Community Transport

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I must admit that I always associate you more with a column in the Yorkshire Post than a pillar of the establishment, but it is a pleasure to be here today.

I congratulate the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), on what is a model of a good Select Committee report. It is investigative and thorough. It has called witnesses, including the Minister and Mr Phillips and Mr Allen, who have been mentioned. Above all, it has focused on the core problem—that there are two sections of the 1985 Act, which can be addressed.

Surely if the Government cannot make things better, they should at least endeavour not to make things worse. The extraordinary thing about the community transport model that we have in this country is that it is organic. It has grown and it did so—as a politician, it seems almost heretical for me to suggest such a thing—without our hand on the tiller. It grew organically from the community and has brought added value and so many different beneficial advantages.

We have not yet mentioned the volunteers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) was a volunteer driver with the magnificent Ealing Community Transport, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South has visited—that was the high point of our career there. I should say Ealing Community Transport is the exemplar; the finest example; the industry standard; the diamond mark of community transport. It has volunteers and also takes people on as apprentices. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) has also visited it on many occasions.

There are many other factors that we simply do not have time to adumbrate today. There is the issue of cross-subsidy—we can cross-subsidise other beneficial community activities. There is also the fact that it can be an early-warning system. Very often, the drivers will identify a potential problem with somebody they are travelling with, and that is an early-warning system.

The absolute core of today’s debate is that there is no comparator between commercial bus and transport organisations and the community transport sector. They are totally different beasts. The community transport sector should be nourished, cherished, respected and admired. I have no argument whatsoever with the commercial transport sector, but it has its end of the pitch and the community transport sector has its end. Let us allow for something that works, and which, in my part of the world, provides transport for police volunteers, cadets and so on and knits all those community groups together in a way that frankly were it to cease to operate would leave a dark and terrible vacuum in the heart of Ealing. I know you would not want to see that, Mr Davies. I am sure the Minister would agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. On behalf of the third party, I associate myself and my colleagues with the Transport Committee presentation and the speech of its Chair, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in support of the general thrust of our discussion today.

We cannot overstate the gratitude that we should express to the many hundreds of organisations throughout the country that provide a community transport service and, in particular, to the many thousands of volunteers who are involved in the boards of the charities, running the services and, often, sitting at the wheel to provide the service itself. Such people are the dedicated community heroes whom we should be lauding, saluting and encouraging. I suggest that the role of Government is to nurture, enable and give support to people who want to provide that service in their community, so I regret that we seem to have got ourselves into a situation in which this Department for Transport consultation exercise leaves many of those people devalued and in many ways frightened about the future of the service in which they are engaged.

In my own city of Edinburgh, we have a very good community transport service. There are five main providers operating in a public sector partnership with the local authority. In my constituency, the South Edinburgh Amenities Group and Lothian Community Transport Services provide an excellent service, which is not just a matter of transporting people from A to B. The whole nature of the service, and the rationale behind it, is that it provides a vital social and caring service to those people in our community who need it. We cannot overstate the importance of the service in preventing and overcoming the social isolation that many people would otherwise feel. The service is vital not just in providing material and physical help to people, but in allowing them to live their lives more fully and better than would otherwise be the case.

Community transport is a service provided at an individual level, and it gets to the places that normal transport does not or cannot reach. Quite often, that involves getting people not only to the door but through the door, with physical assistance for people to get into vehicles—something that normal operators simply could not provide.

I am very disturbed about the process that is under way. There is some confused thinking going on, particularly in the attempt to redefine, after all these years, the notion of the word “commercial”. To suggest that simply by virtue of the fact that money is paid to a service—irrespective of who is paying it and who is receiving it—an operation is rendered commercial seems to me to turn on its head what most normal, right-thinking people believe to be a commercial operation. A commercial operation, for most people, is one in which an operator engages in supplying a service in order to make a profit. That is the normal meaning of “commercial”. Organisations that do that explicitly not for profit should not be regarded as commercial, and they should be exempted from the requirements of sections 19 and 22 on that basis alone.

Even more bizarre is the suggestion that it will be for a private operator to decide whether we apply the exemption—only when a private operator says that it might be interested in running the service will the community transport operator be obliged to go into the new licensing regime. I find that bizarre. We could have a situation in which, on the one hand, a community transport operator is regarded as commercial simply because it receives payment from the local authority or someone else for providing the service and, on the other hand, it could be exempted and be non-commercial on the grounds of there being no private sector interest. At one and the same time, the operator could be both commercial and non-commercial. That is a policy of which Schrodinger would be proud, but it ought to have no part in the planning of public transport.

We must also understand the effect. If the proposal goes ahead, many community transport operators will be faced with higher costs as they try to fit in with a licensing regime that they did not have previously. More importantly, a lot of the volunteers who run such organisations will simply say, “This isn’t why we got into this. We didn’t go into it to be a commercial operator or to operate on this basis”, and they will simply give up. We will see a collapse in community transport organisation providers, and that will leave a gap in the service, driving up the cost to the local authority or anyone else who needs to provide the service.

[Stephen Pound]

Many volunteer drivers would be extremely put off by having to undergo all the onerous training to get the additional certification. Many people will simply walk away if they are required to get all that additional certification. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I could not agree more. That is another reason for that effect of the policy—if we oblige community transport operators to jump through the new hoops and the red tape, many people will simply say, “Well, that’s not what I want to do. I want to serve my community. I don’t want to do this.” The Department ought to be responsive to that.

I have a couple of final observations. First, I cannot be the only person to find it bizarre that the suggested rationale for why this is happening now is a sudden desire by some officials in the Department to comply better with the regulations of the European Union. We are, after all, only 47 weeks away from being led out of the European Union by this Government, whereby they hope to free themselves from the shackles imposed on them by just such European Union regulations and many others. Why the sudden outbreak of Europhilia, at the 11th hour of our membership of the European Union? It does not add up. It is probably a smokescreen for some other agenda going on in the Department.

Secondly—I know I am the only Scottish MP present—as I researched for the debate and read around the issue, I have to confess that I realised that the situation in my city is bizarre. The roads along which the community minibus travels are regulated and paid for by the Scottish Government; the people inside the bus are being taken to health and social care facilities that are regulated and legislated for by the Scottish Government; and yet the Scottish Government have no oversight of whether the operator should have a licence to drive the bus. That seems to me to be something of an inadequacy in the devolution settlement. I hope that next time we review the competencies of the devolved Administrations we consider some more joined-up thinking in that regard, so that the settlement is at least internally consistent, and all aspects of public policy can be integrated.

I have attended many of these Westminster Hall debates and usually they are much more collegiate than exchanges in the main Chamber. However, I do not think I have yet seen one in which there is this degree of unanimity in the views expressed by Members right across the House. The Minister is an admirable fellow, and I know that his fingerprints are not on this particular consultation. He now has a golden opportunity to rein in his Department, to say “Stop!” to whoever is driving this policy, and to recognise in public policy and Government action the importance and uniqueness of community transport providers the length and breadth of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I will come to the full thrust of what the hon. Lady said later, but let me respond to that point. We will pursue the consultation process, reflect on the experience that comes out of that, publish a response to the consultation and take action based on that, which is exactly what Members would expect of the Government. We do not believe that we should proceed without listening to people or taking account of what they say.

This was a consultation in the full sense of the word. It was not just about listening to local community transport organisations and their wider representative organisations throughout the country, but about gathering evidence. As I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales mentioned, when he ran the Department the Government had relatively little information about this area and there was a certain lack of legal clarity. I only wish that I had his flexibility in that regard, but the point of the consultation has been to gather information as well as to take soundings from operators.

[Stephen Pound]

I understand where the Minister is coming from, but does he realise that, by not clarifying the situation, he has not given any signal of hope to the community transport sector? It is suffering, and the corrosive impact of last year’s famous letter is causing it pain. We will not have a community transport sector unless he makes it clear here and now that the Government support it.

[Jesse Norman]

I can only respect the hon. Gentleman’s astonishing capacity to manufacture indignation.

[Stephen Pound]

It wasn’t manufactured!

[Jesse Norman]

I feel the same concern as him and, if he allows me to proceed, I will be happy to give a reassurance about that. In fact, let me bring that section of my speech forward. We have said this in the past, but let me say again on the record that our judgment is that it would be premature for local authorities to withhold contracts pending further analysis and exploration of the legal complexities involved in this area. I cannot be clearer than that, and I hope that is reassuring to the sector, as it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Well, there were moments when colleagues sounded very much like Brexiteers in their rejection of this piece of EU legislation. There has been no undue deference to legal advice on this matter. We are considering it and consulting widely on this topic. We remain very open to legal advice. The hon. Member for Nottingham South has not clarified, in response to the question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), whether her Committee took legal advice. If it did, we would welcome its sharing and publishing it. I say to all colleagues around the House and to representative organisations that we would be very grateful to receive any legal advice or opinions they have. This is a matter of some legal complexity, and we are interested in hearing those views. The point was rightly made that aspects of social value in other legislation need to be taken account of, too.

I hope that it is understood that we as a Department are taking a tone of warmth towards the sector on this issue, while respecting our obligation to uphold and clarify the law. I very much offer community transport operators and colleagues reassurance about that. It is important to realise that there are genuine questions here about what the law is, how it relates to other aspects of law and how it is properly applied. We recognise that, and it is important to place that on the record, too.

Local authorities have not been much mentioned, except by me when I clarified that they should not withhold contracts until further clarification is given, but they are a very important part of this equation. As part of our further work during the follow-up to the consultation, my officials and I will talk closely with local authorities to think about best practice for how they commission services in this area and to encourage them to a proper understanding of the legal position as we see it.

In the few minutes I have left—I want to allow the hon. Member for Nottingham South a chance to respond—let me make a couple of comments on colleagues’ remarks. I think the hon. Lady is caught in a slight dilemma. She rightly praised the light-touch, affordable regime that successive Governments have adopted for the sector, which has been allowed to evolve of its own accord in a very big society way. I was grateful for the triumphant praise for the big society from the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). He was absolutely right about that. He did not quite bring himself to say those words, but of course that is what he was doing, like the good Tory he is. I hope he lasts in his party under those circumstances.

[Stephen Pound]

Withdraw!

[Jesse Norman]

Well, I offered my hope, but I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to contradict me if he wishes. The point is that the regime remains light-touch and affordable. That is precisely why the consultation was necessary—to gather information and understanding. It is misguided to suggest that we are adopting a narrow and legalistic approach when in fact we are proceeding with extreme care and caution in the face of a complex situation. As I said, I very much encourage the hon. Lady to place on the public record any legal advice that she has commissioned or received.

Heathrow Airport: Public Consultation

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I want to dwell a little on that £18 billion figure which, as he says, is based on rather conservative assumptions. Where that will come from is one of the big unanswered questions. The Government say that they will not provide financial support. The airport itself has come up with £1 billion towards the £18 billion, but it is already a highly leveraged company. Questions have been raised about its balance sheet, and particularly about the large-scale tax-avoidance schemes that have enabled it to finance its debt so far, so how will it raise yet more to fund the infrastructure? The only way that could happen is if the airport very substantially increased landing charges. One of the reasons why major airlines such as British Airways have turned against Heathrow expansion is that they realise that that would be a necessary consequence. The other potential source of funding is TfL, but it is highly constrained by public sector borrowing restrictions and the need to fund Crossrail, which will be a major burden on its balance sheet in coming years.

TfL has spelled out in detail how the public transport infrastructure would have to be provided, and much of it is highly problematic. It would have to go a lot further than some improvements to the Piccadilly line and the Elizabeth line. It would involve, among other things, improving southern rail access. However, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) well knows, that is problematic. The southern rail route runs through my constituency and his. If the route to Heathrow ran through his constituency, there would be serious problems with prolonged closures of level crossings, and the line through Kingston and Wimbledon is already congested. It is not at all obvious how that improvement is feasible— it has not even been sketched out—and there is a big question for the Government about how it would be funded.

The other question that the revised consultation raises is about increased passenger numbers. It is important to stress that the revised figures—the Government’s own numbers, not anyone else’s—suggest that the national economic benefit of airport expansion would be significantly greater at Gatwick than at Heathrow. That is a reversal of the Airports Commission’s analysis. Do the Government accept that conclusion? If they do not, perhaps they will explain why not. If they do, how do they propose to respond? They could say, “Well, we don’t care, because we’re not really interested in national economic benefit. We’ve decided we’re going to have a hub airport.” However, that would raise two big questions: why proceed with a national hub airport if it is less economically beneficial than the alternative, and why not ask or expect Gatwick to provide its own hub facilities, which it is perfectly keen and anxious to do?

The other factual information that has emerged from the new passenger numbers is that Heathrow airport will fill up very quickly. On current assumptions, it will start in 2026 and be full by 2028. That has knock-on consequences. There will be very little resilience, the airport’s authorities will be tempted to switch from domestic routes to more profitable international routes and it will make it much easier, given the monopolistic position, to push up fares even further.

Then there are the consequences of the higher passenger numbers, which are new. There is the impact on noise, which I think is of concern to all the constituencies whose MPs are in the Chamber. The original assurance given by the Secretary of State was that, when Heathrow was expanded, no more people in London or the areas around it would be affected by noise. The current numbers suggest that an additional 90,000 will be. Again, do the Government accept that?

What is important is not simply the aggregate numbers, but how that very large number of individuals—we are now talking about 1 million people—are directly affected. That relates to take-off and landing routes and the trajectory of the aircraft. At the moment, we have no information on flight paths, which is crucial to making an informed decision on how the project will affect our constituencies.

My final point on the data is that, although connectivity is one of the major reasons why Heathrow expansion is being considered, the new data suggests that connectivity to other British cities will decline with Heathrow expansion, from eight major destinations at present to five, and will be smaller than were Gatwick to proceed. I ask the Minister to consider how the Government regard this new evidence, which casts doubt on the feasibility of the proposal.

I will round up by raising the more basic question of how the Government are approaching consultation. Have they come to a conclusion, in which case we are going through a ritual, or are they meaningfully engaging in dialogue, listening to evidence and seeing it as a genuinely iterative process? One important step is how we are to see the consultation that Heathrow airport itself is now engaging in. It is important for our constituents to understand that what Heathrow airport is proposing seems substantially different from what the Government are proposing.

One of the options the airport is looking at is moving and substantially shortening the runway. I understand why it would want to do so, because that avoids all the horrendous problems of tearing up the M25 and rebuilding it under a tunnel, with all the costs involved. If it is changed in that way, that substantially affects the noise contour; I think there are 20,000 people who would face much more intense and intolerable noise levels, many of them in the constituency of the shadow Chancellor. There is a question how that would be dealt with.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. This is a timely debate. I have to confess that I have not received the same volume of consultative literature in the north of the borough of Ealing as he has, for various reasons. I wonder whether, among the data of the passenger and transport movements to and from the airport, there has been a disaggregation that identifies the cargo and freight movements—specifically because the economy of Northern Ireland is almost entirely dependent on cargo freight movements into Heathrow airport. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about passenger movements, but is there a disaggregation that identifies cargo movements to and from Heathrow?

[Sir Vince Cable]

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope the Minister will be able to. There is a specific issue about freight, not just in the air, but on the ground. One of the contributing factors to a lot of the worries about air quality relates to freight on the ground, which is linked to air journeys.

I have one minute left for my presentation, so I will conclude by trying to probe further how the Government see this consultation. The Secretary of State said in July that the Heathrow expansion project, along the lines that were originally identified, would definitely go ahead. We are left with the question of whether that is inevitable if the evidence changes? We now have evidence based on the Government’s own numbers to suggest that Gatwick is a more economically attractive alternative. Does that matter? How much more attractive does it have to be before the Government might consider the fundamentals around the location? If the air quality evidence is so damaging, at what point do the Government reconsider their options?

Fundamentally, going back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, we are potentially talking about large Government subsidy if the airport is to avoid a very large increase in landing charges or funding from sources that we cannot yet identify. Is there a level of subsidy and Government funding that is unacceptable? We have new evidence, which is emerging all the time and is becoming progressively less favourable to the case for Heathrow, so I will leave this question with the Minister: how open-minded are the Government to that new evidence, and how will they progress the project?

UK Maritime Industry

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I note what you said about my having five minutes to speak; I was rather hoping to have a minute for each year that I served as a merchant seafarer, which was 17—but that would be pushing it.

I do not have as illustrious a list as the former Shipping Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), but I want to declare an interest on the record as a vice president of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I pay tribute to the lifeboats, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and all of the volunteers who keep our seas and coastlines safe. I am also a former member of the National Union of Seamen. I think I am the only Member here who speaks as a former member of both NUSs; I was a member of the students’ union and the seafarers’ union, which then became part of the RMT. That was a pleasure.

I will concentrate my remarks on some of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) who initiated the debate, of which I am proud to be a co-sponsor. He is right to talk about the pay discrimination that exists in the United Kingdom’s coastal waters. On the route to Ireland from my port community of Holyhead, there are Irish shipping companies—members of the European Union—that pay less than the minimum wage. I have an awful lot of respect for the Minister. I will come on to energy issues in a minute; we work together on a number of issues. He will be as disappointed as I am to know that people are paid below the minimum wage in British coastal waters.

I will move on to the value of port communities to United Kingdom plc and our economy. Some 120 commercial ports in the UK deal with 95% of the exports and imports of our island community of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is difficult to quantify the number of related jobs, but I wanted to talk about some joined-up thinking—and I know that the Minister will concentrate on this. We want a transport system in this country that is fully integrated for road, rail, sea and air. Ports provide a huge catalyst for jobs in their communities. They provide more than 100,000 jobs in the port communities of Britain.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

As a red duster man, my hon. Friend knows what it is to go down to the sea in ships. He has my respect for that. He mentioned Northern Ireland. I am keen to ensure that this debate does not exclude the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland, where in ports such as Kilkeel in South Down and Strangford we have a real recruitment problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate for the Minister to liaise with the Administration—which I hope pertains—in Northern Ireland over non-devolved matters relating to maritime training?

[Albert Owen]

Absolutely. I am sure that the Minister will pass that on to his colleague in the Northern Ireland Office.

My hon. Friend mentions Northern Ireland. Related to the issues I want to talk about is the potential for energy development in our country. The ports are key to that. In Belfast, for example, there is DONG Energy, which has a big operation with the offshore wind sector. I was pleased to hear the announcement today from the Government about the Swansea bay tidal project. We need to be training highly skilled seafarers to do the support vessel work that is needed around our country. Our coastal communities also depend on growing leisure and tourism, with millions of pounds of revenue and potential future revenue. We need safe training for people to go out in ships, whether on the coast or in the deep water sector.

I want to link ports with not only wind but the potential for tidal energy. We have an opportunity to be pioneers. As an island community, we have regular tides that come in very predictably, and we need to tap into that. When we talk about these projects, it is about not only the location they will be in but the whole maritime industry of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This industry creates vital jobs in communities. My own port community of Holyhead is the busiest seafaring port on the western seaboard. I will stray slightly into Brexit. I am concerned, as people who live in the communities on the west coast and the gateways into Wales and the United Kingdom from Ireland are, that this issue has not had sufficient attention. We talk about the important land border, but there are sea borders as well. I do not want to see additional barriers on Welsh ports and British ports if we go for full Brexit.

We need a common travel arrangement. We need arrangements between the communities of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, so that we have a strong maritime industry and so that businesses that are dependent on our ports know there will be no additional costs. We need to continue to generate that revenue for the future.

I know we are short on time; I would have taken 17 minutes if you had allowed me, Mr Walker. British seafarers are the best seafarers in the world. They should have proper training facilities and proper wages that reflect our proud history and the potential for a proud future.

Garden Bridge

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

In my very brief contribution, let me start by paying warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). It says a lot about her and her priorities that when she is offered what is apparently a prestigious large-scale project in her constituency, she instead considers its effect on ordinary people in her community, and her mind is made up partly because of that. I also pay tribute to her for the forensic way she has tried to get through the murk of the financing of this project. She has obviously made some progress, but some murk remains; there is still a lack of clarity.

My ears pricked up at the sound of the £30 million from the Government. The Transport Minister who is in his place will know that I have been campaigning for just £100,000 for a transport project on the M56 to put in police and Highways England safety cameras. Sadly, the Minister declined that expenditure. Yet at the same time we can find £30 million to pour into a black hole, which my hon. Friend tells us is a vanity project, with several big-name backers but no clear benefit to the community. Will the Minister tell the House in his response whether he thinks that £30 million spent on a vanity project garden bridge in London is better expenditure than £100,000 on motorway safety cameras in Cheshire? Is the garden bridge receiving this level of public money simply because it is in London rather than the north-west of England?

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am afraid my hon. Friend seems to be straying into the Brexit argument about figures written on the sides of buses, because I do not necessarily think this is an either/or. I am massively in favour of my hon. Friend getting all the money he needs for his part of the world, and he has made the case very strongly, but he must not think it is because of the garden bridge that he is not getting it. I ask him to let his spirits soar with the imagination of this marvellous project which will be immensely beneficial to London and the country. Tourists will flood in to see this beautiful creation. Have a little imagination. Chester is a beautiful city—I admire it and love to visit it. Come and visit London and see, hopefully, our marvellous garden bridge.

[Christian Matheson]

My spirits soar every time I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). My point is simply that there seems to be a reason why £30 million of public money is being given to this project despite the immense lack of clarity that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has exposed, despite no clear end to the project, and despite very little financial and accounting responsibility and oversight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I recognise that there are many questions to answer, but the idea that this project has not had scrutiny at local council, London Assembly or national body level is not quite fair. The procurement process itself has certainly been reviewed, and no significant faults found with it. The hon. Lady mentioned that the trust has not published its accounts, but the trust has made lots of information about its expenditure public on its website. The trust has a funding agreement with TfL, which is available online, and it will be publishing its annual report and statement of accounts later this year.

[Stephen Pound]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I must say that Earth has nothing to show more fair than the view from some of London’s bridges. Does he not agree that, over the years, London’s bridges have had houses, markets and shops on them? People have traded on them. They have been not just thoroughfares or tarmac arches in the sky, but glorious and marvellous examples of how to live, work and sell in the space above the river. Can the Government not be a little bit more proactive and positive and say that this is going back to one of the great glories of our city when there were occupied bridges and floral arches from one bank to the other—what a marvellous vision? I urge the Minister to articulate his views more strongly.

[Andrew Jones]

I would always struggle to match the oratorical flourishes and style achieved by the hon. Gentleman. I certainly agree that, when we see magnificent bridges around the world including in London, they are inspiring sights. I recognise entirely his wise words about the views from London bridges. As one looks up and down the river, the views are positively marvellous. Whether they are the best views in the world is a little open to question. I suggest that some of those could indeed be in the Harrogate area.

We all have our individual favourite views. We have had interventions and speeches across the House this evening with people championing particular transport investments in their areas. Everybody here has projects that they wish to see progress locally, but I hope that no one doubts the Government’s commitment to investment in transport. It is very hard to play off one scheme against another for comparison purposes, as we would be comparing different modes of transport in different regions. The bottom line is that Members are always right to speak up for their areas. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who is no longer in his place, they are also always right to speak up for hedgehogs.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

I know my hon. Friend is about to conclude, but Transport for London is being saved from itself by the process of scrutinising this Bill. The Minister, who has become garrulous now that she does not have to take interventions, should have added that the only reason the Secretary of State’s consent is needed on clause 5 is that that concession was achieved in the Bill Committee.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker isn’t happy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman questioning something?

[Stephen Pound]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I did not think so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend rightly seeks to draw attention to the unintended consequences of the Bill. Does she accept that one of them may be to divert the focus of TfL’s attention to property development in zones 1 and 2? Might she be tempted to come out to Harrow on the Hill to understand that point even more acutely?

[Stephen Pound]

Via Ealing.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for the invitation to Harrow on the Hill station. I am sure that I will join many hon. Friends in going round the tube stations of London to examine the works that are waiting to be completed.

My hon. Friend makes the point that Transport for London needs a sharper focus on its work in improving our railway network and stations, including by making sure that stations are accessible to disabled people. Why should a disabled person have to wait to access transport? Surely that should be a priority for the Government. The reality is that so many questions are not answered in relation to the Bill.

One of the things we have heard a lot about is the price of housing and its consequences. We are not talking about the development of housing for people to live in, but about the building of assets on which people can make further money at the expense of others. As their assets build, inequality grows further and further in our city. Such inequality has an impact not only at the top end, but on others. If we look at one of the real consequences of inequality, we can see that there are serious skills shortages in the city. If we think about the impact on recruiting to the NHS because people cannot afford to live in central London—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) is gesturing on the Conservative Benches, but the reality is that the constituents of some Conservative Members will face lots of consequences from not having enough nurses in their hospital. In fact, the Government are concerned about agency workers in our hospitals. Are we surprised when trained staff cannot even work in our NHS because they cannot afford to live nearby? Those are some of the consequences of not developing land for its social value and to put something back into our services. In fact, rail workers working for Transport for London will not be able to afford—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

The Bill is about more than transport and that is why it is a real concern. It is about an organisation in charge of running our transport expanding its business opportunities into other areas, largely property development on its land. We would like TfL to focus on addressing the needs of constituents’ stations, about which we have heard so much today, but the Bill goes far beyond that.

Twenty months after the Bill was last debated, it is now clearly out of time. It is time that this House agreed to pursue another route to use vital land in London.

[Stephen Pound]

On my hon. Friend’s tour of the metropolis, as she passes through Harrow would she care to join me in Northolt, where she will see that Dave Francis Autos is about to be closed down and turned into a car park by TfL in a way that is nothing to do with sustainable transport, local needs or the wishes of local people? Does she not agree that TfL should concentrate on transport? It should be talking about transporting Londoners, not developing land.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend makes a perfect point.

[Stephen Pound]

I wouldn’t say that.

[Rachael Maskell]

Well, I would—TfL needs that focus. The reality is that the Bill is about the Government’s austerity measures and the fact that TfL will have to plug the gaps. It is one thing to say to the public that it will ensure ticket prices are held for one, two, three or five years, but what happens after five years when the asset runs out? The sponsor, when pressed about financial security, could give the House no assurances. We therefore call on the Government not to proceed with this out-of-date Bill. It is time for a fresh Bill to address London’s social needs.

HS2 Funding Referendum Bill

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Friday 23rd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is a distinguished and experienced parliamentarian, but he is much more than that: he is both a wise man and a clever man—he will understand the difference between wisdom and cleverness —and he knows the argument he has just made is an argument not about equivalence, but about political coincidence. It is certainly true that the Front Benches at that time took a similar view, and the Front Benches do so now, too, as he heard when the shadow Minister spoke. That is a matter of political coincidence, however; it is not a matter of governance. I am arguing that the difference between this Bill and the 1975 Act that gave rise to the referendum in that year is that the advocates of that referendum made it absolutely clear that the referendum was necessary because it was on a constitutional matter of profound significance. I am not sure we can say that about a particular area of policy, however important it is. It would be unprecedented, as my hon. Friend knows, and in my judgment it would, for that reason, be ill-judged. Once we open up that hornet’s nest, I see the ugly prospect of plebiscites on every kind and type of subject. There are those who might welcome that, but I, as a confident exponent of the role of this House, would not do so. I think it is important that representative democracy is served by those who believe in—who have confidence in—the power of this House to take big decisions: to be bold, and to be sufficiently original to excite and inspire the people.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

And there are few more original than the hon. Gentleman.

[Stephen Pound]

I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman as the cloak of Chesterton falls about his shoulders, but would he not agree with the former Baroness Thatcher in her comment that these referendums and plebiscites are devices of dictators and demagogues?

[Mr Hayes]

I had that quote to hand—

[Stephen Pound]

Sorry.

[Mr Hayes]

There is no need to apologise, but the hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was about to say, and I did think, rather mischievously, as he intervened, of the Chesterton line that

“He who has the impatience to interrupt the words of another seldom has the patience to”

devise good ones of his own, but that is certainly not true of him, I have to say.

The point the hon. Gentleman is making is a perfectly decent one: once one gives way to the contention that every major matter—and I accept that this is a very major matter—not only requires the consent of this House, but furthermore, between elections, requires the consent through a referendum of the people as a whole, we have the dangerous beginning of a set of arguments which leads to the place suggested by the blessed Margaret Thatcher and the hon. Gentleman, which is almost one might say anarchic.

High-speed Rail

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend has long been an advocate of better rail services in the south-west. Following the storms, I said that I had asked Network Rail to do some detailed work on possible alternatives for the south-west, and that is happening. Network Rail is doing a huge amount of work to ensure the swift reopening of the Dawlish line, which is on course to happen on 4 April.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

In congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) on his tenacity and hailing the relief of Camden as a consummation devoutly to be wished, may I tell the Secretary of State that the dispassionate observer would still feel that the lack of connectivity between HS1 and HS2 represents a problem for the future? Will he give thought to the possibility of an underground connection from Old Oak Common?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Many suggestions have been made for the connection between HS1 and HS2. First, all the high-speed trains are likely to stop at Old Oak Common, which will also be served by Crossrail, and secondly Euston and St Pancras stations are not that far apart.

TfL (Funding and Station Staffing)

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend is right that certain categories of passengers will be affected the most. To finish on the subject of tickets, however, the Survation survey found that there was little confidence about relying solely on the automatic ticket-vending machines: 52% said that they had been unable to buy tickets in the past, due to the machine being broken. Obtaining information on the correct price and travel advice are also important, as my hon. Friend says.

New forms of ticket retail have become increasingly available, but surveys have shown that passengers value the face-to-face contact with staff, even for simply navigating around the complex ticket pricing system. The Department for Transport’s own review of ticketing acknowledges Passenger Focus research that found that

“passengers are more confident with ticket offices than any other sales channel of obtaining the best value ticket for their journey”.

In response to announcements in recent years about main line railway ticket office closures and reduced opening hours, Passenger Focus stated that

“passengers really value the presence of staff at stations. Any reduction in ticket-office opening hours and the subsequent withdrawal of booking staff often reduces the overall facilities available at stations… We fear that this could lead to passengers feeling less safe at stations and paying more for their tickets than they should.”

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) in praising him for bringing the subject before the House. I also associate myself with my former colleague in London Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma)—he and I were bus conductors together. I speak from a position of some knowledge in this matter.

None of the tube stations in my constituency are fully accessible. It may not be the duty of station staff to assist people up and down stairs, but it is something that they do, and they do it willingly. How in heaven’s name are people struggling with buggies, on walking sticks or with walking aids going to manage without that good will if the people, however willing, simply are not there?

[John McDonnell]

That is the running theme through all the comments we have had.

The Campaign for Better Transport stated:

“Plans to close ticket offices and cut staff in stations will mean passengers are left to fend for themselves when buying a ticket and will result in people paying over the odds for their journey.”

If there are 17% fewer staff to help passengers, then what? As my hon. Friends have said, staff help with incidents, accidents, advice on what route to take, directions to local venues or addresses, disability access needs, lost property and yes, lost children and everything else, as well as service updates and many more issues that passengers cannot deal with on their own or via a machine. The remaining station staff, to be frank, will be less available to help with travel and other inquiries, because they will be busy helping people to use the ticket machines who would have previously have sought help at the ticket office.

Passengers also need some types of help that a station supervisor has to deal with, in particular the more complex issues for a more senior level of staff. Now there is a station supervisor in every station, but under London Underground’s plans, they will be removed from many stations and responsible for a number of stations instead, so that they might have to travel from another station to help passengers. Staff will be expected to work on several stations over a wider area, so they will be less familiar with the area the station is in and they will often be working in isolation.

There will be an impact on efficiency—all the expert evidence that we have collected says exactly that. Station staff play an important role in keeping the trains moving, such as helping the trains to depart promptly, reporting faults and providing information and advice during service disruption. Station staff work with other London Underground staff, such as drivers and service controllers, to keep the tube running. If there are fewer staff in stations, the train service will suffer. The London Underground plans to remove station supervisors from many stations will slow down service recovery during and after disruption.

Station supervisors also play a critical safety role. London Underground plans that such essential staff will be in charge of several stations at the same time, so they will be unable to deal in person with the many safety incidents and issues. It intends to plug some of the gaps in staff coverage with a casualised work force of agency staff, as well as having office staff who occasionally work on stations, away from their normal duties and with minimal training. In many people’s view, that will compromise safety. I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I will be brief, because I appreciate that others want to speak. I make reference not only to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but to my membership of the RMT, TSSA, and ASLEF parliamentary groups— I thank them for the briefings that they have provided for the debate, which are quite different from the briefings from Transport for London, which have been referred to.

I am speaking in this debate because I believe that if the proposals for job cuts and ticket office closures in London go ahead, they will come to areas such as the one I represent next. If those closures are possible in London, where there is massive public opposition and a strong, well organised, trade unionised work force, which, frankly, has a tradition of taking industrial action, that will make it very difficult to fight similar threats in other parts of the country. However, I assure anybody who is listening that we will fight any attempt to reduce staff in other parts of the country, and in Ayrshire in particular.

The reality is that it is in none of our interests to have a transport system that does not have staff and people on it to look after passengers, but that is our current direction of travel, to use a pun. We are talking about approximately 1,000 job losses as a result of the 240 ticket office closures in London, affecting not only ticket office staff but supervisory staff, managerial positions and staff in control rooms. It is happening as part of Government proposals to take staff away from our whole public transport system, and in particular the railways and the tube lines. That is why this debate and this dispute are relevant to every part of the country.

It is common sense that we need people to help us when we use our trains, and we need people on stations to assist us. Whether that involves buying a ticket, finding the appropriate platform, finding a trolley to put a bag on, helping people on to the train or helping them once they are on the train, it is something we all need and something for which I believe there is cross-party support.

I say to everyone in the House that this dispute is not only about London Underground, but about the service that all our constituents receive. We should be sending a very clear message not only to Transport for London and to the Mayor but to Government in this place and throughout these islands that we want a public transport system with people to help us on the platforms, in ticket offices and on trains.

[Stephen Pound]

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the Minister is a decent man. He regularly uses the District line and is frequently seen on the Wimbledon run, but I fear that he may be seduced by the arguments that we have heard today, which are the same as those used when my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and I were bus conductors. We were told that without conductors, the buses would be safe, but in fact, crime has rocketed on the buses. Does my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) agree that there is real fear, not only about public insecurity and a lack of public safety, but about an increase in crime in unmanned, empty, echoing halls?

[Katy Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I do not think we want to have to deal with machines all the time. We want to have staff to help us in stations and on every part of our transport system. That is why I have spoken today, and I hope that the voice will come very clearly from this place that these proposals are not in anybody’s interests.

Driver and Vehicle Agency (Northern Ireland)

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. I was going to come to refunds next.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the staff side response to the consultation refers to the perception in the DVA, which in many cases is backed up statistically, that the DVLA has vigorously, systematically and aggressively underfunded the IT development system in the DVA. Under those circumstances, does he agree that Northern Ireland has a remarkable work force that should be cherished rather than centralised?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I was coming on to IT—as he anticipated, in his usual prescient way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her useful and beneficial intervention. Obviously, if there is to be modernisation, an idea which none of us rejects or opposes, it could take place in Northern Ireland facilities—the headquarters in Coleraine and the other offices. In fact, we could take services that currently take place in Britain and, I have to say, perhaps do them much better, more efficiently and more diligently.

I want to move on to the views of the staff who responded to the consultation. They say that the existing closure programme has had a serious impact on services offered by the DVLA to the motorist in Great Britain. It is unclear whether those services can be properly managed, but no doubt they could be if they were brought to Northern Ireland.

Interestingly, a commissioned study by Oxford Economics has estimated that the DVLA proposal for the removal of services from Northern Ireland would have a direct negative impact of £14.5 million in gross value added terms, as well as an impact of £7 million on workplace wages in the Northern Ireland economy, which, given the size of Northern Ireland, is a remarkable statistic. The removal of £22.2 million from the Northern Ireland economy will have an impact on all its sectors, notably wholesale and retail trade, accommodation spaces, food services, entertainment and recreation, plus financial services, property, housing and the supply industries—and all that at a time of economic downturn, although there might be a slight lift that we would all welcome.

The figures I have cited for what would be removed from the Northern Ireland economy do not add up to what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon stated would be significant savings. Surely, a more acceptable form of improvement would be to upgrade the DVA’s IT systems. We must ask why the IT systems in Northern Ireland have been neglected, and not upgraded as a matter of necessity over the years. We ask that question because that has been replicated in other service areas. Some people say that, over recent years, some areas might have been prepared for privatisation and others for closure. For me, it is simply a case of downgrading a service and undermining the economic stability that exists in Northern Ireland.

I understand that staff working in the DVA feel that the service has been vigorously, systematically and aggressively underfunded for many years by the Department for Transport, despite which the staff have actively sought to provide the Northern Ireland motorist—whether the ordinary person with a car, someone working with agricultural machinery or people in the haulage industry— with an excellent level of service. That under-resourcing has left the staff open to the business criticism and the challenges in the current DVLA proposal for the future of vehicle registration and licensing services in Northern Ireland.

I am sure that, following the consultation that ended on this proposal on 11 September, the current Minister of the Environment in Northern Ireland will meet the Minister separately, as will a cross-party delegation of MPs from Northern Ireland. I hope that we can relay our serious concerns to him and demonstrate that the move will have a disproportionate impact on services, people and jobs in Northern Ireland.

Given the 100% opposition to the move and the strong case that has been made for the retention and the expansion of the services, I urge the Minister and his Department immediately to review the position, retain the jobs and, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry said, visit the office in Coleraine and pay a snapshot visit to the other offices. They should do that in conjunction with the local Minister of the Environment, Mr Durkan, who has a clear picture of what is going on and who has been steadfastly opposed to the closure.

[Stephen Pound]

Does the hon. Lady agree that as the efficiency case has been lost, cost is clearly the issue? Is she aware, as many of us are, that overtime payments in Swansea since this programme started have totalled £1.63 million? Does that not make a complete nonsense of the centralisation case?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was told that the figures for overtime payments in Swansea were nearer to £1.65 million. I am in no doubt that the work that precipitated those overtime payments could clearly be carried out in Northern Ireland where the service to the customer and the dedication of the staff are second to none. I urge the Minister to keep the DVA jobs and services throughout Northern Ireland. If he does that, he and his Department will not be found wanting.

Cycling

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ruane]

I think I have lost that minute—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend owes me 15 seconds but I agree with her and will come to the education side of that point in a moment.

We were also successful in getting £4.5 million for a purpose-built cycling bridge over Foryd harbour in my constituency. That will be part of the Sustrans national coastal cycling network around the UK. On 26 September I will meet Network Rail to see whether we can get a disused railway to connect the coastal path to the country paths further inland. They are currently cut across by a railway bridge, and we want to use an adjacent railway bridge to connect the coastal path to the country, so that the coast will be connected to the castles and cathedrals in my constituency.

I recently met Adrian Walls, a cycleways officer from Denbighshire county council, who is developing a mountain bike route in my constituency. He has not finished yet—it will be probably be finished in about six weeks and will be a state-of the-art mountain bike route. However, I do not think that the fantastic facilities I have outlined in my speech are being used sufficiently. The task is getting pupils in our schools and colleges, and workers, to use those facilities—those multi-million pound investments—which I believe are under-utilised in my constituency. How do we make the most of them? I have met council officers and enthusiasts, who have come up with a vision for a centre of cycling excellence in my constituency, which will be tied in to the back-to-work agenda. It will include cycle maintenance, and importing, assembling and selling cycles. That fantastic facility on our doorstep will be used to train local people, including unemployed people from some of the poorest wards in Wales.

Hon. Members have spoken of tying the cycling agenda to the health agenda. Denbighshire has high obesity levels. How do we get general practitioners to write cycling prescriptions? That has been done in other areas, including in London—Brent and Tower Hamlets have done it. People who suffer from diabetes, arthritis and a range of illnesses would benefit tremendously from cycling. If cycling prescriptions are available in Brent and Tower Hamlets—

[Stephen Pound]

And Ealing.

[Chris Ruane]

And Ealing. If it has been done in those places, why can it not be done throughout the country? If we have fantastic and safe facilities in my constituency, why can we not use them? They are floodlit. We could use them for 16 hours a day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

As a previous chairman of the all-party parliamentary cycling group, in what seems like the distant past of the 1997 Parliament, I am delighted by the profile that cycling has gained in the past 16 years. I believe that this is the best-attended debate on cycling that the House has ever had, and I understand that, outside this place, we are witnessing the biggest ever pro-cycling demonstration that this country has ever seen.

I have always cycled. As a youngster, my bike gave me independence and the freedom to roam. I cycled to school, I have always cycled to work and I use my bike daily in Exeter and in London. It is simply the best form of transport. When asked why I am still slim at 53, when I eat so much, I tell people that the answer is simple: my bike. My elderly Dawes Audax is the most important thing in my life, except—I should add, as he is outside with the demonstrators—my husband.

When I first worked in London in 1991, I cycled to work because it was the quickest and most reliable way to get there. It helped to keep me fit and to keep my carbon emissions down, but I felt like a bit of a freak. It was a very unusual thing to do. I remember fighting in this place during the 1997 Parliament for a single cycle route through Kensington Gardens. It was a hard battle, but we won. When I suggested to my local authority in Exeter that it should apply to the then Labour Government to be one of their cycle demonstration towns, I was told, “You won’t get anyone cycling here, it’s too hilly.” Well, Exeter did apply, and we got the extra investment. Between 2006 and 2011, cycling rates in Exeter rose by a fantastic 50%.

[Stephen Pound]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, were his council to introduce a 20 mph speed limit, there could be even more dramatic improvements?

[Mr Bradshaw]

I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. There is actually a 20 mph limit through much of Exeter, but the problem is that the Conservative county council and, I have to say, Devon and Cornwall police, do not enforce it. This problem has already been raised by several Members, and it needs to be stressed further. It is vital to have 20 mph limits, but they must be enforced.

Not only has cycling increased by 50% in Exeter, but more than 20% of school children there now cycle to school, whereas hardly any did before. In London, too, the situation has been transformed. Thanks to the congestion charge and other policies initiated by Ken Livingstone, there has also been a cycling revolution here. It warms my heart to see banks of cyclists at all the main junctions at commuting time, particularly young women and even parents with child seats and trailers. However—and this is the hub of the report we are debating today—in spite of the progress that we have made in the past 16 years or so, we are still far behind the best practice of the rest of northern Europe, and without sustained investment and political leadership from the top, we will never catch up.

I am delighted that the Labour party has today launched its Labour for Cycling campaign. I hope that those on my Front Bench will sign up fully to implement the recommendations in our report, but we need the Government to act as well. Without that, we will not see the growth in cycling of recent years sustained; nor will we see a reversal of the worrying recent trend of increased cyclist deaths and injuries on our roads.

I am pleased with some of the things that the Government have announced and done. The recent commitment to supporting cycling in a number of selected towns and cities is welcome, but it is basically a smaller-scale version of Labour’s cycle demonstration towns programme, and instead of happening in a few places, it should be happening everywhere. It would take only a fraction of the annual roads budget to achieve that. I would also like to know why the scheme was available only in places that were already part of the Government’s separate city deal programme. That ruled out cities such as Exeter from applying, which means that now, under this Government, only a quarter of the amount of money is being invested in cycling in Exeter than when Labour was in power.

I deeply regret the abolition of Cycling England, and I believe that the Government do, too. It was the body that drew all the disparate cycling organisations together and it was a vital co-ordinating voice and deliverer of policy. I also think that the Government were fatally mistaken to go soft on road safety, in abandoning Labour’s road death reduction targets and declaring their ridiculous war on speed cameras.

I am encouraged that the noises coming out of the Government more recently on road safety have been more sensible, but I am still concerned that they are not speaking with one voice. If they are serious about cycling, why are they allowing the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make the ludicrous suggestion that vehicles should enjoy a free-for-all by parking on double yellow lines, without even mentioning the impact that that would have on cyclists, pedestrians and road safety? The Secretary of State went on to say that the only people who were bothered about cycling were the “elite”. I do not know whether his animus towards cycling is a result of some deep Freudian consciousness that he is probably the Cabinet member who would benefit the most from cycling’s health-giving and girth-narrowing magic, but his comments are signally unhelpful and they should not go unchallenged if the Government are really serious about cycling.