asked Her Majesty’s Government what policies they have adopted to promote the environmental and health benefits of cycling.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to start a discussion in your Lordships’ House about the environmental and health benefits of cycling.

A large number of noble Lords cycle to, from or around here. I feel privileged to be followed by my noble friend Lord Young, who is a real professional cyclist. I believe he cycles from John O’Groats to Land’s End and back in a couple of days or so. He is very impressive, and I am greatly looking forward to hearing what he has to say. I just cycle for business and a bit of pleasure, and I find it is a good way of getting around. I must present the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who is another great cyclist from your Lordships’ House. He has had a knee operation today to enable him to cycle better and, although he has been to the House, he has only just recovered from a general anaesthetic, so it is probably a good thing that he does not try to speak. I declare an interest as secretary of the All-Party Group on Cycling. We have our annual parliamentary bike ride on 10 June.

Before I launch into what a great thing cycling can be, I congratulate the Minister on the Government’s recent announcement. It is probably worth putting to bed something that comes up every time we have a debate on cycling: the vexed question of cyclists not obeying road signs or wearing lights. We must clearly deprecate any failure to obey the law. I certainly try to obey the law. That is not, however, a reason for knocking everything cycling, which one or two people occasionally do.

I shall give a few facts and figures about the benefits of cycling, particularly to health and the environment. If one thinks about the number of car journeys that most people make, an awful lot of them could be done on a bicycle. Sixty per cent of car trips are less than five miles, which can be done very quickly on a bicycle. Cycling is very good for you; I certainly feel fitter when I cycle. The Chief Medical Officer has said that adult cyclists can be as fit as someone 10 years younger and have a life expectancy of two years above the average. It is a good way to start thinking about cycling if you can behave as if you are 10 years younger and have an extra couple of years of life.

There is, however, a ridiculous fluctuation in the number of people who cycle in different countries and different cities in Europe generally or in the UK. Apparently, only 2.8 per cent of commuters in this country cycle. In the Netherlands, it is 27 per cent. The Netherlands is fairly flat, but so is much of England. The difference is that the Netherlands has provision for cyclists that makes one feel safe. I shall return to the question of safety and fear, because fear is a serious disincentive. The UK has two major initiatives. One is from the Mayor of London, whose target to increase cycling by 80 per cent was reached in 2000, five years before the deadline. Cycling around London, one sees that there is still a variation in provision between boroughs, but, my goodness, it is a lot better than it was 10 years ago. There is safety in numbers in cycling. When there are 25 of you trying to get across Hyde Park Corner rather than just one, you feel a lot better and safer, even with the lights.

Nationally—I am sure my noble friend will tell us more about this—the Government have increased the funding for cycling to £140 million in the next three years, which is fantastic. Again, there is a terrible variation in provision between some local authorities. I believe that some of them spend only about a £1 a head on cycling, whereas £5 to £10 a head is spent in the Netherlands, Germany and, I suspect, in Denmark. It may interest noble Lords to know that Copenhagen—I have seen a lovely report about cycling in Copenhagen—is going to increase cycling by 10 per cent, which will reduce the years of prolonged severe illness by 46,000, save £5.5 million annually and reduce the number of sick days overall by more than 3 per cent. That is worth having. Copenhagen claims that this will mean an extra 61,000 years of life—I am not sure what that means individually, but it is still pretty good—and will save 80,000 tonnes of CO₂ each year. This is all at a cost of about £15 million, which is a tenth of what the Government are putting into cycling for the whole country. It is not unachievable and is of the same order of magnitude as the campaign that I am sure my noble friend will tell us about.

The Copenhagen initiative is a campaign to make cyclists feel safer. There will be more cycle tracks and all the usual things as well as better behaviour, which is not a bad thing at all. The key, however, is to make the cyclist feel safer, which I shall focus on for a bit. I certainly find that fear is a great disincentive to cycling—my wife finds it even more so—and I am afraid that that is largely due to the speed of the traffic on the road that you are on and the distance from that traffic that you are forced to be. If you have a cycle lane, that is absolutely fine. If not, a 15 mile an hour speed limit is wonderful. A 30 mile an hour speed limit is probably better. When the speed limit gets up to 40 and 50 miles an hour, one thinks seriously about going on the road at all and tries to find a footpath. You are much more likely to get killed if you are hit by a car going faster. Cars have less room for manoeuvre, even if they are concentrating.

There is a lack of good design in many cycling facilities. The worst cycling facility that I have come across is somewhere in Belgravia, where Westminster City Council has put in a chicane, especially for cyclists, with lovely granite kerbs. You have to slow to about 5 miles an hour even when there is a green light. Why bother? The council has clearly not thought about the design at all. The other point about design is that we really must look at journeys holistically. It is fine having a great cycle lane when you want to go across London, but if you cannot get across Hyde Park Corner—which is a bad example because you can get across most places quite well now—you are not going to do it. There must be a proper and consistent series of cycle routes. There is largely such a series in London, but not in many other places.

To return to the point about speed limits, the 20 mile an hour zones in Hull, which are one example of good practice, have resulted in a 90 per cent reduction in the number of those killed and seriously injured. Residents also like a 20 mile an hour speed limit. I know that not all motorists like it, but a network of roads in the city with a 20 mile an hour speed limit should be encouraged.

Lastly, I make a plea to the Minister. Lorries are bigger than cars, and their size makes them particularly dangerous for cyclists, especially when they turn left. We have had a lot of publicity about this recently. I do not like longer and heavier lorries, and I hope that the Minister can give me some comfort that the Government are not about to introduce them. However, March 2009 is the European Commission deadline for fixing safety mirrors on lorries so that drivers have a chance to see all around their lorry, especially the side that they are not driving on. Will the Government require them to be fitted retrospectively? If not, we would be in trouble and the blind side of the lorry would be a serious problem for cyclists.

In conclusion, I hope that the Government will look at road use holistically when they are getting others to spend this £140 million, which is really welcome. There are great gains for the environment and health, but I still worry about the fear factor which can be mitigated by design and speed. Unlike car and lorry drivers, cyclists are not protected. As a number of officials and Ministers have done already, I hope that the Government will continue to look at best practice in Copenhagen, Amsterdam or wherever. The potential for increasing the proportion of people who cycle is enormous and the more of us who cycle, the safer we feel as a bunch. There is a bit of a herd instinct.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on obtaining this debate on an issue which I feel can make a positive contribution to the health of the nation when looked at in its widest context. I declare an interest in that I am a keen cyclist. I would not describe myself as a professional cyclist, which would be taking it a bit too far. For me, 2004 was a special year. I entered this House and I also cycled from Land’s End to John O’Groats with a friend. We did 1,012 miles in 21 days, which was not the most direct route and certainly was not done in the fastest time. But it was a great way to experience the state of the roads and to test how integrated the transport system is as a whole. We also experienced the good, the bad and the ugly of British bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the joys of the Youth Hostel Association. Last year, we toured the Western Isles and I occasionally cycle to the House from my home in Southall, a distance of 12 miles through busy, London traffic. I bring to this debate current experience of what it is like to cycle all over the UK.

Some cyclists—it was in the news recently—have a reputation for going through red lights and even for cycling down one-way streets, and some cycle recklessly on pavements. Clearly that is not acceptable behaviour, but we need to get it into perspective. It is rare for pedestrians to be injured or killed by cyclists. However, when cycling, the behaviour of many drivers leaves a lot to be desired. They have a desperate desire to overtake anything and everything, whatever the circumstances. They will drive frighteningly near cyclists, which adds to the climate of anxiety to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred. Being in a cycle lane, which is just a painted area of the road, does not afford the cyclist much protection.

The state of the roads is another disincentive to cycling. More and more one finds significantly large potholes. Cyclists need to look ahead, because if they do not it is not just the wheel of their bike that will be bent, it will be a part of their anatomy as well. Sometimes potholes are left unrepaired not just for months but for more than a year. It is important for the Minister to encourage local authorities to understand that cyclists need a safe environment, and that includes the state of the roads.

Many more people might consider cycling to work or taking their bike on holiday if they could use the train, but facilities are minimal. If trying to organise taking your bike on a train, you will have to plan a long time in advance. The facilities are minimal. If using your bike for work, it is at risk of vandalism or theft if you have to leave it at a station without lock-up facilities.

I welcome the Department for Transport report, A Sustainable Future for Cycling, which was published in January. I have not had the chance to read it perhaps as closely as I would like, but, if it has a gap, I did not notice a reference to an integrated transport approach, which we need on cycling. It is no good looking at cycling on its own. It should be part of an integrated approach to transport. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, I, too, welcome the three-year budget of £140 million for Cycling England. There are some interesting elements in the programme. For example, the report states:

“500,000 Year 6 children (10 year olds) will be able to take part in a Bikeability cycle training by 2012, equipping them to cycle safely and responsibly”.

It is really good to encourage the next generation of young cyclists to cycle safely and responsibly on the road.

The infrastructure programme will deliver 250 additional links to schools. Up to 11 new demonstration areas and six demonstration towns will have their own projects to encourage cycling in towns. These are really good developments. A Sustainable Future for Cycling also states that the infrastructure programme will also deliver:

“Doubling the number of ‘cycling to school’ champions from 20 to around 40 who [will work] with schools”,

and,

“Development of a number of smaller programmes to get more people cycling”.

Many people may think that £140 million is quite a lot of money for what they consider to be a niche area. But if we look at the cost-benefit ratio, for every £1 spent on the programme, the Government expect benefits of £3.20, which is a good return on the investment.

If one asks the average person his or her perception of how safe it is to cycle on the roads these days, given the increase in traffic, I think that most people would feel that it is less safe. Interestingly, statistics give a different story. It does not mean that there is any room for complacency, but, while it is true that cyclists are more at risk of being killed or seriously injured than motorists—a rather obvious statement—the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured in 2006 was 35 per cent lower than the 1994-98 average.

It is important to make drivers more aware of cyclists. Very often cyclists feel that drivers do not care or are blissfully ignorant of people on two wheels using the road. I welcome the fact that driver testing and training has been improved to encourage more awareness of vulnerable road users. How much of that is incorporated in the driving test, I am not sure.

A Sustainable Future for Cycling makes a valid point when it states that cyclists also need,

“to take steps to reduce the likelihood or consequences of an accident by wearing high visibility clothing and cycle helmets”.

I must admit that too often I see the “near invisible cyclist” at night. They have no lights and dark clothing, and clearly have a bit of a death wish. Educating cyclists is as important as educating motorists.

The CTC, the cyclists’ touring club, has suggested that 20 miles per hour should be the default urban speed limit. I have no doubt that motorists would see that as a severe attack on their liberty. It is interesting that the CTC states:

“20 mph zones in Hull have resulted in 90% falls in killed and seriously injured from collisions. 20 mph limits are strongly supported by residents and evidence from Germany indicates that they result in an increase in walking and cycling”.

The Government should seriously consider that.

The CTC also proposes that we should:

“‘Health check’ every transport and land use decision. Ensuring that houses and services are planned to minimise travel and maximise access by walking and cycling has a major contribution to public health”.

So the Government should promote walking and cycling as a key part of their plans.

If we have to assess the contribution of the Government, overall they are doing a good job of promoting the benefits of cycling, but in terms of whether we yet have a truly integrated transport that sees road, rail and cycling as a whole, I am not convinced. I will welcome the Minister’s comments on that. Again, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for giving us this opportunity.

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for letting me speak in the gap. I have been a cyclist for many years and I am very enthusiastic about it. I feel quite strongly about the value and benefit of cycling. On the question of health, I agree entirely with my noble friend. Fitness, exercise and well-being are wonderful benefits of cycling. An important point to make about cycling is that you can do it until late in life. Cycling is intergenerational and can be done for an awfully long time. I welcome the fact that even though, dare I say it, I am now in my mid-70s, I can still cycle regularly. I hope that the knee problems of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, are not caused by cycling. I have always considered that one of the advantages of cycling is that it is much easier on your knees and ankles than running or other sports. It is very important that you can cycle until late in life.

The advantages for the environment, about which both my noble friends spoke, are obvious. The problem is, of course, how to get more people cycling. In urban areas the answer is to make it safer and speedier. I congratulate Sustrans, the CTC and some local authorities on their work to provide safer routes to school, to work, to the railway and bus stations and to the shops. However, the lanes have to be properly designated. They need to be more than just white lines painted on the road. Even little bits of rubber nailed into the road surface so that drivers know that they have strayed into the cycle lane when they feel a bump, as exist in Paris, would be a great help.

To make cycling safer and quicker, the cycle lanes have to be continuous. My noble friend Lord Berkeley talked about the cycle lanes in London, many of which are good, but the trouble is that some of them end when you get to a difficult junction, which is the very time when you need a dedicated lane. This is what makes people cycle on the footpath, go against a red light or ride down a one-way street—not that I have ever done those things, of course.

We ought to give some sort of priority to cyclists or reduce road speeds. One of the pleasures of cycling in Belgium, Holland or Denmark is that motorists give priority to cyclists. There are teeth-like marks on the road and motorists stop to give priority to cyclists. That is one reason why many more people cycle in those countries. That sort of culture would be a big help. Moreover, people are not tempted to go against the Highway Code.

I agree with my noble friend that we need an integrated system, an important element of which is being able to book your bike on to the train. Some railway companies provide a booking service, but many do not. Every May bank holiday I go with a small group of elderly people on a trip to France. We take the ferry from Dover, but to get to and return from the port we have to take the car. We do that because a whole group of cyclists may come off the boat and take up the few spaces available on the train. You could be stuck in Dover with your bicycle for a day or two because there are only three or four bike places on each train. A group of, say, boy scouts would take up all the spaces and you are then stuck. Indeed, that once happened to us. We have to take the car down to the ferry in order to get home. If people could book their bikes on to the trains, that problem would be avoided. It is an important point about integrated cycling.

I welcome the investments into and the promotion of cycling being undertaken by the Government. I have gone over my time, so I shall sit down. I see that the Whip is very pleased at that.

My Lords, I am not a Whip; I am revisiting ancient times because no one else was prepared to speak on cycling. I have been cycling all my life, but more particularly for the past nine years since I was diagnosed with diabetes. At the time I was three stone overweight and I was told that I had to do something about the way I conducted my life. I have done that and kept my weight down, mostly thanks to cycling.

I cycle in London whenever I can. I come in in the mornings—this shows what we leisurely Peers who do not have to go to offices do in the mornings. I also come in on my motorcycle, which may be of interest to noble Lords. According to the newspapers, the two enemies on the roads are motorcyclists and bicyclists. I do not see that. I ride a motorcycle and a bicycle and the greatest problem, apart from the lorries—despite the mirrors, which I understand in many cases have been provided free—are pedestrians in London. Pedestrians, whether natives or tourists, seem to look with puzzlement at pedestrian lights, and there is a certain aggression. The other night I cycled down a street in Piccadilly with the lights in my favour, but the pedestrians were streaming across the road. I threaded my way through them carefully but I was called all kinds of names beginning with B and C, which I would not repeat in your Lordships’ House.

Speaking personally on the health aspect, I can say that for someone with my condition cycling is probably the very best exercise. Every six months I go for a check-up with my diabetes specialist. He has told me that I am the only one of his patients who cycles regularly, which is because of the fear factor that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, described. My doctor said that he would cycle to his clinic in Marylebone High Street if he felt that he could arrive safely. He has also said that I am more likely to die cheerfully as a result of falling off my bicycle than by succumbing to the effects of diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

I am very careful on my bicycle and I have to say that I am pretty horrified at the standard of riding demonstrated by most other cyclists. I do not often see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who rides with great skill and speed. He even has special gears fitted on his Brompton folding bicycle so that he can move rapidly down Birdcage Walk or wherever he is going. I have a standard machine which I put in my car when I go away. Like the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I travel to France; when I do, I put the bike in the back of the car, as I did last year when I went to the San Sebastian film festival. San Sebastian, besides hosting a lovely film festival, is a remarkable place. It was the pioneer city in Spain for cycle lanes. Quite apart from being the most beautiful belle époque city, it looks after cyclists. The way in which cyclists are treated by all other road users is exemplary. When you come back to London, you are back in the jungle again.

The Government could do various things. It is all very well having a policy, but you have to have the political will to make the policy work. Cycling is very good for families. A lot of young people today are overweight or even obese, so parents would like to get their children on to bicycles. At the weekends in London—it is a curious thing—in lots of areas the cycle lanes are full of parked cars. This is the fear factor again: why would you take out two small children in a crocodile on your bicycle at the weekend or on a summer’s evening when you must negotiate cars and vans parked in the cycle lanes? I am quite sure that the Minister would tell us that that is all to do with law enforcement and that the law is there to stop that happening. Well, why does that not happen? The cycle lane situation in London is pretty strange and illogical anyway. For example, on Chelsea Bridge, which I frequently go over, bicycles can go one way on the footway on the edge of the bridge, but they cannot go the other way. If you attempt to do so, as I have done from time to time, not only are you likely to be stopped, but you meet angry ladies walking their dogs saying that you ought to know better. That is a disagreeable experience for sensitive parliamentarians.

In the investigations that I carried out before speaking tonight into opinions around the House, particularly those of my colleagues, I thought of two cyclists. My noble friend Lord Taverne is still cycling; I would put him forward as a candidate for one of the best preserved and most athletic Members of your Lordships’ House for his age. He cycles every day and included cycling in his 2005 book—I admit that I have not read it—The March of Unreason, which is available in paperback. There is an examination in it of the benefits to your health set against the dangers of cycling within metropolitan London. Despite all the things that we are saying, it came out in favour of the benefits by a ratio of 10:1. I think that the Government can help us to increase that ratio. The book describes the cycle, rather amusingly, as,

“a green car that runs on tap water and toasted teacakes and has a built-in gym”.

If that whets the appetite of noble Lords who want to find my noble friend Lord Taverne’s book, I daresay that it is in the Library; they will be cheered by what they read.

Various other aspects of cycling that create problems for cyclists have already been mentioned, such as the business of theft, of course. You almost write down your bike because you know that it will be stolen if you are not careful. If you leave a folding bicycle—such as a Brompton, as is owned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and me—outside for two minutes you are at risk, so you carry it into shops with you. You carry it everywhere. People are very understanding about that, although it is often a bit of a squash in a small tobacconist’s where you are looking for the MotorCycle News, which is often what I am doing. But you have to do it, otherwise you run that risk. They are expensive items to replace.

The success of the French system is amazing. I was in Paris during the rugby cup and saw at close quarters how their pool system, which started in Lyon, works. You pick up a bike on a card system where the first half-hour is free and you pay €7 for each subsequent hour or two hours. It is not cheap, but the bikes are very high quality; I examined them closely. They are now used widely. The system also means that people, visitors and locals, use these bicycles on a regular basis. Some of them are not very experienced and they wander around the roads in a way that would shock experienced cyclists in your Lordships’ House. To motorists it is a salutary lesson: you must give cyclists a wide berth. In any case, there are draconian sanctions in France against cars that are seen to be a menace to cyclists. If you hit a cyclist, you can get your collar felt, to use the vernacular. That does not exist here. There is definitely room for improvement. The contrast with Europe must be looked at; we have many lessons to learn.

The main points for the Government—and I would be interested in the Minister’s remarks when he replies—are that we must alter the law to give more protection to cyclists from vehicles of all kinds if we want to support the Government’s excellent initiative. We must revisit the design of cycle lanes and see whether they are logical. We must improve them where possible. We must deal with the potholes, which the noble Lord, Lord Young, has described; they are an absolute menace and a disgrace. I would not expect to find them in Entebbe or Dar es Salaam. I never rode a bicycle in those places, but many of the roads here are shocking.

Will the Government think of devising a promotion scheme to back up their policy which explains the benefits of cycling clearly and positively, whether in leaflets or posters? It should not cost too much. Will they also stress cyclists’ responsibility for the consideration that they get from other motorists? It is terrifying that any cyclist should go out without lights at night. He is putting at risk not only himself but other people who are driving cars and other vehicles. He may be in a position of facing homicide charges. That is utter selfishness and should be dealt with harshly.

I am over my time but, before I sit down, let me say that nobody has mentioned bells. I do not have one, but now that I have reminded myself I will go out and get one. In London, we ought to encourage cyclists to use a bell, so that they can shift these pedestrians out of the way before you arrive and they abuse you. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for giving me a chance to speak on this subject. I could not get in on a Question the other day; the matter has been remedied.

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.

My Lords, although there have not been many participants in this short debate, it has had some high quality contributions. I congratulate not only the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who is a keen advocate of cycling, but all those who have taken part. We do not spend enough time talking about issues such as this. That reflects that it has been neglected—not by the Government, I hasten to add, but more generally—to acknowledge and celebrate the merits of cycling in our culture. It is only a generation ago that probably most people cycled to work, to their factory or their office.

I grew up in the flatlands of Essex and cycled every day, and so did those I grew up with. It was part of how you were. Much as we talk now about the contribution that cycling can make to reducing our carbon footprint and tackling the obesity timebomb, my generation did not see it that way at all—we just thought it was a fun thing to do. Acquiring the skills of cycling was part of growing up.

I assure the House and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the Government are fully signed up to appreciating and promoting the health and environmental benefits of cycling. Indeed, our support for and funding of Cycling England, which has its own appointed experts in health and environment on its board, in 2005 to assist in formulating programmes to give life further life to a cycling strategy is clear evidence of that. In October 2007 the Government published Towards a Sustainable Transport System, which responds both to the Eddington study on the transport contribution to improving economic growth and productivity and to the Stern review on reducing carbon emissions. Meeting the transport needs of a modern economy while delivering those important CO₂ reductions is a challenge, but not an insuperable one. Cycling is an important alternative to the car and one of the key low-carbon transport options we will need to employ in meeting the climate change challenge.

On top of that, as all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate have observed, there is the challenge of the obesity timebomb that the Foresight report highlighted. That has been responded to by the Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives cross-government strategy for England. It is clear that cycling can offer a significant contribution to addressing all these challenges and, through government departments working together and recognising our shared objectives, we have already started to deliver on the plans set out in Towards a Sustainable Transport System.

In January this year, we awarded a record £140 million to Cycling England after considering its already notable achievements and upon the evidence in a report by the economic consultants SQW on Valuing the Benefits of Cycling. This provided evidence of a 3:1 benefit, much of which relates to health and the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Young, observed the benefit of that cost-benefit ratio in those terms. The six-fold increase in Cycling England’s budget is further evidence of the Government fully understanding and accepting the case put forward by Cycling England and others interested in promoting greener travel options. As part of a joined-up approach, the Department of Health is contributing £15 million towards cycling, demonstrating its recognition of what cycling can do to improve the health of the nation.

So what are we planning to do with the additional funding? That is the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The first aim is to give children an opportunity at an early age to set a blueprint for life. These primarily have to be good health and a recognition of the importance of the environment. With Cycling England, we have pledged to give an additional 500,000 schoolchildren the opportunity to undertake high-standard on-road cycle training, to address some of the issues that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, drew attention to, of core practice among cyclists. We have agreed also to provide 250 additional links to schools, connecting 500 schools via traffic-calmed or traffic-free routes, in addition to the 295 links already provided to over 600 schools since 2005. We have also agreed to double the number of “cycling to school champions” to work with around 400 schools, to maximise the benefits of these combined programmes. We are therefore giving the next generation the skills to improve their health and providing improved infrastructure to ease parents’ understandable fears over allowing their children to cycle to school. It will also give children greater independence while at the same time reducing the need to ferry children around by car.

Cycling England announced in February £47 million to extend the cycling demonstration towns programme, including creating the first large cycling city. Existing demonstration towns such as Darlington, where the numbers of those cycling to school has quadrupled, and Aylesbury, where the number of people saying that they are using a bike as one of their main modes of transport has risen from 3 per cent to 14 per cent, demonstrate to all what local authorities can achieve. This investment will provide around 3 million people with levels of spend on cycling seen only in the very best European cycling cities.

The assessment criteria for the new demonstration areas include the requirement for local authorities to show how their bids contribute to the aims of the Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives strategy and to think strategically across all departmental remits, such as environment, transport, education and health, and most importantly to show high-level leadership and commitment. Cycling England, together with the Department of Health, is already working with two primary care trusts in Nottingham and Northamptonshire in the community health improvement programme. By working with staff and those most at risk to poor health, such as the middle-aged and deprived communities, through cycle training and cycle rides they will be able to demonstrate to other care trusts what can be achieved.

Cycling England also published Cycling and Health in 2007 and distributed it to local authorities and primary care trusts. It provides all the evidence in one document, with some practical ideas on how the two can work together. It does not end there. We have given Cycling England a remit and funding to find new solutions to encourage adults and at-risk groups to cycle more, particularly for the journey to work and through leisure.

On the topic of the journey to work, the department published guidance on the cycle to work scheme in 2005 and at the same time negotiated a group consumer credit licence to ease the burden upon business in setting up the scheme. Since then, around 100,000 people have participated.

In addition to our work with Cycling England, our successful initiative Sustainable Travel Towns is entering its final year of a five-year project and has so far seen a 10 per cent reduction in car trips and around a 30 per cent increase in cycling. That is on a target population of more than 180,000 people. The main tool used to achieve that is personalised travel planning, and I would like to point out this is not a “nanny state” intervention on how people should travel, but provides tailored information to enable people to make voluntary alternative travel choices to the car.

A trial in one of the towns, Peterborough, showed that in a three-mile rush-hour trip into the city centre, the cyclist took 15 minutes, had free parking and took some exercise burning off around 200 calories, while the car driver took 22 minutes, had to pay for parking let alone fuel and running costs and of course had no exercise. Providing that kind of tailored information can motivate people to make cycling the preferred option, especially in an urban environment.

We recognise that we must improve cycling facilities in order to tempt more people to take this option. We are doing precisely that through Cycling England's free advice service to local authorities on the design of cycling facilities and through guidance such as the Manual for Streets, which promotes the highest priority to pedestrians and cyclists in the design of residential streets.

Finally, the Government implemented the local transport plan process in 2000 to give local authorities the opportunity to develop their transport priorities and recognise that we share some, such as reducing congestion and improving air quality. Through that process we have asked local authorities to develop a cycling strategy as it can clearly contribute to improving not only people's health but the environment. Enabling local authorities to recognise their priorities has since been strengthened through the second local transport plans and local area agreements.

In summary, Cycling England's programme and other initiatives such as Sustainable Travel Towns have given insight and inspiration to all local authorities as to what can be achieved in improving health and contributing to a better environment, while the local transport plans and local area agreements provide a framework for them to achieve precisely that.

Some of the contributions this evening were truly inspirational. I certainly cannot match the exploits of the noble Lord, Lord Young, with his trip from Land's End to John O’Groats. If someone in your Lordships' House is giving a lead and showing himself to be a role model, the noble Lord, Lord Young, is the number one candidate. He has done his bit for the environment.

The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has done his bit for health. His was a wonderful practical example of how one person can adjust their lifestyle to improve their life expectancy. The noble Viscount is willing and more than capable of picking up that baton and also receiving a prize. I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on his contribution in terms of adding to our wisdom on the subject and making the links with health. He also made two very good points, one of which I shall follow up—he made an interesting technical point about the position of electric bikes. I have heard that before, but I shall write to the noble Earl about that.

Like the noble Earl, I am attracted by the pick-up and drop-off schemes. I will not become an advocate of Boris’s mayoral candidacy, but I know that our good friend Ken Livingstone, with his big injection of funds for cycling in London is more than his equal as the cyclist’s friend. Ken recently committed to pick up on all good ideas, and we will see that as being one of the most urgent to assist with after the outcome of the mayoral elections is secure. I congratulate all noble Lords who have participated. I have greatly enjoyed this debate and if we can spread a little more sunshine in the world of the cycling fraternity then we will do your Lordships' House and the nation a good service.