Cycling: Government Investment

Debate between Andrew Smith and Daniel Zeichner

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) on securing this debate.

We have heard a wide range of strong contributions today, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who asked the Minister exactly the right question: why can’t we do it? Let us hope the answer is “Yes, we can”. We also heard from both co-chairs of the all-party group. I want to follow up on the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) made about safety.

I recently met Kate, who is here watching the debate today. Her husband, Martyn, died in 2011, while on a charity cycle ride, after hitting a pothole and ending up in the path of a car. The Government said in their recent road safety statement:

“Behind each and every collision statistic there is an individual story.”

They are right: these are real policies that affect real lives. That is why investment in cycling infrastructure and safety must never be an afterthought. Kate is here today because she is passionate about making sure that we do everything possible to make sure that what happened to Martyn does not happen to others.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that we really do need concerted action to make sure that urban design guides—street scene manuals—factor in safe and, wherever possible, segregated provision for cyclists, because it does not happen enough?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

A few years ago, buoyed up by the fantastic British cycling achievements in the 2012 Olympics, the Prime Minister promised a cycling revolution, but as so often he has failed to deliver on that promise. He has back-pedalled. There is a real gap between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality for cyclists.

The Government say that funding for cycling in our country has risen to £6 per person per year, and that it is at over £10 per person in London and the eight cities that secured cycle city ambition grants. The figure of £10 was recommended by the all-party group in its excellent report, “Get Britain Cycling”, and I pay tribute to my predecessor, Julian Huppert, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), for their work. So far so good. What the Government will fail to mention is that while funding levels in London and the cycle cities lift the country’s average, funding for cycling outside those areas, after the spending review, is projected to be around just £1.39 per person.

Furthermore, the cycling and walking investment strategy is slowly making its way forward not at a cycling pace, nor at a walking pace, but at perhaps a snail’s pace. How will it be funded? Cycling has apparently been allotted £300 million in funding until 2021, but as we push for further detail, we seem to repeatedly run into a brick wall when attempting to get from the Government how much they actually intend to spend. In fact, in answer to a written question that I tabled about funding levels outside of London and the cycle cities in November, the Minister said:

“It is not possible to predict the geographical distribution of other funding for cycling at this stage.”

It therefore seems that the Department for Transport is unable to predict the outcomes of its own spending commitments. Indeed, funding has been disconnected, as others have said—split between various initiatives, bundled into grants, not ring-fenced—and data on local authority spending are no longer centrally collated.

What we do know is that the £300 million that has been promised for cycling over this Parliament includes the £114 million for the cycle city ambition grants and continued funding for Bikeability training, which we support. What funding, if any, will be left over to fund the investment part of the cycling and walking investment strategy?

There is a real danger that the Government are drawing up an investment strategy with no investment. That matters, because the strategy to improve infrastructure, which was included in the Infrastructure Act 2015 after a powerful campaign, is key to increasing cycling safety. The Conservative party promised in their election manifesto,

“to reduce the number of cyclists and other road users killed or injured on our roads every year”,

but the Government have failed to set national road safety targets, claiming that it is a matter for local authorities and thereby trying to absolve themselves of responsibility.

This debate is really important, because cycling safety is a key factor in encouraging people to get on their bikes in the first place. Anxiety and fear about safety stops many people cycling, especially women and older people. In London, three quarters of those aged 65 and over can ride a bike, yet only 6% ever do. Two thirds of non-cyclists and half of all cyclists say that it is too dangerous for them to cycle on the road. We must put in place the right measures to make cycling a safe, accessible mode of transport for all, whatever a person’s age or gender.

Treasury Support for UK Science

Debate between Andrew Smith and Daniel Zeichner

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this important debate and on her excellent speech.

Supporting UK science should absolutely be a priority in this Parliament and beyond, and I hope the Chancellor will take heed of the points made here today. As Members will appreciate—they have probably heard me say this before—Cambridge is a leader for science in the UK.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Along with Oxford.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Along with Oxford, of course.

Cambridge is a buzzing hub of research labs, biotech companies and innovation centres, and science is fundamental to both our economy and our collective identity. Nearly 60,000 people are employed in the Cambridge cluster alone. It is thought by some that Cambridge and its leading scientific reputation are untouchable. That is not the case. We must not take our assets for granted. Only with careful future planning and sustained, stable economic investment can Cambridge continue to function as a centre for scientific excellence, attracting investment and expertise from around the globe.

I want to see Cambridge’s scientific stature secured, but I also want to see the knowledge economy increasing across the entire country, ensuring that the UK remains a leader for science on the world stage. This is not a zero-sum game. Cambridge doing well will help other parts of the country. Cambridge going backwards causes the whole country damage. A genuine long-term strategy for science is vital if we want to promote innovation and increase productivity in our country. The Chancellor says that that is what he wants, but the wrong decisions over the next few weeks risk sending us in the wrong direction.

The Government and their cheerleaders helpfully remind us about the long-term economic plan—I see that some Government Members recognise that phrase—but we need that to be a reality rather than a soundbite. The truth is that in the previous Parliament we actually saw a substantial real-terms cut in science funding. The Campaign for Science and Engineering has shown that the resource budget accumulated a real-terms shortfall of £1 billion during the previous Parliament. Data from the OECD suggest that our country’s investment in research and development has been on a downward trajectory for the past few years and is well below the EU average of 0.64%. As Universities UK tells us, the UK comes 27th in the EU27 and eighth in the G8 in total science and research investment as a proportion of GDP.

The argument is familiar. The Minister has told us before that we still do well and that we punch above our weight, but as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), the Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, has pointed out on more than one occasion, it may be that we do well because of funding from the past. We cannot assume that with lower levels of public support we can continue to be competitive when other countries are upping their game.

Let me raise one specific worry. Many are talking about it, but I was struck by a representation from a biotech company in my constituency, Discuva. It develops new antibiotics to combat antimicrobial resistance and recently won an innovation award from Innovate UK. Indeed, I believe the award was presented here by the Minister. Discuva received a biomedical catalyst grant in 2012, which helped grow its business enormously, giving it the necessary risk capital to take chances and ultimately sign the world’s largest preclinical antibiotic drug discovery deal with a major pharmaceutical company. Its products will feed into the UK healthcare system, saving lives, reducing the healthcare burden and consequently increasing GDP.

I am sure we will all champion such businesses, but Discuva is just one of many that have expressed alarm over the suggestion that the Treasury is considering swapping research grants for loans. It tells me that this would be disastrous for companies in its sector. It argues that a significant loan on the books of many small to medium-sized high-tech companies would make them technically insolvent and affect relationships with potential investors, presenting a major business obstacle. I hope the Minister can assure us today that those suggestions are just speculative rumour in the wider rumour mill, and that those important grants will not be converted into loans.

I conclude by reminding Members that the Treasury has repeatedly said that it will prioritise spending in areas that drive productivity and growth. Well, 51% of UK productivity growth between 2000 and 2008 was due to innovation, with 32% being attributable to changes in technology resulting from science and innovation. That tells us that we need to see greater investment in mechanisms that support innovation—more, not less.

I have a suspicion that the Minister is largely persuaded by the strengths of the argument, but for reasons we all understand he will possibly have to be circumspect in his reply today. Those of us battling for science and innovation wish him well in his battles over the next few weeks. Funding for a secure, long-term, successful science and innovation sector is vital for the future prosperity of our whole country, and it must not be sacrificed for a short-term political fix. It is important that the Minister is successful and that the dead hand of the Treasury does not win out yet again.