E-bikes

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My noble friend is quite right: the Government are considering it and we will publish our consultation response soon.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as we have heard, there are already lots of rules governing e-bikes limiting their power and speed, and it is already illegal to ride them on pavements, so we do not need more rules. We need the police to enforce the ones we have; just as, when it comes to more rules for cycling generally, the police should be enforcing rules on drivers who speed or jump red lights—we see this every day on the streets of London, and that causes many more serious injuries and deaths to pedestrians and cyclists on the road.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, but of course these are operational matters for the police. The police are operationally independent. However, they respond to pressure from local communities and the police and crime commissioner; therefore, I encourage those people to ensure that the police are doing what I am sure many would want in their local areas.

Global Britain: Traffic

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, sometimes it is impossible to go back to the old days, and this Government have no ambition to withdraw from the devolution settlements that are in place.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I invite the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and other Members of your Lordships’ House to join us on the annual bike ride of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling on 13 June so that Members of your Lordships’ House can see that getting out of cars and on to bikes cuts congestion, is good for health and the environment, and a much quicker way to get around London.

Payments to Train Operating Companies

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The Government are very focused on making sure that the services we provide for passengers meet their needs. Ridership at the current time is around just under two-thirds of what it was pre-pandemic. There may have been substantial and enduring change, so we are working with the train operating companies, asking them to look very carefully at timetables, remove duplications where possible and look for savings and efficiencies. At the end of the day, we need to provide services that meet passengers’ needs, and they need to be punctual and reliable.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, if the Government are not cutting subsidies for the train operating companies, can the Minister tell me why services on the west coast main line have deteriorated so badly over the past year or so? Trains are often cancelled, frequently overcrowded and often late. I never thought I would be saying, “Bring back Branson”, but services under Avanti appear to be markedly worse than they were previously. What are the Government going to do to improve the situation?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

In the broader scope of things, Great British Railways will be developing the whole industry strategic plan; the call for evidence for that has now closed. We are also asking each train operating company to produce annual business plans, which will streamline the passenger offer, make sure demand is actually met and in balance with the supply, remove duplication, as I said, and ensure that operations are as efficient as possible.

Highway Code

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Absolutely, and I am not sure I agree with my noble friend about criticism. The reality is that 21,000 people responded, for example, to the most recent change to the Highway Code and 70% of those self-identified as motorists. Between 68% and 96% of them agreed with the various elements that we put in place. I recognise that concerns have been raised. I am happy to address those concerns, but I do not think that this change is a poor one and, to answer my noble friend’s question, there will be more changes coming, as I have set out.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister say why recommendations proposed by British Cycling to explain reasons for cycling two abreast and to protect the right to do it, which were rules 66, 154 and 213, were not adopted in full? Will this omission not lead to many drivers still questioning the right of people cycling side by side, which is safer for all road users? Will the Minister agree to meet representatives of British Cycling and Cycling UK to look at this again?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am afraid that I will not commit to meet the cycling lobby again because there was an opportunity for all the stakeholders to input into the consultation. A correct balance has been met. The motoring organisations were there as well, and we are content with how we have resolved the situation around riding two abreast. We say that you can ride two abreast but be aware of drivers behind you and let them pass. It is about getting all people on our roads to act in a very safe and considerate manner.

Temporary Cycle Lanes in London

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, there is much focus on Park Lane this morning. Of course I will take the concerns of my noble friends back to the department and it will be discussed at the Active Travel Oversight Group.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as another former chair of the All-Party Cycling Group, I would like to invite noble Lords to come with me for a bike ride to discover the joys of cycling in London. They will find that it is good for their health and public health, it cuts congestion and emissions, and it helps to meet the targets that the Government set this week at COP. So I ask the Minister: how do the Government propose to persuade reluctant local authorities to provide more safe infrastructure for cycling, so that they hit the Government’s own target to double the number of trips made wholly or partly by cycling from 2013 figures by 2025?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The route to your Lordships’ House is clearly the chairmanship of that APPG. The Government want to encourage improved cycle lanes and cycling infrastructure and, for those reluctant local authorities, we make it very clear to them that future funding is conditional on historic performance. If they do not put in the sort of measures that we would wish to see, frankly, they will not get any money in the future.

Airports National Policy Statement

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

There is capacity at a number of our regional airports, which continue to grow. Birmingham airport will continue to grow. If we expand Heathrow, there is no doubt Birmingham airport will face greater competitive pressure than many of our other airports, but that does not mean that it will cease to be a success story. Birmingham airport is already a great asset for the west midlands, and that will continue. It has attracted a number of important international routes in recent times, and I have no doubt that that will continue.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

For all the talk of balancing economic growth and boosting the regions, it is the same old story—the bulk of investment, spending, jobs and benefits is always in London and the south-east. Why could the Government not show a bit more imagination by expanding Birmingham airport and getting behind the regions? Birmingham airport is actually the best connected airport in the country. It is on the motorway network and, if HS2 were taken to Heathrow, it would be quicker for passengers to get from Heathrow to Birmingham than it now is for them to get from Paddington to Heathrow. That would mean that we in the midlands would get our fair share of the jobs, the investment and the benefits.

[Chris Grayling]

I make it clear that I expect there to be benefits and jobs all around the country, including in the west midlands. Birmingham airport is a very good airport. I have no doubt that it will continue to attract passengers and routes, and to be a success story for the west midlands—that is the way it should be. There are particular reasons why the United Kingdom needs to build on its principal strategic airport hub, but that will not prevent other airports from growing. The measures I have announced today will enable those airports to do so.

Monarch Airlines

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Before it became clear that the collapse was happening, we had pre-meetings across Whitehall between the Departments that needed to be involved, including the Department for Work and Pensions, and Jobcentre Plus has been working with all those affected. That work will continue where necessary. I am glad that if such terribly difficult circumstances had to arise, they arose in a thriving sector with lots of job opportunities. The fact that Jobcentre Plus was able quickly to identify more than 6,000 vacancies for 1,700 people looking for jobs is a good step in the right direction and a tribute to the success of that sector, off the back of what has been a successful economy in recent years.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Four hundred employees, including skilled engineering workers, are set to lose their jobs at Birmingham airport,. The region can ill afford to lose those skills and the contribution that they make to the regional economy. Will the Secretary of State ensure that his Department redoubles its efforts, and does everything possible to ensure that those people can find equally skilled work elsewhere in the region as soon as possible?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Securing strong futures for those people has been, is and will remain a priority for us, along with getting the passengers back. As I have said, however, I am encouraged by the number of other airlines that are actively seeking to recruit. As slots become vacant at Birmingham, Luton, Gatwick, Leeds and Manchester, other airlines are already seeking to move in and take those slots, and they will need staff to work on the business as they arrive.

Airports Commission: Final Report

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that in 2010, after we lost that general election, the then Government decided to have the report from Davies, and it came out with three recommendations. I have listened to the points made by Davies, but I have also read the Supreme Court judgment. I have met some of the teachers who cannot teach during the daytime because of the noise in the classrooms in west London, which my hon. Friends will talk about. I have met those who took the case to the Supreme Court, some of the children who are struggling, and some of those in London who are suffering from ill health. However, I accept that we face a challenge, and that we need to address the need for increased flight capacity in this part of the country.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the need for increased flight capacity could be met in large part by greater use of regional airports, such as the brilliant airport in Birmingham, which contributes £1 billion to the UK’s economy, is within a two-hour drive for 35 million people, and will be much easier to get to when we build High Speed 2?

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the need to invest in and support regional airports. Birmingham is our second city and we should support it, but I am worried that the report, if its recommendations are accepted, will not allow that to happen. Flight capacity in this part of the country could also be increased through a new runway at Gatwick airport. That would result in not only jobs, which that part of the country is always in need of, and growth, but, just as importantly, more competition for Heathrow airport. We want a better Heathrow airport, not a bigger one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

That is the point I was going to make, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. On connectivity, the figures for Gatwick versus Heathrow—based on accurate data—are very similar. On economic benefits, the net present value of Gatwick is £10.9 billion, while the figure for Heathrow is £11.8 billion. The cost of expanding Gatwick is far cheaper, at £7.8 billion versus £15.6 billion. Gatwick requires far less public subsidy than Heathrow airport. On deliverability, there would be no need to build a tunnel under the M25, destroy villages or relocate significant waste and associated waste plants. Noise is also an important concern for not only the hon. Lady, but hon. Members in neighbouring seats. The expansion of Gatwick would affect far fewer people than a new runway at Heathrow airport. Gatwick does not breach, and never has breached, any air quality limits, but Heathrow airport currently breaches both UK and EU air limits. It is difficult to understand how the UK could meet the Supreme Court judgment with a new runway at Heathrow airport.

This is an important debate about an important issue. I am passionately in favour of increased air capacity in this part of the country, because it will lead to more jobs and growth. Anybody who wants more jobs and growth in London, and who wants Heathrow to have better competition, cannot be against increased flight capacity in this part of the country. Anybody who rules out a new runway at both Heathrow and Gatwick is playing hard and loose with jobs in London, and with London in general.

[Ian Austin]

I want to challenge the notion that everything has to be in London and the south-east. Why does increased capacity have to be at either Gatwick or Heathrow? As I have said, why not make greater use of regional airports? Why do all the extra jobs need to be in London and the south-east when people cannot afford to buy a house there? Let us have proper devolution to the rest of the country. Let us support the regional economies and the regional airports.

[Sadiq Khan]

I disagree with my hon. Friend, because he implies that this is a zero-sum game. If London and the south-east do well, that will not happen at the expense of Birmingham. Birmingham is better than that. Both Birmingham and the south-east can do well.

Opposing airport expansion in the south-east full stop is damaging to jobs and business and misses a huge opportunity. I support those hon. Members who are against a new runway at Heathrow and who are in favour of a new runway at Gatwick airport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

There will be a conclusion if the Prime Minister considers the quicker, less costly and less risky option of Gatwick.

Most people who will be impacted by runway 3—those who will be affected by the change in respite periods and those under the new landing path—do not yet know what that impact will be. British Airways no longer supports Heathrow airport runway 3. The chief executive of its parent company has expressed serious concerns about how a third runway would be funded. Mr Walsh has said:

“The infrastructure is not fit for purpose. The price tag is excessive and cannot be justified on any basis. We didn’t ask for it and we’re not paying for it.”

Business has said time and again that a quick decision is needed. Businesses want to get to and from London, and to and from their markets. Heathrow Airport Ltd is often not top of their agenda.

[Ian Austin]

Businesses also want to get to other parts of the country, not just to London. I do not understand why people in the south-east do not understand that Gatwick is much more difficult to get to than a brilliant regional airport such as Birmingham, as I said earlier. It is within a two-hour drive for 35 million people in this country. Why can we not use the spare capacity at Birmingham? With HS2, it is within 40 minutes of London, and could in effect become Heathrow’s third runway. Why do we not do that?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank my hon. Friend. There are other solutions, but I am concentrating on the subject of the debate, the Airports Commission, which recommended Gatwick as one of its three options for an additional runway in London and the south-east.

For residents, expansion at Heathrow will mean 40% more flights overhead; 50% more of London and the south-east in a high-noise area, such as the 57 dB Leq area; more air pollution; less respite for those areas that currently benefit from it; more traffic congestion; little chance of getting or keeping a cap on night flights; and yet more pressure for yet further expansion—in other words, the possibility of a fourth runway. The announcement of a third runway will start a long, drawn-out process. Legal challenge is a real possibility. This will not be a quick process.

I want to cover what Heathrow, with two runways, means to my constituents now. My constituency lies between Heathrow and central London, beneath the landing paths of planes approaching over London. Heathrow is with us: it has been with us for almost 70 years and it is part of our daily lives. It provides jobs and economic stimulus for a wide area of west London and the Thames valley, but it also brings noise, traffic congestion and air pollution. I have never advocated that it be closed or reduced in capacity, and I do not like being accused of that. A real threat to Heathrow’s future would be the Mayor of London’s proposal for a Thames estuary airport.

When Heathrow airport is operating in a westerly direction, which is 70% of the time, planes approach the airport directly overhead every 60 to 90 seconds for 17 hours each day. They are locked into their final approach, so there is no variation for the homes, schools and workplaces that are directly underneath those planes. More than half my constituents live within the 57 dB noise contour and the rest of my constituents will do so if a third runway goes ahead. The noise starts at 4.15 every morning with, on average, 16 flights before 6 am. The noise is then continuous for an hour and, from 7 am till 3 pm, those under the approach of one runway get continuous noise before the planes switch to the other runway until the airport finally closes down, so long as the weather is not bad, at 11.30 pm.

It is not just my constituents who are affected; more than 700,000 people in London and the south-east are affected every single day. More people are affected by aircraft noise near Heathrow than at any other major European airport.

For my constituency, a third runway would mean a 40% increase in flights. It would also include the rest of the constituency in the high-noise area, allowing it to share the joy of continuous overflying for eight to 10 hours a day. Air quality, which is already in breach of EU limits, would be worse, as would traffic congestion and pressure on housing, jobs and public services.

For some, a third runway would mean the loss of their home. Last night I met Armelle, who has been a resident of Harmondsworth village for 46 years. Ninety minutes after the Davies commission report was published, she and her husband received a hand-delivered letter from the chief executive of Heathrow Airport Ltd, telling them about the arrangements to be made for buying their home at a price that would not buy a flat in most of west London. Her husband fell ill as a result of the pressure that letter caused and, within eight weeks, he sadly passed away. Armelle’s MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is a Front Bencher and so is unable to speak in this debate, so she asked me to make the House aware that a community of more than 10,000 people and 4,000 homes will have to leave if Heathrow expands. She said, “You cannot replace a community.”

The main reasons to oppose expansion are noise, air quality, a business case that does not stack up and flaws in the economic arguments in the Davies commission report. In conclusion, Heathrow runway 3 is the most costly, most complex and highest risk of the three proposed schemes in the Airports Commission report. Furthermore, it is predicated on conditions that the airport operator is not prepared to concede.

Harvey’s Law

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a cost to the owners of the pets, but the cost to the public purse can be also be substantial, because it takes time to contact the individuals and chase them up. That is not a good use of public time. If the law we are debating today were introduced, the situation would be much better.

Harvey’s case was tragic, and I want to give a few more examples, because the tragedy can be unbelievable for some families.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to his constituent, who raised this issue with him. Will he commend the efforts of my constituent, Teresa Hughes, who has worked hard on this campaign and brought it not only to my attention but to the attention of many other people? She has raised the issue in the local media and ensured that it has had a much higher profile in Dudley, the black country and the west midlands.

[Derek Twigg]

I absolutely will. It has been a team effort, and many of the people concerned are here today listening to the debate. Their energy and drive brought us to where we are today. My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing the debate. I knew that it would be well attended after I saw that the Harvey’s law petition now has well over 122,000 signatures, which shows the strength of feeling that exists on this emotional and important subject.

I thank my constituent Linda, from Bolster Moor near Huddersfield, for getting me on board with the campaign. We are a nation of animal lovers, and we must put a stop to the extra heartache, frustration and distress caused when a much-loved family pet is tragically killed on our roads. As we have heard, Harvey’s law contains three simple and straightforward requests: for the Highways Agency to implement compulsory scanning of all domestic animals retrieved from the highways; for a log report to be passed to local police and dog wardens; and for photographs to be held for identification purposes. Those measures are straightforward and low cost, and, most importantly, humane and the right thing to do. From April 2016, all dogs will be compulsorily microchipped. Given that the technology will be there, it seems straightforward and reasonable to use it to give pet owners the peace of mind that comes from knowing that if a tragedy occurs, they will be informed as soon as possible, leaving no uncertainty and compassionately respecting their rights.

Over the past few months, I have submitted a series of written parliamentary questions to the Secretary of State for Transport, and I thank the Minister for his replies. I was told that

“the Highways Agency is currently assessing the potential merits of amending contracts to understand the implications of including mandatory identification and recording of domestic animals found on the strategic road network, including contacting pet owners where possible and advising relevant registration organisations.”

I look forward to an update from the Minister on those assessments. I was informed that

“The Highways Agency Network Management Manual (2009) sets out procedures for notifying owners of canines that are killed on the strategic road network for a number of Highways Agency area maintenance contracts. These contracts are due to be phased out which will result in a different approach in dealing with canine fatalities across the strategic road network as the replacement contracts no longer mandate that canine fatalities are scanned, identified or the owners contacted… the Highways Agency is currently assessing the potential merits of amending contracts to understand the implications of including mandatory identification and recording of domestic animals found on the strategic road network, including contacting pet owners where possible and advising relevant registration organisations.”

Again, I look forward to an update on those assessments.

Finally, I asked the Minister whether there were any planned changes to the system for notifying the owners of pets killed on the strategic road network after the microchipping law comes into force in 2016.

[Ian Austin]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that checks have been completely phased out in the west midlands? None of my constituents’ pets will be scanned in the event of such a tragedy, but checks are still taking place in other parts of the country such as Cornwall and Devon. Does he agree with Opposition Members that those checks should be mandatory across the country? We need to do this for everybody.

[Jason McCartney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport, and I have spent a lot of time examining Highways Agency contracts, particularly in Yorkshire for the managed motorway scheme on the M1 and M62, so I am aware of the number of new contracts for our strategic road network. I hope that the Minister will answer our questions shortly.

In answer to my written question on planned changes to the notification system, the Minister said:

“The Highways Agency is aware that the Animal Welfare Act will be amended to reflect the change to compulsory microchipping of dogs by April 2016.

In advance of this change, the Highways Agency is currently assessing the potential merits of amending contracts to understand the implications of including mandatory identification and recording of domestic animals found on the strategic road network, including contacting pet owners where possible and advising relevant registration organisations.”

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 will be amended to reflect the change to compulsory microchipping of dogs by April 2016.

I thank the Minister for his answers to my questions and for saying that assessments are ongoing. I hope that he is able to update all Members present on those assessments, and I hope that he can put many loving pet owners’ minds at rest by accepting and implementing Harvey’s law. I am proud that we are a nation of animal lovers, so let us do the right and humane thing.

Cycling

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House supports the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report ‘Get Britain Cycling’; endorses the target of 10 per cent of all journeys being by bike by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2050; and calls on the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual Cycling Action Plan, sustained funding for cycling and progress towards meeting the report’s recommendations.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, providing us with another opportunity to discuss the “Get Britain Cycling” report, produced by the all-party cycling group, which I chair jointly with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). The Backbench Business Committee kindly agreed to two debates in the past, both of which saw unprecedented numbers of Members participating. We asked for this debate because we wanted to discuss the Government’s so-called cycling delivery plan—their long-awaited response to our inquiry and the report we published.

I would like to record our thanks to everyone who took part in our three-month inquiry and to all the organisations that supported it, including British Cycling, the CTC, Sustrans and the Bicycle Association among others. I particularly want to thank Chris Boardman, a phenomenal advocate of cycling in Britain, and Phil Goodwin and Adam Coffman who pulled the report together. I also thank News International, now News UK, for sponsoring the inquiry. Its involvement was the result of a campaign by The Times. Those on The Times have done a phenomenal job in promoting cycling in Britain: it is a great tribute to their colleague Mary Bowers, who was severely injured while travelling to work in 2011.

The Committee heard from hundreds of witnesses, and our report contains some important recommendations. A central recommendation is for long-term, dedicated funding of £10 per head per year, rather than limited funding for eight cities for a couple of years. We want 10% of journeys to be made by bike by 2025—the figure was less than 2% in 2011—and we call for lower speed limits in urban areas. We want more effective enforcement of the law, we want children to be taught to ride at school, we want more segregated cycle lanes, and we want cycling to be considered properly as part of the urban planning process. We also call for top-level, committed leadership, because cross-departmental collaboration is essential if we are to improve cycling conditions in Britain.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned enforcement of the law. A matter of concern, certainly in my constituency, is the need for the employers of lorry drivers to recognise their responsibility not to put drivers under pressure to drive for too long, so that they do not risk being unable to concentrate and to avoid cyclists who are also on the road.

[Ian Austin]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is also important to note the improvements that can be made. Mirrors, sensors and alarms, for instance, can be fitted to lorries to ensure that it is safe for them to use the roads at the same time as cyclists.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about lorry safety. Does he share my disappointment that the plan published by the Government today is notably lacking in any commitment to address the issue? Lorries are responsible for a fifth of cycling fatalities in Britain, and there have been fatalities in Bristol recently.

[Ian Austin]

I am disappointed by the plan that was published today, for all sorts of reasons, about which I shall say more shortly, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to give that example.

A study published today by academics from the universities of Leeds and Cambridge and commissioned by the CTC shows the benefits that investing in cycling would bring. We face an epidemic of illnesses linked to inactivity and obesity, but investment equivalent to £10 per person to boost the proportion of trips made on bikes from 3% to 10% could save the NHS budget nearly £1 billion a year. The wider health benefits could be worth £6 billion by 2025 and £25 billion by 2050. Investment in cycling would prevent heart disease, reduce the number of strokes, and cut diabetes and colon cancer rates. As The Times says in an editorial today,

“Meeting this demand is not to ask for preferential treatment... the requested level would take total funding up to £600 million a year—3 per cent. of the transport budget for 3 per cent. of the trips taken.”

A report entitled “Benefits of Investing in Cycling”, written by Dr Rachel Aldred and commissioned by British Cycling, also shows that such investment would make a massive difference to society. It demonstrates that cycling can have an overwhelmingly positive effect on everyone, whether they cycle or not. The possible benefits range from saving the NHS £17 billion to increasing the mobility of the nation’s poorest families by 25%. Getting more people cycling would enable more people to get the exercise that they need, and would make Britain healthier. Traffic delays in London cost £1.5 billion a year. An increase in cycling would tackle congestion and pollution, and would make our roads safer and our transport system more efficient. It would enable people on low incomes to travel more easily, would make our town and city centres more pleasant places, and would support local economies.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I know that many more people in my constituency would like to cycle. The biggest barrier is safety. Why does the United Kingdom have so few segregated lanes in comparison with the countries that I visit in mainland Europe?

[Ian Austin]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. The best way of making cycling safe is to get more people on their bikes, and we will do that by improving the facilities that are available for cycling.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has spoken about safety and about funding. Does he agree that we need funding for revenue as well as capital? We need money to go to cycle groups and local councils so that they can invest in safety as well as in cycle lanes.

[Ian Austin]

The hon. Lady is right, and I shall discuss that point at some length in a few minutes.

Promoting cycling would be good for our transport systems as a whole, for local economies, for social inclusion, and for public health. People who think that investing in cycling is somehow anti-motorist, or against the car, should ask themselves why the AA has joined the campaign to boost cycling. It has done so because cycling is an obvious way of reducing congestion, which has been estimated to cost the UK economy £4.3 billion a year. Research from Denmark has shown that a nation makes a 13p profit for every kilometre cycled, but an 8p loss for every kilometre driven.

As I said earlier, this is our third debate on cycling in the last three years. The first was triggered by the campaign run by The Times. More than 70 Members took part in that debate; even more, well over 100, took part in the second. Sadly, I think that fewer will take part today. We asked for this debate so that we can discuss the Government’s response to the recommendations in our report. We had been promised that response for months, but the Government kept delaying its publication amid numerous reports of wrangles and disputes between the various Departments involved. Because it was not clear when it would be published, cycling organisations and the media were unable to promote the debate and encourage their members and supporters to lobby MPs to take part in it. It turns out that the document—1 do not think that it could be credibly described as a delivery plan—was published this morning. As a result, we have been left far too little time to subject it to proper scrutiny, although it is already clear that it is a very disappointing piece of work. We waited a year for this report, but it makes no real commitments at all.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Is it not clear from the cycling delivery plan that this was a rushed, botched job, and that the Government rushed it out just to have something on the table so that they could respond to the debate?

[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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman to keep an eye on the clock? The 15 minutes are ticking by.

[Ian Austin]

May I ask how long I have left, as I have not been following that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I did offer to put that on the clock for the hon. Gentleman, but he declined that. He started at 12.58, and therefore has under a minute, but he has taken a lot of interventions. If he could take no more than another two minutes, we would be grateful.

[Ian Austin]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is right about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He seems to believe that without the car culture, the high street would die, but when New York city introduced segregated bike lanes recently there were widespread predictions of economic hardship, yet trade rose by 24%, so on that, as on so much else, the Communities Secretary is completely wrong.

I will now draw my remarks to a conclusion in light of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.

With just a few months until the election we need a massive effort to make cycling a bigger political issue so we can get the parties committed to increasing the funding for cycling and have lower speed limits in urban areas, better enforcement of the law, children taught to ride at school, more segregated cycle lanes and cycling considered properly as part of the urban planning process.

We need everyone involved in cycling to write to MPs and candidates so we can get Britain cycling and change our country for good.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much, Mr Austin, for leaving more time for others to speak. I am sure they will be very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

That was a peroration, but I give way to the chairman of the all-party group.

[Ian Austin]

Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, I wanted to thank him, on behalf of the group and all Members here, and to recognise the enormous contribution he has made in Parliament to cycling throughout his time as an MP. He has achieved a huge amount, his work has been an inspiration to the rest of us and we are very grateful for it.

[Sir George Young]

I blush and I sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I congratulate the all-party parliamentary group on securing today’s debate and the Minister on his cycling delivery plan, which he has published today.

The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) struck rather a sour note to start this debate. I think the House will want to applaud the Minister for his new report. He makes it clear that he wants to double the level of cycling by 2025. His aspiration, in difficult financial times, is for funding for cycling to be the equivalent of £10 per person per year. That is a key recommendation from the all-party report.

It is absolutely right that we have this debate. From my work around the Olympic legacy, I know that the London 2012 Olympics inspired a generation to think about sport, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of cycling. The extraordinary achievements of individuals such as Sarah Storey and David Stone at the London 2012 Paralympics demonstrated that cycling can be one of the most inclusive of sports, too.

The Olympics, Paralympics and Tour de France have all done their bit in driving up pedal traffic by almost a quarter. An extra 400,000 people cycling every week since we won the Olympic bid is an extraordinary part of the Olympic legacy. That has been achieved despite the pressures on budgets, which Opposition Members sometimes fail to acknowledge.

[Ian Austin]

We are asking not for more money to be spent on transport but for a small part of the existing transport budget to be spent on cycling. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that the report contains aspirations, but without any financial commitment attached to them, they are just an ambition, not a commitment. That is the point that we are trying to make.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman needs to study the Minister’s report a little more closely. A consultation paper will shortly be published on the £976 million a year highways maintenance fund, to ensure that a fair share goes to cycling and walking, which is exactly what he is talking about. I appreciate that he has not had much time to read the report, but I urge him to look at the detail, because he will be pleased with the content.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In Cambridge we are beginning work on a 3,000-place cycle park at the station because it is such an important thing to do, and the Government have supported that financially.

Why are the Government not taking the obvious steps? Is it because of the “war on the motorist” concern exemplified by the Communities and Local Government Secretary? That would not make sense, because drivers benefit when people cycle. That is why the president of the AA and so many other people have supported our recommendations.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I am running out of time, so I am afraid I will not.

Is it because of people trying to stir up conflict between cyclists and pedestrians? Again, surely not, because pedestrians benefit from provisions that help cyclists. That is why Living Streets, the pedestrians charity, has also supported our recommendations. The 20 mph zones, which have been supported by the Government, are beneficial for cyclists and for pedestrians. What is bad for pedestrians, and bad for cyclists, is poor road layouts and ill-though-through cheap solutions such as dual-use facilities which simply create conflict. Proper segregated facilities such as those we are implementing in Cambridge help pedestrians and cyclists.

So why is this planning missing out so much on funding? Let me be optimistic. The plan is a draft with the aim of securing views over the next four weeks. Perhaps the Minister has a rabbit up his sleeve so that when the plan comes out in its final state—this autumn, apparently, though it feels like we are in autumn already—it will have a proper funding commitment. Perhaps that is his plan. Or perhaps the Chancellor got so excited by the compelling case for cycling that he has hogged all the money so as to be able to announce it in the autumn statement. I certainly hope for that, and we have been trying to press him to do it. Otherwise, I cannot understand why the Government are not acting.

Let me give the Minister some other ideas, since the plan is a draft. Will he agree to adopt the “Making Space for Cycling” guide for developments and street renewals, which has detailed proposals on how to make those work? Will he look at ideas to expand the very successful Cycle to Work scheme to cover cycling to education so that students are able to get bikes through, for example, a VAT exemption? Will he look at approaches such as the New York trial system that we are now pioneering in Cambridgeshire, whereby people can very quickly try things on the ground to get them to work? Will he meet the members and officers of the all-party cycling group to go through the plan in detail so that we make sure that the draft is improved before it comes out?

This is the last opportunity for significant change before the general election. When we have next year’s annual debate—assuming that the Backbench Business Committee or a new House business committee is willing—it will be in a new Parliament, so what the parties commit to in the election will matter. My party, the Liberal Democrats, formally voted to adopt the “Get Britain Cycling” recommendations last year, and it is already written into our pre-manifesto. I am very pleased that that has happened. We have yet to see the same commitments from the other parties, despite the fact that there are people on both sides of the House who would like it to happen. I hope that all parties will write “Get Britain Cycling” into their manifesto commitments, because in that way we can be sure that whoever forms the next Government will continue and improve the efforts that have been made so far, implement the “Get Britain Cycling” recommendations, and make our streets better for people, whether they are cycling, walking, driving, or just living their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I begin with a tribute and a confession. The tribute is to the Minister. He has been exceptionally patient and lived up to every syllable of his surname in the way he has considered the problems that we in the New Forest have had recently with a particular aspect of cycling—namely the mass cycling events or sportives—and I wish to say a few words about that in my contribution to the debate. The confession is that the last time I cycled regularly was in Oxford in 1975. That was the year that I discovered the joys of motorised two-wheel transport and bought my first motor scooter, as it was then, powered at 50 cc. To this day, I am proud to say that I still use two wheels, but they are now powered by 750 cc, so I get all the exhilaration without having to invest the effort. My admiration, therefore, is unbounded for those who do invest effort in cycling. Not only is cycling part and parcel of an excellent life and health scheme, it is also part and parcel—indeed, it is integral—to the public profile of the New Forest.

I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but when I think of the lovely New Forest I immediately think of activities such as horse riding, walking, rambling, bird watching, camping and, yes, cycling. It is therefore sad that in recent months, a major problem has arisen in relation to cycling in the New Forest. It is not, however, an insoluble problem, and I hope that with Good-will—in both senses of the word—we will soon be able to solve it.

The problem is this. We have had mass cycling events in the New Forest for many years, and they caused no difficulties whatsoever when the numbers concerned were in the order of 500 or 600 participants—that is quite a lot when thinking about rural roads. We all know that specific laws and regulations deal with competitive cycling on the public highways, but the loophole arises in mass cycling events in the New Forest—or sportives as they are known—because people are competing not against each other but against themselves. They are seeking at all times to better the speed and time with which they complete quite lengthy cycle rides in the New Forest, and that brings obvious dangers and disadvantages to other road users and to the livestock of the New Forest. It may come as a surprise to hon. Members to know that in the New Forest, ponies, donkeys and cattle have the right of way on public roads, and motorists and cyclists do not. Therefore unless these major events are regulated—hopefully with a very light touch—there are obvious dangers of clashes, accidents and the generation of ill-feeling. It is about that generation of ill-feeling that I wish to inform the House.

In my hand I have the front page of the 23 August edition of the Lymington Times, and the main story is headlined, “Anti-cycling concern leads NPA”—New Forest national park authority—“to scrap Forest ‘Boris-bikes’”. A scheme would have brought docking stations for about 250 extra bikes into the New Forest, and funding was available with the blessing of the Government. However, such is the antipathy and poisoning of the well, caused by the clashes over those mass cycling events—some of which have had up to 3,000 participants and been spread over two days—that in the end the NPA decided not to take up the money for that purpose. It has had to come up with alternative cycling-related schemes that do not actually have the benefit of bringing more cyclists on to the road.

[Ian Austin]

Who else does the hon. Gentleman think should be prevented from coming to the New Forest: the people who want to walk around the New Forest or to run along its roads, or is it just cyclists that he thinks should be regulated off the roads of the New Forest?

[Dr Lewis]

I am very sorry that I have been making my message come across so obscurely. No one is talking about anyone being regulated off the roads. On the contrary, we want them to be regulated on the roads. That is precisely the demand the communities in the New Forest are making, because the New Forest is a living, working forest. It is not a theme park.

[Ian Austin]

rose—

[Dr Lewis]

Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s first intervention before I let him have a second.

With good will and with co-operation and arrangements that relate to three things this problem could be solved. The sensible arrangements are: that the local authority should have the power to determine the frequency of these events; that it should have the right to limit the total numbers participating in the events; and that the participants should wear some form of identification, probably numbering, so that where there are mass events and incidents occur—let us be frank about this, sometimes incidents of an aggressive nature do occur—then there can be no question about misidentification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin]

I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for letting us have this debate. I thank all the Members who took part. I believe that more than 25 Members have either spoken or made contributions to it.

I want to be fair to the Minister. I have never questioned his personal commitment to cycling. He is a long-standing member of our group, and I know that he is deeply committed to improving cycling in Britain and works hard for that. However, I do not think his views are shared by all of his colleagues. I am sorry if the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) thought that I was churlish, but my criticisms of the document published today are pretty mild in comparison with what cycling organisations and people who take an interest in cycling outside this House have had to say about it. What this debate and the response to that document show is the huge amount of work that everybody who is committed to cycling in Britain has to do over the next six months so that we can get both the major parties committed to real improvements in cycling at the next election. That would mean that that whoever is in government next year could make a real contribution to getting people cycling.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House supports the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report ‘Get Britain Cycling’; endorses the target of 10 per cent of all journeys being by bike by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2050; and calls on the Government to show strong political leadership, including an annual Cycling Action Plan, sustained funding for cycling and progress towards meeting the report’s recommendations.