Wessex Route Study (Passenger Capacity)

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) on securing the debate, which is very timely in the light of the document that was published earlier this week, or perhaps last week, if I have got the timing right. However, the principal reason why I wanted to speak in the debate is that when I received my copy of the document, it took me some time to find any reference in it to anything west of Salisbury.

As you will be aware, Mr Streeter, historically this was the main line, as far as Exeter, to the south-west. It was certainly the fastest and most direct one. It is only in relatively modern railway times, since the Great Western line took over as the principal route, that it has fallen into decline. However, with the renaissance of the rail industry that the right hon. Lady mentioned, it faces similar pressures to railways all over the country. It faces similar and very welcome increases in passenger numbers, and that is not just about people travelling between Exeter and Waterloo. This line is a favourite of retired people and students, because it has rather competitive pricing compared with the First Great Western line. That is an element of competition that I am sure everyone here agrees can only be a good thing. Although the journey times are a little longer as a rule, people can get cheaper prices, so it is a very popular line, not just with people for whom it is convenient—those living in the constituency of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who may be speaking in a few minutes—but with people from Exeter and people visiting Exeter from London and the south-east.

The line is a vital lifeline on the sadly increasing number of occasions when our main line, the Great Western line, is incapacitated, usually through some act of nature at the moment. In the past two or three winters, we have lost our connectivity on the main line for considerable periods and, as you will know, Mr Streeter, that has had a very damaging impact on the economy of the south-west. The alternative rail access provided by the Wessex line from Exeter to Waterloo has been incredibly valuable, although there was a week or so last winter when we had no connectivity at all because the line between Yeovil and Exeter was also blocked. I cannot remember whether that was because of flooding, landslides or trees, but the route suffers from resilience and vulnerability problems, which I shall discuss in a moment. I remember one famous weekend when I was coming back from my constituency and I was literally stranded. I always take my bicycle on the train between Exeter and London, and I had to put it in a taxi from Exeter all the way to Yeovil to get to the nearest train station. That, admittedly, was a rare event, but it helps to explain the sense of vulnerability and isolation that we have in the south-west, with these two fantastic but ageing and in-need-of-investment rail connections.

We can find one or two mentions of the line west of Salisbury in the document, which are welcome, but I hope that the Minister, when he sums up, will be able to reassure me that justified as all the investment is in the south-eastern portion of the line, east of Salisbury, this line will also receive investment. It performs a vital function, not just for long-distance travellers but increasingly for commuters in the Exeter area. We have growing and thriving communities. We have a new town, Cranbrook, just outside Exeter, which is getting a new station. We have growing villages and market towns—Feniton, Honiton and others—in east Devon and they have irregular services at the moment. In some cases, that makes it incredibly difficult for people who would like to use the train to commute to and from Exeter for work to do so.

Devon county council, along with the other local and regional partners, has come up with a visionary transport vision for the area, including something called the Devon metro, which would involve significant improvements and upgrading of the access routes in and out of Exeter by rail. This route is one of the most important. I do not have the figures with me, but I would not be at all surprised if a large number of people commuted every day to Exeter from the growing and thriving settlements in east Devon, but they have, as I said, very irregular services, which tend to finish early in the evening and do not always start early enough in the morning.

I shall explain what we desperately need on the this bit of railway west of Salisbury, which over time has been reduced largely to single track. That is the main problem. With a single-track railway, we cannot run services as frequently as we can on a double-track railway; we need passing places. There are a few passing places, but not enough; we need more. Just a few more passing places at strategic points would enable this railway to run trains more quickly and regularly. At the moment, it is difficult to combine a regular service from Exeter to Waterloo with local stopping services servicing the villages and towns that I have referred to, but we need both. With the huge growth in passenger numbers that we have seen in recent years, and which are projected to grow even more in future, and with all the public transport policy from all political parties urging and encouraging people to use public transport where possible, not just for climate change and pollution reasons but for reasons of chronic congestion in cities such as mine, we need those rail routes to function properly as commuter routes, as well as the leisure and long-distance routes that operate at the moment as an alternative to the Great Western line.

I say to the Minister, “Please, when you respond, don’t ignore the south-west.” I say that as chairman of the all-party group on rail in the south-west. The document unfortunately does not mention anything west of Salisbury in its opening pages or headlines. We have to look rather hard in the 180-plus pages to find anything at all about the line west of Salisbury. It is a very important line that has a great future.

I would like some reassurance that the proposals in the document will help Devon and enable Devon county council to deliver its vision for a Devon metro public transport system around Exeter. It is a fantastic, sustainable vision for transport around Exeter, and it is exactly the sort of thing that a forward-looking, visionary Minister, such as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), should support. I look forward to his addressing it in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Like other Members, I congratulate my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), on securing this debate. It is about an issue that she and I have discussed more times than we care to remember, and I have a feeling that we will talk about it many more times over the months and years ahead.

Today’s debate is a great success, not least given my right hon. Friend’s brilliant speech. Often in this House, we talk about things that are declining and problems in this country, but debates about the railways start with a great success story. As my other neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), correctly said, South West Trains is the victim of its own success, and that could be said of the railway industry across our country.

I do not wish to speak for too long, although time seems to be on our side—I want to hear from the Minister—but I want to make a couple of points. My right hon. Friend said that we must watch first class carefully. I completely agree; I have thought that for a long time. We have all seen surplus capacity in the first-class carriages. The TOCs need to watch that closely. I have often wondered whether the idea of first-class provision on our railways is an anachronism in the modern age, but maybe that is a debate for another day.

For my constituents travelling to and from Winchester, the issue is all about capacity. I have stations at Micheldever, Shawford and Chandler’s Ford in my constituency, but the vast majority of travellers, some 4.5 million a year, use Winchester railway station. Thousands commute from Winchester to London, primarily, each day.

I echo others in mentioning some of the success stories for my station and my service during this Parliament, which have been significant. A £3.5 million scheme brought the new decked car park to the station. I say to my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, that it is very good and very welcome, but we should watch the lighting inside, which has to be right or there will be serious and legitimate safety concerns. We have excellent new cycling facilities. As a vice-chair of the all-party group on cycling, I was pleased to see those facilities come online.

We have a fantastic new footbridge at our railway station. When I became a Member of Parliament, people had to get taxicabs from one side of the station to the other, which was ludicrous. We now have wi-fi on many services leaving Winchester, which is brilliant, and we have made real steps on late-night safety around our railway station with the opening of a ticket office so that people do not have to go through the dark side gate. South West Trains—I do not apologise for pressing it again on this—knows that it needs to do better on that.

I am a regular commuter, and I receive feedback from constituents. The reliability of services on South West Trains is very good, and I get good feedback from people in that respect. That is not the issue on which I want to focus today. As others have said, the issue is with the lack of seats on the 6.31 am, the 6.48 am, the 7.5 am and the notorious 7.18 am—standing with one’s face in an armpit is probably one of the best outcomes for which one can hope on that service—out of Winchester into London. That is what really hurts my constituents.

A constituent who knew I was hoping to speak in this debate sent me a note saying that the key issue is obviously overcrowding on the early-morning services into Waterloo: “With ticket costs increasing year on year, and with little discernible increase in seating capacity, insult is being added to injury.” The Wessex route study, which I welcome very much, confirms that and neatly illustrates the current chronic undercapacity of services from Winchester. He said, “This is not news, Mr Brine,” and I completely agree. He talks about adding insult to injury—a standard season ticket between Winchester and London costs £5,500 a year, which is, next to their mortgage, the second biggest outgoing for many of my constituents. They are entitled to a seat for that money.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that First Great Western has reduced the number of first-class carriages on its trains from three to two? That is a very good idea, although were South West Trains to follow suit, would he urge it not to lose the only quiet carriage in first class? I never go there myself because I am always in standard class, but I have had complaints from a number of people in the south-west who now have to put up with a lot of noise, as well as paying quite high fares.

[Steve Brine]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have spoken many times about some of these issues on the all-party group on cycling. Yes, the number of carriages should be reduced where there is a surplus, but I was making a wider point about whether it is morally correct to have first-class and second-class carriages on the railways.

On the subject of the so-called quiet carriage, some of my constituents—and probably some of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents—would find the idea of a quiet carriage laughable. Even though there are big signs on the windows saying that the carriage is a quiet carriage, many people seem not to notice. I have heard many mobile phone conversations in the quiet carriage during my travels, so the railways may need to do some education work.

I was talking about the cost of a standard season ticket for my constituents, which is huge. It actually costs more to get a season ticket from Winchester to Waterloo than it does from Southampton to Waterloo, even though we are nearer London. South West Trains is well aware of that issue, and I wish it would address the situation. Part-time season tickets are a nut that we have failed to crack, and I would be interested if the Minister had a comment on that issue. Smart ticketing is a coming issue, and I believe I am right in saying that it requires some sort of change at parliamentary level. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that situation.

High demand for peak commuter services to Waterloo from all our constituencies is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said, expected to increase dramatically over the years ahead. She coherently set out the housing development in her area; in my area our local plan, which is almost complete, is for 12,500 houses in the district over the next 20 years. Two thousand houses at the Barton Farm site, which is but half a mile from Winchester railway station, have been given the go-ahead in the past few years. I bitterly opposed that development. Yes, there will be a new primary school on the site, and there will be other infrastructure improvements from such a big development, but a brand new mainline railway station will not be built for my constituents as a result of that development, so something has to change and something has to give.

Southampton airport is a very short train ride from my constituency. Passengers going to and from that airport come through my railway station, and air passenger projections are only expected to grow. People relocating from London to places such as Winchester are welcome, and we enjoy having them. They come because of the “cheaper” housing in Winchester—everything is relative in life, but housing is certainly cheaper than in west London. They come to Winchester for the good schools, the great quality of life and the fantastic Christmas market that we have right now, but they want to commute back into London. They have every right to expect that they should be able to do that, and many contact me to say that they are horrified at the cost and the standing that they have to endure.

There are things that we can do, and others have mentioned some of them. The national infrastructure plan published yesterday has some very good announcements for my area. As I said in the House, the improvements to junction 9 of the M3, on which I campaigned for many years, are incredibly welcome. The smart motorways technology around junctions 10 and 14 are also a welcome investment in our motorway infrastructure for my constituents. Credit to the Minister and his Department for doing that. I thank him on behalf of my constituents.

There are things that we can do as a city. One of the core corporate priorities of Winchester city council is to reduce the daily outward migration from the city for work, which is why the council is so keen to redevelop Station approach, to keep top-quality employers such as Denplan and to attract other big, quality employers, all of which reduces the necessity for people to travel to London every day. It is important that should happen. Those are all things that we can do, but we cannot control all of them. The issue is about capacity.

The key constraints for passenger services are highlighted in the study, which states:

“the layout of the Waterloo throat restricts the number of services that can access the platforms at any one time; the layout at Clapham Junction does not allow all trains that currently pass through the station to stop there”.

The study continues:

“A further constraint on the ability…to accommodate passenger growth is the capacity of some station car parks”.

We have gone some way in that respect, but many other places have not yet done so.

Capacity is the issue. I admit that I was sceptical about the local enterprise partnerships, but they are part of the solution, as is Hampshire county council. Winchester Action on Climate Change sent me a brief ahead of today’s debate and, judging by its name, it is keen on railway travel, as am I. The organisation makes some positive contributions, and it will be responding to the route study in due course.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke talked about a significant plan of investment, which is exactly what is needed—now really is the moment for that. Ahead of this debate one of my constituents said to me, “A lot of the discussion points in the Wessex route plan are very big-picture and will take a long time, cost a lot of money and need a lot of political and stakeholder buy-in. What can we do in the short term?” I place one point on the record for the Minister’s consideration—I know he likes to muse on these things. As a temporary solution, could we make greater use of Victoria station for trains coming in from the Wessex area? I leave that idea for him to ponder.

You will be pleased to know, Mr Streeter, that I have nearly finished. First, however, I have some questions for the Minister. I know that St Pancras and all the investment there are very much on Ministers’ radars, but is Waterloo on the Minister’s radar? I do not know whether it is, but it needs to be.

Road Investment Strategy

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that a good transport system will lead to fewer emissions, which will be welcomed right across the House. As far as the south-east and London are concerned, we are talking about 29 new schemes worth £3 billion, with 18 new schemes worth £1.4 billion.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given that investment in transport infrastructure has fallen significantly under this Government, and that the Secretary of State’s Conservative predecessor made exactly the same promise about the A303 in December 1996, I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me if I take today’s reannouncements with a tad of scepticism. Given the huge economic damage to the south-west whenever our main rail artery is severed, does he agree that tackling the vulnerability of our rail infrastructure has to be our region’s greatest priority?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The right hon. Gentleman slightly absurdly chastises me for something that was said in 1996. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a different Government between 1997 and 2010, of whom he was a member. There must therefore have been 13 years in which he failed to make any progress whatever for his area, so I will not take too many lessons from him on that. I agree with him on the question of resilience in the south-west, however, and I am keen to ensure that we look at that whole matter. That includes the railways, but it also involves improving the road network, which has been sadly neglected. The planned improvements for the A303 and the A30 that we have announced today will have a substantial effect on the area, and will be of great benefit to the south-west.

Cycling

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin]

Given the delay, I am not sure that we can say that it was rushed, but it was certainly botched. I do not think that many people will take the report very seriously, and I think that they will be very disappointed by its contents. The Prime Minister promised a cycling revolution, and the report talks of achieving Scandinavian or Dutch levels of cycling, but that is impossible without real commitments to increase funding levels.

The Government have promised that

“cycling will be at the heart of future road developments”,

and say that they are

“committed to turning Britain into a cycling nation to rival our European neighbours."

If the Minister answers just one question in this debate, I hope that he will tell us how those two promises can be taken seriously when the Netherlands spends £25 per head on cycling while the UK spends about £2, and when the highways budget in the UK is £15 billion while the funds announced for cycling are about £150 million, with no dedicated funding stream that allows local authorities to plan for more than two years.

Despite all the promises, today’s report speaks only of an “aspiration” to “explore” the possibility of investment. The Government are spending £64 billion on road building and HS2, but they cannot commit the funds that are needed to boost cycling in Britain. In the Netherlands 27% of journeys are made by bike, and at least £25 per head is spent on cycling. That is followed by Denmark, with 19% of journeys made by bike and spending of at least £20 per head. At the current rate, we shall not reach Dutch levels of cycling until the 23rd century. England languishes towards the lower end of the European league table, with less than £5 per head spent on cycling, and even that is set to decrease.

No budget was set for cycling in the Government’s 2010 spending review. All that we have seen are stop-start injections of cash, and the announcement of competitive bids when the Department for Transport underspends its budget. Such a fragmented approach is no way to “Get Britain Cycling”. Spending on cycling, it has been said, is smoke and mirrors: Ministers have top-sliced Bikeability funding from the local sustainable transport fund, claimed credit for funding allocated by the last Government, and counted Cycling England’s budget in its figures although they abolished it. The LSTF has provided £600 million for sustainable travel, but there is no way to determine how much of that has been spent on specific cycling schemes. The Government claim spending has doubled, but half of all local authorities have been forced to reduce their spending on cycling and over a third have had to cut staff. For a cycling and walking delivery plan to be meaningful, it must contain a commitment to long-term consistent funding.

As we heard a moment ago, there also needs to be a real commitment to consistent revenue funding. A key element of the LSTF has been inclusion of both capital and revenue elements to enable streets and routes to be transformed, alongside programmes to support and encourage people to walk or cycle. Further commitment to both types of funding for active travel is urgently needed, particularly given the scarcity of revenue funding for transport in local authority budgets, but the local growth fund, which replaces the LSTF and which is overseen by local enterprise partnerships, is purely capital funding.

In response to a recent parliamentary question, the Government calculated that the spend on cycling in England is equivalent to £5 per person per year. Of this, 80% is directly or indirectly attributable to dedicated funding from Government, the largest component of which is the LSTF, but with the LSTF coming to an end in 2016, bringing to a close six years of dedicated funding for cycling and walking, there is now no guarantee that money will be spent on cycling and walking, and in fact no budget line for cycling and walking at all.

Analysis of major scheme bids to the local growth fund shows that less than half of local enterprise partnerships have put forward any projects for walking, cycling or public transport, with road building making up three quarters of the bids from some LEPs. Without sustained and substantial committed investment from Government, total spend on cycling and walking will fall sharply after 2015-16, to a fraction of current levels and far below the £10 per head per year target. Commitment is the vital ingredient missing from this plan that has simply an aspiration to explore funding opportunities.

The Government have also failed when it comes to taking cross-departmental action, especially in getting the Department of Health to commit to revenue funding which, as I said earlier, would produce such huge health benefits. There is also no mention whatsoever of the role the Department for Communities and Local Government has to play, which is absolutely unbelievable given that so much of the work to improve facilities and safety for cyclists has to be done by local authorities.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

We know the reason for that. The Communities Secretary said that cycling was a middle-class obsession that did not bother ordinary people.

[Ian Austin]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I am honoured and humbled to follow the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). The bicycle has been my main form of transport for at least the past 20 years, as it has his. It has been the only form of transport I have owned for that period. Having cycled as a child, it was logical for me to use the bike as my main form of transport, given the growing congestion in our towns and cities. The revelatory experience for me—the eureka moment—came in the mid-90s, when I was sent by “The World This Weekend” to my old primary school in Norfolk. I cannot remember what the news piece was about—whether it was about stranger danger, the safety of roads or even growing obesity—but I arrived at my old primary school to find that the bike sheds had gone. That was a shocking experience for me. Not only had the sheds gone, but in place of children coming and going by biking or walking at the beginning and end of the school day, there was traffic congestion, belching fumes, noise and chaos outside the school gates. From that moment on, I have not felt as passionate about many issues, across all public policy, as I do about this one.

Things do not have to be like they were at that school. I am glad to say that in Exeter we have bike sheds again at our primary and secondary schools. Thanks to the investment we received as part of the previous Labour Government’s cycling demonstration town scheme, we have had a massive increase in the number of children cycling and walking to school—one of the biggest increases anywhere in the country—and a huge increase of 40% in cycling levels overall. I ask those who still do not believe that we can replicate Danish and Dutch cycling levels because ours is a hilly country to come to Exeter, one of the hilliest cities in the country. We have done it. We know how it can be done, although we have a lot more to do.

The problem is that under successive Governments—I do not want this to be a party political debate—the approach taken to cycling has been a piecemeal hotch-potch; we have had a bit of funding here, a bit of targeted funding there and a grant that has to be applied for. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, progress has been bedevilled by the fact that there has not been sustained, real investment and sustained political leadership from the top.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I hesitate to interrupt my right hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech. I recently visited a Bikeability scheme at a local primary school in Bristol, where children are being trained and encouraged to feel safe on the roads. Does he share my concern that we are not putting enough money into Bikeability schemes and that doing so would be a huge step towards encouraging more people to cycle?

[Mr Bradshaw]

Yes, I do share that concern. I agree with my hon. Friend, who has put her finger on another important element—education, getting people cycling early and giving people the confidence to cycle. I am fortunate that in my constituency we still have a local authority that is committed to Bikeability, but, again, the service around the country is patchy because there is no sustained funding. Heaven knows, we all know what funding pressures local government is under at the moment.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend’s city has very good cycling facilities and routes, and needs to be commended for that. Does he accept that there is a slight problem, in that primary school children can be excited about cycling and encouraged to enjoy it—some primary schools do good work on that—but in secondary schools cycling becomes impossible because of bad facilities or longer journeys, or simply because it is “uncool”? We lose a lot of cyclists in the crucial teenage years and they do not come back, so somehow or other we have to do a lot more to get young teenagers and teenagers in general to keep on cycling.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am sure my hon. Friend is right in what he says, although it has not been my experience in Exeter. Helped by the fantastic success of our professional cycling teams in the Olympics, cycling is now very cool and there has been a big upsurge in cycling among teenagers in my constituency. However, that is mainly because there are safe routes to the schools and facilities for people to lock their bikes and store their stuff when they get there. I am sorry to say that that is not common across the country.

It was in that context, after all the years of hard work by people such as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, that the all-party group, supported by The Times, decided to carry out its investigation and report in 2013. We spent days listening to evidence from experts across the field on how to get to the sort of cycling levels enjoyed in most of our neighbouring and similar continental countries. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, this is not rocket science; it comes down to sustainable commitments for funding and sustainable, persistent cross-departmental Government leadership.

What do we get today? A year late, we get a report that has been rushed out in time for this debate. I wanted to try to be kind about the report, which I had time to read before coming into the Chamber, but I cannot help agreeing with CTC, which has described it as “not a delivery plan” but a “derisory plan”. Once again, it is a hotch-potch of aspiration, which puts a lot of the responsibility on hard-pressed local authorities, on local enterprise partnerships—we have already heard that the record of LEPs is feeble at best, and they are also under a lot of pressure—and on business. That is deeply depressing and dispiriting, following all the debates we have had in this House, and the growing support among Members from all parts of this House and among the public for meaningful action to be taken on cycling. Seeing the report was one of the most depressing moments I have had in this House during this Parliament.

Surely we do not need to remind the Government of cycling’s benefits for health, the environment, and tackling congestion and pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) reminded us about the health benefits alone. If we met the targets that our report set for 2025 of 10% of journeys by bike, up from a derisory 2% in England at the moment, we would save £8 billion in health expenditure. If we reached continental levels of 25% of journeys made by cycling by 2050, which was our other target, we would save £25 billion for the health service.

Those are just the health benefits; they do not even take into account the additional benefits of tackling congestion and emissions. I do not understand what is wrong with the economists in the Department for Transport and the Treasury who do not recognise the logic of that. The Secretary of State, who I am pleased to see in his place, is a reasonable man. He was extolling the fantastic rail renaissance that we enjoyed in England in recent years. We could be having exactly the same renaissance in cycling if only there were the political will and a tiny bit of investment. All it would need is a fraction of the Department’s budget that is going on roads or on HS2 to be earmarked for cycling, and we could achieve that £10 per head per year figure, which would begin to deliver the cycling revolution we all want.

Let me be perfectly frank: whatever one thinks of this Government report, the timing of its publication—in the last few months before a general election—probably means that the political parties’ manifestos for next May and who then forms the Government will matter much more. I want to make it clear, including to my own Front-Bench team, that there are a lot of cyclists out there and we should not underestimate the power of the cycling vote. Many towns and cities, from Brighton and Hove to Norwich, Cambridge, Oxford, my own city of Exeter and Bristol, will have hard-fought contests in marginal seats at the next election.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The right hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way, especially as he has just mentioned Brighton and Hove. It gives me the opportunity to say that in Brighton and Hove we have the fastest growing cycle-to-work scheme outside London. Does he agree that what we need in today’s plan is far more focus on cycle-friendly design standards or guidance? We should be sharing such standards, and yet there is nothing in the plan to do or promote that. Therefore, current guidelines are very jumbled up, inconsistent and contradictory.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is a good plan on the shelf in Wales, which the Department for Transport could simply use. There are far too many different plans, which need to be brought together in one single plan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

May I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to page 8 of the plan in which it talks about sharing best practice? It says that we will

“create a single point of information about the best practice for creating and designing cycle-friendly streets.”

That is in the plan and we are determined to ensure that best practice is shared among local authorities, which have ownership of the roads.

[Mr Bradshaw]

That was not the view of the cycling organisations this morning in their initial response to the plan.

Let me finish with this message to my Front Benchers and political parties across the spectrum. There are millions of cyclists out there, and they are waiting for real and meaningful action on cycling to deliver safe cities and a healthy environment, tackle obesity, increase happiness and boost the economy. It is a no-brainer for very little money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) will take that message back to the shadow Secretary of State, who I know is a committed cyclist, and to his shadow Treasury colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, which is a credit to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. No fewer than 11 Members have made speeches, more if one takes interventions into account. It is a credit in particular to the officers of the all-party group on cycling: my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who introduced the debate, and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Winchester (Steve Brine).

It is also right to mention the cycling and active travel organisations that support the all-party group. They have played a big role in making today’s debate happen. Between them they have a great deal of power, because we were told by Ministers more than a year ago—this has been mentioned already—that there would be a cycling delivery plan. More than a year ago, we were told the Government were working on that. We have been asking the Government for a year, “Where is it?” It has been a bit like waiting for Godot, but, amazingly, one Back-Bench debate and suddenly, hey presto, the delivery plan appears—or, as some have called it, the derisory plan.

As this debate has made clear, there are huge benefits to cycling. In particular, it improves people’s health—physical inactivity costs the NHS between £1 billion and £1.8 billion every year—and protects the environment by tackling air pollution and congestion in our towns and cities. As hon. Members have said, therefore, this affects all road users, whether motorists or lorry drivers, cyclists, bus passengers, pedestrians or motorcyclists, and many of us are all or some of those things at different times; we are all road users, and our roads must work for everyone. Getting Britain cycling is not simply a two-wheeled agenda. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) pointed out, the voice of the motorist, the AA, supports the report as well.

If I remember correctly, last year the Minister promised a walking and cycling plan to promote active travel as a whole, but as far as I can tell, we have here a delivery plan—if it is a delivery plan—for cycling only. Why is that?

As the report shows, just 2% of journeys are made by bike, while nearly two thirds are made by car, over half of them shorter than five miles. We lag behind other countries—Germany, Demark and Holland have all been mentioned—that have set impressive targets for cycling. For that reason, the “Get Britain Cycling” report was clear that we needed vision, ambition and strong political leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) also pointed out. But what progress have we seen? The Government’s delivery plan today starts with a section entitled, “Vision, Leadership and Ambition”. Given that the Minister wants to show those things, I would like to ask him about how the plan measures up to that.

The plan puts much emphasis on new partnerships being created between the Government and local authorities to support cycling, and says that they want local authorities to register and expand cycling in their areas. However, unless I have missed something, the incentives on local authorities in the delivery plan are vague at best. What about those areas that do not sign up? Where is the national vision, leadership and ambition there? How will the Minister encourage areas to get onboard that are just starting to dip their toes in the water? How will he share best practice there? In that respect, the point made by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) was very pertinent.

The Minister talks about the Department’s active travel consortium and an extended local sustainable transport fund knowledge-sharing network being responsible for sharing best practice, but how will that work? Has he learned from past mistakes, because the Government’s record on this is not good. Ministers scrapped Cycling England, which co-ordinated action on cycling, and the replacement cycling stakeholder forum and the so-called high-level cycling group have met just a few times in a year. What confidence can organisations involved in the active travel consortium have that they will have the clout and reach to promote active travel and ensure that better travel infrastructure for cycling is delivered?

I accept that the Minister is serious in his personal support for cycling, but where is the buy-in from other Departments, particularly from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who suggested that cycling was the preserve of the elite? He is not alone in that view. In my own town, Birmingham, a prominent Conservative councillor is on the record saying that cycling is discriminatory against women, particularly women from ethnic minorities. Fortunately, most people in Birmingham do not share that view.

It is good to see a review of how the planning system can support walking and cycling, but I understand that DCLG will imminently be publishing new guidance on transport planning. Will this be another silo, separate from the Minister’s, or will the two relate, and if so, how?

[Mr Bradshaw]

The lesson from when we were in government was that this only works when the Secretaries of State in every Department with an interest in the matter work together. This is a classic area of cross-departmental cost-benefit. At the moment, the problem is that everything is done in silos. Individual Departments are not putting their heads together to work out how much cycling benefits all of us, and that is why nothing is happening.

[Richard Burden]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Why does the Minister himself not take a look at best practice elsewhere? Why not learn some of the lessons that will be unfolding from the active travel legislation in Wales, which will require all corners of government to co-ordinate and get buy-in to promote active travel?

Another message that has been impressed upon us today, time and again, is the need for a clear funding stream. Funding streams need to be predicable and continuous. Today’s delivery plan seems to contain a lot of the right words, but if we look a little more closely, it is not clear exactly what those commitments are. We have heard a lot of talk, including in the delivery plan, about aspirations and wider funding opportunities, but I am still not clear what those are. Forgive me, but I think we need rather more than that from a Government whose use of smoke and mirrors on this issue has been second to none.

This is a Government who claim to have doubled spending on cycling, but when we look closely, we see that they funded Bikeability by top-slicing £63 million from the local sustainable transport fund, which was itself meant in large part to promote cycling. Then the Government claimed they were increasing funding for cycling with the money they gained by scrapping Cycling England. The Government cannot have it both ways. The double counting has to end. All this comes at a time when Ministers have slashed local authority funding by a third and when our research has shown that half of councils have had to cut spending on walking and cycling since 2010.

How about a bit of a change of approach? Instead of centralising power and localising blame, why not do what we have suggested and devolve £30 billion of funding to strong, accountable combined local authorities to get such schemes going? If the Government have set out £28 billion for our roads until 2021, with funding certainty for road and rail, why not get a bit of certainty in funding for cycling? How about heeding what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) set out in our recent party conference, when she called for action on education, engineering and enforcement?

On engineering, I hope that all references to cycle proofing in the Minister’s delivery plan will take on board Labour’s call for new cycle safety assessments, to ensure that all transport projects are assessed for their impact on vulnerable road users and active travel. However, the proof of that pudding will be in the eating. We need all engineers and planners to include cycling at the design stage, not as an afterthought.

What about enforcement? Nearly half of cyclists say that it is too dangerous to cycle on the roads safely at the moment—we all listened to what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) said about the tragic case of John Radford. We have called for the restoration of national targets to cut road deaths and serious injuries. I want to know why Ministers continue to resist that. Why do they have to be the ones dragging their feet on HGV safety in the UK and the European Union, rather than taking on board our suggestion of an HGV cycle safety charter, with industry regulation to ensure that HGVs are fitted with minimum safety features to protect cyclists? How will hiking HGV speed limits on single carriageway roads—despite the Department’s own impact assessment saying it will increase deaths—contribute to what we are talking about today?

[Richard Burden]

What I can say to the hon. Gentleman, if he was following my drift, is that we have been absolutely clear that in order for the objectives in the “Get Britain Cycling” report to be taken forward, money has to be available and it has to be predictable and continuous. He will also know that it will be for the shadow Chancellor, just as much as it is for the Chancellor, to commit precise amounts. However, what I can give the hon. Gentleman a commitment to is continuous and predictable funding—something that simply is not in the cycling delivery plan.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I may be being a bit dim, but although I completely accept that Chancellors and shadow Chancellors set overall budgets, surely as a ministerial team with a departmental budget—my criticism of the Government is that they have not done this—it is perfectly within the powers of my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend to earmark a small proportion of the Department’s budget to reach the target. He does not require the permission of our right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor.

[Richard Burden]

The issue of providing clear, predictable and continuous funding is exactly that; it is about providing funding through a funding stream for cycling. A number of prominent people within the cycling community have put it to me that the issue of predictability and clarity is more important than whether we are talking about £8, £9, £10, £11 or £12. That is the point, and it explains what we are going to bring forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will say something in topical questions about the appalling situation faced by Devon and Cornwall MPs as regards the rail service in their areas. I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. I met her and other Members last night to discuss the situation and its effect on their constituencies, and I will be saying a little more later on.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

While good wi-fi is important for rail travellers, the trains need to be running in the first place, so I will invite the Secretary of State, if he does not mind, to say a little more about what he is doing to ensure that this vital main line into the south-west is reopened as quickly as possible, and about what he will do in the long-term to help deal with the vulnerability of the line at Dawlish?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am trying to keep in order by sticking to the issue of wi-fi, but I well understand the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who came to see me last night, with Robin Gisby, the managing director of Network Rail, to talk about the situation at Dawlish and how it has basically cut off services to Devon and Cornwall. I have not yet had the full engineering report, because it has not been possible to get it, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am working with Network Rail to restore the service as quickly as possible and to carry out a more vigorous review of some of the alternatives available.

Cycling

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

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 was 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 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 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 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 go 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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I entirely agree that 20 mph zones and limits can be useful in particular locations. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already taken up the matter of police enforcement with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Of course, operational matters are for the police to decide, but in my view if a local democratically elected body decides that a 20 mph limit should apply, the police should enforce it.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Minister says that he takes cycling seriously, so when will the Government implement the relevant part of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to enable local authorities to enforce measures against law-breaking motorists who drive in cycle lanes and sit in advanced stop boxes for cyclists?

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responded to that exact question on part 6 of the Traffic Management Act a moment ago. We have had representations about that; I am considering the matter seriously; we are in discussions with other Government Departments; and I hope to make a statement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I said, the Department is undertaking a review of fares. That is not to look at a way of making fares more expensive, but to ensure that people understand how fares are delivered.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

2. What discussions he has had with Network Rail on improving the flood resilience of the south-west rail network.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

I had a number of conversations with Network Rail throughout December about improving the flood resilience of the south-west rail network. I also visited works on the west coast main line on new year’s eve, where I was able to discuss the issue in person with David Higgins, Network Rail’s chief executive.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Between the end of November and the end of December, Devon and Cornwall were effectively cut off from the rest of the country by rail for two periods lasting more than a week each. That is not acceptable for rail travellers or our economy. Will he impress on Network Rail the absolutely urgency of tackling the problem at Cowley bridge in Exeter, which is the cause of most of the problems?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The situation that people in the south-west faced over that period was unacceptable. It was the result of weather that we do not see often. I have talked to many Members who have made representations to me on that, and I have asked Network Rail to give a briefing to Members from those areas. That will take place in early February, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will attend.

Cycling Safety

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Havard. Let me say at the outset that, given the time the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) has taken for his speech, I do not intend to take interventions.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman very much on securing the debate, which is one of a number we have had recently on cycle safety. This is a very important issue, not least given the worrying news that this year, for the first time in many years, there has been an increase not only in deaths and serious injuries on the road, but in cycle deaths and injuries. The hon. Gentleman made a brilliant speech about a whole range of measures that could be introduced to help take those figures back in the right direction, and I was absolutely with him until he came to cycle helmets. I was even with him, to start with, when he talked about encouragement and exhortation, but I am afraid that as soon as he used the term “compulsion”, he lost me, and I will outline briefly the reasons for that.

I urge those hon. Members who press for compulsory cycle helmets, and the organisations that have lobbied them, to study the evidence. The hon. Gentleman said he wanted a policy that was based on evidence, and we should study not only the evidence, but the myriad debates we have had in the House since I came here in 1997. We should also talk to the organisations that represent cyclists. I speak as a lifelong cyclist, a former chairman of the all-party group on cycling, a former Health Minister and someone who cares deeply about the safety of cyclists and young cyclists in particular.

The reason why the House has repeatedly rejected the idea of compulsory cycle helmets is that, overall, it would create a public health disaster, and I will explain why. Wherever cycle helmets have been made compulsory —whether in Canada, New Zealand or Australia—that has had such a detrimental impact on cycling rates that the overall impact on children’s health and the health of society as a whole has been deeply negative. The hon. Gentleman used an important statistic, which is essential to the whole subject of cycle safety, when he said that the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20 to one.

In Western Australia, which has had a lot of experience of this issue because it has had a law on it for more than 20 years, cycling decreased by more than 30%, and it decreased faster among young people. That has been the experience in every country that has made cycle helmets compulsory. By all means encourage, by all means exhort and by all means have campaigns, but please do not, based on the best intentions, pursue a policy that is deeply counter-productive and that will cause more premature death, more obesity and more ill health among young people.

This is completely different from the seat belt issue. The last time the British Medical Journal was asked for its opinion on this issue, its board of education and science concluded:

“Cyclists are advised to wear helmets but legislation to make them compulsory is likely to reduce the number of people choosing to cycle and would not be in the interests of health”.

The BMJ added that research suggested that

“non-cyclists tended to be most in favour of helmets. In fact, a much greater number of lives would be saved if pedestrians and car occupants were encouraged to wear helmets.”

An analysis of the experience in Western Australia, which was the first place in the world to impose uniform mandatory cycle helmet legislation, showed that the legislation increased hospital admissions per cyclist on the road, reduced the popularity of cycling, damaged public health and increased all road casualties.

I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to go back to the evidence and the debates that we have had in this House, and to pursue with all his energy and time the many measures that will help to protect children and improve child health and cycling safety. He himself cited the excellent campaign by The Times and its eight-point wish list. I gently suggest that The Times took great care in assessing the most important things that needed to happen to save the lives of cyclists and young cyclists. Compulsory cycle helmets were not among them, and there is a reason for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Havard, on the first of two occasions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing the debate, which comes after some high-profile cycling incidents, and today’s report in The Times.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bradley Wiggins being knocked off his bike on 7 November in Wrightington in my constituency. For obvious reasons the case received significant national media coverage and highlighted the dangers for cyclists on the roads. Prior to the incident Bradley Wiggins had often spoken about the need to improve road safety for cyclists. Our roads grow ever busier, and there is an absolute need for all road users, whether cyclists or motorists, to take individual responsibility for being as safe as possible on the roads. That responsibility means not behaving in a way that endangers other road users, but for cyclists it also means taking the appropriate precautions to keep their bikes and themselves safe, including always wearing a helmet. For motorists it would include not speeding, and being cautious when passing cyclists.

Today The Times not only showed the serious dangers that cyclists face, but referred to the fact that this year, which is unparalleled in terms of the success and popularity of cycling, the number of cyclists killed on British roads is sadly on course to reach a five-year high. According to analysis by Transport for London, which was quoted in the article, 56% of cyclists’ deaths are caused by motorists’ “unlawful and anti-social” manner, yet only 6% of collisions are caused by cyclists behaving in the same way. Some people argue that we need to consider how properly to integrate cycling into the modern transport network. I would not, however, encourage anybody to follow the example of West Lancashire borough council, which has invested section 106 money building a cycle path to junction 4 on the M58. We certainly do not need to encourage cyclists towards the motorway network.

It is important to discuss whether making cycling helmets compulsory can improve cyclists’ safety. It does improve it, but the reality is that there are times when a helmet does not offer enough protection from dangerous driving. In such cases, we need to consider how motorists who cause fatal collisions are dealt with through the judicial process. At present, a view is that the inconsistencies in the charging and sentencing of motorists involved in collisions with cyclists is very worrying.

Everybody knows of Bradley Wiggins, but people will not know of Christine Favager, who was another cyclist involved in a collision in my constituency. Tragically, this time it was a fatal accident. Sixty-nine year old Christine was cycling along a rural road, Asmall lane, in Scarisbrick. The accident happened at about 7.40 pm on a July evening in 2011—not on a dark, wintery night. The 19-year-old driver was travelling between 59 and 63 mph as he raced into a bend. He was travelling too fast and too close to another car as he entered that bend, and witnesses saw the car swerve right across two lanes. In over-correcting, the driver was forced across the road to avoid hitting the car in front, which meant that Christine was hit head on. She had been cycling in the opposite direction. Initially, the driver was reported as being arrested under suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving. He subsequently pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. A 20-month custodial sentence in a young offenders’ institute and a three-year driving ban were handed down to him. Christine’s family lost a very dear member.

That case highlights one of the complaints from cycling groups, which is that often the lesser charge of death by careless driving is pursued, as opposed to the charge of death by dangerous driving.

[Mr Bradshaw]

My hon. Friend gives an example of someone receiving a custodial sentence. I am sure she is aware that in a great many cases, drivers who kill cyclists and pedestrians do not even get that.

Cycling

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I hope to take considerably less time than the limit, given the impressive number of Members who have turned up today. The last time so many Members turned up was for a debate against the BBC’s local radio cuts. It properly did a U-turn, so let us hope that this debate has as much effect on Government policy.

I do not want to repeat things that have already been said, and most of my remarks will, I hope, be directed in a friendly way to the Minister. As a number of hon. Members have already said, and as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made clear, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. There is a general consensus about what works and what needs to be done, and he was absolutely right to say that the single most effective thing that we could do to make cycling safer is to get more bikes on the road—critical mass and safety in numbers.

Speaking as a cyclist of more than 20 years in London and a non-car owner for more than 15, the situation in London has been transformed. I feel much safer cycling in London now than I ever have, because there are more bikes on the road. I do not always feel that safe in other parts of the country, including in my own constituency, where there are fewer bikes on the road and where I am given less space by a vehicle. Getting more people on bikes is the best way of making cycling safer.

Having said that, my constituency, Exeter, was one of the fortunate cities that was a cycling demonstration town under the Labour Government. We had a total transformation in cycling over a short time—a 47% increase in cycling between 2005 and 2011. I went back to my primary school when I worked for the BBC to do a documentary about cycling and I discovered that the bike sheds had been dismantled. When I was a child, we all went to school by bike. Now, nobody did; that was about 15 years ago.

One of the most heartening things that has happened in Exeter is that although nationally the rate of cycling to school is around 3% for secondary schools and 1% for primary schools, in Exeter, now, after such a short time, it is 20% for secondary schools and 10% for primary schools. We know what works, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel.

I stress the need for co-ordination. I was extremely pleased to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge call gently for the restoration of Cycling England. One of the things that will dog the Minister, which also dogged me as a Minister and fellow Labour Ministers throughout our years as a Government who were committed to the agenda and to trying to get something done, is that there are many disparate voices that speak for cycling in this country, and it is vital, if we want to get anything done, that they are brought together in one effective body. That is what Cycling England did, and it was a tragedy that the Government decided to abolish it. I hope that the Minister listens carefully to the sage advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and reinstates Cycling England. He will find having that single body incredibly helpful.

Another important thing, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), is co-ordination in Government. He is absolutely right. Unless we can get all the different Departments that are interested in cycling working together on the matter, and unless we get real leadership at the top from the Prime Minister and, crucially, from the Secretary of State for Transport, the Minister will not get the progress that we need.

Labour made some incredible progress in the 13 years that we were in government. We had big increases in cycling, the cycling demonstration towns, big increases in investment in cycling and improvements to cycling safety. If I am to be perfectly frank, we went up a lot of gears only when Andrew Adonis was Transport Secretary. The reason for that was because he was totally committed to cycling. He banged heads and got me, as the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and the then Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), together. It was about getting those Ministers together, at Secretary of State level, to agree to policies, to push them through and to ensure that we confronted—I am afraid that if the Minister has not already discovered this, he will do so—a cultural problem in parts of the Department and in local government, which are still, in many cases, dominated by the road lobby. The Minister will find it essential to have the full support of his Secretary of State in driving the agenda forward. It would reassure me and everyone else present today if he could assure us when he replies that he has that full support and political clout at the top of his Department.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman now. I have the full support of the Secretary of State, who is signed up to the agenda. I do not believe that there is a cultural problem in the Department.

[Mr Bradshaw]

That is encouraging.

It is also important that the Ministers in his Department speak with one voice. I have noticed a slight discordance in respect of some of the things that the Minister has said and of some of things that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—I am not sure whether he is still the Road Safety Minister—has said, including two completely different responses to letters about liability.

I was extremely pleased to hear what the hon. Member for Cambridge said about liability. It is important. If we look at all the other northern European countries that have a much better record on cycling and cycling safety than we do, we will see that they all have a liability rule. It will make a real difference in this country, making motorists much more careful and wary around cyclists. The Minister’s letter on the issue was quite positive, and it gave me hope that the Government might do something about it. However, I am afraid that the letter from his hon. Friend in the same Department, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, pretty much ruled it out. It is important that the Government speak with one voice on the matter, that one Minister takes leadership on cycling issues and that the matter is led, as I said, right from the top.

The Times’s manifesto is fantastic. I would say that it is a modest manifesto. I hope that my own Front Bench will endorse it; I do not see any reason why the manifesto should not be endorsed in all its detail.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on The Times’s manifesto. Does he agree that we must not forget rural areas in cycling? The roads are narrower, and there are people in my constituency who commute by cycling. I would like to see more about that in the manifesto.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Absolutely, although contrary to most people’s prejudices, I have one of the most urban seats in the country. It is surrounded by beautiful countryside, where many of my constituents go cycling. They feel safer in the city of Exeter than they do on country lanes, largely because of the absolutely intolerable speeds that people drive at on many country lanes. I feel much safer cycling in my constituency, in urban areas and in London than I do in the country, specifically because of the speeding problems; I know that horse riders face similar danger and nervousness.

If the Government go down the route of raising the speed limit on our motorways to 80 mph, I hope that as a quid pro quo, they will introduce 20 mph speed limits in our urban areas. That would be a huge step forward to improve cycling safety. We all know the statistics about how likely it is that someone will survive or die if they are hit at 30 mph or 20 mph. It would make a big difference.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

In Brighton and Hove, we have very successful routes on the seafront with shared pedestrian access. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should be encouraging Brighton and Hove council to mark that space in bright colours? The safety of cyclists is about not only roads, but where we have shared access on pavements.

[Mr Bradshaw]

We have already addressed some of the challenges faced when cyclists and pedestrians are put together. My preference is to separate them if at all possible. Sometimes it is not possible. Where it is not possible, there should be clear demarcation, because we do not want the matter to become an argument between cyclists and pedestrians. They are both vulnerable road users and are much more vulnerable than people who are surrounded by metal. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wish the Minister well. I hope that he takes on board the points I have raised—this is about political leadership and working together—as he will then succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Some 30 years ago, I fell in love on a tandem. I have to share the tragedy with hon. Members that last week I turned 50. On my last day of being 49, my husband turned up on the front half of my tandem like a knight in shining lycra and whisked me off for 28 miles on Dartmoor and a 3,000-foot climb. Frankly, I could not care less about being 50—it was a wonderful evening.

It would be a shame if we did not add the joy of cycling to this debate. Cycling makes us feel glad to be alive, improves our mood and quality of life. That is important, because we need to get more people cycling. There is safety in numbers, but we do not want to frighten people away from cycling—we need to send that crucial message. I cycle to work most days in Westminster. When I first started cycling in London 30 years ago, I felt a bit of an oddity, but now whole pelotons sweep past me. Maybe that is because I am getting slower, but it certainly feels a lot safer when there are more cyclists around.

I welcome the campaign from The Times, but I would like it to be broadened to include rural cycling. I represent a rural constituency. Some 36 people were killed on rural A roads, and 26 on urban roads. It is between five and 10 times more dangerous to cycle per mile on a rural A road than it is in the city. I would particularly like to remember the 11 people from my constituency who were killed or seriously injured cycling between 2005 and 2010. In pressing for change, may I also urge the Minister to consider a change to the language and stop calling them accidents? I suggest that driving and overtaking at 60 mph on a rural lane and hitting a cyclist is not an accident—that is a crash. It minimises, and makes it worse for the victims’ families if we call them accidents. Let us abandon the language of denial and neglect.

I am grateful to my many constituents who have written to me today to give me their ideas, one of which was on speed limits. I know that other hon. Members have referred to this, but the Netherlands is rolling out changing to 60 kph on rural networks. That is the equivalent of 40 mph, as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said. Will the Minister consider that change? It is disappointing to hear that perhaps that is not something the Department will press forward with. On behalf of all hon. Members, I press him to reconsider. I would also like to reconsider, as many hon. Members have, the issue of a safe passing distance of at least one metre. That should made very clear, be part of the driving test and in The Highway Code.

Cycle training is improving. This weekend, I will visit a Steiner school with a wonderful organisation called Always Be Cycling. Not only does it give excellent training to both children and adults, but it teaches people how to repair their bikes. Most people own a bike, but not everybody uses it. Part of the reason for that may be that they lack the confidence to repair it. I urge the Minister to continue to give more support to such excellent cycling training schemes. I would like to see safer manhole covers—non-slip manhole covers would be an excellent development—and more training for lorry drivers. Finally, I want the Minister to focus on how we separate vehicles from cyclists in rural areas.

I pay tribute to the parents at the Steiner school in my constituency who got together and formed the sustainable transport action group, and actively considered how many children were cycling to school—a miserable 2.8%. By working closely in co-operation with local landowners, the parents have increased that figure to 9.1% in just two years by introducing a safe off-road route. This demonstrates that we really do see effective change.

In contrast, in another part of my constituency, at Littlehempston, with regard to which the Minister has already been helpful, it is a scandal that at the home of the transition movement—Transition Town Totnes—we have possibly the only bridge in the country that keeps communities apart. The final link in National Cycling Network 2, the route running all the way from Kent to Cornwall, could be joined up if there were a safe route through Totnes to Littlehempston. At the moment, if I were a parent in Littlehempston I would not want my children to cycle to school. The road between Totnes and Paignton is hideously dangerous. I have cycled it myself many times.

If only the bridge were open and there was co-operation with landowners and, crucially, the co-operation of a sustainable steam railway—the South Devon Railway—which had the bridge built. The real scandal is that £87,000 of public money went towards the £173,000 cost of building that bridge.

We have all heard the bogus arguments about cycling, including the dangers of vandalism and all that stuff—the resistance that is sometimes seen from communities and landowners who do not understand the real benefits that cycling can bring their communities.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I should like to highlight another example, which is the failure so far to complete the cycle route from Exeter to Dawlish, a wonderful route along the Exe estuary, because of the failure of the landowner—the Earl of Devon—to agree to a new bridge over the railway. That bridge would be publicly funded, but he just does not like the look of it.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that.

Let us sweep away some of these bogus arguments and have real involvement and drive. I should like Devon county council, for example, not to be put off from issuing compulsory purchase orders where there are short gaps, so that the local community can really benefit. In this Olympic year, I should like to think that a child living in Littlehempston might be able to start their future Olympic cycling career by cycling from Littlehempston to Totnes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

This has been an interesting and important debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and The Times, for running such a strong campaign and highlighting the dangers that are faced by cyclists every day on our streets, as exemplified by the horrific accident of The Times reporter. Let me emphasise the comments that have been made about her recovery.

Many of the issues raised cut across Departments, and it is important to send a message, perhaps through the Minister, about the need for those Departments to work together—I will return to that point. One issue that Members have raised repeatedly during the debate concerns sentencing policy and the fact that someone who goes out in their car or lorry and uses it irresponsibly as a lethal weapon may not be treated in the same way as someone who goes out with a club in their back pocket and damages another individual. We need to look at the way that courts view drivers who have behaved irresponsibly.

I would describe myself as a lapsed cyclist. My bike hangs, rather forlornly, in the cycle shed close to my London flat, awaiting reuse. Why am I a lapsed cyclist? Well, I have had a couple of near misses on London roads—a number of other Members have already commented on their experiences. My experience involved a classic problem for a cyclist. I was at a junction and a car wanted to turn left. Although I was in my bright yellow fluorescent top, it was completely oblivious of me and winged in front of me. I was lucky; I suffered no major injuries but only came off my bike. The motorist, however, carried on, completely oblivious to the fact that they had left a cyclist slammed into the railings.

My constituency in Plymouth is extraordinarily hilly—the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) has touched on that—and it is not good for cyclists’ knees. Oddly, however, that is not the reason why people do not cycle in Plymouth as much as they could.

[Mr Bradshaw]

One issue that has not yet been raised in the debate concerns the importance of cyclists such as my hon. Friend claiming their road space. The problem seems to be that people, especially women cyclists, do not have the confidence to claim the road space that they deserve, even though doing so would make them much safer. People should get out into the road and give themselves plenty of space away from parked vehicles. If they do that, vehicles that are turning left will be more likely to see them.

[Alison Seabeck]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, drawing on his cycling experience. Some roads have junction spaces in front of the cars where cyclists can go, which makes the experience much safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), as everybody else has, on securing the debate. Let me make it absolutely clear at the start that I am delighted by the turnout and by the cross-party nature of the vast majority of contributions. As far as I am concerned, the more interest in cycling there is, the better, because, frankly, that helps me and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), in our work in the Department to make sure that the issue goes even further up the agenda than it has done so far. There is a good story to tell, to which I will come very shortly.

The structure of the reply I want to give—I say this for the information of colleagues here—is to refer briefly to what the Government have done generally, to deal with the specific points raised by The Times campaign and then to pick up other points that hon. Members have made. My normal habit is to take a large number of interventions. However, if hon. Members will forgive me, on this occasion I will not—at least not at the beginning of my contribution—because I want to get through the points made and respond to them properly.

I will respond to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) first. He asked if we would do a U-turn. I encourage him not to go down that particular road because we are doing a lot of what he wants, much of which is also in the pipeline. If we were to do a U-turn, that would not be welcome to him.

[Mr Bradshaw]

rose—

[Norman Baker]

I just said that I will not take interventions, so I will stick with that. However, I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman later if time allows.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I was actually supporting the hon. Member for Cambridge, who said that he thought it was a mistake to abolish Cycling England because it was an important body that campaigned coherently. That is what is missing now.

[Norman Baker]

I wrote down what the right hon. Gentleman said, but let us not argue about the nuance of that. Suffice it to say that we are doing a lot of good work, to which I will now refer.

First, the coalition agreement explicitly refers to the promotion of cycling. That document was put together quickly and it is short, but cycling is very clearly mentioned. As a coalition Government, we recognise that it is good for the economy, good for the environment and good for personal health to get more people cycling. That is the direction of travel we have been trying to pursue since the Government were formed. The local sustainable transport fund has been mentioned by some hon. Members this afternoon.

M5 Motorway Accident

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I very much hope that we will be able to have an ongoing dialogue with local MPs about the effectiveness of any measures that end up being proposed. Frankly, I would expect that about any key proposals that affect any Member’s local public transport.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady says that the road death figures are still heading in the right direction, but my reading of the latest figures was that, even before this terrible crash, we were looking at the first annual increase in road deaths that this country has seen for 20 years. As she will know, that is deeply worrying to road safety campaigners and others. Will she at the very least have another look at her predecessor’s plan to encourage faster speeds on the motorways by increasing the speed limit?

[Justine Greening]

To go back over the figures on road safety, of course it is concerning that the most recent quarter’s figures that have been released showed such a rise, but we should still not lose sight of the fact that the trend is in the right direction. We should also be conscious of the fact that levels of road safety can, of course, be affected by the weather, so it is not quite as straightforward as simply saying from looking at those figures that there is an underlying reduction in road safety compared with previous quarters.

One key point to recognise in relation to those numbers and the right hon. Gentleman’s point about speed is that people can drive unsafely at any speed and in any weather conditions. It is important that we do not jump to a conclusion when the police still have to examine the causes of the accident, and that we ensure that we have a measured discussion about action that could be taken in future months to improve road safety. We as a House need to have that discussion in a responsible and balanced way.