Rural Cycling Infrastructure

Debate between Layla Moran and Simon Lightwood

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran]

The Minister has moved on to the “how”, but I wonder whether it is worth reflecting for slightly longer on the “why”. With my Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee hat on, I wonder whether he noted that the chief medical officer’s annual report last year on an ageing society mentioned cycling 13 times, in the context of meeting the needs of an ageing population. He might also have noted that rural areas age faster than urban areas because of demographic shifts. And he might also have noted that in the 2022 annual report, cycling was mentioned 88 times in the context of air pollution.

I note that the Government’s life mission is for people to live “well for longer.” To what extent is the Minister’s Department planning to be part of the delivery of that mission, and how is he making that happen?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I can assure her that the Department for Transport is working closely with Departments across Government; we want to break down the silos of Departments and work on our collective missions. I have already had discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care and Sir Chris Whitty regarding our contribution, and I will continue to have such discussions. I absolutely recognise that active travel can be fundamental when it comes to tackling people’s health issues and to removing barriers to opportunity and economic growth.

Ensuring that infrastructure is safe must be our overriding concern. Over 60% of respondents to the Department for Transport’s national travel attitudes survey said that safer roads would encourage them to cycle more. As I have said, rural roads can be more dangerous for cyclists, because there is faster-moving traffic and no space for segregated cycle lanes. That is why supporting local authorities to design and deliver high-quality active travel infrastructure that is safe and compliant with the relevant design standards is a key part of Active Travel England’s remit. It is also why funding provided by the Department for Transport for walking and cycling schemes comes with the clear requirement to comply with relevant design standards.

As the hon. Member for Henley and Thame may be aware, Oxfordshire county council has been successful in securing funding for active travel schemes in a number of rural areas. That includes nearly £1.5 million for a scheme in Abingdon and nearly £2 million for a scheme in Witney. The scheme in Abingdon will create a safe walking, wheeling and cycling route, providing new crossings and other improvements to overcome a significant barrier to active travel between Oxford and Abingdon, and onwards to Didcot and beyond.

Another example of a new scheme, which opened in the last few weeks, is in Wycombe, just across the county border from the constituency of the hon. Member. Buckinghamshire council completed an Active Travel England-funded improved pathway to support walking, wheeling, cycling and horse riding in Keep Hill wood, near High Wycombe.

The money for all these schemes has come from various dedicated pots of funding for active travel that have been announced by Active Travel England in recent years. In total, almost £650 million of funding has been provided for local authority infrastructure since covid. In addition, Active Travel England has worked with National Parks England to provide £1 million funding to allow the 10 national park authorities in England to develop inclusive active travel plans, as well as supporting activities, such as scheme planning and design, and how best to make sure local stakeholders are engaged. All 10 projects are due to be completed by next summer. I gather, too, that there was a petition last year concerning a proposed off-road cycle route in the hon. Member’s constituency. If they have not already done so already, I encourage representatives from Oxfordshire county council to contact Active Travel England about that scheme if it is a viable possibility.

I will try to address some points made by hon. Members. As I said, Active Travel England provided £1 million grant funding to national parks, and is currently working on guidance for authorities on how to design and build safe infrastructure for walking, wheeling and cycling in rural areas, including villages and market towns. We expect publication in late 2025. Active Travel England is currently engaging with stakeholder groups to support that work, including both potential route users such as Disabled Ramblers, Cycling UK, the British Horse Society and so on, and guidance users including local authorities, Highways England and bodies such as the National Trust and national parks.

I will conclude by saying a big thank you again to all Members who contributed and to the hon. Member for Henley and Thame for raising this important issue. I look forward to continuing to work with him—I thank him for his offer to work on a cross-party basis towards achieving our active travel ambitions—and all other hon. Members to enable more people to choose to walk, wheel and cycle, irrespective of where they live.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Layla Moran and Simon Lightwood

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise in support of new clauses 22 and 27 tabled by the shadow Front Bench. Just before my election last year, the Nationality and Borders Act became law. The Government claimed that it would resolve the asylum backlog, with the then Home Secretary promising a

“long-term plan that seeks to address the challenge of illegal migration head on.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 445.]

Here we are, nearly a year on, with no real progress on tackling this crisis. In fact, things have only got worse.

I strongly welcome new clause 22, which would enshrine the Home Secretary’s accountability in law. It would require her to regularly report on how her Department is eliminating the huge backlog of cases. It should not be a controversial amendment. The initial decision backlog has increased by 60% compared with 2021, rising to a record high of 160,000. Shockingly, less than 1% of last year’s claims from those arriving on small boats have been decided. We would not think so given the Home Secretary’s rhetoric, but asylum delays are getting even longer and the Home Office is taking 10,000 fewer decisions a year than in 2015. That has led to a record number of asylum seekers being housed long term in hotels and contingency accommodation.

That brings me to new clause 27. Some 37,000 people now reside in hotels, at a staggering cost to the taxpayer of £5 million every day. Decisions are still being made to use more. Local authorities, which have already faced significant funding cuts under successive Conservative Governments, are having those proposals forced on them without any say. That is the story in my own constituency. Two hotels are currently being used to accommodate asylum seekers, with plans for a third. New clause 27 would finally tackle this issue, placing a legal requirement on the Home Office to consult the local authority when considering new sites. Increasingly cash-strapped councils are having to step in to provide intensive support for vulnerable asylum seekers. They cannot plan to do that if there is no interaction with the Home Office.

There is no doubt that the asylum system is in chaos, and that this is a mess of the Conservative Government’s making. Tory MPs who vote against new clause 27 tonight will make the situation even worse for our councils. We need new clauses 22 and 27 for some much needed accountability, because of this Government’s woeful track record: promising to speed up claims, but delivering the opposite; promising to end the use of hotels, but instead seeing their use soar; and promising to return those deemed inadmissible, but returning only 21 people. We cannot accept yet another Bill that promises to do one thing but in practice does the opposite. That why I support new clauses 22 and 27, for accountability and transparency.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It will surprise no one to know that the Liberal Democrats will eventually vote against the Bill. In Committee it feels as if we are polishing the absurd. We do not want to do it, and we do not want to be talking about this Bill. That is not the same as saying that we do not want to solve these problems.

I would like to start by trying to take a little of the heat out of the issue if I can. The suggestion that Members on the Opposition Benches do not want to tackle the small boats problem is categorically not true. I have heard no one on the Opposition Benches say that they agree that a criminal should be allowed to stay here. No one here is defending the traffickers or not supporting the Home Office in deporting people who deserve to be deported. In fact, we are saying that the Home Office should be doing it better and faster. We should start by recognising that.

We should also recognise that this Bill is partly about the local elections. People have asked, “Why are the Government so scared of scrutiny?”. I do not think they are; I think they just want to get the Bill out now, because otherwise it will not make the printers for the local election leaflets that will drop in the next few weeks. I am sorry to be cynical, but that, I think, is what is happening here.