---

Cycling

My Lords, it was HG Wells, that great enthusiast for the bicycle, who wrote: "““When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race””." HG Wells felt no need to apologise for his romantic view of two-wheeled transport, a view which may strike us as a little quaint; but he undoubtedly saw in the bicycle something that was noble and optimistic for humanity. Hence another of his observations, which I rather like: "““Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia””." Like many other noble Lords, I am sure, I am a great one for Utopia but, to get there, reality is the nut we have to crack. We have heard some of the evidence for the health benefits of cycling. They are impressive. We know that greater physical activity is directly linked to the prevention of a range of chronic diseases, including heart disease and stroke. On heart disease, it would appear that the older the participant, the greater the benefit. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, rightly said, it is never too late to start. Eight years ago, a study was published in Denmark involving thousands of cyclists. It showed that even after adjusting for other risk factors, those who did not cycle to work had a 39 per cent higher mortality rate than those who did. A study in Germany five years ago looked at the effect of cycling on breast cancer in pre-menopausal women and found a direct correlation between amounts of cycling activity and lower risk. Those cyclists who commute, say, for a 30-minute journey each way, are fulfilling the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation for daily exercise. You burn calories, you lose weight and you feel better. There has been a mass of studies about the benefits that would ensue to the nation if more people were to cycle regularly. Cycling England has translated those benefits into money terms. The savings to the NHS and the savings to traffic congestion amount to hundreds of millions. It has done similar calculations on the benefits to the environment. A 20 per cent increase in cycle journeys could mean 54 million fewer car journeys, which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 35,000 tonnes. That is a worthwhile prize in anyone’s terms. The prize is proving elusive. In the national cycle strategy published in 1996, the previous Conservative Government made a rather bold pledge; to double the number of bicycle trips by the end of 2002 and to quadruple the number of trips by the end of 2012. Not only has this not begun to happen, but in 2005 the Government conceded in their White Paper that it was not going to happen and that the original target could not be achieved. How could they tell? It was easy enough, because the statistics were actually moving backwards. The frustrating part is that the present Government came to office and did many of the things that they needed to do to give cycling a real boost. They endorsed the previous Government’s strategy, and they put in train some good initiatives at local authority level which, with a bit of a push from Ministers, should have gathered speed. But, somehow, the momentum was lost. That could not be more unfortunate in view of the public health imperative. We have a state of affairs in England, as noble Lords have referred to, in which almost a quarter of the population is obese and where rates of diabetes, to name but one serious medical condition, which has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, look set to reach unparalleled levels over the next 10 years unless people start living healthier lifestyles. There has been much talk by Ministers of working more closely with local authorities, "““to put in place sharper, more focused local plans and targets””," which was in the White Paper. Despite all that, rates of cycling have actually fallen from where they were a decade ago by about a fifth and stand at just 1 per cent of all journeys. The number of 11 to 15 year-olds cycling to school has also gone down very considerably in the past 10 to 12 years. How the Government have allowed that dismal situation to come about is not particularly difficult to diagnose; they took their eye off the ball. They did not manage to hold local authorities properly to account for delivering on the targets. The ball was picked up again in 2005, when Cycling England was created and when Sir Ron Eddington was asked to carry out his transport study, which contained a number of useful conclusions for cycling policy. But even today, progress around the country, with the signal exception of London, has been very limited indeed. That is not to say that it was ever going to be easy. When my noble friend Lady Chalker was transport Minister in the 1980s, she made the profound observation that the best encouragement that we could give to cycling would be to make it safer. There is no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, that worries about road safety are a major reason why people do not use their bikes for commuting and other short journeys and why parents will not let their children cycle to school. Although the number of non-fatal casualties has gone down by about a third over the past 10 years, the number of fatalities has been rising since 2003, despite the background of fewer cycle journeys. We are still talking about more than 16,000 cyclists a year being involved in road accidents; but it does not have to be like that. The experience in London over the past few years shows that, with a bit of careful investment, the accident rate can actually come down, even when the amount of cycling goes up; as it has done quite dramatically. Someone writing in the New Yorker magazine described cycling in the city as, ““anarchy without malice””. There may well be a bit of anarchy around, but it does not seem to be responsible for much of the road casualty figures. The other main barrier to progress is perhaps less easy to overcome. There is an inherent problem with cycling; it is not exactly ““cool””. It will probably not be seen as cool until we have role models who promote it in a way that resonates with those disadvantaged groups in society who most need to get on their bikes. At the moment it is the relatively affluent and educated sections of society who cycle, and we need to get the message to those at the opposite end of the social spectrum. Earlier this year Ruth Kelly announced a really welcome boost for cycling in the form of a grant of £140 million to Cycling England over the next three years. That decision gives me cause to hope that, after all, the Government have not entirely given up on the target set by the previous Conservative Government. But money like this needs to be properly targeted if it is to achieve its purpose. How is it likely to be spent, what achievement from it may we hope to see and over what timescale? Perhaps I could put one or two ideas to the Minister as a small contribution to his deliberations. Cycling England and other bodies all agree that the best benefits to health, as distinct from all the other benefits, come from persuading older people to cycle. One way to do that could be to promote the use of electric bicycles. Unfortunately, however, there is a problem with electric bicycles. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the present law is seen as being confusing and somewhat arbitrary because it would appear to include some electric bikes within the definition of ““bicycle”” but not others. Would he consider clarifying the law so that all electric bicycles, including the so-called ““twist and go”” variety, are classified as bicycles and not as motor vehicles? My second proposal is one that the Government could consider encouraging among local authorities. As noble Lords have said, cycling could play a major role in our efforts to reduce traffic congestion, particularly in some of our larger towns and cities. Has the Minister considered copying some of the best practice on the Continent, such as the Vélib initiative in Paris? I understand that there are now more than 700 pick-up and drop-off points where bicycles can be rented free for the first half-hour and for very little thereafter, and then can be dropped off at any of the other points in the city. It is one of the initiatives that my honourable friend Mr Johnson has promised to introduce, should he be elected as Mayor of London, but it is clear that it is an idea that could be rolled out in other cities. I hope that after a decade of disappointment we will now start to experience the fruits of the Government’s renewed good intentions in a way that HG Wells would have approved of, and that both our environment and the health of the nation will be the joint beneficiaries.