Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

The word “under” is crucial, because operators could drill as much as 3 km horizontally, and some of the protected areas are quite small. It is conceivable that they could be ringed by shale gas operators fracking “without” but nevertheless “under” protected areas. In that respect as well, the Minister’s comments this evening did not reflect the mood of the House on 26 January.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I noted that the regulations that would be made in July, after the general election, would be dealt with through the affirmative resolution, and that there would therefore be no opportunity to amend them. If the hon. Gentleman were in a position to influence that within his party, would he rule out any fracking within or under any protected area? Can he make that commitment now?

[Tom Greatrex]

If the will of the House is to support the Government amendment this evening and we reach a point at which there must be a definition in secondary legislation, we shall want to ensure that such areas are properly protected, just as we did when we proposed the amendment that the House accepted two weeks ago. [Interruption.] I am talking about the definition that was in an amendment that was supported by the hon. Member for Cambridge. In fact, a Division was not necessary, because everyone supported it. I think it vital for those areas to be properly protected, and we will seek to protect them if we are in a position to do so in the future. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman can imagine being in that position himself, he may think that he would do so as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. In addition, the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, where I used to be in a minority of one but I am now joined by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) in a minority of two, was unanimous on the issue of fracking: it could and should be pursued energetically in this country, with appropriate safeguards, of course.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lilley]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, but I want to make a little progress.

A number of fears have been raised about water supplies, the first of which is the fear of well failure. We have drilled 2,000 onshore wells in this country and, as far as I know, not one of them has resulted in contaminated water supplies. If that has happened, it has not resulted in any ill health to anybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), and I agree with much of what he said. I too support the recovery of shale gas within the UK. I also agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) who gives the Government the benefit of the doubt, but says that some questions might have to be asked in due course. However, as a former deputy Chief Whip, he would give the Government the benefit of the doubt. I cannot say that I am quite so generous, because I am disappointed that the Government risk jeopardising the support across the Chamber from those of us who believe in shale, shale recovery, fracking and the energy resource that we have underneath our shores.

I say with no disrespect to the Minister that this is disappointing. The Government accepted the Labour amendment when we debated the matter two weeks ago, partly because they felt that they might lose the vote because of rebellions and other things and partly because they thought the approach was correct. I do not think that fracking is dangerous. I think that with the appropriate regulatory regime, it will be safe. I much prefer the idea of sourcing our energy from within the United Kingdom than importing it from Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Russia, with all the associated problems. We should also consider the jobs, the manufacturing, the side products and the rest of it.

I am disappointed that the Government are not accepting the amendments that we put down originally and are rejecting those refined by the Lords. I am equally disappointed that the Minister was not prepared to engage in a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who sits on the Labour Front Bench, and accept his intervention. We should exploit shale and use it as a national resource, but to do that, and to be able to defeat those who are scaremongering, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden put it, we need the strongest consensus possible, and the Government’s approach tonight jeopardises that.

[Dr Huppert]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) even when I do not quite agree with everything he said, although I do agree with much of it.

The frustration here is that we are discussing the small details, the minor issues. It is a shame that we do not have the chance to discuss and vote on the principles. We were denied that chance last time. There was not an opportunity to vote on the duty to maximise extraction or on trespass. There was a chance to vote on a moratorium, but, unfortunately, the Opposition abstained in large numbers. It is frustrating that we do not get the chance again this time. The two amendments on trespass which I co-sponsored with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) were not selected, and it looks as though we will not get a chance to vote on very much today.

Let me be positive to the Government and start with Commons amendment 20. I am pleased that the Minister has delivered on the promise she made when she intervened on me in our last debate, which was to give a key role to the Committee on Climate Change. I am pleased that the Committee on Climate Change will have to make reports. I hope the Minister can assure me that “from time to time” means every few years rather than every few generations. I am pleased that the Minister has gone further and given what I think will be a crucial power, which is that if the Committee on Climate Change does say that fracking is increasing UK emissions, this new Lords amendment gives the power to a Secretary of State in the future to stop fracking. That will become quite an important measure, particularly when the balance changes as we become much better at energy efficiency—the issue that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden did not want to think about. As we change that balance, where we get our fuel from will change substantially.

The proposal goes slightly further in that any Secretary of State who gets a report saying that fracking is increasing emissions and does not take steps to stop it will be required at least to report formally to Parliament to say why they are flying in the face of expert advice. I welcome that.

[Dan Byles]

I am curious. The hon. Gentleman says that the report might say that fracking is increasing emissions, but compared with what counter-factual—imported liquefied natural gas or gas imported from Qatar, for example?

[Dr Huppert]

Compared with what would otherwise be the case. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is keen on the figures, but he will find that the range of values—we do not know the exact emissions from fracking—overlaps with the range of values from imported LNG. We do not know whether they will be about the same or lower.

The hon. Gentleman is interested in reports, so I am sure he would be interested to see the Government’s own official report, led by my constituent, Professor David MacKay, which said:

“In the absence of global climate policies, we believe it is credible that shale-gas use would increase both short-term and long-term emissions rates.”

That was published by the Department; we should give it some credibility.

[Dan Byles]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

No, lots of people would like to speak and the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to do so.

Let me move on to the long list of requirements in Lords amendment 21; I have concerns about both the versions we are likely to have a chance to consider. The version that left the House was deficient and the version that has come back from the other House is also not good enough. That is why I wanted to table other amendments on where fracking should be allowed—the within and under issue, which is covered in amendments (d) and (e) to the table in Lords amendment 21B. I am grateful to those Members who have given us support. Support has also been given by organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and many others.

I was struck by the fact that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), used a lot of words to say neither yes nor no to a simple question about whether he would want to ban fracking within or under all those protected areas. The whole House heard that he was not prepared to give a yes or no answer, whereas some of us believe we should take a firm position and be clear. I would take further steps on it. I therefore have a problem with both versions.

I also have a problem with issues to do with water. There are concerns about abstraction of water in some areas, and I think that a duty merely to consult, but not necessarily to do anything with the consultation, does not go far enough.

I am also interested in the issue of how to give notice. I accept what the Minister says in that it would be going too far to require every single person definitely to have been notified. I can see the problems with that, but I can also see the problems with a measure that means that a notice being put in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet could be considered notification. I was hoping the Minister would let us know what that balance should look like so that there will be reasonable notification.

I am frustrated that it seems we shall not have a chance to vote on much of this—

[Mr Hayes]

I did try to intervene on the shadow Minister. The hon. Gentleman might choose to invite the shadow Minister, who must have modelled this, to give us some idea of the cost and timetable of such individual notification, given that it was not in the original amendment and was added at a late stage, contrary to what the shadow Minister suggested.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for his intervention, although I am not sure whether he is asking me to answer; I certainly have not modelled what the shadow Minister would like to do.

I am very frustrated that it looks as though we shall have to choose between two options, both of which are deficient, and that we shall not have the chance to vote on the stronger proposals that I would much prefer.

[Gregory Barker]

I rise to support the Government on these crucial amendments and to congratulate the Minister on very deft handling of an issue that is difficult because it is complex and technical, and because there are some extreme opinions on the matter, some of which are based on ideology rather than technology or science. I commend her efforts to try to find a middle way and reach a broad consensus.

I was encouraged by the stance taken by the Opposition through most of the passage of the Bill. They behaved responsibly, taking the important role of opposition seriously and scrutinising the Bill, and offering up amendments and criticisms that they thought were valid. However, I am very disappointed that the Opposition in the Lords and back here again are trying to have their cake and eat it. They are trying to hunt with the hounds and with the hare.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I will make a little more progress.

Professor David MacKay and Dr Timothy Stone have supported the findings of the Committee on Climate Change and in 2013, they published recommendations on how to reduce emissions from shale gas operations, which the Government have accepted. In addition, the Environment Agency has agreed to make green completions—techniques to minimise methane emissions —a requirement of environmental permits for shale gas production.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but first I want to outline what the Government are doing on this matter.

I am pleased to say that we have tabled an amendment that will place a duty on the Secretary of State to seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change as to the impact of petroleum development in England and Wales, including shale gas operations, on our ability to meet the UK’s overall climate change objectives over time, and it is not limited to a specific carbon budget period. The Secretary of State must consider the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and report on his conclusions at least every five years. By introducing this amendment, we are making it absolutely clear that shale development will remain compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for that amendment. It goes halfway towards my amendment, which called for that to happen and then said that we should not allow fracking if it increased emissions. She spoke about the report from Dave Mackay, one of my constituents. Does she accept that he also says that

“in the absence of strong climate policies…we believe it is credible that shale-gas use would increase both short-term and long-term emissions rates?”

If it turns out that we do see higher carbon emissions, will she agree that we should end fracking at that point at least?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am confident that our amendment addresses exactly that. The Committee on Climate Change will take a view on what it sees, now that there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult with it. I am encouraged by the fact that that obligation is now in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

The Secretary of State for Wales has announced that a set of commitments agreed by the four main political parties in Wales on the way forward for Welsh devolution will be in place by 1 March. These commitments will form a baseline for devolution after the election. I understand that a strong case is being made for devolution of those powers.

That covers the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 66, which seeks to render the application of the clauses to the approval of the National Assembly for Wales. In addition, the current Government of Wales Act 2006 clearly sets out that oil and gas are excluded from the list of devolved subjects, and the exploitation of deep geothermal resources cannot be considered to have been conferred under any of the subjects in schedule 7. We see no grounds on which this measure would currently be within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly. That is the situation for now. Scotland and Wales will continue to have substantial control of onshore oil and gas, and geothermal activities through their own existing planning procedures and environmental regulation, as these are already devolved. I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

New clause 6 and amendments 2 and 83 suggest that the national planning policy framework leaves gaps in respect of protected land, but this is not the case. Strong protections already exist for these areas and further protections are not necessary. A blanket ban, as proposed, would be disproportionate.

[Dr Huppert]

Is the Minister saying—she should be very clear on this—that there is absolutely no prospect of any fracking happening on any of this list of properties, and that anybody reading this debate should be clear that the Government have no intention of allowing that? Is that what she is saying?

[Amber Rudd]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me comment on that aspect in my own words, I hope that will reassure him.

The existing legislative framework provides a robust framework of protection for those sensitive areas. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 require a developer to undertake a habitats regulation assessment whenever a proposed project is likely to have a significant impact on a special conservation area or a special protection area. These protections derive from European law and set a very high bar. The regulations are supported by the national planning policy framework, which recognises areas that should be given a high level of protection, even if the development is outside the site boundary. These include special areas of conservation, special protection areas, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites.

Planning guidance published last July set out the specific approach to planning for unconventional hydrocarbons in national parks, the broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty and world heritage sites. The guidance makes it clear that planning authorities should refuse planning applications for major development in these areas unless it can be demonstrated both that exceptional circumstances exist and that it is in the public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

I am interested in that point of order because it sets out for us the situation we are in: we are going to be voting today in this House on something that is not before us, in the hope that the concerns that we do not have time to raise can then be addressed by amendments in the other place. That is just not the right way to make good legislation.

I am conscious that so many Members wish to speak, so let me just say that there should be a moratorium, that the Government have overlooked the needs of people all over the country and that without that public support this policy and this haste—going all out for fracking—is just a failed policy.

[Dr Huppert]

I will try to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), and I pay tribute to her for her work on this issue and her call for the moratorium, with which I agree. We have the problem of using too many fossil fuels; despite knowing the harm that climate change is causing and is going to continue to cause, we still see a thirst to have more and more of them. The solution has to look different. Perhaps in the future it will be nuclear fusion—who knows? We are 25 years away from that, as we have been for about 50 years. We have to reach a situation where we have renewables and other low-carbon energy sources, and energy efficiency, so that we use less energy, be it for heating, transport or anything else.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I will give way only the once.

[Mrs Main]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there is no obligation to make sure that renewables are considered as part of large major infrastructure projects?

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed; we should be seeing a quest for more renewables. One of my concerns about the dash for fracking and for gas is that it can be seen as a substitute for a dash for renewables and other low-carbon technologies, which is where we have to get to. That is what worries me about all this. When we know from study after study of the huge amounts of fossil fuels that we have to leave in the earth because we simply cannot afford the harm that would come from burning them, why go to a mass effort to legislate to say that we have to take as much as possible out of the ground? That is not the right way to go. Carbon emissions, be they carbon dioxide or methane, are the biggest problems with shale gas and fracking.

It is very interesting to look at the scientific evidence on the comparison with liquefied natural gas. A comment was made about my constituent Dave MacKay and the range of carbon emissions. What he found was that the range of carbon emissions from shale gas overlaps with that from liquefied natural gas. There is no guarantee that we will see a reduction as a result.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I will not give way, because many Members wish to speak.

Other concerns have been mentioned. I am talking about not the extreme claims that do not stack up but the real issues around this matter such as water usage.

[Amber Rudd]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take this matter seriously. We will introduce a further amendment in the Lords to place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider in every carbon budget period advice from the Committee on Climate Change as to the impact of UK shale development on the UK’s overall climate change objectives. If the Committee on Climate Change advises that shale development adversely impacts on climate change objectives, the Secretary of State must either choose to deactivate the right of use provisions or to make a written statement to Parliament explaining the reasons.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for that welcome news. I was going to talk about water usage, but I will turn to that matter instead. The Minister’s words effectively bring us closer to proposed new clause 4 and amendment 44, which were tabled by me and a number of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. They propose that we should not allow fracking if it leads to an increase in carbon emissions.

I thank the Government for new clause 15, which takes us halfway there, and this other amendment, which takes us even further. We will know, as a result of this change, whether there are higher carbon emissions. The change does not go quite as far as banning fracking, but it is, none the less, a welcome step. I will not now be pressing new clause 4 and amendment 44 to a Division.

I still feel strongly about new clause 6, but we are waiting to get clarity from the Department about exactly which areas are excluded. I hope that we will get that clarity later. New clause 9, on a moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum, was tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who asked me to speak in support of it as she is unable to be here today. I believe that we should have that moratorium, and so am happy to support that new clause. I would love to hear what the position of the official Opposition is on it as they were not prepared to say. On amendments 50 and 51, which I also feel strongly about, the Opposition made it clear that they do not support them. We will see what happens if we have the opportunity to test the will of the House on those as well.

[Andrew Miller]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 117, which is in my name. In Committee, I brought to Members’ attention the Government’s own science and innovation strategy, which talks very clearly about openness. It says:

“Technology allows openness and public scrutiny of research that was not possible until now –going far beyond the ability to share a published paper through open access; the data and the information behind the paper can be made available to all.”

That substantive document, which was produced by the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, sets out the case for openness. There are two areas of this debate where openness has not occurred. The first relates to the redacted documents from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is hardly consistent with the Government’s stated position. The second relates to the point made in amendment 117, which is that baseline monitoring data should be published

“in a form that enables it to be subject to scientific peer review.”

It can be done.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) referred to a letter—I thank him for giving me a copy of it because I had not seen it—but it does not address the substantive point of the amendment, which is that data should be published in a form that enables them to be available for scientific peer review. I am not talking about any old published charts and data. The data should be published in a way that the scientific community can use. There are established standards that are well understood by the Departments of the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). I also ask the Minister to consider that matter with some care as the Bill progresses through the Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right; not for the first time, he highlights these matters. That is precisely why the reporting mechanisms implicit in the new clause are so significant. As he rightly says, it is not enough simply to put in the resources, although we are clearly doing that, as I have shown; it is also important that we measure the effect of those resources. As I said, the arrangements that we have set in motion ensure that these matters are reviewed regularly, and that when setting or varying the strategy we bear in mind the desirability of certainty and stability. We will consult on whether to make a variation once the strategy has been set. For those reasons, I hope that the whole House will join me in welcoming this exciting development.

[Dr Huppert]

On behalf of everyone else from the all-party cycling group, others who supported the new clause and all the organisations who have worked on this, I thank the Minister for the Government agreeing to do this, because it will make a big difference. Will he update us on what has happened to the draft strategy that came out last year? When should we expect a full-blown strategy to take effect?

[Mr Hayes]

The new clause, should it turn from a vision to a proposal to a law, will facilitate that strategy and escalate the process by which it is developed and delivered. Much of the work has been done, as the hon. Gentleman implied, but it has now been framed in the most appropriate place—that is, the Bill, which sets in motion a road investment strategy about which I shall wax lyrical in a moment. It would be ironic to have a road investment strategy without having a walking and cycling strategy alongside it. That case was made by cyclists here in the House and beyond, and it is a persuasive one. The hon. Gentleman can look forward to the achievement of his ambitions being carried out with alacrity.

New clause 5 and new schedule 1 on a cycling strategy are designed to achieve a very similar purpose to new clause 13. The Government’s new clause and amendments make the duty clearer. On that basis, I invite those who gave them life to recognise the progress that has been made and withdraw their amendments.

I turn to new clause 17 and the important issue of ensuring that the road investment strategy will take account of local issues. Opposition Members made that argument powerfully when we considered these matters in Committee, and the case was made both formally and in informal discussions across the House. The road investment strategy—as I need not remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know you are intimately familiar with it—is a series of documents that sets out a long-term commitment to road investment, backs that with funding, and determines by empirical means where that money will make the most difference. It was said that the strategy needed to marry with much of what is happening on local roads, which are the preserve of local highways authorities. It was argued that if there were a mismatch between that local activity, and the decision making that takes place in those authorities, and the judgments that are made as part of the bigger strategy, there could be problems of inconsistency, overlap or perhaps even contradiction between local and national ambitions.

It therefore seemed important that the Government look at the role of route strategies in those terms, and that is precisely what we intend to do. The road investment documents that were issued in December, to much stakeholder acclaim, clearly demonstrated how the investments that we have prioritised will support cities by helping to connect housing sites, enterprise zones and other industrial developments. Just as we have committed to supporting ports, airports and the construction of High Speed 2, the road investment strategy is designed to give a degree of certainty, to build confidence, and to facilitate investment accordingly. This is a significant change in public policy. We are moving from the piecemeal annualised funding of roads to a bigger vision supported by bigger policy assumptions.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

On Second Reading I echoed the fear that had been expressed by Highways Agency staff that this was the first stage of a privatisation process. Since then, the Minister has written to various Members saying that the Bill will not privatise the agency or any part of it. It is true that the Bill contains no such provision, but the staff nevertheless feel that they are being packaged up into an organisation and that the second stage will be privatisation, along with tolling.

The Minister has also given an assurance that the roads investment strategy budget will no longer be annualised, but the chief executive has made clear to staff that the revenue budget for the maintenance of the new company will be annualised. Staff fear cuts and the prospect of being transferred to a company that will be privatised in due course.

It is crucial for committed, dedicated professionals who, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), have done everything asked of them by this and the last Government over the years to be secure in the knowledge that they will have a job following the transfer. Both Governments have normally provided that assurance by including a reference to TUPE in legislation. In some instances, however, that may not be appropriate.

TUPE usually obtains when a group of staff have been transferred from the public sector to the private sector. When the transfer is between Government agencies, or from the Government to an agency, a formal agreement called COSOP operates. It was initiated by the last Government, and has been confirmed by this one, and it is negotiated and signed off by the Cabinet Office. My amendment 127 provides that

“if the TUPE regulations do not apply in relation to the transfer”

the transfer scheme may

“make provision which is the same or similar.”

There is real anxiety about the fact that the form of words used by the Government does not include such a provision, and hence does not abide by the agreement reached by them and by the last Government with the trade unions.

Amendment 115 refers to

“all the rights and liabilities relating to the person’s contract of employment.”

The transfer of undertakings extends beyond the basic contract of employment to a range of other assurances that should be given to staff on transfer. That is why people are worried, and I feel that we will lose some very dedicated professional staff as a result of the lack of commitment that is being given to the staff who have served us so well. I urge the Minister to reconsider, and to translate into the Bill a form of words that has been used in every other Bill, relating either to TUPE or to similar arrangements. If he does not do so, the staff will remain anxious and concerned.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak at the end of the debate, and to see the new clause make progress.

As I think the House knows by now, the case for cycling and walking is incredibly strong. It is a great way to travel. It is environmentally friendly, healthy, reliable, cheap and fun. It cuts congestion, so that everyone else benefits as well. It boosts the economy, it saves money and it saves lives. Public Health England recently said that one in six deaths was due to physical inactivity. What we do to promote physical activity helps people to improve their health.

The all-party parliamentary cycling group set some targets during the Get Britain Cycling inquiry. If we achieved those targets, about 80,000 disability-adjusted life years would be saved each year by 2025. That is a huge number. When mental as well as physical health is taken into account, the financial savings would amount to between £2 billion and £6 billion, and the national health service would save £17 billion a year if we could reach the Dutch and Danish levels. That is worth investing in. That will save money as well as lives.

The case is strong, and that is why in our report we called for spending of up to £10—heading towards £20—per person per year. The report was supported not only by all the cycling organisations, of course, and by Living Streets, a pedestrian group, but by organisations such as the Automobile Association. All forms of transport want to see this happen, and business does, too. The director general of the CBI has called for a major effort to expand the dedicated cycle network, and it is very good that the Government have agreed and are doing the right thing by supporting this amendment. I thank the Minister with responsibility for cycling, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), in particular. I remember when the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and I tried to talk to him, and I am glad he has managed to deliver on what he knows is the right thing.

This amendment has been backed not only by the cycling organisations, but by health organisations—all of them, ranging from the British Heart Foundation to Age UK, to Macmillan, and to Rethink Mental Illness. This is clearly a popular thing to do, therefore.

This Government have made progress on the policy on cycling and walking. We have seen more money go in to this policy than ever before, and I welcome that. The £241 million from the Deputy Prime Minister is the largest single investment in cycling, but it goes nowhere near far enough. To get the benefits I spoke about, we must have the money going in. This strategy says there has to be some, but it does not say how much. My party is committed to the £10 per person per year that was agreed by this House and the cross-party group. It would also be something we would enshrine as part of our green transport Act.

I would love to see the other parties join in. I know that Back Benchers on both sides of the House are supportive, but I also know that the Front Benches on both sides are against this—or at least they have been so far. At the beginning of this year we saw an awful spat with the Conservatives putting out something saying that Labour is going to spend £63 million on cycling, as though that was too much. Unfortunately, we saw Labour respond by saying that that was nonsense and that Labour was not committed to spending any money on cycling. I hope both Front Benches will fix that, because I know their Back Benchers would like to see that happen. I know the shadow Minister was taken to task by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for not committing any money to cycling. I hope both sides and all parties will join us in committing to cycling and walking, because it is not enough to have a strategy; we have to put the resources in and we have to make sure they are available. We can do that and we should do it, and it is something this House has voted for. I hope it will become a reality in the next few months and after the general election as well.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I will be extremely brief, because I do not want to take time away from the debates on the Bill.

My concern is not so much about the time available for debate, because we have had enough heat and no light already, but about the number of votes that the House will be able to have. There are a number of new clauses and amendments, and I am particularly interested in a range of them, such as new clause 6, new clause 9 and amendment 50, which I hope will be debated. However, I wish to highlight amendment 51, because 360,000 members of the public have signed a petition in support of it. It would be right for the House to have the chance to have its say; otherwise we will be letting people down.

Cycling

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are words in the report about the maintenance budget, and we certainly welcome that, but that is not the same as a new infrastructure, which is desperately needed.

[Maria Miller]

I agree that cycling infrastructure is important. It is an important way of communicating to people that cycling is a safe option. I will address that later in my comments.

I can think of no better way to spend a Sunday afternoon than on my bike with my son on the lanes and off-road cycle routes around Basingstoke. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and I both know, Hampshire is blessed with 750 miles of off-road cycle routes and urban cycle paths. Cyclists are getting everywhere. This year, for the first time, St John Ambulance is using cycle responders at festivals across Hampshire. In Basingstoke, our local police effectively use mountain bikes for town centre patrols and to help police work around parks and other public areas.

--- 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 ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to schedule this debate. It is the third such debate we have had, so it is now becoming an annual tradition. I understand that means it must now happen every year for ever, and I look forward to that. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who speaks persuasively, as ever, on this matter. It is also a pleasure to swap roles with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), with whom I have worked on cycling for over four years now, along with all the other members of the all-party group. I pay particular tribute, as other Members have done, to Adam Coffman for his work promoting the benefits of cycling for transport, leisure and sport. I am delighted that our “Get Britain Cycling” report has been welcomed so widely, having been formally supported by the House last year and in the speeches we have heard today.

On Monday morning the traffic in Cambridge was atrocious. It was far worse than usual because it was raining and some of the people who normally cycle to work—although, far from all of them—decided to drive instead. The system simply could not cope with the added demand. Imagine what would happen if our current rate of cycling—in Cambridge, up to a third of trips for work or education are by bike—went down. We would have far worse congestion every single day. Imagine what would happen if we could boost the amount of cycling or walking. We would see greater benefits for those who drive.

When we talk about the benefits of cycling, we are talking about benefits not only for those of us who cycle, but everyone else. As James May from “Top Gear” has said:

“The benefits to driving if people ride bicycles is that there is more space for driving. I would say that the roads belong to everybody”.

I do not know what Jeremy Clarkson’s response to that was, but I know that the president of the Automobile Association, Edmund King, has said that cycling investment

“would bring tangible business and economic benefits by reducing congestion, absenteeism, NHS costs and by producing a more creative and active work force”.

It is true that there are benefits for cyclists, and of course many people cycle, walk, drive and take trains and buses at different times, but cycling is also a reliable, cheap and fun way to get around. It keeps us healthier and is far easier to fit into a day than a trip to the gym.

There are also wider benefits, such as the environmental and economic benefits. John Allan, chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, has told us that getting more people cycling would help

“both the health of the high street as well as the nation”.

There are also huge financial benefits, such as £128 million a year in reduced absenteeism, and a 20% increase in cycling levels could save a few hundred million pounds in reduced congestion and a slightly smaller amount of about £100 million through lower pollution levels.

There are massive benefits for health. Getting people cycling or walking has huge benefits for our NHS. If we get more people engaged in active transport, obesity levels go down, life expectancy goes up and pressures on the NHS go down. The recent study from Lovelace and Woodcock—the hon. Member for Dudley North referred to this—in Leeds and Cambridge respectively, estimated that if we achieved our “Get Britain Cycling” targets, we would save around 80,000 disability-adjusted life years per year in 2025, and about 300,000 per year by 2050. That is a huge factor. That is 30,000 years from reduced heart disease alone, and more from reduced strokes, diabetes and cancer. Let us not forget mental health, because cycling also reduces depression. That is how we get to figures that equate to somewhere between £2 billion and £6 billion a year in benefits by 2025. If we get to the Dutch or Danish level, that will equate to a benefit to the NHS of around £17 billion a year.

There is therefore a really strong case for investing in cycling. That is why we called for an investment of £10 per person per year, rising to £20. It seems a pretty easy case: invest half a billion pounds a year in England and get between £2 billion and £6 billion a year in health costs, plus billions in other benefits. That is why we have business support. John Cridland, director general of the CBI, has called for a

“major effort to expand a dedicated cycle network”.

It is not just a handful of people speaking about this. It seems obvious. The case has been made by so many organisations. I pay tribute to The Times for its “Cities fit for cycling” and its support for our inquiry and report. I also pay particular tribute to Chris Boardman, an excellent national cycling champion.

Why has it not happened? There has been some extra investment in this Parliament, which is welcome, even though it is in the form of specific pockets of money, rather than the sustained investment that is needed. The local sustainable transport fund has been helpful as far as it goes. However, our key call is for sustained investment. That is what we were looking for in the cycling delivery plan published this morning.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

Oxford, like Cambridge, is a very congested city. It is filled with cycling enthusiasts and many community groups that campaign for change in that area. Indeed, over 4,000 people signed the petition for the cycling route along the B4044. Does the hon. Gentleman share their concern that this is about not only the absolute amount of money available for investment, but ensuring that the money is accessible to community groups and local councils when they need it?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that point, and indeed that cycle route, which I have been to see—I know how much it is needed, because it is not a very nice road otherwise. The money has to be available for community groups; it cannot simply be driven from the top down.

There are good things in the plan. There are some encouraging words and good proposals—solid stuff that responds to our recommendations. The Government’s ambition to double cycling by 2025 is welcome, although it does not go as far as we would like it to, or as Parliament has voted for. I welcome the Government’s statement of its commitment to giving people a realistic choice to cycle, which is an important principle.

However, the report does not provide the money needed to actually make a difference. It states:

“The government’s aspiration is that—working with local government, and businesses—we can together explore how we can achieve a minimum funding equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21—and sooner if possible.”

That mentioned our starting figure of £10, but I am afraid that it is still pretty thin. It is an aspiration to explore funding, not even to ensure funding. We are not asking for much. The Department for Transport’s 2014-15 budget, counting revenue and capital together, comes to a total of £21.5 billion. Of course, much of that is accounted for, for example in schemes such as Crossrail, but £500 million is not a huge fraction of that and could make a huge difference to transport, health and the wider economy. It is a few per cent., or roughly on a par with the proportion of people who currently cycle, which is already too low. There is huge rail investment from this Government, which I welcome as the right thing to do, with billions of pounds properly invested, not just an aspiration to explore. There is £28 billion in road schemes—again, invested, not an aspiration to explore.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some continental cities such as Basle and Copenhagen have very good interchange facilities between cyclists and railway stations; in Britain, the situation is awful to poor. Does he think that any plan has to include a serious plan about proper, secure cycle parking and more efficient use of cycle parking space at stations?

[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 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.

[Dr Huppert]

I wonder if I can bring the hon. Gentleman back to the very exciting New Forest cycle hire scheme. As I understand it, more of the responses to the public consultation from people living within the forest were in favour of the scheme than against it. Does he agree that it is a rather perverse decision from the authority to listen to the public, hear that they support it and then decide that they cannot go ahead with it?

[Dr Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman illustrates the point I am making. I do not want to second-guess the decision of the national park authority for the simple reason that I did not involve myself in that debate and I only read about it afterwards. Frankly, I do not have enough information to make a judgment on whether I sympathise or not. However, what I certainly think—I hope he would agree—is that it is really unfortunate that the attitude towards cycling in general by the representatives of the national park and the community in the New Forest has been so damaged by this dispute over mass cycling events that cycling is getting a bad name.

To conclude, I simply say that we look to the Minister to try to have some reserve regulatory powers in place, hopefully seldom having to be relied upon, to ensure that where there is a danger of a clash—as has happened on one occasion, between the New Forest drift, when the ponies have to be moved across the forest, and a mass cycling event—and where there is a question mark over perhaps two major cycling events being scheduled for the same day, or where there is too much bunching of events one after another rather than being spread at reasonable intervals, just as there is light-touch regulation for racing events on the public highway, we believe there should be some powers in reserve so that cycling can regain its popular reputation. In this way, the New Forest and cycling will once again be bracketed together harmoniously, rather than as a source of dissonance and friction.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Minister is making some interesting points. He has heard a lot of calls from his Back Benchers to support the “Get Britain Cycling” recommendations and commit money. Will he say now that the Labour party will include “Get Britain Cycling” in its manifesto and will he commit to spending £10 a year per person in the next Parliament if the Labour party is in government?

[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.

[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.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Richard Burden]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make some progress, as there is a time limit.

The final thing we need to do is to ensure that the Government take the importance of education and promotion much more seriously—something that the report understands and emphasises in calling for a

“a dramatic increase in the number and diversity of people who cycle”.

For children, this means long-term support for bikeability. For women, who still make up only a quarter of Britain’s cyclists, cycle safety is a big concern. Cycling is also important for all of us who want to make our communities safer, greener and happier places in the future.

I hope that today’s delivery plan heralds a change of thinking by the Government, but I reckon we will need a lot more action to secure the kind of change we need. I suspect that it will take more than a delivery plan; it will take a change of Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

We want to see good co-operation between the passenger transport executives, the combined local authorities and the bus operators that provide the services in their area. They need to work together to give the best services to local people. Bus services are incredibly important to people and are vital in enabling them to go about their daily business and to get to work and to their leisure activities.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

4. What progress he has made on implementing recommendations of the “Get Britain Cycling” report of the all-party parliamentary cycling group. [R]

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

My hon. Friend chaired the all-party parliamentary cycling group yesterday when I outlined the Government’s commitment to cycling. With regards to the all-party group’s recommendations, the Government provided an update to Parliament last month.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for coming to speak to us yesterday. We made a number of recommendations, which were endorsed by this House when we debated the subject. Two of those would have a cross-departmental action plan and sustained funding at £10 per head. We have had some pots of money, but not at that level. Will he update us on those two issues?

[Mr Goodwill]

The first point that needs to be made is that, compared with the previous Government, we have doubled spending on cycling. Indeed, the eight cycling ambition cities have benefited from that funding, and Cambridge is one of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

The Department takes the transportation of dangerous goods very seriously. As a former road tanker driver, I understand many of the hazards. As we build the high-speed rail network and electrify more services, there will be more capacity on the existing classic line for freight services such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Guide Dogs, Whizz-Kidz and Living Streets, among others, have supported a campaign I have been running with Claire Connon, a prospective 2016 Paralympian, to fix our pavements. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that footways can be used by people in wheelchairs, people with mobility issues, people who are partially sighted, people with pushchairs and everyone else who wants to make use of them?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is vital that we roll out as much accessibility in the countryside as possible. I know that organisations such as the Country Land and Business Association benevolent trust have given grant aid for such schemes. I think we should roll out as far as possible any schemes to allow more people access to footways and to ensure that disabled people have the same rights as everybody else to enjoy the countryside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

We have surely now reached the time when the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members should accept that the Act does not do what he has claimed. He may not be aware that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations recently said:

“We are grateful that the government has listened to the concerns charities have raised in recent months…The”

Act

“provides a much more sensible balance…between creating accountability and transparency in elections while still allowing for charities and others to speak up on issues of concern.”

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

7. What plans he has to increase the use of pre-legislative scrutiny.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The Government are committed, wherever possible, to publishing legislation in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. We published 17 draft Bills or sets of draft measures in the previous Session, which is more than the previous Government did in any Session.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Leader of the House. It is clear that there have been some benefits. The recent Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill ended up with a lot of provisions that were recommended on pre-legislative scrutiny, although the process would have been faster if they had been included straight away. Does he agree that the principle should be that, unless there are exceptional reasons, all Bills should go through some sort of pre-legislative scrutiny?

[Mr Lansley]

We endeavour to publish legislation in draft, but it is not always possible. My hon. Friend and the House will understand that, for example, at the start of a Parliament, or sometimes for reasons of policy, measures have to be brought in at a pace that does not permit the kind of pre-legislative scrutiny that we would generally seek. Let me point out that only this week we debated the Deregulation Bill on Second Reading, and that was scrutinised in draft form; and in the previous week, the Consumer Rights Bill came to the House, and that had had substantial pre-legislative scrutiny. I commend to the House how we are continuing to engage in that.

Transport Infrastructure

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry; I missed the last bit of the hon. Lady’s question. [Hon. Members: “When do you think the decision should be made?”] I know that the Transport Committee will be seeing Sir Howard at one of its meetings in the early part of January. I agree with the hon. Lady; we will be responding early next year to the recommendations on which Sir Howard has asked us to come to a view.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Government was absolutely right to scrap Labour’s plans for a third runway at Heathrow. I very much welcomed the Prime Minister’s statement:

“No ifs. No buts. No third runway”.

I assume the Prime Minister meant it. What assurance can the Secretary of State provide that nothing will be done to breach the Committee on Climate Change recommendations?

Cycling

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I beg to move,

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

It is a great pleasure to move this motion. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to schedule a debate on this subject after the success of our very well-attended debate last year in Westminster Hall, which showed just how many Members of this House care about cycling. We discussed all forms of cycling, from sport to commuting, leisure, utility and all-access cycling. It was clear from that debate that Members agreed that cycling was an energy-efficient form of transport, a healthy way to get around, a cheap means of travelling, and fun as well. No one who was there will forget the tale we heard of romance on a tandem.

Since that debate, the all-party parliamentary cycling group, which I have the great pleasure of co-chairing with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), has conducted a detailed inquiry to make a series of recommendations on what Government ought to do to get Britain cycling, and we are now debating the resulting report. To produce it, we spoke to a wide range of people.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am not at all surprised that this debate is so well attended. I want to put on record the representations that I have received from at least one constituent who wants us to focus still more on cycling as part of an improved environment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improving the road structure, pathways and so on is important not only because individuals want to take part in cycling but because it is a great attraction and opportunity for tourism in the areas we represent?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I completely agree that there are huge benefits, some of which I will outline. He is absolutely right that tourism can benefit and that environmental concerns can be addressed. There are lots of benefits in getting Britain cycling.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress the benefits, but does he accept, as I hope most in the House would, that there are also associated tragedies? One thinks of Mary Bowers, who is still in a coma, and one thinks of the excellent campaign run by The Times, “Cities fit for cycling”. Does he accept that cycling is not only a marvellous, fit and healthy way to travel but should be protected and that cyclists should be safe?

[Dr Huppert]

Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There have been a number of tragedies. Part of what we ought to do is to make sure that it is safe for people to cycle. In fact, it is fairly safe at the moment, but the perception is a problem. I agree that there are far too many tragic incidents such as that of Mary Bowers.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

Let me make a bit more progress and then I will give way.

We spoke to a wide range of people—not only cycling organisations, which I thank for their assistance throughout the process, but the police, the freight industry, Living Streets, the president of the Automobile Association, and many others. I thank them all, and particularly those parliamentarians from both Houses who served on the panel, many of whom are here today, and Adam Coffman, who co-ordinated the entire process. There were hundreds of suggestions for recommendations, and those and more analysis can be found in the companion report by Professor Phil Goodwin, together with transcripts of the entire session.

Currently, only about 2% of trips are made by bike—a tiny fraction, well below the levels found in many countries. A huge range of short trips that could easily be walked or cycled are driven. That is why we set a long-term ambition to try to increase that from 2% to 10% by 2025 and to 25% by 2050. That is entirely do-able and still below what the Dutch, for example, manage to achieve.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the hon. Gentleman highlights, very few people cycle, but in my borough of Hackney we have a far higher percentage—more than 10% of people regularly cycle. Does he agree that that is testament to what can be done with forward thinking, good planning and a political will to achieve a change?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment and for her work on the report. She is absolutely right that there are exemplars. In my constituency of Cambridge, about a third of trips are now made by bike. We are hoping to increase that to 40% with the money that has been given by the Government through the ambition grant. Some places are showing that they can do this, and the rest of the country can as well.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government must provide funding, and they have been doing so, but it is also important for local authorities to be doing more. Let me quote what my constituent Adrian Lawson, the chairman of the Reading Cycling Campaign, said about Reading borough council:

“We identified a lot of simple things that would make it immeasurably better for cyclists. This was over a year ago. Not a single thing has happened.”

Does that not show that we also need local councils to implement measures?

[Dr Huppert]

Absolutely; local authorities have a crucial role to play.

If more people were to cycle and walk, we would all benefit. We would be healthier, saving huge amounts of money—billions of pounds—for the NHS. There would be less congestion on the roads, making travel times faster and more reliable for those who are in cars. There would be less pressure on city centre parking, helping people to get to the shops and keep the economy going. The economy would grow. Cycling already contributes about £3 billion to the UK economy, but it is not always seen as significant as that. We all win by promoting cycling and walking.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I applaud the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and the Members who added their name to the motion. Cycling can be promoted not only in Cambridge but in extremely hilly and mountainous areas such as the constituency of Ogmore, with the right investment by the local authority and the voluntary sector in things such as safe routes to school, which link to safe routes to work, which then link to the Afan Argoed mountain bike track.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Cycling can indeed be encouraged anywhere in the country; the area does not have to be flat and dry like Cambridge.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Ealing has a very strong reputation as a cycling borough. Schools there are playing their part in training young people using travel plans. Eight schools in Ealing have travel plans that are considered outstanding. Does my hon. Friend agree that using travel plans is an imaginative way for schools to train youngsters in cycling?

[Dr Huppert]

Travel plans are critical and the hon. Lady is right to highlight the role of schools, because training in schools makes a big difference. The Government have protected Bikeability funding. I received my own Bikeability training during the summer from Outspoken! Cycle Training in Cambridge. I learned quite a lot from that and it would be good to see other people receive it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I will take one more intervention from a Government Member and one more from an Opposition Member, and then I will make some progress.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I think now has the distinction of being fashionable. I am glad that page 15 of the report refers to the bridge over the railway tracks in Cambridge, which I funded and was delighted to be part of opening. On the issue of risk, does my hon. Friend agree that comparisons of risk per distance travelled are ludicrous when comparing walking, cycling, driving and flying? We ought to have risk per hour exposed, which would give people a far greater sense of the relative safety of cycling.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I thank him for his support for Cambridge cycling. Statistics can say all sorts of things. The most dangerous form of travel per trip is a space shuttle, and the safest per passenger mile is also the space shuttle. That shows the extremes.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I am going to make some progress, because a lot of Members wish to speak in this debate.

Our report makes 18 recommendations on five key themes. The first is for sustained investment in cycling in order to improve the infrastructure. The European standard is for funds to the order of £10 per person per year, hopefully rising to £20 per person per year. That is the sort of level the Dutch have sustained and that is what we need to make the difference. It will not happen overnight, but the benefits will substantially outweigh the costs according to almost every single study.

Many of the improvements that would benefit cyclists, such as improvements to road quality, segregated cycle tracks and junction changes, would also benefit pedestrians and other road users. No conflict is necessary in improving the infrastructure.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady has been patient, so I will take her intervention.

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I want to draw the House’s attention to the death in my constituency in July of Philippine De Gerin-Ricard, a 20-year-old student who was tragically killed while cycling. In the previous year, two others were killed on the ring road. I fully support the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need for investment to make roads safer, for drivers as well as cyclists. What can be done to reduce the number of minor and major injuries, which have increased by 29% in the past year—a dramatic increase since the period between 2005 and 2009?

[Dr Huppert]

The point of a lot of what I will say will be about how we can reduce that number. Some of that is about infrastructure and some is about measures such as making heavy goods vehicles safer, which I will come on to discuss in detail.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?

[Dr Huppert]

No. I want to make progress; otherwise I am afraid others will not have the chance to speak.

We have to make sure that other local and national bodies, such as local authorities and the Highways Agency, allocate proportionate funds to cycling, so that major road schemes such as the A14 in my constituency include appropriate cycle facilities along or across them. Other Departments should also get involved: there are benefits to health, education, sport and business. They should step out of their silos and get involved.

We need to make our roads and cities fit for cyclists. Planners need to give consideration to cyclists and pedestrians right at the start of all developments, whatever they are. We also need new design guidance to provide a modern standard, not merely paint on a pavement, which annoys cyclists and pedestrians alike. Local authorities can get on with the small schemes, as can the Highways Agency, which has agreed to our call for a programme to reduce the barriers its roads can cause to cycling.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

No. I am not going to give way for a bit longer.

Road travel is never perfectly safe and there is a lot we can do to make it safer. Infrastructure is key, but we can do other things, too. For example, 20 mph zones, which this Government support, are clearly beneficial, not only for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, but for the perceptions of safety for people who want to cycle or take their children cycling. Some rural lanes could be appropriate for a 40 mph speed limit.

Hon. Members have talked about the number of tragic deaths. Sadly, too many of them have involved cyclists and HGVs. Steps have been taken by the Mineral Products Association, Cemex and others, but we need to push further for better vehicle design and better controls, and encourage HGVs not to use busy roads at peak times. Crossrail has led the way on much of that.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I am sorry, but I want to make some more progress.

Road traffic laws are broken too often and they should be enforced for all road users. When a serious driving offence takes place, especially if it results in death or injury, it must be treated seriously by police, prosecutors and judges. Far too often the sentences proposed are, frankly, trivial.

We also need to encourage people to ride positively. Cycling should be seen as a safe and normal activity for people of all ages and backgrounds, as is the case in the Netherlands.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I want to make more progress, but I will give way later.

Education will help. Bikeability should be available at all schools, and adults should also have the chance to learn to ride. We also need political leadership, and it is good to see the Transport Secretary enter the Chamber at this point. We need not just nice words from senior politicians—although I am pleased that the Prime Minister wanted personally to announce the recent substantial extra funding—but sustained support, including a cross-departmental action plan, with annual progress reports, a national cycling champion, a clear ambition to increase cycling and for Government at all levels to have a lead politician responsible for cycling.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I will take one intervention from each side of the Chamber.

[Mr Sheerman]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on securing this debate. He will know of my long-term interest, as chairman of the parliamentary advisory council for transport safety, in safety on the roads. Is he worried that at least a third of youngsters who get on a bike do not have any Bikeability training?

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about HGVs. What are we going to do about those whose steering wheels are on the other side of the vehicle, who have terrible blind spots and who cause many terrible accidents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the support that PACTS, along with many other organisations, has given to our report. I think that more training should be made available. It should not be compulsory, but we want to encourage people to feel comfortable. There is a lot more we can do to deal with HGVs.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I have cycled in the UK and in Holland. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about meaningless bits of paint on pavements and trees in the middle of cycle routes, and does he agree that what we really need are segregated cycle paths?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I can see the hon. Gentleman is in free wheel, but I am going to put on the brake. We said 10 to 15 minutes, so I am sure Dr Huppert will have finished in a couple of minutes.

[Dr Huppert]

We all benefit from improving the take-up of cycling. To quote the president of the Automobile Association, Edmund King:

“Implementation of the Get Britain Cycling recommendations would bring tangible business and economic benefits by reducing congestion, absenteeism, NHS costs and by producing a more creative and active workforce.”

There speaks the voice of the automobile, and I entirely agree with him.

Despite these benefits, Governments for decades have not sufficiently supported cycling. There has been massive investment in road infrastructure, but little for cycling; cyclists have often had small-scale provision, if any. Individual Ministers have tried, but they have not always received the support they need. I pay great tribute in particular to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who I believe is the longest ever serving Minister with responsibility for cycling. However, he is not able to deliver as much as he or I would like. He has done things such as announce extra money over the summer for the local sustainable transport fund, but we need more and it needs to be sustained.

Many Ministers face a culture that points the other way—that focuses on car drivers only, to the detriment of others and without realising that fewer cyclists will result in more cars on the roads. I hope that one of the outcomes of our report and this debate will be to provide support for Ministers of all parties who want to make that difference—to turn welcome comments, such as those made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, into reality.

On 12 August the Prime Minister said that cycling will be at the heart of future road developments. I hope we can make sure, through the impetus of this debate, the “Cities fit for cycling” campaign run by The Times, the excitement of the Olympics and the double Tour de France victory, that that will become a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

If I have time at the end I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to get through the points raised by my constituents.

The last two negatives raised related to fatalities and punishment to fit the crime. We all hear tragic stories from constituents about punishments that do not fit the crime. On the conversion of wider pavements, Boris Johnson certainly has done that in London, particularly on the Embankment.

What I find fascinating is the counter-culture that comes through from my cyclist constituents. They complained about bad cycling behaviour and said that the cycle demographic in our country is mainly young, white, aggressive and male. That is why we do not “go Dutch” and why many people are put off cycling: they see a race track and do not want to join it. We need to address that problem, and the only way we are going to do so is through enforcement against those who cross red lights and pedestrian crossings.

People complained about cyclists who disregard the rules by wearing earphones; running red lights; crashing pedestrian crossings; not signalling whether they are turning left or right; not warning when they are overtaking; riding on pavements; using mobile phones; speeding on the Thames path; not ringing to alert pedestrians or other cyclists that they are overtaking on tow paths; swearing at pedestrians—some cyclists, like some drivers, think that they are entitled to a free run at the road; not dismounting in foot tunnels; not having lights; not having bells; and not wearing high-visibility clothing. Cyclists are not perfect. We have to give a lead to cyclists to say, “We should show a better example in the way we behave, to ensure that drivers behave in the way we want them to.”

In conclusion, my wife Sheila and I visited Amsterdam and Copenhagen recently. There is less racing, more sensible cycling and a much wider demographic; there is a different culture. We must have that more varied cycling demographic in our country. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State recently asked two questions of the Government. First, why do we have annual road and rail budgets to 2021, but not one for cycling? Secondly, why do we not have cycle safety assessments, similar to economic and equality impact assessments, for all road schemes?

My final question is about something that is raised in the report—I am not quite clear about the Government’s response—which said that we should have champions.

[Dr Huppert]

The issue with cycle helmets is that although they might save some lives, the countervailing loss of life from people not cycling and being less fit massively outweighs that. Indeed, one academic analysis suggested an extra 250 or so deaths a year net.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful for that intervention. That discussion needs to be had, and I am happy to ensure that we are raising it tonight.

My final question to the Minister is this. The report says that we should have national, regional and city champions. It is not clear from the Government’s response whether he is the national champion or not. If he is not, he should be. When will he recruit his regional and city-wide teams?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

It has been fantastic to have such a great debate with so many right hon. and hon. Members contributing. The passion expressed has been really fantastic. The support for the cross-party report, “Get Britain Cycling”, is very welcome and I am very pleased to see it.

At our conference in two weeks’ time, my party will debate adopting this as part of our party policy and then in our manifesto. I hope that other parties will do the same, because it would be marvellous if at the next election they all offer some serious improvements on cycling. For years—for decades—Governments have not done enough. We are doing more now but there is far more still to do. I hope that the support expressed in this debate will add extra weight to the call on all our parties for this Government and all future Governments to try to do their best to get Britain cycling.

It is also fantastic that while so many right hon. and hon. Members have been here, outside a huge number—some 5,000—cyclists organised by the London Cycling Campaign have been showing their support for what we are doing and trying to help to get Britain cycling. I am pleased that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign has been involved in all that.

I am really delighted that we have had this debate. I hope that it will give an impetus towards improving facilities for cyclists, and also for pedestrians and consequently for drivers and all other road users. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I certainly agree that it is important to consider all aspects of the geography when considering bids. It is not simply a matter of building huge new roads from A to B. Often, the local pinch point investments referred to by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a moment ago can be very effective indeed, so we should be prepared to be open-minded about the schemes that are appropriate for funding.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

9. What steps he is taking to support the get Britain cycling campaign.

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

I welcome the work that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) have undertaken through the all-party cycling group inquiry. We are looking at the recommendations carefully and will respond in the near future. The coalition Government takes cycling very seriously and is committed to leading the country into getting more people cycling, more safely and more often.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that comment. We look forward eagerly to the response and hope that it will be very positive. One suggestion that came up repeatedly was that safety for both cyclists and pedestrians would be driven by 20 mph speed zones as the standard on most residential side streets, but one problem is that the police do not seem to be enforcing them properly. Will the Minister have words with the police to get them to enforce the law?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

5. What progress he is making on the introduction of measures to improve financial scrutiny of Government expenditure.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

9. What progress he is making on the introduction of measures to improve financial scrutiny of Government expenditure.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The coalition Government are keen to build on the success of the alignment project in simplifying Government financial reporting. We intend to do this by working with Select Committees to support better scrutiny of Government expenditure and to promote greater efficiency and improved value for money in all Departments.

[Tom Brake]

The three estimates day debates each Session present a valuable opportunity for Select Committees to hold Departments to account, but too often the debates are focused on specific Committee reports rather than departmental expenditure as such. We are keen to explore with Select Committees any ways in which we can enable these debates to focus on a wider range of financial and performance-related documentation. I am sure, for instance, that as part of that process the Transport Committee would want to pick up on the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised in relation to HS2.

[Dr Huppert]

The public believe that Parliament scrutinises Government expenditure. When I talk to people they are surprised that in fact we have a few debates about very specific items on estimates days and do not even look at the entirety of one Department’s expenditure. Will my right hon. Friend look urgently at options to reassure the public that Parliament does look at expenditure in these areas, whether through debates in this place, Westminster Hall or Select Committees? We have to hold the Government to account.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Some Select Committees do provide the level of scrutiny that he wants. For instance, the Health Committee and the Transport Committee look at the estimates carefully. I am pleased to say that at least one of the estimates day debates, on 3 July, is a broad one that will look at public expenditure on health and care services.

Rail Fares

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I knew it began with a “Ch”—that might be a way to remember it in the future. The right hon. Gentleman has not taken too long to get back into the habit of heckling from the Front Bench—perhaps he never got out of it in his role at the Department of Health.

My noble Friend Lord Adonis has made it clear in oral and written evidence to the Transport Committee, and on many other occasions, that he fully intended the ban on train companies flexing the fare cap to continue into subsequent years. That would be perfectly possible. I have said on many occasions that the previous Government should have taken action earlier, but the fact is that when times got tough they acted, but when times got tougher still this Government chose to give back to the train companies the right to fiddle the fare cap.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No.

What is the consequence? It is that the Government and the House do not have the ability to enforce the cap on fare rises they think they have approved. I therefore hope that we can all agree today that the cap should be precisely that—a cap, a maximum allowable increase.

Our motion also calls on the Government again to reverse their decision to increase the cap from RPI plus 1 to RPI plus 3 for 2013-14. This should not be a contentious proposal, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will feel able to support it. I know that it is slightly devalued today, but Government Members might like to look back at the commitment they made in the coalition agreement:

“We are committed to fair pricing for rail travel”.

It simply is not credible to square that pledge with the decision taken to increase the annual cap on fares from RPI plus 1 to RPI plus 3.

Let us be clear who is benefiting from these excessive fare rises: the private train companies. I urge the new Secretary of State to ask his civil servants for a copy of a very good report—on his Department’s spending settlement and its progress in implementing it—recently published by the National Audit Office. It warns that the Department for Transport has failed to demonstrate that higher fares translate into payments back to taxpayers:

“There is a risk that the benefit of the resulting increase in passenger revenues will not be passed on to taxpayers fully, but will also result in increased train operating company profits.”

So there we have it. We know who benefits from fare rises: the private train companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a choice to be made about where to pitch the figure for RPI plus or minus whatever it is. Today’s motion is based on our current policy as it is—something I think the Government could agree with—which retains credibility in terms of deficit reduction, but which would also bring significant relief—[Laughter.] I do not know why Liberal Democrat Members are laughing. Despite their alleged policy to cut rail fares, they have voted repeatedly in this Parliament for Budgets, autumn statements and comprehensive spending review measures that increase rail fares by RPI plus 3%, so we are not going to take any lessons from them about how to implement policy on rail fares.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Maria Eagle]

No, I will not.

Why is a 3% above inflation increase acceptable this year, when it was, in the Chancellor’s words, “too much” last year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman listened to what I said earlier, but I have already said that I did not think it was right to tie such increases into specific improvements on specific lines, which is what happened in that case, and I have said that before. Perhaps if he listens a little more carefully, he will not have to intervene. I said that I did not think that was right, but the current Government—

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I am in the middle of answering the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti).

The current Government are proposing an across-the-board increase of RPI plus 3% on everyone, whether or not there is any improvement in investment or any increase in service. At a time like this, when people’s incomes are being squeezed badly, it is not easy for them to cope with that. We should not continue with those levels of increases.

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), because he is clearly very keen.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for finally giving way—it has taken some effort. While she is in the mood for apologising for errors made under the last Government, will she apologise for the fact that rail fares went up in cash terms by 66% in that time? That had a huge impact on people across the entire country and made fares completely unaffordable for many people.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman, who purports to be the transport spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, even though the Liberal Democrats have a Transport Minister in the Government—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes—is going round the country saying that his party is in favour of cutting fares, when he and his hon. and right hon. Friends are voting for Government measures that increase them. If he starts to apologise for some of that, I am sure we can sit down and talk about mutual apologies that may or may not be possible.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

As the Secretary of State’s predecessor rightly said, “If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” That is the first thing that he can do in his first Cabinet meeting—well, not his first, but his first in this role. [Interruption.] Oh yes, the Chief Whip attended, but this time he will be able to vote, if there are any votes—there are occasionally votes at Cabinet, although perhaps not in this one.

We now know that many Government Members agree with us on this issue, because they have been busy telling their local newspapers that the fare rises are too high. The hon. Member—soon to be the right hon. Member—for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is now the Minister of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and who is, we are told, even now parked in a tank on the lawn of the Business Secretary, has gone so far as to present a petition to the House on the issue. He writes on his website:

“At a time of rising energy bills, and high inflation more generally, many of my constituents are having to make painful savings in their household budgets. Southeastern need to understand this and reduce the size of the rail fare increase”.

Our motion today would not only prevent train companies from imposing the eye-watering fare rises that the Business Minister rightly opposes; it would also cap his constituents’ fare rises at 1% above inflation.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has told his local newspaper:

“Harlow people are already struggling to make ends meet against a backdrop of rising petrol prices and wage freezes…They cannot be expected to pay massive rises in rail fares on top.”

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) told her local paper:

“At a time when household budgets are stretched, the Government and Southeastern have a responsibility to ensure the cost of rail travel remains affordable. I will continue to make representations on behalf of my constituents”.

Good for her! Her neighbour, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), has said:

“What I have found with prices going up this fast is that many of my constituents have to get up at 5 am or 6 am to take a coach to London because they cannot afford to take the train whereas others have been priced out completely because they are spending almost all their take-home pay on a season ticket. I just think that is counter-productive. I think it is a question of fairness to people who are working hard and just doing their best.”

I agree with all those hon. Members’ representations.

I should also like to quote one or two Liberal Democrats. It will not be a great shock to the House to learn that many Lib Dem MPs have been sending out press releases to their local papers opposing their own Government—we all know that they do that. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who is not in his place, has said:

“I am very concerned at the proposed fare rises…At a time when the cost of living remains a big issue it’s not acceptable to ask rail users to pick up extra costs”.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) has actually claimed credit for last year’s U-turn, saying:

“I hope George Osborne and the Treasury will cut the train commuter some slack in the upcoming budget...Last year, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander negotiated a RPI+1% fare rise for 2012, much lower than planned by some Conservatives. I hope they will do at least as much this budget.”

That is not very collegiate, but it is rather typical. I must not leave out the hon. Member for Cambridge, because he gets upset if I do. I can reassure the House that he has also spoken out, in his rather confusing role as co-chair of the Lib Dem transport committee. He has assured his local paper:

“I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport earlier this summer to remind her of Liberal Democrat policy, and highlight our opposition to the RPI+3% rate.”

Putting out a press release is one thing—and it can be useful—but I hope that Members will follow their words up with action this afternoon and vote for this very straightforward motion, which proposes that the cap on annual fare rises should go back to the 1% above inflation cap that existed before the last election—which even the Chancellor conceded was right last year when he performed a U-turn—and that we should strictly enforce that cap, it being the will of the House, and not allow private train companies to add up to another 5% on to some fares. The result would be clear. Instead of 11.2% being the highest possible fare increase in January, no fare would rise by more than 1% above inflation. That would benefit our constituents considerably.

If we do not act, passengers are likely to face three years of double-digit fare rises on some routes, and many ticket prices will have risen by a third during this Parliament. We have reached a point at which increasing numbers of households are paying more on their season ticket just to get to work than on their mortgage or rent payments. For too long, Governments have let the train companies get away with treating passengers in a way that would not be permitted in other industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

I was just coming on to say that this July, we announced £16 billion of public support for the existing rail network between 2014 and 2019—I expect 2014 to be during this particular Parliament—which will support over £9 billion of enhancements, meaning more services, more seats and more capacity, especially for commuters to our largest cities. The tap cannot simply be turned on as far as the rail industry is concerned. Passengers will also benefit from the completion of the northern hub in Manchester, £240 million of investment in capacity and connection improvements on the east coast main line, and a further £300 million for high-value, small-scale schemes in other parts of the country.

We are delivering a rolling programme of rail electrification on the Great Western main line to Swansea, on the valley lines into Cardiff and on the trans-Pennine route connecting Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and York. We are creating a new “electric spine” for freight and passenger services stretching from the south coast to the east and west midlands and south Yorkshire.

[Dr Huppert]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new post. How confident is he that during this Parliament this Government will be able to electrify more of the railways than the nine miles that were managed in three previous Parliaments?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman must not underestimate the achievements of the last Government. He said that they electrified nine miles, but he is wrong; they electrified 13 miles, and I shall come to that a little later in my speech. I shall also come on to announce the electrification that we intend to carry out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State for Transport to his role. I also pay tribute to the work of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), and wish her the best of luck in her new, very important role in heading up the Department for International Development. It was a great pleasure to work with her to try to achieve many of the things to which we both aspire. I hope that that work can continue with the new Secretary of State and the other new Transport Ministers, whom I welcome to their roles, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who, I am delighted to say, is still in his role, holding the Department together in so many ways.

One of the issues on which we will have to work together is rail fares, which are quite simply too high. Under the previous Labour Government we saw year-on-year rail fare rises, and we now have one of the most expensive railways in the world. In their 13 years, rail fares went up by an astonishing 66% in cash terms—well above inflation—and in some years there were even greater increases. In 2007, for example, they allowed Stagecoach South West to increase fares by a massive 20%. Fares are too high already, but even now Labour and the Conservatives continue to argue for above-inflation rail fare increases. Although it was good to hear the new Secretary of State say that he aims to end the era of above-inflation increases soon, I hope that it will be very soon.

I will not support the motion because I do not agree with Labour Members that fares should be allowed to go up by more than inflation, which is what their motion says. It calls for a 1% above inflation rail fare cap, whereas Liberal Democrats believe that rail fares are too high already and should be reduced in real terms—that is, capped at less than inflation. We have argued that consistently and will continue to do so. It is time to end the era of above-inflation fare increases for ever.

The last-but-one Transport Secretary—I believe that 24 living people have had that job—instituted a policy of RPI plus 3%, which is well above inflation. Thanks to pressure from Liberal Democrats and others, and arguments won by the former Secretary of State, we managed to reduce that, and fares rose by only 1% above inflation—the average of the Conservative and Lib Dem proposals, and exactly what Labour advocated and advocates today—rather than by 3%. I congratulated the former Secretary of State on successfully winning that argument with the Chancellor last year. I have continued to work with her and other Ministers to try to press it. It was kind of the shadow Secretary of State to read out my words, confirming that I continued to press the former Secretary of State and will keep going with the new Secretary of State. I was delighted when the former Secretary of State announced in August:

“I am keen to see what we can do to keep fares down to something affordable. I will be looking at whether there is a way of doing this in the autumn.”

I am sure that the new Secretary of State, with all his vast experience in the ways of operating within Government and the Whips Office, will prove equally adept at obtaining the funds that are needed so desperately to ensure that price rises are reduced, and I look forward to working with him to achieve that.

We need to look at why fares are so high and how we can reduce the costs of the railways. Why do commuters in Britain suffer some of the most expensive tickets in Europe on some of its most crowded services? We have already heard some comments about this. I pay tribute to the interesting suggestions of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), particularly on printing more information on tickets. That is an excellent idea and I hope that the Department for Transport will listen to it and take it seriously.

At the fundamental level, the main problem is chronic underinvestment in our railways. Government after Government have invested far too little in our most important transport network. Infrastructure spending has not kept up with demand. That has forced the railways into a downward spiral. An overcrowded, inefficient and unreliable service becomes far more expensive to run. The Office of Rail Regulation estimates that UK railways are up to 40% less efficient than their European counterparts, despite the cost of tickets. This cycle forces up fares and reduces the level of investment available, making for more expensive railways and a less good service.

[Katy Clark]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Liberal Democrat spokesperson, that historically there is a massive problem with underinvestment on Britain’s railways, but does he accept that the fragmentation of Britain’s railways and the role of the private companies compounds the problem greatly?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She has been fairly consistent on this issue, which is not true of all those in her party. I was interested to note that the shadow Secretary of State carefully avoided making commitments on how the railway system is operated. At the time of privatisation, I was concerned about some aspects. For example, if I want to travel from Cambridge to London, I do not care if it is cheaper to go to Liverpool because I am trying to go to London. It may be cheaper—or wonderful—to go to Liverpool, but it is not the trip I wish to make. Having said that, renationalising now would create a huge amount of complexity in trying to move to that new world. I am not persuaded that it would be the right thing to do, but I would be happy to discuss it further with the hon. Lady.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I will take one last intervention on this point and then make progress.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that it would be too difficult to bring the railways back into public ownership. If it were done on a case-by-case basis as the franchises came up, as with the west coast main line right now, there would not be any extra cost to the public purse; in fact, there would be a reduction in cost.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I congratulate her on her new-found freedom and hope that she will enjoy not having the responsibilities of party leader, with the flexibilities that that brings. I suspect that she will continue to be very influential on future leaders of her party. I am happy to talk to her in more detail about how such an approach would work, but I do not think that it is as trivial as she suggests. We must avoid doing something that seems very good on the face of it but does not deliver an improved rail system. For example, passenger usage numbers went up quite significantly at the point of privatisation. I would not want to do anything that jeopardised the growth in the number of rail passengers, and I am sure that she would not want to do so either.

So what can we do to bring down rail costs? We need a more modern and more efficient system. That is why I was so pleased that despite the huge public deficit and the ongoing problems in the eurozone, this year over £9 billion of investment was announced for our railways in the next five-year period. The Liberal Democrats and I were delighted to endorse that. The coalition has committed to electrifying over 800 miles of railways across the country, as well as to making a huge range of other improvements that will make a huge difference to passengers and to business. I was interested that last year’s autumn statement announced £1.4 billion of investment in our railways because, crucially, that provides £400 million more for railways than for roads. I cannot remember the last time any Government took the correct decision to prioritise expenditure on railways over roads.

As well as investing in lower fares for the future, we have to invest in lower fares now, as the excellent Campaign for Better Transport has pointed out. Over the next year, wages are set to rise by 2%, but fares could go up by as much as 3% above inflation—over 6%. Coalition means that one does not always get everything that one would most like to happen. I was pleased that last year the Government moved to RPI plus 1%, which is exactly in between our position and that of our coalition partners, but I cannot support the Conservative proposals for a rise of 3% above inflation for next year, nor the proposal in the Labour motion for above-inflation rises indefinitely. Liberal Democrats want a rate of RPI minus 1%, with fares coming down in real terms from now on. A lot of that would come from the 30% efficiency savings identified by the McNulty review. A previous Secretary of State announced that that money would be split between investment and money going back to the Treasury. We think that more of it should be used to bring rail fares down now and give the money back to people who pay. We would go further to simplify the fare structure and make it much more transparent, and make rail companies put forward the cheapest fares possible and pay refunds when services are below par. The Government are making some progress on that, but we will continue to push for more.

I am delighted that the Government have taken the difficult decision to invest in railways for the future. That is not an easy thing to do when times are tight; it would have been far better to invest more during the boom years. However, if we punish commuters and other travellers now, it could put people off railways altogether, especially those who are just starting work and those who are hardest hit by the ongoing squeeze. That would send out a terrible message about the affordability of public transport, drive down passenger numbers, and put our network on an unsustainable path. As the Campaign for Better Transport says, we cannot allow our railways to become a rich man’s toy. We need to find an agreement again over rail fares that will last for the rest of this Parliament. I strongly urge the Secretary of State to take up this cause strongly, as his predecessor did.

I hope that the Government will continue to look at the long-term strategic projects that are happening. To restore our railways to their Victorian zenith, we need a Victorian level of investment, and a vision to match. That is why I am delighted that the coalition is not only spending more on the railways than any of its predecessors since the Victorian era but committing to projects such as HS2. I am delighted that that is finally happening, but I am disappointed that, for decades, so many opportunities have been missed for greater improvements like that. Our lack of high-speed rail epitomises what has gone wrong in our railways in recent years, why fares are now so high, and why we face such capacity constraints. For years we watched European neighbours and Asian partners develop and build a comprehensive high-speed railway network. They have extended capacity, supported rail freight, released space on roads and reduced congestion. Despite calls over many years from Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, British Governments felt that the cost of doing so was too high. Why invest the money when there is nothing to be gained in the here and now? Transport investments take time to deliver.

Those Governments, over many decades, were wrong. We have waited so long that we absolutely have to go ahead with it now. The west coast main line will have already reached capacity before the new high-speed line can be finished, and the costs now have to be borne in a downturn rather than during the growth years, when money was more plentiful.

It is right that we are putting our railways on a sustainable footing. They need investment and they need it for the long term. The burden cannot be taken by fare payers. Constant, year-on-year fare rises are utterly unsustainable; they will ultimately force people off the railways and bring down revenues. Governments have found it much easier to just patch up old lines and force passengers to deal with the same old problems and pass on the cost of an inefficient system. That was a terrible waste of the boom years.

I am delighted that by the end of this Parliament, Liberal Democrats in government will have made some of the tough decisions to make sure that we will have the efficient and sustainable railway network we deserve, but it has to be affordable to people. I hope that over the coming months we can reach an agreement with our coalition colleagues to prevent an RPI plus 3% rate; otherwise, a long-term investment could be utterly undone as we drive people from our railways irrevocably.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I join colleagues on both sides of the House in putting on the record my congratulations to the new Transport Secretary on his appointment. It is fitting that he should have made his debut in this debate. I know he is unable to be in the Chamber at the moment, but I am sure he will look carefully at all the arguments put forward by colleagues.

I listened very carefully to the Transport Secretary’s contribution, and was somewhat disappointed that he said very little about rail fare increases. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), will say more about them, or perhaps the Secretary of State will return to fare increases in the coming days or weeks as he finds his way in his new brief and tell us exactly what he will do to protect passengers, what he thinks about the flex system, and whether he will lobby the Chancellor to keep rail fare rises to RPI plus 1%, as the Opposition propose. The Transport Secretary has an opportunity to push for the reintroduction of a real cap on fare rises, and I very much hope he takes it.

This debate has been about the general and the particular. There is a general crisis in the cost of living. Household budgets are under enormous pressure as living costs climb ever higher. The Opposition have called today for the Government to take a particular action—a further U-turn that would be welcomed by the constituents of all hon. Members in the Chamber. The Government could reverse their decision to allow the dramatic rise in rail fares, which, for many people, have come at the worst possible time.

The Government could resist the growing burden on hard-pressed passengers. The Labour Government put in place a strict cap on rail fare rises of 1% above inflation. It is a cause of great regret, both in the House and more importantly in the country, that the current Government chose to give the rail companies free rein over regulated fares. The removal of the cap, coupled with the restoration of flex, will lead to fare rises of up to 11%. That is a real blow at a time of pay freezes in both the public and the private sectors, higher-than-expected inflation and a contracting economy. The Campaign for Better Transport has warned that the cost of season tickets will go up three times faster than salaries. Without economic growth, the pain will only increase in intensity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who is not in her place, clearly explained how many people, particularly commuters, need to travel at particular times and cannot shop around for cheaper fares in the off-peak or super off-peak periods. They must simply pay up and see their disposable income hit. To give just one example, when one of my constituents needs to commute from Nottingham to Leicester to go to work, a season ticket currently costs £1,672 a year. Under the Government’s plans, it is estimated that that figure will rise to £1,937 by 2015, which would represent 7.38% of the average regional salary. Pity the commuter from Leeds to Hull whose season ticket will go up from £3,732 to £4,323, an eye-watering 16.5% of the average regional salary. In the most extreme cases, a season ticket could cost up to 25% of the average salary.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) noted—and the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) agreed—commuters in the south-east are routinely spending 15% or more of their salary simply on getting to work, and many will be priced out of work altogether. The example given by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) was helpful in that respect.

The issue is not just affecting commuters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, this also hurts businesses in his constituency whose staff need to travel to London to sustain and grow future business. Meanwhile infrastructure spending is being scaled back and the Government seem set on using the McNulty report as cover to withdraw staff from stations, despite many passengers relying on them to find the cheapest fares, which—as many hon. Members have pointed out—cannot easily be done using automated ticket machines, never mind the other concerns about unstaffed stations.

The fare rises will also have a particularly serious impact on those on low incomes, including pensioners and young people, who are already feeling the squeeze as the cost of living rises. When I speak to young people in my constituency the cost of transport is one of the key concerns that they raise, and I think the high cost of train travel comes as a real shock to many of those leaving home for the first time to go to university. For pensioners, the fare rises are compounded by cuts to alternative modes of transport. Bus services have been cut back and the withdrawal of support for long-distance coach travel is hitting pensioners hard.

Before the last election, someone said:

“The fares issue will not go away. It will be the biggest inhibitor of train travel in the years to come.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 166WH.]

Those are not my words, but those of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes. In fact, we have heard many warm words on fares. Scores of coalition MPs have been telling their local papers that they opposed the rise in fares, despite voting for them in this House. They will be glad to have the opportunity to set the record straight, and I trust that all those hon. Members will join us in the Lobby today.

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Secretary of State also suggested on several occasions that we had voted for RPI plus 3%, but I do not recall doing so. Can the hon. Lady point to the dates of the Divisions in which any hon. Member specifically voted for RPI plus 3%?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman will find that we have had previous debates on transport and the cost of living when he had an opportunity to vote for our proposals, which would have reduced the increase in fares.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Lady give way again?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Not at the moment.

We have heard many warm words on fares and coalition Members have been supportive of the Government’s position. We have been promised an end to “inflation busting fares” in a press release from the Department for Transport, and both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives promised “fair pricing for rail travel” in the coalition agreement. For all those fine words, what has been delivered? Fares will rise by 3% above inflation, flex will be reinstated, and there will be overall rises of up to 11%. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) likes to pretend that that is nothing to do with his party, but it is his Ministers, including the Under-Secretary, who are imposing these measures.

The new franchises also hand operators unprecedented license over the quantity and quality of the services that they run. Ministers must mind the gap between rhetoric and reality. For too many passengers the reality of rail travel is overcrowded carriages, repeated delays and needlessly complicated pricing structures. Instead of tackling the root causes of waste in the railways, the Government are merely handing the cost on to passengers. We are keen to see a more efficient rail industry, but passengers face unaffordable fare rises now. There have been enough empty pledges from this Government. Their words are cheap, but the fares are dear, and the rail companies count the profits. There has to be another way.

Less than a month ago, the former Transport Secretary, now Secretary of State for International Development, said that she wanted to find a means of bringing

“fares down to something affordable.”

This motion offers just such a means. I hope that the new Transport Secretary will be prepared to stand up against vested interests for the public good, and I hope that Members from all parties will support this motion to help ease the burden on rail passengers.