Cycling

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who made powerful points about not only her constituency, but general cycling matters. As I look around the Chamber, it is apparent that we are talking to the converted. I think that I have seen almost every Member in the Chamber riding their bike into Parliament, so I do not think that there will be a lot of controversy in the debate. Those watching our proceedings—many from the cycling community may well be—might be a bit disappointed that this is one-way traffic, but we need to be able to argue the case for cycling, so perhaps that is not a bad thing.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to take place and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the co-chairs of the all-party group, on their work. They and the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has also signed the motion, have shown great leadership on promoting cycling, and the cross-party group is ably supported by Adam Coffman. Many Members are in the Chamber to support the debate. I also welcome support from right across the media, especially from The Times. There was a great fact sheet by Kaya Burgess in this morning’s drop-in briefing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North mentioned Mary Bowers, who was knocked down in my constituency. Sadly, she still has not recovered, and I know that the whole House will want to wish her and her family well.

[Dr Huppert]

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says about The Times and Mary Bowers. He might be amused to know that The Daily Telegraph recently published a list of the seven most absurd Liberal Democrat policies, one of which was supporting funding for cycling, so there is clearly some way to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

As a buyer as well as a reader of The Daily Telegraph, I am disappointed to hear that, although perhaps not entirely surprised, as there have to be some differences among people. Despite the hon. Gentleman’s qualification of what I said about media support, there is now generally a much more welcoming attitude in the country to cycling, and I hope that the debate will help to nurture people’s interest.

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

The hon. Gentleman has never seen me arrive at the Palace of Westminster on a bicycle, although I shall try to repair that. I agree with him about the support that is given, but does he accept that the trouble in a constituency such as mine, which has three small to medium-sized towns, is that there simply is not the money to provide the facilities for bicyclists that should be in place, because it all tends to go to the big towns? We need to devise a formula that will enable that to be fixed.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the key issue of funding, which I think has cropped up in every speech that we have heard. When I said that I thought that I had seen almost everyone in the Chamber on a bike, I did not want to point to the right hon. Gentleman that he was the one exception who occurred to me. However, I am encouraged that he has not given up on this, so in the six months between now and the general election, perhaps we can encourage him to join us on two wheels. I am sure that the all-party group would welcome that.

The delivery plan is disappointing. The all-party group’s report was well received by the Department for Transport. It is a shame that the Secretary of State has just left the Chamber, but the fact that he has listened to part of our debate demonstrates his interest in the matter. We know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), are great champions of cycling and no criticism is levelled directly at the Department, although I shall return to the big question of funding later in my speech. However, given that the Prime Minister promised us a cycling revolution and that the Department for Transport is clearly supportive of cycling, as has been the case for almost 20 years, the fact that there is no commitment on funding, which the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) mentioned, is hugely disappointing. While the Minister and the shadow Minister are great champions, we need a nominated person to give leadership from the front. The all-party group’s report was well received by the Transport Committee and all the main cycling groups, but I am sure that the Minister acknowledges that the responses of CTC, Sustrans and British Cycling to this morning’s Government report are not so welcoming.

Safety and the perception of it are key to getting more people involved in cycling, but before I speak about that, I want to spend a couple of minutes on parochial matters by talking about London. There have been huge changes in London, with an explosion in the number of people cycling, Boris bikes and cycle super-highways. It is welcome that Transport for London is consulting on upgrading the cycle super-highways because some of them are pretty basic, being no more than a lick of paint in the road.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome TfL’s recent call for a London-wide ban on heavy goods vehicles that drive without side guards and mirrors? Does he agree that that recommendation should apply nationwide, not just to London, and that the Government should take it up?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. TfL has led on promoting cycling in many ways, and anything that enhances cyclists’ safety must be welcomed.

I received an e-mail this morning from Owen Pearson of Tower Hamlets Wheelers. He said that his local cycle campaign supports

“the proposals put forward by Transport for London to upgrade Cycle Superhighway 2 between Aldgate and Bow”,

which is a dangerous stretch of road. The e-mail acknowledged the local concerns of the council and others, especially with regard to Whitechapel market, but said that the group believed that

“with adjustments to the TfL plan these issues can be overcome.”

I have some concerns about what I call the Mayor’s plans, although they are probably primarily the tsar’s plans—Andrew Gilligan’s plans—especially with regard to the stretch from Tower Hill to Westminster. The key criteria for cycle lanes is to get people out of cars and to improve the environment by reducing congestion. However, the proportion of cars on that stretch of road is already less than 9%, and many of those 9% are private hire vehicles or minicabs. There are few people to be taken out of cars as the vast majority of the traffic on that main artery through London is made up of public transport, taxis, coaches and commercial traffic, such as white vans delivering to businesses and HGVs. TfL plans to prevent 80% of that traffic using the road. I do not know where it will go. For the 20% that will be allowed to use it, there will be a 16-minute delay. That simply does not seem workable, and it will give the cycling community a bad reputation, because it is just bad planning.

My understanding is that the Mayor’s plans will be subject to an extensive consultation, which would be very welcome, as would publication of all the background data, including environmental impact assessments, the economic assessment, alternative routes and alternative designs.

There is also a problem with the waiting times for pedestrians, because in some areas they will have to wait up to two minutes before getting a green light, and in London people will simply not wait that long to cross the road. Also, having to cross three lanes of traffic and four lanes of cyclists, with a fast lane for the Lycra brigade—we know that they take no prisoners—will be pretty difficult. Another observation about the plan that the Department for Transport published this morning is that its title makes no mention of walking, which is a big element of the promotion, so there are questions to be answered about the route from Tower Hill to Westminster.

We all want to see cycling become mainstream. As a cyclist myself, I know that we are not above criticism. The tiny minority who cycle without lights at night, ignore pedestrian crossings, ride on pavements or cruise through red lights greatly annoy the rest of us, because they give us a bad reputation and irritate the rest of the public. The Transport Committee heard in evidence that when the Metropolitan police blitzed London’s roads earlier this year, following the spate of five deaths in November 2013, they issued 14,000 fixed penalty notices for transgressions at major junctions in London—10,000 to vehicle drivers and 4,000 to cyclists. That demonstrates that there are drivers and cyclists who break the law.

However, what we need is enforcement. CTC makes the point that the reduction in the number of traffic officers in all constabularies across the country is moving in the wrong direction. As I mentioned earlier, cyclists are the most vulnerable. The Transport Committee’s third report of the Session, entitled “Cycling Safety”, makes recommendations for improving safety for cyclists.

Right hon. and hon. Members have made the case well for cycling and cycling safety. The Minister is very much pro-cycling. It is even more disappointing, therefore, that we have not heard a commitment on funding. The Prime Minister promised a cycling revolution and the Department for Transport is promising to support cycling, so No. 11 is the roadblock. Somehow we have to get underneath No. 11, turn the Chancellor around and then use the autumn statement and the Budget to commit to that funding. All parties can use their manifestos next year to commit funding for cycling, because without funding it simply will not happen.