Cycling

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Let me start by thanking my co-chair of the all-party group on cycling, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and the more than 50 MPs who are present for the debate. Let me also thank The Times, whose cycling safety campaign triggered the debate.

I have been cycling all my life. As has been said, it is a great form of transport and a great way of keeping fit and improving our health. It is also good for the economy, it gets cities moving more efficiently and it helps us tackle climate change. All that is great, but this campaign is important for a much simpler reason: if people want to ride a bike, they should be able to do so safely. When it comes down to it, that is what the campaign is all about.

I have been a member of British Cycling and the Cyclists Touring Club, I have tabled parliamentary questions, I have raised issues on the Floor of the House, I have backed loads of campaigns and I have attended countless seminars, conferences and meetings, but The Times has, in a few short weeks, achieved a breakthrough for which we in cycling have been campaigning for years. Its campaign was triggered by the tragic accident that so badly injured Mary Bowers, a friend and colleague of staff at the paper.

The paper has raised the profile of cycling safety, urged readers to lobby their MPs, forced the issue on to the agenda and lobbied Ministers for change. Already, 30,000 people have backed the campaign, with 20,000 on Twitter. Despite the weather, 2,000 people rode to Parliament last night, and more have lobbied their MPs to sign the hon. Gentleman’s early-day motion. There are also more MPs here than I have ever seen in a Westminster Hall debate, which is fantastic.

The editor and his colleagues are personally and, I think, emotionally committed to the campaign. He plans to attend the debate, which shows how important the paper thinks it is. All that should show Ministers that the campaign will continue, gather pace and strength, and attract more supporters in Parliament and the country until its demands are met.

I want to make sure that everyone who wants to speak gets in, so I will move on to some of the issues The Times campaign has raised, on which I hope we will hear specific responses from the Minister. First, what consideration has he given to requiring by law that lorries in city centres have sensors, audible alarms, extra mirrors and safety bars? As RoadPeace points out, HGVs cause more than half of cyclists’ deaths in London, so will he support that organisation’s proposal that lorries with safety technology qualify for lower premiums?

Secondly, will the Minister ensure that the 500 most dangerous junctions are identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and with mirrors so that lorry drivers can see cyclists? Thirdly, we need to undertake a national audit to find out how many people cycle and how cyclists are killed or injured so that we can use that information effectively to underpin cycle safety work.

Will the Minister earmark 2% of the Highways Agency budget for next-generation cycle routes with clear signage so that cyclists can safely find their way? On that point, why can he and his colleagues not spend a larger proportion of their Department’s budget on cycling? Cycling is booming in Britain and is worth about £3 billion to the economy, but whereas the Netherlands spends £25 per person on cycling each year, Britain spends just a pound. The benefits of increased spending are clear from what has happened in London, where £5 per person has been spent each year for more than the past 10 years, leading to a huge growth in cycling. That compares with the 79p per person spent elsewhere in the UK. Given cycling’s economic benefits and the savings it could bring the NHS, such an approach would save the Government huge sums in the long run.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about the economy, but perhaps he could say a little about the huge impact cycling has on tourism. The C2C—coast-to-coast, sea-to-sea—cycleway goes through my constituency, and there are a number of small bed and breakfasts and hotels, so the benefit is enormous.

[Ian Austin]

That is absolutely right. Cycling makes a huge contribution to the economy in cities, towns and rural areas right across the UK.

What plans does the Minister have to improve training for cyclists, as well as for drivers—particularly those who share bus lanes with cyclists—to ensure that cycle safety is a core part of the driving test? One of the best ways of improving safety is getting more people cycling, so will the Minister meet Ministers in the Department for Education to discuss putting cycling on the curriculum, in the same way as swimming, so that every child learns to ride a bike safely and more children take part in cycling?

One big barrier to getting more people cycling is the fear many people have of it, so ensuring that more people learn to cycle properly would help address that perception. Making cycling safer in local residential streets would also help. That is another of the demands from The Times, which wants 20 mph as the default limit in residential areas where there is no cycle lane.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend knows, Bristol was given cycling city status a couple of years ago, and I very much support his call for a 20 mph limit. I met the Colombian ambassador this morning, and he told me that, for the past 25 years, Bogota has closed its streets from eight o’clock in the morning until two in the afternoon every Sunday and bank holiday so that people can cycle, and up to 1 million people will come out cycling. Is that perhaps something we should explore so that people can get their first experience of cycling on a traffic-free road?

[Ian Austin]

That is a brilliant idea. I have seen it done in Seattle, and it has hugely increased the number of cyclists.

Can we encourage each local authority area to appoint a cycling commissioner to push forward reforms? In that respect, I would go further than what The Times is asking for. Cycling obviously involves the Department for Transport, but local roads are run by local councils, so the Department for Communities and Local Government needs to be committed to cycling. We also need commitment from the Department for Education if we are going to get more youngsters cycling. Given the health benefits of cycling and the need for dangerous drivers to be caught and prosecuted properly, the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice need to take cycling much more seriously, too. What can the Government do, therefore, to give the Minister the power and authority to get all these Departments working together effectively?

[Guy Opperman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Austin]

Yes, of course—actually, I won’t, because the hon. Gentleman has already intervened once, and loads of other people want to get in.

If the Government cannot give the Minister the power I described, what about appointing a Minister in each Department as a cycling champion or establishing a cross-Government committee of Ministers?

We need the Government to ensure that cycling provision and safety are properly considered at the outset in looking at all major transport issues and during the planning and implementation of urban developments. That would mean that we never again saw junctions such as the Bow roundabout and Vauxhall cross, which can subsequently be put right only at huge cost. That is the central point made by British Cycling’s road safety manifesto, but it is clear that things are not currently dealt with in that way. Earlier this month, for example, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has responsibility for road safety, admitted that no specific consideration had been given to cyclists’ safety in the research into trials of extra-long lorry trailers.

I also want to speak about the derisory sentences drivers often receive after killing or injuring cyclists. For example, British Cycling employee Rob Jefferies was killed when hit from behind on an open, straight road in daylight by someone who had already been caught for speeding. Unbelievably, the driver got an 18-month ban, a retest, 200 hours’ community service and a small fine. That is in line with the guidelines, so there is no hope of an appeal.

The lorry driver who killed Eilidh Jake Cairns admitted in court that his eyesight was not good enough for him to have been driving, and he was fined just £200.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Eilidh Cairns was the daughter of a constituent of mine, and I want to place on record the campaign her family have been engaged in ever since, which has led to a motion signed by more than half the Members of the European Parliament. It was also very much behind the efforts I made through a ten-minute rule Bill to highlight some of these issues.

[Ian Austin]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention that. He and his constituents should be commended for the campaign they have run.

When Cath Ward was killed, the driver was convicted of careless driving and received a short driving ban. He will be back behind the wheel very soon. Cath’s friend Ruth Eyles wrote to me:

“What shocks me is that the driver who killed Rob Jefferies will be able to drive again in 18 months.”

She said:

“If that young man had had a legal firearm and had accidentally shot and killed someone through carelessness, would he be given a new licence 18 months later?”

We need the sentencing guidelines to be revised, in the same way the way guidelines for assault were revised, to reflect the harm the victim suffers. Will the Minister press the Ministry of Justice to change the guidance, to ensure the punishment fits the crime and, more importantly, to deter drivers from engaging in the stupid and dangerous driving that puts cyclists and other road users at risk?

My central point is that, as the CTC report “Safety In Numbers” points out, the more people who cycle, the safer cycling will be. Since 2000, bike use in Britain has quadrupled. The number of those cycling in London has soared by 150%, and the number of deaths is down by 60%. Between 1985 and 2005, the number of those cycling rose by 45% in the Netherlands, and fatalities fell by 58%.

This summer, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, gives us a huge opportunity to transform cycling in Britain. Britain’s brilliant cyclists look set for huge success here in the Olympics, and also in some of world’s other biggest races. As a result many more people—particularly youngsters—will get on their bikes. With the “Summer of cycling”, which I hope the Minister will today commit to fund, we aim to double the number of people cycling this year. Let us get all the political parties and cycling organisations, and the media, following the lead of The Times and working together to transform the number of people cycling, and their safety.

As hon. Members can imagine, there are many things on which I disagree with Prime Minister, but it was fantastic when, as the Leader of the Opposition, one of the ways he chose to try to show that he was a different sort of Conservative was getting on his bike. It was great as well that he backed the Times campaign yesterday, but the truth is that he has the power—more than any of us—to act and get the Government focused on improving safety for cyclists.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, with whom I enjoy working on the all-party group. I want to back him up on his points about the Prime Minister having the power, and about Departments working together. In Winchester we have works above junction 9 of the M3, which are needed and wanted, and have been campaigned for by Members of Parliament, but they threaten to put a stop to national cycle route 23. With a little more thought and planning we can avoid such situations. Such not-joined-up thinking is literally getting in the way of cycling.

[Ian Austin]

That reinforces the point I made earlier about ensuring that cycling is at the heart of all major transport schemes, at their inception and in their execution and development.

Finally, the campaign and today’s debate, with the number of MPs present and the outside interest, show that the issue will not go away. The Times is committed to campaigning on the issues for as long as it takes. I want to say that people—whether they are Sir Chris Hoy or Victoria Pendleton, a club cyclist like me or a commuter; whether they ride once a year on holiday or are parents who want to get their kids on a bike—should e-mail or write to their MP, or go to their surgery, and persuade them to back this campaign. I want every MP who has attended the debate to join the all-party cycling group, raise the issues in the Chamber, work with us and back our campaigns to boost cycling and improve safety for cyclists. That would be the biggest tribute we could pay to Rob Jefferies, Eilidh Jake Cairns, Cath Ward and of course to Mary Bowers and all of those injured or killed while cycling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. We are in an unprecedented position in having so many people who want to contribute to the debate. Nine Members wish to speak and 40 minutes remain. I will, therefore, impose a four-minute limit on speeches. As stated previously, hon. Members will hear the bell after three minutes.

[Ian Austin]

On a point of order, Mr Bayley, is it possible to continue the sitting?

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Unfortunately not. The rules are passed by the House and there may be Members who have set aside time until six o’clock but who might not be available afterwards. It is beyond my pay grade to change that, but the hon. Gentleman could raise the point in the main Chamber if he wished.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The timelines are that we will get some initial advice on potential routes later this year, which will enable us to start having those discussions with local stakeholders and that, by 2014, we will have a preferred route on which we can formally consult. I hope that over the course of this year the sorts of discussions my hon. Friend mentions will be able to take place.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Have the discussions about extending the route to Scotland included considering bringing the fast trains through Birmingham and into the black country, an area that has the largest concentration of manufacturing companies anywhere in Europe? That measure would enable the Government to deliver on their commitment to rebalancing the economy in favour of manufacturing and would cost much less than the alterations she has made to the route to allay the concerns about farms and fields in the home counties.

[Justine Greening]

The decision I announced earlier this week was my final decision on the route of phase 1, but I was in Birmingham yesterday and one thing that came across very clearly to me was the broader benefits of High Speed 2 for the whole region, including the black country. Of course, by providing more capacity, it will free up capacity on the existing rail network, which will particularly help that part of the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I am very well aware of that bid, which was received by the Department on 9 September. It is currently being assessed alongside the other 44 schemes that have been submitted for the development pool. We hope to be in a position to announce which of those 45 schemes will receive funding later this year.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

T2. Despite the fact that the west midlands was hit harder during the downturn than anywhere else in the country, and that it is taking longer to recover and urgently needs action to generate jobs and growth, the railway initial industry plan identifies only two schemes in the west midlands and would result in the region receiving only £57 million of a total of £10 billion of investment. That is a complete and utter disgrace. I welcome the Secretary of State to her position, but would she be prepared to visit the west midlands to meet me, other MPs from the region and industry experts such as Centro to discuss how we can work together to tackle transport problems in the region?

[Justine Greening]

I am always happy to meet parliamentarians. I will ensure that as Secretary of State for Transport I am out and about around the country. I have already started doing that and I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituency colleagues.

Concessionary Coach Travel

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

May I start by saying how grateful I am for the opportunity to raise concerns about the potential reduction in services and increase in fares that will result from the Government’s decision to withdraw the coach concessionary travel scheme? At the outset I would like to thank the organisations, including Mencap, Age UK and National Express, for the help and advice they have given on preparing for the debate. I congratulate and thank my colleagues who have worked hard on this issue, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who tabled early-day motion 2181 on the matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who has led a formidable campaign against the cuts to the scheme as Labour’s transport spokesperson, and the many Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who have campaigned hard on behalf of the many constituents who have written to say what a huge difference the scheme has made, enabling them to stay active and see friends and family. I also commend the Express & Star, Britain’s leading evening newspaper, for the great campaigning work it has undertaken to highlight this important matter and fight for a fair deal for pensioners and the disabled.

The House will know that the coach concessionary travel scheme provides half-price coach travel for disabled people and those aged over 60 in England and Wales. The bus service operators grant allows some operators of coaches and local buses in the UK, as well as community transport schemes, to reclaim some of their fuel costs. Excluding concessionary travel, it represents the main source of bus support currently funded by the Department for Transport. The provision of travel concessions on coaches does not come under the general concessionary fares legislation that applies to local bus routes. Instead, there is a non-statutory arrangement that enables long-distance coach operators to claim the grant for offering concessionary fares to all passengers aged over 60 and those who qualify as disabled.

The concessionary fare is available on selected coach services to destinations within England and Wales, and to Edinburgh or Glasgow from England and Wales. It is calculated as up to 50% at off-peak times and up to 30% at peak times. Disabled passengers should always be offered a concessionary fare, but they may be asked for proof of eligibility. More than 11 million people are eligible for the concession and around 3 million concessionary journeys were made on coaches across England in 2009-10 alone.

It was announced in the Government’s comprehensive spending review that the grant will be maintained at current levels until 2012 and then reduced in phases between 2012 and 2015. The cuts apply only in England, as the Welsh and Scottish Administrations have pledged to retain their provision of the scheme. The total reduction will be 20%, with savings amounting to approximately £17 million, forming part of the Government’s £254 million cuts to the bus service operators grant overall. As a result, the current non-statutory arrangement that enables long-distance coach operators to offer concessionary fares to older and disabled people will cease at the end of this month. Pass holders will still be able to benefit from the scheme, but they will have to book their journeys before midnight on 31 October and travel on or before 31 August next year.

Let me turn to the impact of the reductions. The Department for Transport acknowledges that the funding enables bus operators to provide more services and at lower fares than would otherwise be possible, and its own equality impact assessments show that the proposed changes to the bus service operators grant could result in operators increasing fares and/or cancelling routes deemed no longer financially viable due to declining users. The Department acknowledges also that cuts to the grant would adversely effect the equality of opportunity for, and discriminate directly or indirectly against, disabled people.

Despite that, the Department defends its decision, claiming that disabled people will be “insulated” from fare rises, as they will still be entitled to local concessionary fares, but the truth is that the cut to coach services comes on top of significant reductions in Government funding for local bus services, so many of those pensioners and disabled people with free bus passes will no longer have a bus on which to use them in their local areas.

At the same time, coach operators face some of the largest financial challenges that they have encountered in years. The DFT is looking to coach operators to continue to offer the concessionary fares increase on a commercial basis, but fuel prices mean that many operators are unlikely to be in a position to continue to offer concessionary coach fares at their current level once the grant is reduced.

National Express, for example, the biggest long-distance coach provider benefiting from the grant, with at least 30% of passengers receiving concessions on 18 routes, has drawn up plans to replace the scheme by introducing a £10 concession card that will enable passengers who are more than 60 years old or disabled to qualify for one third of the cost of coach travel, but they will not be able to use it to travel to or from an airport. That new scheme is obviously welcome, but the company itself points out that it will not match the terms of the Government-funded half-price concession, and, if a company such as National Express struggles to offer an equivalent concessionary scheme, it seems unlikely that smaller providers will be in a position to do anything like maintaining existing concessions, so passengers are bound to see increased fares and reduced services as a result of the changes.

As I said earlier, more than 11 million people are eligible for the concession, and about 3 million such journeys were made in 2009-10. As the Express and Star showed, 1.2 million pensioners and disabled people in the west midlands, including 77,000 in my borough of Dudley alone, will lose their half-price travel if the cut goes ahead. But it is not the statistics that make the impact of the cut clearest; the truth is that if pensioners and disabled people lose their right to half-price travel, their ability to get out and about, visit family and friends, go shopping or have a day out will be severely restricted.

Ken McClymont, a disabled constituent, told me:

“Taking a coach is usually the best value and most flexible means of public transport for me to use. Any changes to local services or ticket prices will have an impact on my ability to travel. I should be very grateful if you would encourage the Department for Transport to work with the coach industry to fully understand and reduce the impact of the scheme’s removal or at least delay the scheme’s withdrawal until the full impact on people like me is understood.”

Mike Nicholls from the Wolverhampton pensioners convention said:

“Rail travel is already escalating out of our reach and now coach travel will as well.”

One woman contacted me to explain how the concession enabled her to visit her granddaughter in Sussex and great-granddaughter in London several times a year. Now, those trips will cost her several hundreds of pounds more every year.

Mencap has warned that the proposal will have

“a significant and disproportionate impact on people with a learning disability. The introduction of a concessionary fare for the disabled and elderly people is recognition of the additional financial barriers individuals face... This could leave many people in the situation of choosing between stretching already tight budgets or not travelling at all. For many people with a learning disability, this could be the only means of getting out and about to visit friends and family, go shopping or generally exercising their own independence.”

The charity says that the proposal will have a

“major impact on many aspects of disabled people’s lives”

because transport

“helps to achieve greater mobility and independence.”

“However,” it says,

“most people with a learning disability do not drive and half of all families with a child with a disability do not own a car. This means that people with a learning disability are reliant on public transport. A lack of access to transport denies people with a learning disability the right to a basic level of independence, choice and opportunity, which many others take for granted.”

Age UK says:

“Making longer journeys is about to get more difficult for many older people. Removing the concession will mean higher prices and some people will think twice before travelling. People in later life that are at risk of facing loneliness and social isolation will be further put off from leaving their home.”

And look at the comments from their members. One lady wrote:

“I travel a lot by National Express as with the concession it was affordable and as a widow I felt safer and more comfortable on the coach and don’t have to worry about my luggage...looks like that will soon be coming to an end”.

Another said:

“Bearing in mind that most of the National Express coaches that I get to go down to babysit in the school holidays are mostly full with concessions I can see buses running half empty or even complete services being taken off. I think that this is a really bad decision and very short sighted. This is the tip of the iceberg and if they get away with this we all know what will go next.”

We all know that the deficit has to be tackled and savings have to be made, but all these organisations and elderly and disabled people across the country are asking the Prime Minister to honour the promise he made before the election when he said:

“Labour are trying to frighten old people by saying we’ll take away bus passes, or winter fuel payments. Well I can tell you we’re going to keep those things.”

Age UK, Mencap and coach operators across the country are all asking the Department to think again or at least to delay the plans. Age UK got it right when it said:

“There has been no public consultation on the change to coach concessions, which means disabled and older people have been excluded from the debate and decision-making process. The government should seriously consider delaying plans to cut the concession to allow enough time to consult properly with both concession pass holders and operators. With proper consideration an alternative solution could be agreed.”

Mencap is urging the Department for Transport to delay the proposed cuts and to consult coach operators and pass holders to determine a way forward that protects the scheme. Mencap believes that a more desirable solution could be reached by balancing the savings that are required with mitigating steps to preserve concessions for people who rely on the scheme so that they can remain independent and be able to make essential journeys. National Express is still asking whether the Government would consider its offer to maintain the existing scheme at a lower rate of public subsidy.

Even at this late stage, will the Minister agree to delay this cut and commit to proper discussions with organisations such as Mencap and Age UK and the elderly and disabled people they represent? Will she meet me, representatives of these organisations and operators such as National Express to discuss how these vital services for some of the UK’s most vulnerable people can be saved?

Sustainable Transport

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The guidance for the bidding process has also been released today and is available to Members in the Vote Office. Essentially, there are two bidding rounds for smaller scale projects of up to £5 million and another bidding round for larger projects of up to £50 million. The objective is to make them as quick and as easy as possible, subject to securing value for money and making sure that the money can be released as a consequence of that. The shorter projects will be progressed more quickly than the larger projects, but the time scale has been made available as part of the guidance.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I was interested to hear in the statement about the funding for Bikeability, but members of British Cycling, like me, will want to know whether the Minister will take this opportunity to update the out-of-date transport regulations that are hampering the growth of the sport on the road.

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that the Government are fully committed to cycling. It features in the coalition agreement and the hon. Gentleman will have noticed the reference to £11 million for Bikeability this year and a further guarantee for the rest of the Parliament, for example. In respect of the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about racing on the road, I am happy to tell him that I had a meeting earlier this week with officials and key interested parties, and we are close to moving that forward to a satisfactory solution.