go to university, when they often get back on bikes having not been
on them since they were young children? That can lead to dangerous
situations and, often, to road deaths.
Mr Lammy: The hon. Lady makes a good point. Those people are
getting on bikes for cost-saving reasons, but they are doing so in
towns and cities, where the prioritisation we need on cycling is not
there. The resulting deaths and serious injuries should be of great
concern.
Nearly half of all car journeys made in London are fewer than 2 miles
long. That is an easily bikeable distance, so we have to ask why so
many people are not choosing to bike. As the hon. Lady indicated, in
London alone more than 500 cyclists were seriously injured in just
one year, which is a rise of 22% on the previous year’s figure. It
is right that the current Mayor has done much to encourage cycling in
London, and he should be congratulated on getting behind cycling. His
appointment of a cycling tsar has also been very important, but
targets for reducing cycle casualties have been consistently missed.
The number of cycling casualties in London has increased every year
since 2008, which is only partly explained by the cycling
participation rates. Nationally, 122 cyclists were killed on British
roads last year. So road accidents are still proportionately
involving cycling, despite the incidence of other road accidents
falling. That issue has to be addressed and it can be done only if we
challenge the culture of cycling and do not have a
2 Sep 2013 : Column 97
transport policy that sometimes feels like just a motorists’
policy. We need a policy that is prepared to put both pedestrians and
cyclists alongside motorists.
Remarks have been made about the share of investment in cycling.
Those remarks need to be taken seriously if we are to get the shift
that the Minister has said he wants and that I suspect he will say he
wants, as it feels a long way off for those of us who want cycling to
get up to where it needs to be. Investment and participation
campaigns are crucial, but they will go only so far. Ministers must
treat British roads as existing not just for cars, but for cyclists.
Much greater priority also needs to be put on safety, which means
proper investment in cycling paths, borough to borough, road to road,
and new radical solutions that promote cycling.
I welcome this debate, although it is only really the very beginning
on this subject. I hope that the House will return to it, but I hope
that we will see the step change that we need in this country over
the coming months.
7.48 pm
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): It is a pleasure to speak
after the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I applaud this
debate and this outstanding report by the all-party group, and I
applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the
hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). A number of colleagues who
have been here much longer than I have mentioned how well attended
this debate is. Since then, about 15 or 20 hon. Members have left the
Chamber and will be back later. Despite that, seeing the number of
people still in the Chamber, I would guess that it is probably double
the number of Members who would have attended only five years ago and
probably triple the number who would have attended 10 years ago. That
shows the enormous strides that have been made in the cycling debate
over the past few years. I support that agenda for a number of key
reasons.
The first is the business case. In Eastbourne, we have a strong
cycling group called Bespoke, which is tremendously enthused and
involved in driving the cycling agenda in the town. I support that.
Eastbourne is a wonderful seaside town that has bucked the economic
trend over the past few years, with unemployment going down,
apprenticeships going up and regeneration in the town centre through
£70 million of private spend. I am keen to drive that agenda using
cycling, because, like many other parts of the UK and along its
coastline, Eastbourne is a lovely place for a cycling holiday. The
right hon. Member for Tottenham mentioned going to Holland with his
family and I went there myself only a few months ago. He is right
that the level of cycling and the safety there are astounding,
because, obviously, it has been part of the culture for 40 years. We
are catching up, but I am convinced that as we drive the cycling
agenda in towns such as Eastbourne—getting more families and
tourists in as we improve the cycle paths—it will make a
substantial difference to their economic turnover.
Nationally, we have gross cycling product of about £2.9 billion and
3.7 million bikes are sold in the UK, a 28% increase on last year.
Some 23,000 people are employed directly in cycling in the UK.
Cycling offers a major and substantial benefit to UK plc, but that is
just
2 Sep 2013 : Column 98
the tip of the iceberg. The number of people in the House today
and the report demonstrate that the UK is going in the right
direction on the cycling agenda in a range of areas, including
health, business and carbon emissions. We have a way to go but the
starting gun has fired.
I had not ridden a bike for 40 years until about four weeks ago, when
Bespoke persuaded me to get on a bicycle for what I was told was a
short ride—but it lasted two and a half hours. The hon. Member for
Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said that cycling takes 10 years off a person,
and as I had not ridden a bike for 40 years, riding it for two and a
half hours certainly took 10 years off my life. I could barely stand
afterwards. The good news for hon. Members who, like me, have not
cycled for a long time is that it really is like riding a bike. I got
on and after a few wobbles I was away.
What are the challenges? We know what they are. The right hon. Member
for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) made a strong and valid point about the fact
that the previous Government invested a lot of time and money in
cycling and they deserve a lot of the credit for pushing the agenda.
The difference is that my Government inherited an economic crisis
that means that challenging decisions must be taken, but I encourage
the coalition to focus on this report, which contains a lot of good
recommendations that would not cost a lot of money. I am confident
that proper investment in the recommendations put together by the
all-party group would offer a substantial economic benefit and help
to transform the lives of many people in the UK who, like me, should
not wait 40 years to get back on a bike.
There are challenges. That takes us back to the question of Holland
versus the UK. Holland has a different infrastructure. The UK is an
old country that has not been designed for cycles so I appreciate the
challenges faced by any Government. I know that the Minister
responsible for this issue, the Under-Secretary of State for
Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—he is
a neighbour of mine—has been passionate about cycling and bikes for
as long as I have known him, which is 11 years. There is no stronger
champion of cycling in the Government. When he winds up, I look
forward to hearing what further initiatives the Government will
introduce to keep things moving in the right direction and to build
on the momentum that has been established over the past 15 years so
that cycling really takes off. There are more people in the Chamber
than I have ever seen at a Backbench business debate and that
demonstrates not just the strength of feeling in the country but that
the time has come for political leadership. I look forward to hearing
the Government’s response.
7.54 pm
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab): It is a
pleasure to take part in the debate and I welcome both it and the
all-party group’s report. It is good to see cross-party agreement
on such a positive issue, and I hope that when the Minister responds
he will give us the assurances we are all looking for.
So far, Ministers and the Department have been full of warm words of
support and like to give the impression that this country is
freewheeling towards becoming a cycling nation on a par with, say,
Holland. I am afraid
2 Sep 2013 : Column 99
that we are not even ambling in that direction; we need sustained
action and leadership from Ministers if we want to achieve that in a
reasonable time frame.
Many hon. Members have spoken of the benefits of cycling to
individuals, to children, to society, to cities and to the
environment. At the end of July, Newcastle Gateshead hosted its first
sky ride. It was an amazing success, with 7,800 people attending, and
shows just how many people in Newcastle and Gateshead want to get on
their bikes if they can feel safe doing so. The north-east has some
of the lowest cycling levels in the UK, with just 8% of people
cycling once a week. We also—this fact is perhaps related—have
higher than average levels of obesity and lower levels of physical
activity in adults. I pay tribute to the work Newcastle city council
is doing and to its commitment to supporting cycling.
In Newcastle, we are lucky to have strong cross-party political
leadership on cycling. We have an enthusiastic cycling champion,
Councillor Marion Talbot, who chairs our cycling forum, which brings
together the many different voices for cycling in our city. There is,
however, a lack of such strong political leadership at a national
level. The abolition of Cycling England, set up under the previous
Labour Government, means that there is now also no dedicated pot of
money and, equally, no focal point for cycling. We have ad hoc
announcements and re-announcements, and then repackaged
re-announcements. When separate pots of money are released seemingly
at random for cycling and infrastructure, it makes it difficult for
local authorities like Newcastle to plan cycling development. The
abolition of Cycling England means that there is no obvious means for
councils to share ideas and the great best practice we have heard
about today other than through the mysterious cycle stakeholder
forum, which is yet to be mentioned but which has apparently met
three times in the three years it has existed—for what purpose,
nobody seems to know.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con) rose—
Chi Onwurah: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten us.
Graham Evans: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving
way. She talks about the abolition of Cycling England, but surely the
Local Government Association is one of the best mechanisms for
sharing best practice on cycling.
Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution,
but the Local Government Association has many issues on which to
share best practice. I agree that it provides an excellent forum for
that, but the strength of Cycling England was that it did exactly
what its name said—it was about cycling in England. Having lost
that organisation, we need something to fulfil that role.
Mr Lammy: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does
she agree that we do not see the initiatives and half-policies like
those she is talking about in the Government’s transport policy on
trains, buses, cars and roads? That is why we need a proper
integrated strategy.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 100
Chi Onwurah: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
Comparisons are odious, but sometimes they are essential. Everyone in
the Chamber would agree that there is neither the focus on nor the
strategy for cycling that exist for other areas of transport. I hope
that the Minister will set out how he intends to address the clear
lack of leadership.
The report notes that successfully increasing cycling in many towns
requires not just leadership and political will but investment. The
report notes the relative underfunding per head for British cycling,
which many hon. Members have spoken about today, but the Department
for Transport’s response to the report was disappointing, as it did
not deal with long-term funding. On most other issues, the buck was
passed to local authorities and there was no commitment to appoint a
national cycling champion. That is not the leadership that we need. I
welcome the fact that Newcastle was awarded £5.7 million from the
cycle city ambition fund, which was on top of £1.3 million from the
cycle safety fund, but those amounts are relatively small compared
with those received by European cities.
As several hon. Members have said, it is not just the amount of
funding that is important. Whatever the spending per head, Government
investment must be continued, steady and sustained if councils such
as Newcastle are to plan to achieve their goals and all the
associated benefits we have heard about. While much of the legwork in
getting Britain cycling does and should fall to councils, there is
plenty that the Government can do to support them. Newcastle is
working hard to make the city’s road cycle-friendly and installing
better cycling infrastructure. It is one of the leading local
authorities on 20 mph zones, with the majority of residential areas
and much of the city centre now covered by that limit.
The Department’s response to the report rightly says that things
such as planning cycling routes and speed limits are local matters,
but what about putting in place national standards for cycle
infrastructure design or educating more people with design skills?
What about reviewing sentencing guidelines for careless and reckless
drivers?
Investment is important, although having a long-term pot is almost as
important as the amount that goes into it. Above all, however,
Transport Ministers and their colleagues across Whitehall must step
up and show national leadership if we are to meet the goals set out
in the report.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Some 19 speakers
still wish to participate in the debate, so I shall reduce the time
limit to five minutes in the hope that we will be able to get
everyone in. By all means make interventions, as they help the
debate, but if a Member has already made a speech, perhaps they will
bear in mind the fact that others are waiting to do so.
8.2 pm
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con): I am delighted to speak in
this important debate. As a fairly recent convert to cycling, I have
personal experience of its many benefits, although I am also
conscious of its dangers, especially for those who, like me, are new
to the sport.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 101
The Evans household has become an enthusiastic cycling family with
new bikes for the children and not-so-new bikes for mum and dad. I
was interested to hear the debate about helmets because I insist that
we all wear helmets although, for some reason, when I put my helmet
on, the children point and laugh—I have no idea why.
There is a fantastic grass-roots movement in my constituency to
encourage residents to get on their bikes. I give credit to the
Northwich Guardian’sPedal Power campaign for drawing my
constituents’ attention to the importance of cycling. Its cycling
ambassadors, with profiles ranging from teenage pro bikers to blind
nonagenarians, show my constituents that a bike is for everyone at
any stage of their lives. I welcome the all-party cycling group’s
“Get Britain Cycling” report and its target of one in 10 journeys
being by bike by 2025. Road safety is also important to me, and I
shall be presenting the Drug Driving (Assessment of Drug Misuse)
Bill—my private Member’s Bill—to the House for its Second
Reading on 18 October.
The benefits of cycling are clear, with better health being the
obvious starting point, as a regular cyclist in mid-adulthood has the
fitness levels of someone 10 years younger. We have heard many
comments suggesting that we all want to be 10 years younger.
When we consider Britain’s transport system, it is clear that there
must be a better way. Most of us find ourselves sitting in long
traffic jams when we make the quick run down the road to the shops to
pick up some milk and a loaf of bread. Some 66% of all trips made in
Britain are less than five miles. However, if one factors in the
process of getting to the destination and then hunting down a parking
space, that seems daft, given that one could reasonably often nip
down to the shops on a bike. There are also economic arguments in
favour of cycling because regular cyclists are associated with lower
health costs, while the cost of congestion goes down and productivity
increases.
What is stopping people cycling? The main reason is safety. The
Department’s “British Social Attitudes Survey 2012: public
attitudes towards transport” showed that 48% of cyclists, who were
defined as someone who had cycled in the past year, agreed that it
was too dangerous for them to cycle on the roads, whereas the figure
for non-cyclists was 65%. It is also worth noting that there is a
significant gender divide regarding cycling safety because 60% of
women said that it was too dangerous compared with 53% of men. I am
therefore proud to be involved in Northwich Breeze rides, which are
designed specifically to introduce more women in the area to cycling
and to improve their confidence in safety.
What can be done to improve safety? There are basic steps that
everyone should take when getting on a bike. Putting on a helmet and
ensuring that reflectors and proper lights are fitted are all ways of
making someone safer and more visible. It is only logical that local
authorities should take simple and automatic steps to improve—
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con): Next year’s Tour de France
will come to my constituency on two consecutive days. It will go
through villages such as Addingham and Stanbury, and green parts of
my wonderful constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a
great opportunity
2 Sep 2013 : Column 102
to support the points that he is making, as well as to make wider
points about health and fitness and to promote businesses in the
community?
Graham Evans: I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for
that wonderful intervention. I hope that those people on the Tour
have their passports ready to go into Yorkshire and, importantly, to
come out of it.
I welcome the Government’s cycle safety fund to redesign junctions.
However, while they are encouraging sensible planning, there is no
single, consistent and enforceable design standard for bicycles
regarding new development. As an aspect of planning, surely that
should be as obvious as putting on a helmet before getting on a bike.
As is the case for many hon. Members, house builders are building
thousands of new homes in my constituency, but their designs suggest
that little thought has been given to making roads accessible via a
bike. Given that the county of Cheshire is relatively flat, perhaps
its councils could be a beacon to show all authorities how cycling
can be a pleasure for all.
We should examine speeds in residential areas for the benefit of not
only cyclists, but pedestrians. The Department for Transport has made
it easier for councils to impose 20 mph areas, which is a great step
forward for locally focused safety, but now is the time to consider
whether there should be a default limit of 20 mph for residential
areas, with councils given the discretion to change that. Such a
measure could reduce the number of road incidents.
Heavy goods vehicles pose a major risk to cyclists. Nearly half of
all cycle fatalities in the capital are due to HGVs, although those
vehicles make up only 5% of the overall traffic. Better awareness of
cyclists, restrictions during peak traffic times and more
international co-operation on HGV design would clearly be important
steps, so I welcome the Department’s ongoing work in that area.
The Government have made significant investment in cycling, with £148
million invested by 2015, but it has been clear from listening to
hon. Members’ speeches that cohesive thinking and
cross-departmental work will encourage cycling even more. I welcome
the excellent work of the all-party cycling group and I hope that the
debate demonstrates how, with a proactive attitude, we can ensure
that cycling becomes an important part of British life.
8.8 pm
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): The House has a fairly rigid
dress code, and I think I inadvertently broke it earlier today
because, for the first time in my career, I wore a pair of cycle
clips in the Chamber. That was not because I was trying to celebrate
the debate, but because I had rushed here from one of my two bicycle
visits today so that I would be in time to ask my question during
Defence questions—
[Interruption.] I got no answer, but that
is the nature of parliamentary questions. I make the point because I
have been cycling to Parliament and to meetings near Parliament for
more than 20 years. As other Members have observed, in that period
there has been a huge growth in the number of people who cycle—not
just the number of people working in the Palace of Westminster but
the number of people in general on the roads of London. That increase
has not just happened—it occurred as a result of public policy
2 Sep 2013 : Column 103
and public spending. That is the first thing that I would say to
the Minister: we need an increase in Government spending to promote
cycling and make the roads safer for cycling, but it needs to be
long-term and predictable funding, which is why I particularly
welcome the proposal that there should be spending by his Department
on cycling measures at the rate of £10 per capita.
There are environmental and health benefits from cycling. It is a
convenient and time-saving way to travel short distances. No one has
mentioned the fact that it is a cheap way of travelling. For MPs,
there is one more advantage. I sometimes use a car in my
constituency, and when I do, no one notices me driving round.
However, when I am cycling round my constituency people notice me all
the time. They point, they probably laugh, but at least they see that
I am in my constituency—that is a tip for Members on both sides of
the House.
Between 2008 and 2010, York received £3.68 million as one of the 12
cycling cities designated by Cycling England. It had a number of
goals, including increasing the use of cycling by 25% from 10%—a
relatively high level—at the beginning of the period to 12.5%. In
fact, it increased the use of cycling by twice the target—by 50%—to
15%. Interestingly, in York, as many women cycle as men, and that is
a goal that we ought to try to roll out nationally.
Under the scheme, we pledged to increase commuter cycling by 10% from
12% at the beginning of the period to 13.2%. Although there was no
national survey of the number of people who commute to work by cycle,
looking at the big employers in York, the increase in that period
ranged from 17% to 35%. Achieving an increase depends on whether
employers provide incentives such as safe cycle parking, cycle
workshops where people can repair punctures for instance, and cycle
loan schemes. The House could do a lot more for the people who work
here, and I hope that that is something the all-party group will
press for.
I welcome the proposal in the report for a goal of increasing cycle
use to 10% by 2025, but we need different goals for different local
authorities. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who
introduced the debate, has in his city a cycling participation level
far above 10%, and so does my own city. We will not achieve 10%
national usage unless we set challenging goals for those local
authorities that are in the lead.
Finally, greater efforts should be made to employ trained personnel
in local authorities to supervise the safety of transport schemes,
and for institutes such as the—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order.
8.14 pm
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): Who knew, ladies and gentlemen,
that this debate was sponsored by the Dutch tourism board? Many of us
seem to have taken a Dutch cycling holiday. I am here to stand up for
cycling in Northumberland, which features everything from Hadrian’s
cycleway and the coast-to-coast tour to the delights of Kielder and
the castles cycle route.
I congratulate wholeheartedly the cross-party group, which has done a
fantastic job—this is probably one of the finest Back-Bench debates
that we have ever had.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 104
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the hon.
Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), my hon. Friend the Member for
Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and other members of the all-party
parliamentary group have done a brilliant job and produced a
fantastic report. I need to declare the fact that I cycle to work in
London. I can cycle from Fulham, where I live, to King’s Cross,
pretty much all on a cycleway. It is much quicker than going by car.
In Northumberland, I live near Stamfordham, where we see more
bicycles than cars travelling around and about. There is no question
but that the Northumberland economy depends to a large degree on
cycling tourism and the economic benefit that it brings. I therefore
support the motion wholeheartedly, but while cities such as Newcastle
have benefited from over £5 million, the benefit to some rural
areas, whether Northumberland or other counties, is significantly
less. We need equality of funding across all parts of the country so
that we may all benefit, rather than simply the towns that have been
allocated money thus far.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): Like the hon. Gentleman, I
welcome the report to get Britain cycling. He is right about rural
areas. Does he agree that we need innovative solutions to help to
provide opportunities to make it easier to cycle in rural areas, such
as the two tunnels greenway in Bath, from which many of my
constituents benefit, and the canal towpaths that run through my
constituency? Otherwise, hedge-lined country roads between towns can
be quite intimidating.
Guy Opperman: I endorse that entirely. Indeed, when I asked my
constituents for their comments, one of them, Ted Liddle, wrote on
behalf of the mountain biking club:
“Other
than a few parking stands, in Tynedale there has been no cycling
investment”
in the past 10 to 12 years.
There are exceptions, but if we do not have innovative ways forward
and local cycling champions we will struggle. I endorse earlier
comments about the fact that we need individual Borises or cycling
champions in some shape or form who champion cycling in their
counties and regions. It is easy, given that Yorkshire has the
benefit of the Tour de France next year, to make the case. Everyone
in the north welcomes that.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): My hon. Friend has
discussed the need for cycle routes in rural areas. We do not have
the luxury of going along the embankment to create the Boris highway.
We have to make sure that we have cycle routes such as old railway
lines and so on that can be used successfully. We are working on
precisely that on the Seaton to Colyford route. However, I very much
welcome the debate so that we can have cycling in rural areas.
Guy Opperman: Indeed. Not only that, but this debate is making
converts. Our hon. Friend, the eminent colonel from Beckenham, has
assured the House that he will get back on his bike, which I am
confident is not a penny farthing.
Bob Stewart: To the best of my memory, it has pneumatic tyres
and a chain.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 105
Guy Opperman: The mind boggles: to know is to fear.
Those of us who are students of the film industry will hark back to
the comment, “If you build it, they will come.” That is the case
in relation to cycling. It is easy for too many civil servants,
Ministers of all types, local authorities, county and parish councils
to think that investment in cycling is not worth the money, the
effort, the criticism by drivers and pedestrians and the sheer
difficulty of persuading people to get out of their beloved vehicles.
However, if we build the type of facilities that we all require in
our local areas, cycling improves. We need only look at the success
of places such as Seville, as eloquently set out in the report, where
between 2007 and 2010, cycling went up from 6,000 journeys to 60,000
journeys. We need only look at the changes in New York or Holland,
sponsored as we are by the Dutch tourism board, where 27% of journeys
are by bike, compared with 2% in this country. That is patently the
result of investment, support and local champions.
I suggest we look at the health benefits. Many have outlined the fact
that we have an obesity crisis, and a great deal more work needs to
be done on that. We should look at the benefits in terms of the cost
of living, and we need to consider both the climate change and the
tourism and economic benefits. I emphasise the need for local
champions—not just the local larger champion of a county, but
individual parish and county councillors who could make a difference
locally. If we can start doing that and start working with health and
wellbeing boards and the like, there is great potential to turn the
topic from a fringe issue that we passionately debate to a mainstream
way of life and way of travelling to work.
8.20 pm
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): It is
pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. A few minutes ago my
hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) made the point
that if we are to increase cycle percentages, the starting point will
vary from place to place. Some places already have a very high
percentage, but others have a much lower percentage. I am pleased to
say that Edinburgh has a good record of encouraging cycling over the
years. In our case 10% of journeys to work are now undertaken by
bike, whereas 10 years ago the figure was only 3%, so we have seen a
300% increase, which shows what can be done when there is consistent
political commitment and a spending commitment from the local
authority, which has certainly been the case in Edinburgh.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab): My hon. Friend highlights
the increase in cycling in Edinburgh. Will he join me in paying
tribute to Spokes, the Edinburgh cycling charity, which has done so
much to help that increase, and also the volunteers who organised
Pedal on Parliament 1 and 2? There were 4,000 cyclists at the
Scottish Parliament just a few months ago, and I completed the second
one myself, on a tandem.
Mark Lazarowicz: Indeed. I saw that with my own eyes, and I
took part on a more conventional bike in that Pedal on Parliament.
The point that my hon. Friend makes is a good one. One reason we have
seen an increase in Edinburgh in the percentage of journeys
undertaken by bike has been the political commitment
2 Sep 2013 : Column 106
over many years—political commitment in which, I am pleased to
say, the Labour party over the decades has taken the lead, and which,
to be fair, is now widely shared across the political parties in
Edinburgh, just as it is in the Chamber today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) pointed
out—and I should mention that we were joined by my hon. Friend the
Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) in Pedal on Parliament
this year—we have also had a very effective grass-roots campaign,
first in the form of Spokes, the Lothian cycle campaign, of which I
have been a member for many years. That campaign has consistently and
in a well-informed way put pressure on local government and central
Government to deliver both cycle spending and the integration of
policies in wider planning and transport activity, to give cycling a
higher profile. We have also seen the very successful Pedal on
Parliament initiative, which started in 2012 with a couple of
thousand people lobbying the Scottish Parliament at the end of a
cycle ride, and which in May this year ended up with 4,000 people in
a very impressive lobby of the Scottish Parliament.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend
agree that one of the significant things at that event was the
reaction of those who were there to a spokesperson from the Scottish
Government who gave only warm words—compared to the local council,
which has committed 5% of its transport budget, to rise by 1% each
year to 9%—because cyclists know that words are not good enough?
Mark Lazarowicz: Absolutely. My hon. Friend points to the
commitment of Edinburgh council not just to maintain a 5% level of
all transport spend, both revenue and capital, on cycling but to
increase it year on year by 1%, which is a major commitment. In a
briefing to some of us earlier, Chris Boardman said that it was the
first city in the UK to make that commitment. That contrasts with the
poor record of the SNP Scottish Government in supporting cycling. It
is interesting that the success of the Pedal on Parliament campaign
in Edinburgh has had the effect of shaming the Scottish Government
into putting more money into cycling. That is a tribute to such
campaigning work, which is so important at the grass roots.
I do not want to make jibes at other political parties in what has
otherwise been a non-partisan debate, even if those parties are not
represented in the Chamber today. In Edinburgh we have now seen a
cross-party consensus on cycling policies. Although it is true that
our Labour colleagues on the council made a commitment to increase
the spending on cycling year on year, it is being done now with the
support of the minority party in the Edinburgh council coalition, the
Scottish National party. So let us hope that the SNP at Scottish
Government level will follow the example of its colleagues on
Edinburgh council.
As has been mentioned a few times in the debate, some of those who
organised the Pedal on Parliament campaign to lobby the Scottish
Parliament had personal experience of death and serious injury to
cyclists on our roads. The increase in deaths and serious injuries to
cyclists in England over the past five years has been replicated in
Scotland. We have seen a similar increase over the past five years.
Let us not forget that as well as
2 Sep 2013 : Column 107
being in every case a personal tragedy for the families and
friends of those involved, every cycling death or serious injury has
the effect of discouraging people who might otherwise come back to
cycling, because they do not realise the wider relative or absolute
safety of cycling compared with most forms of transport.
There are many reasons why it is vital to have targets to bring down
the toll of death and serious injury to cyclists on our roads, and I
have no doubt that if the measures proposed in the “Get Britain
Cycling” report were implemented, they would dramatically reduce
the number of cyclists killed and injured on our roads.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman
agree that of particular importance is the need to address the role
of HGVs in cyclists’ deaths? I believe that around half such deaths
in London are caused by HGVs. It is surely time, as part of the
programme, to push for a much more energetic uptake of the technology
measures that would make HGVs much safer and much less dangerous to
cyclists—sensors, mirrors, side bars and so on. That surely should
be a priority.
Mark Lazarowicz: Absolutely. I know that in some of the
e-mails and letters that I have had from constituents in the run-up
to this debate, a number of cases have been highlighted where people
or their relatives have been the victims of HGVs in that way. That
must be dealt with as a priority. It can be done quite easily now
with current technology and I hope that the Minister will give some
indication in his response as to how these changes can be introduced.
They are UK-wide measures and therefore relevant to all of us in the
Chamber, from whichever part of the UK we come.
8.27 pm
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con): I am grateful to have the
opportunity to speak in the debate and very pleased that the
Backbench Business Committee could find the time for it. It follows a
very successful and over-subscribed debate in Westminster Hall last
year and perhaps illustrates the point that very over-subscribed
debates in Westminster Hall can transfer to the main Chamber and
attract even more speakers, as today’s debate has done.
I speak as an occasional cyclist daughter of a serious veteran
road-racing cyclist father. I want to talk today about London in
particular and some of the measures that have been adopted here.
I will first say a bit about why cycling is so important in my
constituency. There was an enormous reaction last year in Battersea
to
The Times “Cities Fit for Cycling” campaign. The
average age of people who live in Wandsworth is 32, so that is
probably also typical of my constituency. Many people cycle to work
and for pleasure, and from quite a wide demographic range, although I
agree about the need to widen it, which will set up a virtuous
circle. As an occasional cyclist, I know that it can be very
off-putting to go into a cycling shop with an old bike and hear three
young men in Lycra leaning against the counter saying, “Poor old
girl”—I am never quite sure whether they are talking about me or
the bike. I encourage all cycling shops to remember
2 Sep 2013 : Column 108
that they will do better if they are open for business to
everybody, including those who might not be such serious cyclists.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Will my hon. Friend
give way?
Jane Ellison: I will give way, but only once.
Mr Turner: One thing to consider is that in the UK there are
around 25,000 bicycles but in Germany there are 360,000, and the
difference is that many of those bicycles are electric, which can
help even the elderly to cycle.
Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
Electric bikes have had a few honourable mentions in the debate so
far, although I am not an expert.
In London, cycling is set to double over the next 10 years. However,
as was pointed out earlier, cities such as London were not designed
for cycling; it is a very old city. We must therefore take every
opportunity offered by redevelopment to make it more suitable for
cycling. We are certainly seeing some innovative thinking in my
borough, as I mentioned earlier.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con): Will my hon.
Friend give way?
Jane Ellison: I am afraid not, as so many Members have
prepared speeches and want to get in.
Wandsworth has come a long way. One of the pleasures of the summer
was going to a meeting of the Wandsworth Living Streets campaign and
seeing the genuine engagement between them and Councillor Russell
King, the cabinet member who covers strategic transport issues. I
certainly see that as a positive movement since I first came to
Battersea in 2006.
In last year’s debate I talked about the need to champion
engineering solutions, something we have always been good at in
Britain. Again, my council is working with Transport for London to
bring forward plans for Dutch-style roundabouts, one of which is
planned for my constituency. Elsewhere in London we are seeing other
plans for engineering solutions, such as bike boxes and signal
control junctions with advanced stop lines. ASLs help motorists and
cyclists by providing an area for cyclists to wait in front of
traffic when the lights are red, making them more easily visible to
motorists and giving them the space to move off when the lights turn
green. We are also seeing plans to introduce Dutch-style segregated
sections of cycle superhighway to increase safety—we have heard a
lot about Holland in this debate and paid tribute to its great
cycling efforts—which will see one of the longest continuous
segregated sections through the heart of London and on to Canary
Wharf and Barking. It will be very interesting to see how that
develops and whether it could be replicated in other cities.
The Mayor of London is looking to spend significant sums of money on
cycling. The need for leadership has been mentioned, and Members on
both sides have been generous in paying tribute to him for his
leadership on cycling. London’s cycling budget will double to
almost £400 million over the next three years, roughly two and a
half times what was previously planned. He is investing
2 Sep 2013 : Column 109
almost £1 billion in London cycling over the next 10 years as
part of the “Vision for Cycling” published in March. That will
mean spending £145 million a year on cycling by 2015, which equates
to roughly £18 per head, which is similar to the amount spent in
Germany and almost on a par with the debate’s favourite country:
the Netherlands. It is good to see both Dutch-style engineering
coming to London’s roads and Dutch levels of spending per head on
cycling.
With regard to enforcement, one of the debates we are having locally
is whether 20 mph zones can be enforced. We are at least seeing TfL,
the Met police and the City of London police stepping up the
enforcement of safety zones for cyclists and clamping down on people
who jump red lights. I hope that we will return to this topic and
have regular cycling debates. I hope that in a future debate we can
look at some of the other issues that affect cycling, such as
planning and residential developments with safe cycle storage, which
is a problem in flats. In particular, there are high levels of cycle
theft. I have constituents who have lost five, six, seven or even
eight bikes in a few short years. I hope we can visit those topics in
future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker: Order. A further 13 right hon. and hon. Members
are on my list. I am keen to accommodate them but can do so only, I
am sorry to say, by reducing the time limit, with immediate effect,
to four minutes. Members can help me to help them to help each other.
8.34 pm
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): I
congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and my hon.
Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on their leadership
and drive on this issue. This has been a refreshing debate. I am
delighted to continue my support for safety for cyclists, inspired,
as were many other Members of the House, by
The Times’
“Cities fit for cycling” campaign. Cycling has many advantages:
increasing health, providing a fitter population and work force;
saving energy; reducing the degradation of road surfaces; reducing
congestion and air quality; and, last but not least, it is also jolly
good fun.
It is great to speak today on what could be the cusp of a big change
in Britain to transform life and the experience of roads for future
generations—to get Britain cycling not just in individual pockets
of the country and to have a holistic vision. I congratulate the
all-party cycling group on its excellent report, which advocates the
dream of having 10% of all journeys made by bike by 2025. I am glad
that it does not mince its words on the need for leadership to start
with politicians because we, as politicians, have to think long term
in supporting cyclists with a shared commitment across Whitehall,
councils, schools, employers, and public transport providers.
I pay tribute to Hounslow Cycling, particularly to Tim Harris and
Brian Smith, who have been strong advocates and campaigners for
improved facilities for cyclists. Their excellent strapline is
“Looking for a mini-Holland in Hounslow”. Together with Hounslow
council they have an exciting longer-term vision for safer cycling,
but they have raised some issues that I would like to share with the
House. First, there is funding.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 110
The Government’s response to “Get Britain Cycling” does not
provide any assurance of funding for cycling infrastructure in
future. It is a shame that when Ministers recently set out annual
budgets for road and rail investment for the next eight years they
failed to do so for cycling infrastructure.
Secondly, 20-mph speed limits should be adopted on residential roads
as standard. Hounslow Cycling makes the very effective point that we
should not have to fight campaigns in each neighbourhood to get safe
speed limits and good-quality cycle lanes and design standards
governing how roads are built. This should not be done for cyclists;
it needs to be done with cyclists, whose input at the design stage
can have a real impact on the quality of the result. We know that
20-mph speed limits can make a big difference. In 2009 the
British
Medical Journal published a review of road casualties in London
between 1986 and 2006 having found that 20-mph zones reduced
casualties by over 40%.
Thirdly, it is important to have a national cycling champion—a
proposal that has not been accepted so far. Perhaps the Minister
might want to say whether that is still the case. Fourthly, we must
ensure that where we have rules they are effectively enforced. Some
of the behavioural changes that we need, such as cyclists not going
through red lights, must be looked at in the interests of their
safety as well as that of others.
Cycling has the potential to be a huge British success story. We can
see many more Olympic gold medallists coming through if we encourage
good behaviours, start them young, and make sure that everyone feels
they can cycle in future.
8.38 pm
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con): I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on
securing this debate through the Backbench Business Committee. I
thank him for inviting me to serve on the panel. I suspect that I
ended up doing so for one simple reason—that I am a reluctant
cyclist. Although I occasionally cycle, the reason I am reluctant is
that I do not think it is a particularly safe activity. I fully
support
The Times’ “Cities fit for cycling” campaign
following the case of Mary Bowers, who is still in a coma. I also
fully support the implementation of the targets that the Government
need to make sure that there is strong political leadership at local
and national level and that cycling is safe.
Over the recess I spoke to a number of people in my Plymouth, Sutton
and Devonport constituency. Anne-Marie Clark, who rides with the
Plymouth Yogis, suggested that the Government should make it
compulsory for people to wear helmets. She was appalled that hirers
of Boris bikes are not offered helmets. The Mayor of London may want
to look at that. She also highlighted Plymouth’s notorious
potholes, and I am delighted that the Government and the council are
working together to fix them. Anyone who lives in my constituency who
wants to have a photograph taken with me and Pothole Pete alongside a
pothole is welcome to contact me in order to arrange it.
The chairman of Plymouth’s cycling campaign, Stuart Mee, said that
one of the biggest impediments to getting on two wheels is the
traffic. He said that all too often cycle routes stop at junctions
and do not take cyclists to
2 Sep 2013 : Column 111
where they want to go. In Plymouth some routes end abruptly at
difficult junctions. He added that cycling can make Plymouth
healthier. Several cyclists who watched me do a little bit of cycling
through the streets of Plymouth during the sky ride picked up on my
comments during the last cycling debate, when I made it clear that if
cycling were made safer and I took it up I could put into effect the
title of Tom Vernon’s wonderful, well-known radio programme, “Fat
Man on a Bicycle”.
Regular health activities can save a lot of money. It is interesting
to note that a child born in Devonport—a really deprived
community—is expected to live 14 years less than a child from the
city suburbs in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for
South West Devon (Mr Streeter).
All parties on Plymouth county council are supportive of this report.
It is interesting that the cabinet member for transport on my patch
told me recently that over the past four years there has been a 30%
increase in cycling. The Sustrans Connect2 project has done an
enormous amount to try to connect the west of the city to the city
centre. It would be helpful to have a conversation with a Minister
from the Department for Work and Pensions in order to make sure that
it can provide bicycles to those who cannot get to employment
opportunities on the other side of the city.
Finally, I want cycle manufacturers to produce cheaper and more basic
cycles. I want to buy one, but I do not want to pay £1,000 for it. I
want one a bit like the one Paul Newman rode in “Butch Cassidy and
the Sundance Kid”; I may then notice rain drops falling on my head.
8.42 pm
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): I join colleagues in
congratulating the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others,
not only on securing this debate, but on the excellent work in
producing the “Get Britain Cycling” report done by the all-party
group on cycling.
I represent a city that has hills, which can make cycling a bit of a
challenge, certainly for those of us who are recreational cyclists.
Even in Sheffield, however, cycling rates have doubled over the past
eight to 10 years, but we have a long way to go compared with—for a
change, I will not mention Holland—hilly Helsingborg in Sweden: 26%
of daily commutes into its city centre are made on a bike, compared
with less than 1% in Sheffield.
Having said I would not mention the Netherlands, I will do so
briefly, although I hesitate to do so. I spent a few days in Tilberg,
a fairly ordinary city in central Netherlands, last year. I was
struck by the fascinating consequence of the impact of a planning
approach that gives as much focus to the needs of bikes as to those
of cars. It provides a contrast to the picture of British cycling
painted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse
(Jim Fitzpatrick). In Tilberg I saw a town in which elderly couples,
families and young people all saw bikes as the preferred form of
transport for commuting, shopping or an evening out. It was a
transformational experience.
As the “Get Britain Cycling” report highlights, we need to do a
number of things to transform the situation in the UK. Clearly, one
is funding. That means not
2 Sep 2013 : Column 112
simply providing more funding, but making sure that the billions
we spend on our roads have funds earmarked within them for cycling
and meeting the needs of cyclists. That will be an important step
towards achievements similar to those of the Dutch.
When I invited comments from my constituents on today’s debate, I
got a huge response. There were a number of common themes. They
pressed for more segregated cycle lanes and for more available and
consistent cycle lanes that are not used for parking for large parts
of the day and that do not disappear on the approach to difficult
junctions or hazardous roundabouts. They argued for road
infrastructure to be better designed and for speed bumps that do not
have gaps at the side. They argued against routes that follow
illogical directions. They pushed for the maintenance of cycle routes
with regard not only to their quality, but to their visibility to
cyclists and motorists. They argued not only for safe routes to
schools, public buildings and places of work, but for more secure
places for people to leave their cycles when they get there.
I would like a response from the Minister on one specific point when
he winds up: the role of cycling within an integrated approach to
transport. I am pleased that south Yorkshire has received funding
from the Government for a tram-train pilot, which will see the
introduction of a continental model with vehicles that run on both
tram and rail tracks. That is a significant development for us and a
potential model for the rest of the country. It is important that we
get it right. Part of that is ensuring that cyclists are able to take
their bikes on to the tram-trains so that both modes of transport can
be used on a journey. I have raised that issue with the South
Yorkshire passenger transport executive because decisions need to be
taken now at the stage of system design. The Department is also a key
stakeholder, so I ask the Minister to join me by confirming in his
closing remarks that he will seek to ensure that bikes can be carried
on to tram-trains in that important pilot.
To conclude quickly, there is clearly strong cross-party support for
the report and I hope that this debate secures a transformation in
the UK.
8.46 pm
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): We have learned some
fascinating things today, notably that the Emperor Hadrian created
his great wall not to keep the Picts out of England, as many of us
thought, but to provide the Northumberland tourism board with a
cycleway.
I join the wave of enthusiasm for this debate and its two sponsors,
the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Dudley North (Ian
Austin), but I will risk sounding a curmudgeonly note by giving their
report, “Get Britain Cycling”, only two cheers rather than three.
The reason for that is the report’s specific recommendations.
First, I would like the title to be “Let Britain Cycle”, rather
than the more prescriptive “Get Britain Cycling”.
I am not mad about more Government action plans and annual
reports—they are not best sellers on the whole. I am not convinced
that appointing cycling tsars in central and local government and in
devolved authorities “responsible for cycling” will add to the
numbers who get on their bikes. Can we all not be responsible for our
2 Sep 2013 : Column 113
own cycling and, like the best missionaries, let our happiness
encourage others to get on their bikes, without having tsars?
The report recommends national targets. Just as I do not want to see
Gloucestershire Royal hospital bristling with targets and performance
indicators but bereft of compassion, so I do not want to see cycling
targets without the fun. Besides, most of the statistics are
extremely dodgy. How, for example, does the hon. Member for York
Central (Hugh Bayley) know that as many women as men cycle in York?
Who compiles the statistics? To quote British Cycling,
“Better
measures of cycle use at a local level have been introduced
recently…but these only give an indication of self-reported cycle
use, not distance travelled or numbers of trips.”
I therefore believe that the statistical measurements and targets
that are suggested by the all-party group at best are optimistic and
at worst delude us that we can measure cycling precisely.
Instead, I would like today to be a celebration of cycling by all of
us who have enjoyed cycling. Before the end of this Parliament, I
will celebrate 50 years of cycling by going back to my first
commercial journey, which I made to pick peas four miles from home.
There was a wonderful steep hill—more fun going down than up—very
few cars and that great sense of freedom and fun that one gets from
being on a bike. That is my focus for this debate: freedom and fun,
not traffic jams and road rage, from which so many other travellers
seem to suffer.
I believe the Government have been given a bit of a hard time this
evening about their expenditure, because it seems to me that £128
million in five years is good news. I am particularly pleased with
the local sustainable transport fund, which for a few hundred
thousand pounds will make a huge difference in Gloucester—my
constituency—with improved routes, signs, cycle racks and even a
cycle hub. I look forward to road testing those new routes in a few
weeks with an excellent representative from our county council, our
local bike action group chairman, Toby, and BBC Radio Gloucestershire
presenter, Mark Cummings. We will also look at some of the problem
areas, and if the all-party group or the Minister know of a good
solution to roundabouts, please let me know the best practice.
Our time has been sharply curtailed, so in conclusion: yes, cycling
makes life better for all, but I urge the all-party group not to
become obsessed with statistics and to focus more on cycling being
fun for all. Let the Government expand their programme for the big
cities to the small cities. That will be good value for money and
great news for places such as Gloucester.
8.50 pm
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op): I thank
you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate on a
topic that is important to me and a great many of my constituents,
and in the curtailed time available I will say something about the
need to make cycling a mainstream transport option and address the
future funding of cycling.
Cyclists in my constituency have made it clear that they feel
cycling, which they are passionate about, has not been taken
seriously enough by policy makers. However, I think they will
genuinely appreciate the
2 Sep 2013 : Column 114
turnout and commitment shown in this debate, which is a sign that
the report has already had some impact. When my constituents
contacted me they cited simple mistakes and missed opportunities in
public policy and planning that have held back cycling and prevented
the growth of its popularity. It is difficult to disagree with that
sentiment, as the “Get Britain Cycling” report highlighted. Such
neglect has prevented cycling from becoming as popular as it might
have been, and that is often used as justification for the lack of
attention cycling policy receives. As we have heard, cycling
undoubtedly brings significant health and environmental benefits, but
without political leadership at national and local level it is hard
to see how it can move from being a mere afterthought to an
acknowledged major means of transportation.
Having listened to the whole debate, it is important to acknowledge
that things are not as good as they need to be. A lot of Members have
highlighted great practice in their areas, but if we give the
impression that we are satisfied with the status quo, that would be
wrong. To get things right, the Government, local authorities and
transport bodies must ensure that the needs of cyclists are properly
taken into account. For the benefit of any of my constituents reading
this speech, I acknowledge that my local authority has not always met
expectations in that regard, but I will say, if I can, how we are
trying to correct that.
The “Get Britain Cycling” report offers a number of practical
solutions to address those problems. One is the cross-departmental
cycling action plan. That sounds as if it comes straight from “Yes
Minister”, but the goal of ensuring that cycling is embodied at top
levels of strategic planning and the political agenda is the right
one. Taking things a step further, local and central Government have
appointed lead politicians for cycling, which again must be a good
thing. For example, if we look at the commitment shown to cycling in
London on a cross-party basis over many years, we see what can be
achieved with a strong strategic plan coupled with the political will
to make it successful. Across my constituency and the Greater
Manchester area, I am pleased to say that action is being taken to
help get Britain cycling.
As I said, I recognise that in the past people have come to me with
legitimate complaints because they felt we have not taken advantage
of our position as a Greater Manchester borough that sits between
Manchester city centre and the Peak District national park, and we
have not used cycling fully enough to address that area’s poor
public health. Now, however, Transport for Greater Manchester, in
partnership with constituent local authorities, is implementing a
bold strategy that combines central Government funds with local money
to make significant changes. As well as looking at investment in the
road network to make cycle-friendly changes to roads and junctions,
it is trying to provide facilities specifically for the use of
cyclists who wish to ditch their car and cycle to work. Tameside
council has taken the lead in that, trying to build a cycling hub in
the centre of the borough of Ashton-under-Lyne. Once open, it will
give commuting cyclists the chance to lock up their bike, get changed
and have a shower before heading to work.
Such ideas lead to the major issue at the heart of this debate which
is how we fund and allocate money to transport projects, and the role
of cycling within that.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 115
To make things happen there must obviously be a strong commitment
from the Government. I welcome the money that has been announced,
although there are concerns about the loss of Cycling England. If we
are to catch up with our European neighbours—we have heard a lot
about Holland today—we must clearly move towards that £10 per head
target, as the APPG report recommends.
8.54 pm
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con): I add my
congratulations to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the
all-party group on securing this important debate, which has provoked
a great deal of interest from my constituents. I have had a large
number of e-mails, although it is worth noting that only one of them
came from a woman. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham
Evans) and the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) commented
on the cycling gender gap. It is interesting to note—this comes
from the Breeze website—that more than three times as many men as
women participate in cycling.
In Hampshire, the bikability scheme is run by Mountbatten school in
Romsey. It gave evidence to the all-party group and has contributed
to the “Get Britain Cycling” report, which is an excellent report
containing brilliant ideas. Annually, the Hampshire schools cycling
partnership delivers in excess of 12,000 cycle courses throughout
Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton, in more than 300 schools.
There is a commitment within the partnership to make cycle training
available to all, and to make both bikes and helmets available to
those who do not have them. There is a belief that cycling is an
essential life skill, and that every young person should receive a
safe grounding in cycling skills and road use.
Test Valley borough has, for the past 16 years, run the Test valley
tour, an off-road cycling event that encourages participants from
serious cyclists down to the weekend pedaller to enjoy the Hampshire
countryside. This weekend, as part of the borough’s Olympic legacy
project, a new BMX track is being opened in Valley park. There is not
only a competition-standard track, but a learner track, to ensure
that all levels of cyclist can get involved. It is important to
remember that cycling is about not just mountain and road bikes;
people can participate in a broad range of cycling. It is not just
about getting from A to B, which much of the debate has focused on;
cycling can be fun for its own sake.
It would be wrong to suggest that all is rosy in Hampshire. The
experience of off-road cycle ways and of the conflict with road
junctions is the same as we have heard from many hon. Members. Test
Valley works hard to ensure that there is a network of off-road cycle
routes, but the one that always comes to my attention is the route
running alongside the A3057. Often, we see cyclists on the road
rather than the cycleway, which frustrates motorists. However, when I
drill down with cyclists as to what the problem is, they tell me not
only that we need capital investment to provide cycleways, but that
cycleways need maintaining. They say that the small stones they find
if the cycleways are not swept can be lethal to the thin tyres of
road bikes. Indeed, the tarmac surface of the road is often better
for serious athletes wishing to train and get up to good speeds.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 116
There is also conflict with the many junctions on the road way. I am
thinking in particular of Heron lane in Timsbury, where the markings
are not clear. Road users seeking to access the A3057 often meet
speeding cyclists on the cycleway who believe they have priority,
when in fact the motorist has priority. There are many near misses,
which provokes anxiety for motorist and cyclist alike.
I am not suggesting that better signage is a panacea. In rural areas,
opting for red or—dare I say it?—blue tarmac is incongruous, and
does not fit well with the countryside. It is important that we look
for tailor-made solutions and that we are innovative in junction
improvements. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.
I should conclude with one suggestion from a cyclist, who said that
we need a similar legislative framework to that of Italy—hon.
Members will be pleased that he identified Italy rather than the
Netherlands. In Italy, the presumption is that the liability for any
accident is with the motorist and not with the cyclist.
One of our great Olympians, Laura Trott, said at the weekend that:
“It’s
not always the car’s fault…Cyclists need to help themselves”.
Of course, she is right.
8.58 pm
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP): I welcome the
opportunity to speak in the debate. I commend the hon. Member for
Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North
(Ian Austin) for introducing it on behalf of the all-party group on
cycling.
I confess that I am not an avid cyclist, but I freely acknowledge the
health, social and economic benefits of cycling. In fact, cycling can
become not only an economic tool in town centres, but a regeneration
tool. It can help to reduce congestion and pollution in town centres.
Those factors have already been acknowledged in the report. The
health, economic and social benefits of cycling are, as the report
highlights, well documented and range from reducing air pollution in
our cities to promoting spending in small businesses along commuter
cycling routes and improving, through exercise, the general health of
our population.
There is a growing attitudinal change among the public, who are ahead
of us in many ways in understanding the benefits of cycling and in
recognising that this issue must not be framed as a debate of cyclist
versus the car driver. This attitudinal change is sadly yet to happen
within Government. The Department for Transport’s response to the
report demonstrates that when it states:
“Cycle
spending that makes a tangible contribution to other Government
departments, such as Health, Education, Sport and Business, should be
funded from those budgets, not just the DfT.”
While that statement is undoubtedly true, by presenting it as a bold
opening statement it is clear that the Department is perhaps trying
to pass the buck. Perhaps the Minister, in his closing remarks, will
assuage my fears and prove that that is not the case.
If we are to make gains in preventive health for our population and
make cycling safer, it is imperative that the Government’s attitude
changes and a pro-cycling, cross-departmental approach is developed.
I used to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, where one of
my colleagues is currently bringing forward a
2 Sep 2013 : Column 117
private Members’ Bill to introduce more 20 mph speed limits. I
am conscious of what the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and
my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said—that
they are successful only if they can be enforced—but there is no
doubt that people want to see them happen, particularly in housing
estates.
The money committed by the Government to cycling projects was
dedicated to the financing of specific worthwhile projects. Reference
has been made in the debate to the fact that there needs to be a more
equitable spread of that money, so that the benefits of cycling can
be seen. Only a few weeks ago, as part of the world police and fire
games, my constituency hosted mountain bike trials that require
considerable skill and involve a high level of risk, but they have
much investment in training.
Hopefully, this debate will highlight the issue of cycling and
encourage the Government.
9.2 pm
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I congratulate my hon.
Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on introducing the
debate, and all members of the all-party cycling group on their
excellent report, “Get Britain Cycling”. I support the report’s
recommendations, in particular for an annual cycling action plan and
for sustained funding for cycling.
Liberal Democrats have long recognised the positive benefits of
cycling. It assists in tackling road congestion, reducing air
pollution and supporting our economy. Not only is it a fast, cheap
and green mode of transport, it promotes a healthier lifestyle too.
It is a sobering fact that only 2% of journeys in the UK are made by
bicycle. Our European neighbours put us to shame in this regard. It
is also important to note that approximately half of all journeys
made by car are only a few miles. Surely we can encourage people to
make some of those journeys by bike. I am pleased that targets are
included in the motion, and I hope that the Government adopt them.
In 2010, the gross contribution of cycling to the UK economy was
almost £3 billion. According to calculations, if we encourage more
people to cycle we could save the UK economy a few hundred million
pounds through reduced road congestion and about £70 million to £80
million through less pollution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), the Minister for
cycling, has been a champion of cycling for many years. I am pleased
that he has continued that attitude in government and done a good job
supporting cycling. For example, last March the Department for
Transport published its door-to-door strategy, which set out how the
Government are encouraging people to combine different methods of
transport in their journeys and increase the number of journeys made
by bicycle. In April, my hon. Friend the Minister for cycling
announced £40 million of funding, which is being used at 78
locations to make roads and junctions safer for cyclists. All those
schemes are due to be completed within 12 months.
In August, the coalition Government announced a dramatic boost for
cycling funding. The Prime Minister showed the Government’s
commitment by making the announcement himself, which represents the
biggest
2 Sep 2013 : Column 118
ever single cash injection for cycling. The Liberal Democrats have
long campaigned for more people to be able to ride out with
confidence on our nation’s roads. This Government are a good
supporter of cycling. However, we cannot afford to be complacent on
this issue. The all-party group’s report offers us the chance to
support cycling and ensure that the Government continue to work hard
to promote the needs and safety of cyclists, alongside those of other
road users. I wholeheartedly support today’s motion. I hope the
Government will build on the good work they have already done by
taking forward the report’s recommendations.
9.6 pm
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): We have already heard this
evening about the health and environmental benefits of cycling,
through the reduction in pollution, congestion and pressure on city
parking, and about the economic benefits from a cheap form of
transport. In recent years we have seen some fantastic recreational
facilities provided, such as the coastal path in my constituency and
a fantastic cycle path that goes from Llanelli up to Tumble along a
disused railway that has a very gradual gradient.
However, this evening we are not just talking about recreational
facilities; we are talking about how to get people cycling much more
in their everyday lives, and not just on holiday. It needs to be
practical and safe for people to go by bike wherever they need to
go—whether to work or to the shops, the doctor’s, the leisure
centre or the cinema, and so forth. That means making routes
everywhere safer and more pleasant for cyclists. We need proper
investment—at least £10 a head, as the report suggests—to ensure
the infrastructure. We need the political will to prioritise spending
on cycling. We need joined-up thinking across Departments. We need
thinking at the initial stages of planning for any infrastructure,
but we also need to look at retrospective measures.
There have been some adaptations in our cities, but there is a lot
more to do. Some of our out-of-town shopping centres, for example,
are a disgrace when it comes to providing for pedestrians and
cyclists. There is a lot of work to be done there. We need to think
imaginatively about some of our rural roads. How do we get better
visibility? How do we warn that there are cyclists about? How do we
make some well-used stretches of rural roads, on which people want to
get from one facility to another, practical on a bicycle? We have
heard about encouraging children and young people through training
programmes in schools, but we also need training programmes for young
adults—possibly at university—and for adults when they start
work. We talk about encouraging people to cycle, particularly young
children and school pupils, but we also need to be aware that
designated cycle areas, such as along canals or old railway tracks,
might not be suitable if they are not well lit and visible. Those
areas need to be in the public domain and within easy contact of a
lot of people; otherwise they will not be suitable for use by
children going to school.
There are all sorts of ways to encourage people, whether though
special events, such as “Get your bike out” days, or giving them
opportunities to have their bikes looked at, maintained and working
again, and getting back into the habit of going by bike. We also need
to sort out the issues with other forms of transport.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 119
Although there has been a lot of progress, there are still times
when people cannot take their bikes on trains and awkward incidents
when there seems to be no joined-up thinking.
I would like quickly to mention the Welsh Government’s Active
Travel (Wales) Bill, which will go through stage three of the
legislative procedure on 1 October. The Bill aims to encourage
non-recreational active travel routes for walking and cycling, which
are used by people for work, school or shopping. The Bill would
require local authorities in Wales to produce and distribute
comprehensive maps showing all the active travel routes in their
areas and, most importantly, to make continuous improvements to the
range and quality of active travel routes. They will be expected to
make year-on-year improvements, either by expanding the number of
facilities or by upgrading existing ones.
On that note, I would like to ask the Minister, who has now heard the
tremendous cross-party support for increased investment in cycling,
whether he will try to convince his colleagues across Government that
this is the right way forward, and that we want better investment as
well as clear, directional thinking and the real political will to
put cycling right at the heart of Government.
9.10 pm
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con): I congratulate the
Government on providing the extra money to support the development of
new, safe cycle routes that are separated from traffic. Many people
are saying that there should be more money. Yes, we can always spend
more money, but the Government have shown great leadership by making
this money available. I was especially pleased that some of it has
been directed towards national parks, including the Peak District
national park to the north of my constituency. Many people spend
their leisure time there, yet it is still very dangerous for families
to cycle along many of the area’s roads.
My constituency lies across the Derwent Valley Mills world heritage
site, the cradle of the industrial revolution which kick-started
modern economies, the development of technology and, ultimately,
globalisation. However, it is still not possible for a family to
cycle safely across the heritage site from one historic site to the
next. Part of the heritage site falls within the national park, but
the part in my constituency and in Derby, to the south, does not. I
would like to ask the Minister to provide some funding to enable the
extension of the proposed cycleways down through the world heritage
site, via the historic mills at Belper, Milford and Darley Abbey, to
the Silk Mill museum in Derby, which many people do not realise was
the world’s first multi-storey factory.
The tourism business that could be generated by attracting people
throughout the world to share the interpretation of the world’s
industrial heritage should not be underestimated. Once the new
velodrome in Derby South has been completed and opened, even more
cyclists will be attracted to the area. Germany, Austria and Italy
have already harnessed the potential of attracting cycle tourists to
increase their tourism income, which has the benefit of being spent
mostly in local villages and towns, either in the small-scale
catering industry or on buying regional products, thereby supporting
2 Sep 2013 : Column 120
local growth in jobs and the economy. We are trying to do that in
Belper, particularly through the sale of local food and local
products. Furthermore, Transition Derby is trying to stop people
using their cars one day a week, which is not too much to ask people
to do.
Those are not the only benefits that could come from extending the
cycleway to the south. The added value of providing a safe cycleway
from the Derwent valley into Derby is that it would also serve the
needs of numerous commuters living in the towns and villages in the
valley, especially Belper, Milford, Duffield, Little Eaton, Allestree
and Darley Abbey. It would provide a safe, healthy, carbon-free
alternative mode of transport that would reduce congestion and
pollution. The benefits of such expenditure to leisure users and city
communities is self-evident, and I therefore ask the Minister to
consider adding to the current proposals for cycleways in national
parks and to fund an extension of the cycle route from Matlock—he
will be familiar with Matlock, as it is in the constituency of the
Secretary of State—down to Derby through the Derwent Valley Mills
world heritage site.
9.13 pm
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): I warmly welcome
the recommendations in the “Get Britain Cycling” report, and I
want to add my congratulations to the all-party parliamentary cycling
group on the work that it has done on it. The benefits of increasing
cycling to public health, air quality, congestion, the local economy
and people’s overall quality of life are huge and undisputed, and
the report provides a comprehensive set of steps towards achieving a
bold vision.
A cycling revolution is not just about incremental growth in a few
areas of the country. As the report sets out, we should be aiming for
“a
dramatic increase in the number and diversity of people who cycle,
because they see it as a safe and normal activity.”
So, although the warm words about cycling and the extra funding are
important, I have been disappointed by the Government’s rather
half-hearted and complacent responses to so many of the other
recommendations. It has been striking to hear the breadth of support
from all parts of the House for more priority to be given to cycling,
and I hope that the Minister will now take another look at the merits
of being more proactive in making the cycling revolution a reality.
Sitting here this afternoon, I was impressed to hear so many local
examples of good practice, and I would like to add a few of my own
from Brighton and Hove. Brighton and Hove is a very cycle-friendly
city, so let me highlight a few of its fantastic local initiatives.
These powerfully illustrate some of the tremendous benefits that
could be unlocked by acting on the report and through meaningful
political leadership at national level, too.
For example, Brighton and Hove Albion football club is constantly
encouraging, promoting and facilitating cycling to the stadium, which
is about five miles from the city centre. “Bike train” rides are
organised by experienced volunteers to help cyclists to take up a
good amount of road space and benefit from safety in numbers. All
that helps cut air pollution, so it is not just those on the bikes
who are reaping the health benefits. I have taken part in bike train
rides on a number of occasions and have experienced how incredibly
helpful
2 Sep 2013 : Column 121
such schemes are, particularly for getting less confident people
on a bike and ensuring that they enjoy the experience by making it
feel normal and safe.
Secondly, there is to be an exciting new cycling hub at Brighton
railway station, which was approved in July by the city council. This
will increase the number of bike spaces by 420 to a total of 670, and
provide shower and changing facilities, a bike shop, a café, a cycle
repair outlet and bike hire—with these all in one place right at
the station, which is great for new and experienced cyclists alike.
Thirdly, we recently introduced a new 1.8 km cycle lane that
separates bikes from motorised traffic along Old Shoreham road.
People feel much safer, cycle journeys have rocketed by 30%, and it
has been praised by many. Such “Copenhagen-style” improvements
are crucial for cyclists to feel safe, especially those who are new
to cycling or less confident.
In response to requests from residents, the city council is now
consulting on a second phase of a programme to introduce 20 mph speed
limits. Again, this is not just about cyclists, but about improving
the street environment for all road users, including car drivers, by
reducing the number and severity of collisions and casualties,
improving traffic flows and making the city a safer and better place
to live in. A default speed limit of 20 mph is a key recommendation
of the report, which I think Ministers should not dismiss so quickly.
Changing speed limits is not expensive, and if we are serious about
“cycle proofing” all roads, adequate long-term funding is needed
for schemes such as new cycle lanes.
Finally, let me say a few words about the great environmental
gains—both for local air quality and cutting carbon pollution—that
would follow from the UK becoming a true cycling nation. I end by
emphasising that there are also very good economic and social
reasons, which would alone provide ample grounds for full
implementation of all the report’s recommendations. For example,
according to a Sustrans report last year, 1.5 million people are in
transport poverty. These people are unable to get to jobs, shops,
health care or school because they cannot drive or run a car, while
public transport is inaccessible and they cannot use bikes either.
More investment in bikes would help them tremendously.
9.17 pm
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): As one of the panel
members of the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report “Get
Britain Cycling”, I am delighted to take part in today’s debate.
I am delighted, too, because I am undertaking the parliamentary
sports fellowship with British Cycling for the coming year.
I fully support the report’s aims, especially the target to have
10% of all journeys made by bike by 2025 and 25% by the year 2050.
The motion also calls for the Government to show strong political
leadership, including an annual cycling action plan and sustained
funding for cycling. I would particularly like to welcome the latest
Government action, which includes making it easier for councils to
install cycle facilities, cycle proofing of road infrastructure and
stumping up £148 million of new funding between now and 2015.
In fact, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary State for
Transport, I was at the headquarters of the Peak District national
park over the summer, hearing
2 Sep 2013 : Column 122
about its ambitious plans to improve and encourage cycling there.
As part of that national park is in my constituency, I was delighted
to hear that cycling in the park is being given a £7.5 million boost
to enhance the cycle trail network. This will put an estimated 3.5
million people within reach of the Peak District national park cycle
network, either by bike or following just a short train ride.
Cycling has gone ballistic in my part of West Yorkshire. My personal
passion began with a series of country-wide charity bike rides with
Huddersfield Town football club. The “Keep it Up” campaign has
raised just short of £1 million for the Yorkshire air ambulance, as
hundreds of Huddersfield Town fans have been sponsored to cycle to
and from opposing teams’ football grounds. Well done to all of
them!
The Grand Départ will go through my constituency on Sunday 6 July
next year. A huge number of cyclists are already out on the route, B
and Bs are booked up, and cycling-related festivals and events are
being planned. The Government are backing the Tour de France in
Yorkshire with £10 million of funding. However, there will not be
just one day of the Tour in Yorkshire, because there is now a legacy
project called “Get Yorkshire Cycling”—a 10-year strategy which
will unlock potential in the fields of health, the economy, the
environment, transport, tourism and community engagement.
As well as investment, cycling safety is paramount, and has been
foremost in the minds of many people in my constituency this summer.
John Radford of Meltham is a popular cycling champion, but he is now
fighting for his life following a collision with a car. He suffered
severe head injuries and had to be airlifted to Leeds general
infirmary, where he remains critically ill. John is chairman of
Huddersfield and District cyclists’ touring club, and has been
working tirelessly to promote cycling locally and nationally.
Cycling is a community. Last month I joined 200 of John’s friends
to take part in a six-mile ride to show our support and help to raise
cash for the Yorkshire air ambulance, which flew him to hospital. The
ride was organised by Councillor Martyn Bolt, the mayor of Kirklees.
I know that all Members will want to send their best wishes to John
and his family.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Jason McCartney: I will not, because I have only 30 seconds
left.
British Cycling is continuing to work with Ministers and the likes of
Sustrans and the CTC to push for change. This is not just about
safety. Cycling needs to sit at the heart of transport policy, and as
it becomes more and more popular, we need to make it safer as well.
We need better collaboration between Government departments. Mr.
Speaker, let’s “Get Britain Cycling”.
9.21 pm
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): Some of my constituents
who urged me to take part in the debate may have been surprised when
I wrote back to say that, although I would put in for it, I could not
guarantee that I would be able to speak, or able to speak for long. I
think that, in general, the British public underestimate
2 Sep 2013 : Column 123
the extent and seriousness of the House’s interest in cycling.
Debates on the subject have been greatly over-subscribed, at least
during the time for which I have been a Member of Parliament, and I
think that that is a huge step forward.
It is a pity that a debate which has been so well supported will not
receive much publicity. It will not, I suspect, feature on the front
pages of many newspapers, despite our best endeavours. That is
probably because it is too consensual. The British public, or perhaps
the media, are sometimes a bit odd in that respect. We are always
being urged to be more consensual, but when we are more consensual,
we tend to be ignored, and what we say is not considered very
important. I hope that at least some attention will be paid to this
debate, because—as was pointed out by the hon. Members for Totnes
(Dr Wollaston) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—it is important
for us to mention not just the problems but the fun and enjoyment of
cycling.
It is also important for people to realise that Members of Parliament
are human beings who “get” cycling. The hon. Member for Rugby
(Mark Pawsey) said that we might not look like MPs if we turned up
sweating from cycling, but MPs are people as well. When I was first a
councillor and cycled around my ward all the time, my constituents
initially thought that I was a touch eccentric, but as they got to
know me, they realised that that was actually a very sensible thing
to do. Cycling gets us to where we want to be very quickly and
efficiently, especially in cities. Sadly, in rural areas cycle use is
falling rather than rising, and that is clearly an issue that we
should think about.
When I was a young trainee solicitor, I was asked to deliver an
offer. Housing offers had to be delivered by a deadline of noon, and
this was before the days of fax and e-mail: they had to be delivered
physically. When my boss said that the offer must be delivered by 12
o’clock, I said “I will just go and get my bike”, but he threw
me the car keys and insisted that I take the car. Of course, taking
the bike would have been much more efficient. Once you get the car to
the destination, assuming that was in time, there would be nowhere to
park it, and in parking it five minutes’ walk away, absolutely
nothing has been gained. People have to understand that.
Even in a city such as mine, where generally, as I indicated in an
intervention, a lot of money is being spent on cycling and there is a
lot of support for it, the proposal for how to deal with Princes
street once the trams arrive and start working was, disappointingly,
to have an only one-way cycle route, along that prime street of the
city. One argument for that was that the alternative route, which
would have had a two-way cycle route, was on one of the big national
cycle routes and people would want to go through it. I greatly admire
people who do long-distance cycling, but I am not one of them; for
many of us we are talking about a daily event, and people want to go
from A to B easily. Perhaps Edinburgh council is listening, along
with other councils, because they have to make it easy for us to get
to where we want to be, as that will encourage a lot of people to get
cycling.
2 Sep 2013 : Column 124
9.25 pm
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): I did not learn the joys of
cycling in Holland or even in Hexham; I learned them in the
constituency of the Minister when I was a young teenager. However, I
have gained a far greater appreciation of cycling since becoming the
Member of Parliament for Macclesfield. At the elite level, we are
fortunate to have the national cycling centre in Manchester, and Team
GB were often seen training on the junction between the Cheshire
plain and the Peak district, where we in Macclesfield are so
fortunate to live. We saw them cycling up the Cat and Fiddle road and
clearly setting the standard on how to take elite sport forward.
My area is also privileged to have Dame Sarah Storey, our most
decorated Paralympian of all time, who lives in Disley. It is only
fitting, but I am delighted that Disley parish council is unveiling a
commissioned sculpture in her memory in a few weeks’ time and
celebrating her tremendous accomplishments with an amazing cycling
day in the village. We are also fortunate enough to have an
incredible cycling club, Macclesfield Wheelers, which sets an
incredibly high standard with its legendary cycling trials between
Macclesfield and Congleton. It is also setting a really high standard
as advocates for its pastime and passion, and the club has certainly
helped me to gain a greater understanding of what needs to happen to
take cycling forward.
What most encourages me is the number of people taking to cycling on
their own initiative, whether it is getting out into the Peak
District—many MPs have spoken about that—enjoying Macclesfield
forest, getting out on the Middlewood way with their families or just
taking the bike to go to the shops. The public in Britain get
cycling. They understand its benefits, and not only because of the
Olympics and the Tour de France, with the great successes of Sir
Bradley Wiggins; they are seeing the health and well-being benefits
of cycling.
Jim Shannon: One thing that has perhaps been omitted from the
report is the issue of safety helmets for children under the age of
15. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that their use should be compulsory
for people of that age in order to prevent accidents, because that is
when the greatest number of accidents takes place?
David Rutley: That subject has been well debated today. There
are pros and cons, but the overwhelming suggestion from people here
is that if we make helmets compulsory, fewer people will cycle. We
are trying to say, “Let’s get people cycling.” This is not
about having a health and safety-fest; it is about encouraging people
to get out cycling and seeing the health and well-being benefits,
which are profound. They are also lifelong, unlike those associated
with football, rugby or some of the other sports we are keen to
support.
The other thing we should note is that cycling also gives a real
boost to the local economy, particularly in rural areas. Cycling is
vital as it provides revenues for countless B and Bs, guest houses,
cafés, pubs and, let us not forget, local cycling shops, which seem
to be springing up in many villages. Given those important benefits
to tourism, I am delighted to join my hon. Friend the Member for
Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and colleagues from elsewhere in
highlighting what the Peak District national park is doing to get
more people cycling through its cycling festival, which I believe is
taking place next
2 Sep 2013 : Column 125
weekend. I have also been out cycling with the Secretary of State
for Transport on the Monsal trail. That just shows that he is
absolutely committed to, and understands the importance of, cycling.
As co-chair of the all-party group on mountaineering, I am passionate
about campaigning to get people out and active outdoors. Normally,
this is about getting them out and active on two feet, through the
“Britain on Foot” campaign, but I recognise today that it is
vital to get people active on two wheels as well. It is fantastic to
see the degree of participation in this debate.
I am delighted that the Government are taking action in this area.
Many have talked about the important funding for cycling ambition
grants, which will have profound benefits for cities such as
Manchester and national parks such as the Peak District. I am pleased
that more steps are being taken to encourage the setting up of 20 mph
speed limit zones and to make it easier for them to be established.
However, I was talking to Macclesfield Wheelers and its chairman,
Peter McGuckian, earlier today, and there is more that needs to be
done. We must improve signage to ensure that people feel safer on the
roads when they are out cycling. He also talked about the importance
of setting up more advanced stop positions, which are vital for
cyclists. He also asked me to urge that motor-related offences
against cyclists should be taken much more seriously than they have
been in the past.
Let me conclude by focusing on the potential for cycling. My mother
is Danish, so I understood the importance of cycling from an early
age. For many people it is not just a sport, an outdoor activity or a
mode of transport—it is part of people’s lives. There is real
potential to make this a way of life that will benefit countless
people.
9.30 pm
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab): This has been a
excellent debate with positive contributes from 33 colleagues on both
sides of the House. The clear message is that Parliament wants to see
greater support for cycling, not just from the Government but from
all parties. That is the call to which I want to respond on behalf of
the Opposition this evening.
First, let me pay tribute to the all-party group on cycling. The “Get
Britain Cycling” report is excellent, well-argued and persuasive
and has had a considerable influence as we have reconsidered our
approach to cycling as party of Labour’s policy review. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing
and opening the debate on behalf of the all-party group, but I also
particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for
Dudley North (Ian Austin). He also made an excellent contribution to
the debate, of course. Less visibly, but absolutely vital, is the
energy with which he has sought to persuade my colleagues and I that
we must make a much greater commitment to cycling and that we must go
significantly further than the important progress that we started to
make in government.
Finally, let me mention my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and
Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). He not only made a customarily informed
and passionate contribution today, but has been a powerful advocate
for both cycling and improving safety on our roads for many
years—advocacy that, coming from a respected
2 Sep 2013 : Column 126
Transport Minister, delivered real policies that saved lives. I am
very sorry to have lost his expertise as a Member of our Front-Bench
team. However, I know that he will continue to make a considerable
contribution on this and many other issues in the future, albeit from
the Back Benches.
I am clear that supporting cycling is a hugely cost-effective way of
improving our personal and national quality of life. When nearly a
quarter of all car journeys are for less than a mile, making cycling
a more attractive option has great potential to cut congestion and
boost the economy. With families facing a cost of living crisis,
making more journeys by bike is a good way to reduce the impact of
rising fuel costs on the household budget, and as a cost and
time-effective way of staying fit, to which many Members have
attested this evening, cycling has real health benefits. Of course,
it also benefits the environment, helping us to cut emissions and
reduce transport’s contribution to climate change, which remains
significant.
The message is being heard, with 20% more people cycling than a
decade ago, yet if one goes to the Netherlands—as I also have as
part of our policy review—it is apparent how much further we still
have to go. In Holland, a third of all trips to and from rail
stations are by bike compared with 2% here. I have seen for myself
the fantastic facilities for cyclists at stations in Holland, where
there are not just bike spaces but undercover staffed storage with
people on hand to repair and maintain bikes while owners are at work.
It is a matter of investment—10 times more is spent per head of
population on cycling in Holland than in the UK—but it is also
about attitude and commitment. I am sorry to say that we have not
seen the commitment from the Government that we need to see to
increase cycling and to make it safer to cycle.
Immediately on taking office, Transport Ministers abolished Cycling
England and, more importantly, its £60 million annual budget and the
cycling city and towns programme that we established. Since then,
policy after policy has set back the progress that we were making.
Targets to cut deaths and serious injuries on our roads were
abolished, even though they brought focus to efforts to improve
safety. The THINK! road safety campaigns have been degraded, road
traffic police numbers have fallen and support for speed cameras has
been axed, which has made enforcement much more difficult. Longer
HGVs have been given the green light, despite the Department for
Transport’s analysis of consequential increased road casualties.
This summer we heard the long-awaited promise that axed funding for
cycling would be restored, but headlines about the figure of £148
million turned out to be spin. The reality is an average of just £38
million a year until 2016, with the rest to be found by local
authorities, which is a third less than the previous Government’s
investment. With only one tenth of the population benefiting, that is
simply too little, too late, after three wasted years.
It is clear that we need a step change in the Government’s
commitment to cycling. There should be a long-term commitment that is
supported by all parties and that will last across Parliaments. I
shall briefly set out clear proposals for what should form the basis
of that new
2 Sep 2013 : Column 127
commitment and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to
each of them so that we can begin to forge the cross-party consensus
that cycling needs and deserves.
First, we must end the stop-start approach to supporting cycling,
which means that we need long-term funding of the infrastructure
needed for dedicated separate safe cycling routes. Ministers recently
set out annual budgets for rail and road investment up to 2020-21,
but they failed to do so for cycling infrastructure, which means that
while there is a £28 billion commitment for roads, we have only a
one-off £114 million from central Government for cycling, and that
is spread across three years. It is time for a serious rethink of
priorities within the roads budget with a proportion reallocated to
deliver a long-term funding settlement for cycling infrastructure.
The priority for investment to support cycling must be dedicated
separated infrastructure to create safe routes. The focus has too
often been on painting a thin section at the side of the road a
different colour. Genuinely separated cycle routes are vital not only
to improve safety but, as we have heard from many hon. Members, to
build confidence and to encourage those who are not used to cycling
to make the switch to two wheels. It is also important that a
commitment to new infrastructure does not become an excuse not to
improve the safety of cyclists on roads where there is no separation.
The priority should be redesigning dangerous junctions where almost
two thirds of cyclist deaths and serious injuries due to collisions
take place. We need a much greater use of traffic light phasing to
give cyclists a head start.
Secondly, we need to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the
past, so I propose a cycle safety assessment before new transport
schemes are given the green light. In the same way in which
Departments have to carry out regulatory impact assessments and
equality impact assessments, there should be an obligation to
cycle-proof new policies and projects. We need new enforceable design
standards and measures to ensure compliance.
Thirdly, we need national targets to cut deaths and serious injuries
to be restored, but they should sit alongside a new target to
increase levels of cycling. The number of cyclist deaths is
tragically at a five-year high. Of course, targets alone are not the
only answer, but they help to focus minds and efforts, so Ministers
are wrong to reject them. However, it is vital to ensure that targets
do not perversely lead to local authorities and others seeing the way
to cut deaths and injuries as discouraging cycling. In fact, cycling
becomes safer when more cyclists are on the road, so we should learn
from the success that has been achieved in European countries that
have set clear goals to increase levels of cycling alongside the
policies necessary to achieve that.
Fourthly, we should learn from Wales and extend to England its active
travel legislation, which sets out clear duties on local authorities
to support cycling. Local authorities are central to devising,
prioritising and delivering measures to support cycling, so it is
important that additional support from central Government is matched
by clear obligations. To assist councils, we should provide them with
a best-practice toolkit to boost cycling numbers that is based on
what we learned from the cycling city and towns programme and
evidence from abroad. Councils
2 Sep 2013 : Column 128
should be supported to deliver 20 mph zones, which should
increasingly become an effective default in most residential areas.
Fifthly, we must ensure that children and young people have every
opportunity to cycle and to do so safely. The Government should not
have ended long-term funding certainty for the Bikeability scheme,
nor axed the requirement for school travel plans. Those decisions can
and should be reversed. Sixthly, we need to make it easier for
cycling to become part of the journey to work, even when the commute
is too far to do by bike alone. Employers can play an important role
in providing access to showers, changing facilities and lockers.
However, our public transport providers need to step up and do much
more too. Instead of the Government’s approach, which has been to
propose a weakening of franchise obligations, we should toughen up
the requirement to provide station facilities and on-train space for
bikes in rail contracts.
Seventhly, we need to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done
in cases where collisions lead to the death of cyclists and serious
injuries. I welcome the recent commitment from Ministers to initiate
a review of sentencing guidelines. It is vital that this is a
comprehensive review of the justice system and how it protects
vulnerable road users, and it should be concluded without delay in
this Parliament. We are certainly willing to work with Government to
implement sensible changes that may be proposed.
Finally, we need tough new rules and requirements on heavy goods
vehicles that are involved in about a fifth of all cycling
fatalities, despite the fact that HGVs make up just 6% of road
traffic—there is clearly an issue there. We should look at the case
for taking HGVs out of our cities at the busiest times, as has
happened elsewhere in Europe, including in Paris and Dublin. As a
minimum, we should require safety measures on all HGVs, including
sensors, audible truck-turning alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars,
as well as better training and awareness. I have previously suggested
to Ministers that the £23 million that is expected to be raised
annually from the new HGV road-charging scheme could be used to
support the road haulage industry to achieve that. I hope that that
idea will be taken seriously and considered by Ministers, along with
all those clear proposals. Taken together, I believe that that would
be a significant improvement in the Government’s current approach,
and it is something that all parties could support across the House.
Cycling has the potential to be a huge British success story, but it
needs a new approach and a shared commitment across Government,
councils, schools, employers and public transport providers. Most of
all, it needs Ministers to cut the spin and instead give cycling
infrastructure greater priority within the existing transport
investment plans that they have set out. It is time to end the
stop-start approach that is getting in the way of progress and agree
a cross-party, long-term commitment to cycling.
9.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman
Baker): I welcome the fact that the debate has taken place. It
follows the very successful debate in Westminster Hall, which was
also engendered by the all-party group on cycling. I pay particular
tribute to
2 Sep 2013 : Column 129
my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr
Huppert), and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), on their
leadership of that group, and, indeed, to all members of that group
for a very good report. I welcome the fact that this has been a
well-attended debate, and that the contributions from Members from
all parts of the House have, almost without exception, been positive
and constructive. I am particularly pleased to hear the news of
individual MPs taking up cycling. That is now on the record in
Hansard
, and doubtless their constituents will hold them to that
commitment.
The Government wants more people to cycle more often, more safely. We
are determined to drive that forward. We have a good record to date,
but I want to make it clear that we want to go even further. I
believe that we have the most pro-cycling Government that the country
has ever had, and we are determined to go even further.
Cycling is good for the environment, good for individual health, and
good for the economy. It is good for the environment, because it cuts
carbon emissions, noise and air pollution. It is good for individual
health, and I am delighted both that the former Health Minister, the
hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), has attended the debate, and
by the contribution that the Department of Health has made towards to
cycling efforts in government, including the financial contribution
that it has made to some of our projects. NHS reforms provide an
opportunity at local level for the public health function to be
discharged in conjunction with the transport function in a way that
simply was not possible before.
Cycling is also good for the economy. Last week, I was in Cambridge,
where 47% of adults cycle at least once a week. I congratulate the
three councils there: Conservative Cambridgeshire county council,
South Cambridgeshire district council, and my Lib Dem colleagues on
Cambridge city council, who are working together to promote cycling.
The lesson there is that whereas the population of Cambridge has
risen from 105,000 to 125,000 in a decade, car travel is flat because
the councils have incentivised cycling. If the three councils
together had not done that, there would be gridlock in Cambridge as a
consequence. So the lesson is that those who want to help the local
economy will help the local cyclist. Those who advocate anti-cycling
policies damage the local economy.
It is worth pointing out that a 20% increase in cycling levels from
2010 to 2015 could save the economy £207 million in reduced traffic
congestion and £71 million in reduced pollution levels. Members on
both sides of the House who have drawn attention to the economic
value of cycling are absolutely right to do so.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): My hon. Friend knows
that there will be a huge boost to tourism in Yorkshire from the Tour
de France next year. I did not get the chance during the debate to
mention that in Otley, which is part of the route, and the birthplace
of Lizzie Armitstead who won the first medal in the London 2012
Olympics, we also have a lot of work going on at grass-roots level.
My constituent Joseph Cullen is working very hard to get ordinary
people cycling. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is as important to
get ordinary people cycling as it is to train Olympians of the
future?
2 Sep 2013 : Column 130
Norman Baker: I entirely agree. As one Member said earlier,
cycling must be for everyone. It is the Government’s intention to
make sure that that message goes out loud and clear.
Mr Bradshaw: Will the Minister give way?
Norman Baker: I will, briefly.
Mr Bradshaw: The Minister said a moment ago that this is the
most pro-cycling Government ever. What is his response to the
disgraceful comments of the Communities Secretary that cycling was an
obsession of the elite and that he wanted to make a free-for-all for
motorists to park on double yellow lines?
Norman Baker: I think the Communities Secretary is capable of
answering for himself.
I want to mention the funding arrangements which this Government has
put in place. If people believed some of the earlier comments,
including from the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), they
would think that this Government had not been funding cycling. That
is quite untrue. In fact, we are funding cycling more than the Labour
Government did. Between 2005 and 2010 the previous Administration
spent £140 million—£200 million with match funding—on cycling.
Under this Administration, £278 million—£375 million with match
funding—will be spent in our five-year period. That is almost
double what the Labour Government spent in the previous five years.
When Opposition Members complain that there is not enough funding, a
little more humility would not come amiss.
I entirely agree with the comments made by hon. Members that it is
important not to neglect rural areas. That is why the Government has
committed £600 million to the local sustainable transport fund,
which equates to £1 billion with match funding. That local
sustainable transport fund has funded 96 projects, 94 of which have
cycling elements. A further £100 million capital and £78 million
revenue funding has been allocated for the LSTF in 2015-16. We have
seen £44 million committed throughout this Parliament to support
cycle training for schoolchildren. I might say to the shadow
Secretary of State that the first thing we did on cycling as a
coalition Government was to commit to Bikeability funding throughout
the whole Parliament to give the certainty which she says she wants.
In addition to all that, £159 million has been announced since the
beginning of 2012—£94 million to increase cycling in eight cities
and four national parks, £20 million to deliver safer junctions
outside London, £15 million to enable cycle parking at rail
stations, £15 million to provide more safe cycling links between
communities and £15 million for junction safety in London. In times
of plenty, the allocation to cycling measures was £200 million. In
times of hardship, we have had £370 million from this coalition
Government.
Hugh Bayley: I am concerned that much of the money spent on
cycling measures under the previous Government and the present one is
spent badly because the planners and engineers who design road
systems do not understand cycling well enough. Will the Minister meet
the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Town
2 Sep 2013 : Column 131
Planning Institute and others to try to create a professional
qualification for cycling planners, and then to insist that local
authorities use such people in designing their systems?
Norman Baker: The local sustainable transport fund
schemes—there are 94—were all subject to expert analysis,
including by those from local authorities and others who know about
cycling, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it would be helpful
for him and I to meet particular people, I would be happy to do so.
He should phone my office and we will sort it out.
I also want to mention a key recommendation that, to my surprise, was
not touched on much in the all-party group’s report:
cycle-proofing—although the shadow Secretary of State referred to
it in her comments. The “Action for roads” Command Paper,
published in July this year, made it plain that we want to
cycle-proof our road network and minimise situations where major
roads are a barrier to walkers and communities. All new roads and
improvement schemes on the strategic road network will be designed
with cyclists, as well as motorists, in mind. There is almost £5
million for 14 schemes identified in the strategic road network where
the Government will fund significant improvements to remove barriers
to cycling, with a further £15 million for such improvements in
2015-16. Officials are currently planning a conference on
cycle-proofing roads later this year, which will involve council
chiefs, directors of highways and planning, representatives from
local economic partnerships and national parks and so on to ensure
that we have the expertise and can work out how best to cycle-proof
our roads, streets and communities.
Steve Brine: I know that the Minister did not want to move on
without responding to my challenge in respect of junction 9 of the M3
and the Highways Agency, so I just wanted to give him a chance to do
so.
Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting
that point into the debate twice. I do not have a specific answer,
but I will write to him subsequently. Indeed, if there are any other
specific comments that Members have made that I cannot respond to, I
will try to do so in writing subsequently.
We are looking at the feasibility of a new national cycle way to
broadly follow the HS2 corridor, which would link people, communities
and local stations to the countryside and tourist attractions and
benefit those living along the corridor. We are looking for these
opportunities to improve cycling.
I also want to touch on the safety of cycling, which of course is
very important. The Transport Secretary and others have made it clear
that any death on the roads involving a cyclist is one too many. We
are determined to take what action we can to minimise the number of
cycling deaths. That is why I have made it possible for local
authorities to install Trixi mirrors at junctions without having to
apply to the Department for Transport and why my colleague the hon.
Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has been so assiduous in
trying to deal with the problems of HGVs and to ensure that some of
the points mentioned by Opposition Members are properly dealt with
through mirrors, cameras and so
2 Sep 2013 : Column 132
on. To pick up on a point the shadow Secretary of State made, I am
happy to say that no incidents involving cyclists and semi-trailers
have been reported since the trial began.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): My hon. Friend may be
aware that I have had discussions with some of the HGV trailer
manufacturers and know that they would be very willing to see
additional safety measures and happy to work with the Department to
achieve that. Will he join me in welcoming that initiative and see
how that can be progressed very quickly indeed?
Norman Baker: I certainly welcome that, and I welcome the
constructive response we have seen already from the Freight Transport
Association, for example. That comment is very welcome and I am sure
that my colleague, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, is aware of that
and can take it on board and move forward appropriately.
As I said, any one death on the road is one too many. Figures for
London show that between 2008 and 2012, 53% of all pedal cycle
fatalities were a consequence of direct conflict with HGVs, so there
is a serious issue that we are very much aware of, as I think is the
Mayor. We are taking steps to deal with it through a number of
changes. It is also important to note that cycling in London has
increased by 173% since 2000, and figures for cycling deaths and
injuries have to be borne in mind in relation to the big increase in
cycling that has taken place.
Jane Ellison: On the point about HGV safety, tomorrow morning
I am visiting the regeneration site at Battersea power station, where
the developers, owners and constructors are running a specific day of
cycle awareness training with HGV drivers and cyclists. Does the
Minister welcome such moves where developers take responsibility for
HGVs moving in and out of their sites? Perhaps that is a way forward.
Norman Baker: That is exactly the right response, and I hope
that it will become common practice across industry and across the
country.
I want to respond to some of the comments made by Members. In the
previous cycling debate, the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian
Austin) called for the Prime Minister to lead and take action. The
hon. Gentleman was very nice to me today but lamented the fact that I
was, he implied, dealing with this without support. That is not the
case. There is support from all my colleagues in the Department for
Transport and from different Departments across Government, and the
Prime Minister himself made a statement in August. That clearly
indicates the importance that the Government as a whole attaches to
the matter. If any colleagues across Government were not taking it
seriously, I am sure that the Prime Minister’s appearance in August
will ensure that they take it more seriously than they did
previously.
There have been a number of suggestions that we should have a cycling
champion. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)
talked about that. I am very sorry that he is no longer on the Front
Bench, by the way. He has been a very good Minister in his time, and
a shadow Minister as well—not just the Member for Poplar but a
popular Minister. He asked whether I am the national champion for
cycling. I hope
2 Sep 2013 : Column 133
that I am a national champion for cycling, but so are my right
hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my other colleagues
in the Department for Transport, and the Prime Minister and the
Deputy Prime Minister. We want to make sure that this is owned across
Government by all Departments. The danger of having one person
identified in the role is that others do not feel the need to
participate in the same way. I am not particularly keen to use the
word “tsar”, by the way. The history of tsars at the end of
imperial Russia is not a happy one, and we can probably do without
it.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for
drawing attention to the health benefits of cycling. We used the
World Health Organisation economic assessment tool in assessing the
cycle city and national park bids and the grants we subsequently
gave. She mentioned 20-mph speed limits. I hope that she will
welcome, as others have, the fact that this Government have made it
easier for local councils to introduce 20-mph limits, which I
campaigned on for a decade before they finally became reality under
this Government. She asked about enforcement, which several other
Members properly raised. The hon. Member for Wimbledon and I had a
meeting with Suzette Davenport, who is a lead member on this for the
Association of Chief Police Officers. She has agreed to rewrite the
guidance for ACPO on the enforcement of 20-mph limits, and I hope
that that will appear before long.
I have to say that there were a couple of churlish comments. The hon.
Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) complained about
the Government’s approach. I should point out that she has had £10
million in two local sustainable transport tranches, £5.7 million
through a cycle city ambition grant, and £1.24 million for cycle
safety funding. That is £17 million for Newcastle and she was the
most ungrateful Member here today. The second most ungrateful Member
was the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who said
that the Government were doing nothing and forgot to mention that the
scheme at Brighton station that she identified—the cycle rail
fund—and the cycle lanes on Old Shoreham road and Lewes road are
paid for from the Government’s funding.
I am delighted that this has been such a good debate and that so many
people have turned up to contribute. I confirm that the Government
takes this matter very seriously, and we will make further progress.
In the spirit of coalition unity, let me say that I have something in
common with Norman Tebbit—we both want people to get on their
bikes.
9.58 pm
Dr Huppert: It has been fantastic to have such a great debate
with so many right hon. and hon. Members contributing. The passion
expressed has been really fantastic. The support for the cross-party
report, “Get Britain Cycling”, is very welcome and I am very
pleased to see it.
At our conference in two weeks’ time, my party will debate adopting
this as part of our party policy and then in our manifesto. I hope
that other parties will do the same, because it would be marvellous
if at the next election they are all offering some serious
improvements on cycling. For years—for decades—Governments have
not done enough. We are doing more now but there is
2 Sep 2013 : Column 134
far more still to do. I hope that
the support expressed in this debate will add extra weight to the
call on all our parties for this Government and all future
Governments to try to do their best to get Britain cycling.
It is also fantastic that while so many right hon. and hon. Members
have been here, outside a huge number—some 5,000—cyclists
organised by the London Cycling Campaign have been showing their
support for what we are doing and trying to help to get Britain
cycling. I am pleased that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign has been
involved in all that.
I am really delighted that we have had this debate. I hope that it
will give an impetus towards improving facilities for cyclists, and
also for pedestrians and consequently for drivers and all other road
users. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That
this House welcomes the recommendations of the All-Party
Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”;
endorses the target of 10 per cent of all journeys being by bike by
2025, and 25 per cent by 2050; and calls on the Government to show
strong political leadership, including an annual Cycling Action Plan
and sustained funding for cycling.
