Cycling

Debate between Julian Huppert and Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

Border Checks Summer 2011

Debate between Julian Huppert and Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of an intelligence-led approach. Does she agree that it would be a great shame if the furore around this incident meant that the UKBA did not go ahead with intelligence-based approaches, because they would make our border more secure by applying resources more efficiently?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I think it is important that we continue to approach intelligence-based processes rationally.

I am not opposed to the principle of giving border officials greater discretion in assessing risk. These border officials are professionals who, for the most part, work in very difficult circumstances, and even the best policy framework cannot allow for every situation and cannot replicate the experience of a border official who has their eyes and ears fixed beadily on the individual in front of them. However, that discretion must be exercised within an evidence-based policy framework that has been set out by Ministers and properly scrutinised by Parliament. As I understand it, that was the intention of the pilot but, as we have been hearing, it was not what John Vine found was actually happening on the ground.

We hear from whistleblowers in the UKBA that border checks were being relaxed at the request of BAA staff when queues were long. We hear from Brodie Clark that controls have been relaxed since 2008, not in favour of queue management but for a reason which he does not state. I look forward to hearing his evidence to the Select Committee. Rob Whiteman insists that Clark confessed that he had been relaxing the controls on a regular basis without ministerial approval. Most worrying from my perspective is that we find that since at least 2007—under the previous Government—agency operational instructions have contained a paragraph that apparently gives border force duty directors the authority to relax checks for health and safety reasons. That might be completely justifiable in certain extreme circumstances, but I do not think it is possible to get a proper picture of what has been going on with border checks without knowing how often these controls were relaxed on the grounds of health and safety, what criteria and processes were used to trigger such a relaxation, what the reporting mechanisms are and whether they have been properly followed. In particular, this raises the question of whether this power has been misused.

Although I am only too aware of the potential implications of the agency’s failure to implement border checks properly, the statistics on how many people have passed through the borders during this time are truly sobering. A measure of comfort can be taken from the fact that the chief executive did take immediate action when this came to light, which has triggered full-scale parliamentary scrutiny and three independent investigations, and I hope that they will take into account ministerial decisions and, in particular, the recent claims that border checks have been relaxed to level 2 without ministerial approval or oversight since 2008. I think it highly unlikely that that would have been the agency’s response previously; I suspect we would have come up against something closer to an attitude of, “Least said, soonest mended.”

However, when I said a “measure of comfort”, I meant a small one. The truth is that even in the relatively short time that I have been a member of the Home Affairs Committee it has become abundantly clear that the UK Border Agency is an organisation with deep-seated problems that date back well into the previous Government’s time in office, and an organisation that seems to have encouraged a culture of deniability. Again and again, the Committee has found that the UKBA has failed to record and account for its responsibilities. For example, when we asked for reasons for the 1,300 outstanding cases of difficulties with deporting foreign national prisoners, the agency could not account for 350 of those—it simply had not recorded the data. The agency was not able to tell the Committee how many individuals had been removed as a result of action taken by intelligence units in 2011, because the data for allegations and removals are kept on two different databases.