Sustainable Transport

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Tom Harris.]

09:30:00

Martin Linton (Battersea) (Lab)
I appreciate having an opportunity to raise what is a topical issue, given that the campaign by the cyclists lobby and the Evening Standard to get more bikes on trains is in full swing.

If one stands outside a railway station and counts the number of people who turn up on their bikes, what one sees will say an awful lot about a country. In some countries, one sees masses of bikers cycling to work along cycle-only routes and putting their bikes in massive cycle parks outside stations. In Denmark and Holland, 35 per cent. of people who arrive at stations do so by bike, and even in Germany, the figure is 15 per cent. In the UK, however, it is 2 per cent., and we would need a tenfold or fifteenfold increase to reach the levels considered normal on the continent. I am tempted to say that we need a step change, but I fear that that would be a very pedestrian analogy, so let me say that we need a gear change to reach the necessary levels.

Let me assure my hon. Friend the Minister that this is not a moan against the Government, and I am not saying that they have done nothing—far from it. Ministers have been enthusiastic supporters of bike and ride and have led the way in many respects. Nor is this a moan against the train operating companies, many of which have also been enthusiastic. In East Anglia, they have been pushing for measures for a long time and have managed to increase the number of people arriving by bike to a massive 3 per cent. The Bittern and Wherry lines community rail partnerships, which must be somewhere in Norfolk, have not only fitted cycle racks and cycle lockers in every station, but have a discounted cycle hire scheme for train ticket holders.

Many local groups are also campaigning for measures to be introduced. In my area, I have campaigned with some success with the Wandsworth Cycling Campaign for more cycle parking at stations, and we now have a lot more cycle parking at Clapham Junction station, although there is not yet enough. We have also campaigned for wheeling ramps on the stairs, although so far without success, and I shall return to that. I pay tribute to those involved in the campaign, which has just won the cycling for adults award at Transport for London’s cycling communities awards for an innovative scheme to give professional cycling training to local opinion formers. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) and various councillors have benefited under the scheme. The campaign is very active. The Cyclists Touring Club and the Evening Standard are also running a nationwide campaign on bike and rail in the run-up to the introduction of the Government’s White Paper on rail.

The purpose of this debate—I am glad to see that hon. Friends who are keen cyclists are here to take part—is to give a parliamentary focus to the campaign to introduce appropriate measures. It has been organised by the all-party group on cycling, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) will succeed in catching your eye, Mrs. Humble, because she has been at the forefront of the group’s work.

What do we want? We have a very short shopping list to start with. We want wheeling ramps on steps, and that sounds like a small point, but it is quite important. We want much more cycle parking, cycle hire at stations and a national approach to cycle carriage. We want better information about when people can and cannot take their bikes on trains, when and where they may need to make reservations, which trains have specific places for bikes and where on the platform we must stand to reach such places. We also want more consistency between train operating companies.

One of my beefs is that the railways do not make it easier to go cycling in the country. One of the most pleasant ways for my partner and me to spend a summer weekend is to cycle down winding country lanes past village greens and country pubs, with scarcely a car to be seen. Occasionally, we might cross a busy road, but then we are back into the idyll of rural England. Generally, people who want to cycle in the country have to get there by car; they have to put a rack on the back of their car and drive off to the country. However, they could easily get there by train if the railway system advertised cycle routes at stations and allowed round-trip reductions. Given the way in which the ticketing system works, people have to pay quite high fares unless they do a round trip.

The important starting point for this debate is to recognise that the different kinds of cyclists who use trains have differing needs. Commuter cyclists bike, park and ride; they cycle to the station, leave their bike and catch a train. They need much larger and more secure cycle parks, and most stations should be thinking about a threefold or fourfold increase in their present cycle parking facilities.

Some commuters bike, ride and then take a second bike; they take their bike to the station, catch a train and then use a second bike at the other end—at a London terminus or wherever. That would be an argument for having cycle hire shops at stations and for having cycle parking on platforms. In that way, people could get off a train and use a second bike to cycle to work. There is acres of space on the platforms of London terminuses which could be used for that purpose.

The third category of commuters are the doorstep-to-doorstep cyclists, and their problem is carriage. They take their bike to the station, put it on the train and then take it from the station. They need to be able to get their bike on the train, and that is not a problem if they have fold-up bikes. However, most people do not want to ride fold-ups, but to get on a train with a normal, assembled bike.

I said that I would return to the point about wheeling ramps, and the quickest hit that the Minister could make would be to force all stations to install them on stairs. The cost would be next to nothing and they would take up no space, because they can be fitted under a handrail, where no one can walk in any case. Give me a few hundred pounds and I could do Clapham Junction in a morning—it is that simple.

To take one example of the problem, my partner took her 10-year-old daughter cycling this weekend by the Thames. It was a lovely weekend, but the hardest bit was getting the cycles up the stairs at Clapham Junction. A 10-year-old cannot carry her bike up, and my partner, strong though she is, cannot carry two bikes up at the same time. A simple wheeling ramp to enable people to push their bikes up the stairs would solve the problem. Network Rail will think up lots of reasons why it cannot instal ramps, but I can assure the Minister that they are rubbish. Installing ramps is easy, practical and cheap and could be done straightaway.

The next problem is where to put the bike on the train. In the old days, of course, one would just look for the guard van, which could carry up to a dozen bikes without any problem. Now, however, that is pretty well impossible for commuting cyclists because cycles are banned in the rush hour. At Clapham Junction, that applies not only to trains going into London, but even to those going out of London. That policy derived from the Strategic Rail Authority—may it rest in peace—which laid out cycling policy three or four years ago in its cycling policy consultation document. The SRA had all the best intentions, including maximising the number of cycles on trains, but the document was laced with weasel words such as 

“so far as reasonably practical”

and

“subject to the availability of appropriate space”.

The problem comes down to the fact that cycle carriage is treated as a luxury. Providing access for wheelchair users and parents with prams is regarded as an obligation, but cycle carriage is regarded as a luxury. A survey of commuters showed that 1 per cent. would take their bikes with them if they could, but that 28 per cent. thought that it was a bad idea to allow bikes on rush hour trains, because they would get in the way. It concluded:

“It is difficult to legitimise a worsening of conditions for 28 per cent. of passengers for the benefit of 1 per cent. of passengers.”

Stated like that, it sounds quite reasonable, and that approach led to the view that the train operating companies should each decide their own policy and, indeed, that they should feel free to charge up to the price of a single ticket for bicycle carriage.

We need to look beyond that. There is a problem of mindset. The authority accepted the need for space for pushchairs and wheelchairs. It would never tell mums or parents that they could not take their children on a rush hour train, or tell wheelchair users that they could not use rush hour trains, but it happily tells cyclists that. Of course it is not essential for people to cycle, but let us look at the question another way. The number of people who live within 10 minutes of a station is 15 times greater if those people are cyclists than if they are people who walk to the station. That is the simple application, I am told, of pir2. A walker must live within half a mile of a station to be there in 10 minutes; a cyclist need only live within two miles of the station. Using pir2 it is found that the area in which cyclists are within 10 minutes of a station is 16 times greater. In other words, if we want more people to travel by train, we must encourage them to come by bike and bring their bikes with them. They will get to work quicker at the other end, too.

At the moment each train operating company has its own policy. They all have totally different and confusing rules, and I shall give a few examples of those. Eurostar has a complete ban on bicycles. Its rules state that Eurostar does not have traditional brake or baggage vans and therefore cannot accept accompanied cycles unless they are folded. In Scotland things are a bit more liberal. First Scotrail says that the London to Scotland Caledonian Sleeper can accept up to six cycles, except for the Inverness to London service, which can accommodate three. Rather mysteriously, it says that a special road vehicle will carry cycles between Inverness and Thurso during the summer of 2006. On Hull Trains there is a different system again, in which up to two cycles can be conveyed, which must be stored in the train manager’s office in coach D. People must know the rules of their local line. On the Isle of Wight, the Island Line reserves the right to restrict the carriage of cycles when the punctuality of the train may be jeopardised. Ominously, the rules state that implementation of the restriction is at the conductor’s discretion; I have visions of trying to get on a train at Cowes. The Stansted Express carries only bikes that are flat packed for air travel. That is an example of a train operating company that bans normal commuter bikes completely. 

A single national rule would be much better for cyclists. The CTC has suggested four spaces on existing trains and six on new or refurbished trains, and then one more place for every 24 seats after the first 100. That provision would be split so that half would be dedicated provision for cycles and half would be flexible—seats that could be folded up for people to park bikes. At least one space should be available for tandems, tricycles or trailers, which are usually ignored in cycle provision. The CTC also wants places to be provided on replacement bus services. At the moment, a cyclist who gets on a train at the weekend, when engineering works are being done and a bus service is provided, must get on their bike instead of the bus and see whether they can keep up with the bus on the way to the next station, because bikes are not accepted on replacement buses. A simple national rule would be that all train companies should be forced to provide space for at least 10 bikes per train. That would be a good start.

The European Parliament has taken a lead on this and in January MEPs voted for a specially designated area to be provided on every train, for bicycles, baby carriages and sports equipment; they wanted this to happen by 2008 on international trains and 2012 on domestic trains. I hope that the Government will not resist that demand, which seems a good starting point for getting what we need. We should not be negative about bike and ride. We should welcome the power of cycling as, apart from anything else, part of the battle against climate change. We should make bike and ride easy, because it is a match made in heaven. Bikes and trains are the two most sustainable forms of public transport; they create a perfect synergy for clean, green travel, and they are quicker and cheaper at the same time.

There are some signs that things are going in the right direction, and others that they are not. At St. Pancras, for instance, only 30 spaces have been provided for bikes; but I see that next door, at King’s Cross, there is a planning application for a cycle storage area that would accommodate 800 bikes—much more like it. The Department for Transport referred in its last White Paper to providing 2,900 additional cycle parking spaces, of which, so far, 2,500 have been provided. That is a great advance, although something of the order of 10,000 is more like what will be needed. 

The same patchwork of arrangements applies to reservations. Three train operating companies allow bikes to be put on all their trains, with no reservation. Another six allow them to be put on all trains, but require a place to be reserved. One company allows bikes only on off-peak services, but without any need to reserve a place, and there are 15 companies that permit bikes only on off-peak services, and require a reservation. That is another aspect of the matter in which a much simpler, national approach would be appreciated. Pre-booking should always be available as an option, but it should not be mandatory, because that is difficult for cyclists to live with.

I probably do not need to stress the health arguments for the approach that I am advocating. Regular cycling can halve the chance of heart disease and reduce resting heart rate, obesity, high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes; it improves strength, stamina and posture, and typically gives people the fitness level of someone 10 years younger. The members of the all-party group on cycling provide a testament to that. It adds two years to life expectancy, as well as creating no air pollution and very little noise pollution. More important, perhaps, from the point of view of individual cyclists, is the fact that not only can people beat the bus on a bicycle; they can plan their day better. They know when they will arrive and can time their day better, as they are not at the mercy of waiting times for buses and trains. They also make time in their day for exercise without having to sacrifice anything else. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will, I am sure, attest, cycling can cut London commuting times by up to an hour.

I urge the Minister to go with the cyclists on this. An important first step, although it may sound like one of the least important, would be the setting up of a UK national cycle-rail forum. Cyclists themselves are in the best position to advise on ways of increasing the bike and ride rate. If we all agree that the rate in this country is too low, as I think we do—the Minister is convinced of it, the Government are trying to raise the bike and ride rate, the train operating companies, by and large, have an interest in gaining more custom in that way, and everyone agrees that it would be good for health—we should listen to cyclists and find out what is inhibiting people from using bike and ride.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend accept that a real barrier, which is not mentioned anywhere, is that when people put their bikes on a train—particularly on a First Great Western 125—they have no idea how long they have to do it? By the time they have put it in the guard’s van and tied it up, and run to the carriage, they must sometimes literally jump on the train. There is surely a need for some consistency about the physical aspects of putting a bike on a train, and that point seems never to be made. I wonder if my hon. Friend would like to comment.

Martin Linton
I take that point entirely. There should be cycle racks in the guard’s van. If there is dedicated space for bikes on a train, there should be racks on which bikes can be put easily, rather than being slung up against the side. There should be a system whereby bikes can be parked quickly and efficiently. On most trains, the guard’s van is connected to the rest of the train by corridor, so the problem that my hon. Friend mentions must be a quirk of First Great Western trains.

It is important that we address this matter at this level of detail and understand what the inhibitors are. Everyone agrees on the goal for this area of policy, but worries about the practical difficulties. To overcome those difficulties, we need train operators, cyclists and the Department for Transport to sit around a table and discuss them so that we can remove the impediments and let the number of cyclists increase.

09:50:00

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) on securing the debate and on his eloquence in speaking on behalf of the country’s cyclists. As he said, the debate is timely, as the Government are drafting their White Paper and our constituents are e-mailing us asking for a more friendly interface between cycle and rail. It is also timely, because London is preparing to host the start of the Tour de France on 6 July.

I was interested to read in Hansard an earlier debate on this subject, at the end of which the responding Minister said:

“I hope that we shall return to this subject many times in the future and that this debate will have the effect of encouraging Ministries and local authorities to adopt a forward-looking policy.”

That debate was in 1975, and the Minister, Denis Howell, was replying to an Adjournment debate initiated by the then hon. Member for Ealing, Acton. I am delighted to see my successor-but-two, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush (Mr. Slaughter), in his place this morning.

At that time, I was also the chairman of the all-party group on cycling. In the intervening 32 years, I have progressed to become a patron of that august group. I am sure that I was not nearly as active a chairman as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has been in putting forward a programme for parliamentary colleagues. We did, however, start a parliamentary cycling pool in the 1970s, to encourage back on to two wheels Members who had lost the habit of cycling and did not want the hassle of buying and maintaining a bicycle. The pool had a large number of members, who each got a key to a box in the Members’ cloakroom. In the box they would find another key to a padlock, which gave access to a bicycle on which they could be let loose on the streets of London. The pool encouraged a large number of Members back on to two wheels, but it was not an unmitigated success because many bicycles migrated to Members’ constituencies and we never saw them again. In 1979, anticipating the Thatcher reforms, I privatised the cycle pool and sold it off to its members.

The 1975 debate was answered not by a Transport Minister, but the Minister for Sport, which reflects that cycling was then seen more as a recreation than as a valid means of transport. In that debate, the villain of the piece was British Rail. Like the hon. Member for Battersea, I had a shopping list of requests, one of which was for

“a bicycle unit within the Department of the Environment…which could advise local authorities, British Rail and others on measures to encourage cycling.”

The Minister replied:

“I cannot accede to the request that my Department should set up a separate cycling advisory unit.”

Happily, we have had alternative Administrations in the meantime, and that particular deficiency has been put right.

I went on to ask for a cycling allowance. I said that if the Minister wanted a trial scheme,

“he could start with Members of Parliament, many of whom need some gentle daily exercise to keep them in proper condition.”

The Minister replied:

“Speaking on behalf of 98 per cent. of hon. Members who find the present mileage allowance totally inadequate to cover the cost of driving their cars on parliamentary business, I must say that I cannot encourage the hon. Gentleman in that direction.”

He also said,

“I do not think that hon. Members generally would support that proposition.”

Of course, we now have a cycling allowance, although I have never claimed it. I hope that the Minister who is responding today has a different speech writer from the one who drafted the ministerial reply back in 1975.

I also asked for cycle routes through the Royal parks and for cyclists to have a head start over cars at traffic lights, and I am happy that some progress has been made in those areas. I then had a go at the specific subject of this morning’s debate—cycle-rail integration. I said:

“No debate on improved facilities for the cyclist would be complete without paying tribute to British Rail’s fearless campaign to keep bicycles from its stations and off its trains.”

I went on to mention inadequate parking facilities, high tariffs and inadequate carriage facilities—some of which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea today—but I made little headway. At that time, British Rail was, of course, a nationalised industry. However, in his reply the Minister said:

“Thankfully, the Government have no responsibility for the individual management policy of British Railways. I have very little hope or confidence in an organisation which forces the travelling public to drink coffee out of cardboard cups”. —[Official Report, 11 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 1018-30.]

He then invited me to approach British Rail directly myself to see whether I might make better progress. It is a paradox that Ministers appear to have more control over the now privatised rail industry than they had over the nationalised industry some 30 years ago.

This morning, we need to outline some short-term measures, as the hon. Gentleman has already done, and some medium-term measures. In the short term, we need clarity, certainty and, where possible, consistency. We need clarity as to what the rules are and to be able to find that information easily. I accept that those rules might have to vary between train operating companies in the short term, depending on their capacity and the configuration of rolling stock.

We need certainty that when a traveller is told that he can take his bicycle on a train, he can do so, rather than getting there and being told by the conductor that he cannot. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need the ramps that he mentioned.

In the medium term, we should consider rolling stock and franchise agreements with a view to tilting the terms of trade more towards the cycling railway traveller. We need more flexible rolling stock in which seats can be tipped up to make more space for bicycles. We need more cycle-hire facilities at main railway stations and more convenient cycle racks. At Waterloo, one has to walk halfway to Clapham Junction, along platform 12, to access the cycle racks. As franchise agreements are redrafted and train operating companies are invited to bid, the Minister would do well to insert into those agreements some of the items on the CTC’s shopping list, which indicates how we might make progress.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on at least one item on that shopping list. Some 10 years ago, a small sum of money was available within the Department as part of something called cycle challenge. People could bid for that money to develop innovative cycling schemes to promote cycling. That encouraged best practice and brought forward a wide range of ideas. The CTC has talked about a cycle-rail innovation fund. I do not think that it matters particularly what such a model is called, but it is a useful model that the Department might consider to raise the profile of this issue, put some money on the table and encourage exciting new ideas.

My final plea is for the tandem rider. If the cyclist has been gently persecuted by the railways for decades, the tandem rider has been martyred. My wife and I had to ride an extra 20 miles one day, because the conductor would not allow a tandem on a train that allowed bicycles. I therefore join the hon. Member for Battersea in not ignoring tricycles, trailers and the rest. The challenge confronting the Minister is in unlocking potential. We do not want to make people cycle to the station, but many people would like to if it were easier, safer and more convenient. That is what we need to do. I cannot guarantee that I will still be here in 32 years, but I hope that any debate on this issue in 2039 will be able to point to this debate as the time when the campaign to promote better cycle-rail integration really took off.

09:59:00

Emily Thornberry (Islington, South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) on securing this debate. On paper, this may seem a minor technical subject, but it definitely is not. People say that they use their cars because it is convenient to do so and because they get a door-to-door service, but a proper mixture of bikes and trains would be the alternative door-to-door service—it makes perfect sense.

Last year, one of the most heavily supported early-day motions was one that I tabled on behalf of the all-party group on cycling. It was on bike-rail integration and was signed by 170 Members. How will we go about getting such integration? I speak as the chair of the all-party group, which has been working with the Cyclists Touring Club and the London Cycling Campaign to promote bike-rail integration in the hope that it will receive serious consideration in the various policy papers that the Department for Transport is planning to publish this summer. We believe that this is a great opportunity to improve our transport system.

Over the past few weeks, many hon. Members have met local cyclists—I see that many of the Members concerned are present—and undertaken an audit of the state of their local station’s parking facilities for cyclists; I know that many hon. Members have been very shocked.

I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is present. He is a former chair of the all-party group and one of the first to campaign on proper cycle-rail infrastructure. I understand what he says about how bad things were in the past, but inconsistency has increased since the privatisation of the railways.

Recent questions from various hon. Members have elicited a response from the Department that suggests that it is awaiting a report from Cycling England on the role of cycle-rail integration. I hope that the report will be useful and will provide support, but I would suggest to the Minister that Cycling England was never intended to be an advisory body; it was meant to be a body that delivered improvements for cycling, rather than a policy body first and foremost. Perhaps Cycling England would be best off if it were provided with a special cycle-rail innovation fund. That could build on existing best practice and test new ideas.

Personal car use has increased significantly in the past 20 years, and while the majority of households have access to cars, a significant minority—nearly 50 per cent. in my constituency—do not. Transport alternatives to the private car must be provided, both for the sake of social inclusion and for the wider agenda of reducing car use for all the environmental, health and road-safety benefits that doing so will bring.

Cycling and the railways could play a much greater role than they do. As has been said, 60 per cent. of UK households are within a 15-minute cycle ride of a station, but according to the Department’s statistics, just 2 to 3 per cent. of all rail trips include cycling in the journey. Part of the problem is the structure of the rail network. Train operating companies arbitrarily choose cycle policies. There seems to be no rhyme or reason behind them. Such policies are often supported by ludicrous franchise agreements with the Department—yes, I said ludicrous.

I shall give an example of that. First ScotRail agreed to provide cycle parking at every station. People might think that a laudable aim, until they realise that stations such as Corrour in Lochaber are included. It has no road access and no permanent inhabitants within 8 miles of it, yet it has four cycle parking stands.

Network Rail, which ultimately owns the system, leases stations and car parks back to the train operating companies, but will not allow them to remove car parking spaces, even for cycle parking, without a formal agreement and penalty clause. That is hardly a supportive structure for cycling.

I want to pick out three different types of rail passengers, who represent most of the traffic on the network: commuters; long-distance business travellers; and tourists. Each of the passenger types could benefit in different ways from improved bike-rail integration. Commuters are presently the heaviest users of the rail network—half of all trips on the railways are commuting trips—and in recent years the large increases in both rail users and cyclists in London have led to the imposition by train operating companies of peak-time bans. As we have heard, that policy was agreed by the Strategic Rail Authority in its cycling policy, recently reissued by the Department.

I understand that trains running in excess of capacity cannot really allow cyclists to take up what would otherwise be standing space for commuters, but the bans are inflexible and fail to offer an alternative. They vary greatly between six-hour daily bans in all directions on Southern and four-hour bans on First Great Western. Southeastern, which is run by the same company as Southern, has recently decided to ban all cyclists from its trains during the three days of the Tour de France. That is hardly supportive of cyclists and it hardly encourages cycling.

Many commuters have resorted to buying small-wheeled folding cycles, such as Bromptons, a practice which has been promoted by the operating companies. Why is there such a demand for commuters to carry their cycles on trains? The simple reason is that there is nowhere to leave bikes at stations. In Holland, there are similar blanket bans on cycle carriage before 9 am, but they do not stop many more cyclists using the railways. In fact, up to a third of all passengers in Holland get to the station by bicycle, the difference being that it has adequate parking facilities, whereas we do not.

In a presentation that I attended six months ago, the Dutch national rail company explained how a small station in Holland could put in 1,000 bike parking spaces. Even Britain’s most successfully integrated bike-rail station, York, has just 1,000 spaces. If we could just make more effort, we could provide many more spaces. The bike parking spaces in all of the London mainline terminals add up to less than 1,000. If commuters were offered plentiful and secure cycle parking at stations, they would not feel such a strong need to carry their bikes with them everywhere. I know that improvements have occurred at regional stations. In 2003, the Department started a project that brought in an additional 2,500 cycle parking spaces. Those spaces are greatly welcome, but we must remember the figure of 1,000 such spaces for one tiny station in Holland.

Franchise agreements have brought some improvements. First Capital Connect, which run trains in my constituency, has a commitment in its latest franchise to spend £100,000 on cycle parking in 33 stations. Unfortunately, the Department has not specified which stations should be included or what the quality of the parking should be. First Capital Connect has decided to concentrate on those stations where cycle use is already high and where facilities will be covered by CCTV.

Cyclists should be confident that when they leave a bike at a station it will still be there when they come back, but, unfortunately, cycle crime is soaring at our stations. Whereas motor vehicle crime at stations has fallen by 50 per cent. since 2000, reported theft or vandalism of bicycles has increased by almost 80 per cent. Nearly all of that crime—3,000 instances a year—is in London and the south-east. I wrote on behalf of the all-party group to British Transport police asking why they thought that that worrying trend was occurring. They say that it is because of the increase in cycling witnessed in London. I would say that that is right, but that the problem could be tackled. I believe that the trend results from the failure of Network Rail and the train operating companies to provide decent facilities.

If we are to encourage cyclists to leave their bicycles at stations, we need to provide them with secure parking and ensure that their bike is still there when they get back. Six out of 10 people who have had a bike stolen do not immediately go back to cycling, but instead return to driving, thus reducing revenues for the train operator, with all the resulting environmental problems.

While the bans on peak-time cycle carriage spring from the train operating companies, the solution to the problem—providing adequate parking—is stalled by another, entirely unrelated, organisation, Network Rail. Of course, it is in neither of their interests to help one another, so we have the ridiculous example of South West Trains, which has excellent cycle parking facilities at many of its stations, running trains to Waterloo, the UK’s busiest station, where cycle parking facilities are terrible. When I once tried to park my bike at Waterloo I was nearly knocked over by a taxi. The facilities are dangerous, badly looked after, not secure and full of abandoned bicycles.

Martin Linton
Clapham Junction is the UK’s busiest station.

Emily Thornberry
I stand corrected, but I would be interested to hear what the state of Clapham Junction’s bike parking is.

The authorities at Waterloo have recently started removing some of those bikes, but the poor layout is as bad as it ever has been. I am sure that many cyclists would be prepared to pay a small charge to ensure that their bikes are still where they left them when they come back.

In Holland, 90 out of 387 cycle shelters are guarded. They offer secure parking and repair facilities at low cost in co-operation with bike shops and local councils. The automated and secure cycle storage area at Finsbury Park costs 50p for 24 hours, which is much cheaper than a single return tube fare and things are just as fast. Such schemes should be replicated in the central London terminals. Transport for London has even offered funding for schemes at mainline stations, but Network Rail has turned it down. I am told that the Minister could provide a structure through something called the high level output specification, which would make Network Rail treat passengers and cyclists better. If that is right, will the Minister please do it?

No one would allow a dead car to sit around in a station car park for months, not least because of the lost revenue, so why are abandoned bicycles allowed to remain for so long? They should be removed regularly and recycled to local groups. First Capital Connect has agreed to do exactly that in the stations that it controls—good for them, but why do not other stations and other companies do that? Let us start with Network Rail.

In Britain, many business men and women are unlikely to want to turn up at a meeting having travelled on a train, but there are some. We hope that the culture is changing, and that more business people will be able to make longer journeys, so why do not we provide a network of flexible cycle hire schemes. One scheme in operation in west London allows people to borrow a bicycle by mobile phone. Again, and perhaps inevitably, the Dutch are way ahead of us with almost 100 stations offering cycle hire facilities. The bikes are bright blue and are standardised throughout the country, and the facilities are operated by the Dutch equivalent of Network Rail. It is unimaginable that Network Rail would do that, but it should be pressed to. It costs only €3 a day to hire the bikes with a smartcard and, guess what, in Holland, half of all customers are business people, who go to meetings by bike, which they hire at stations when they have meetings out of town. A similar scheme could be trialled by Cycling England through a cycle-rail innovation fund. Will the Minister please consider that?

My final category is tourists. Rail users should be able to carry their bicycles on trains for short distances outside the rush hour, just as they can carry any other large object. They should be able to turn up without reservations and be able to put their bikes on the train. Hon. Members have made suggestions about how that could be done. I will not repeat what they said, but it is not rocket science. I simply ask that, whatever is done to integrate bike and train, it should not be bolted on afterwards as an afterthought. It should be designed into all new rolling stock at an early stage and should be integral in trains so that we know where we are, and it should be standardised. Without help, I would not have had the faintest idea of what South West Trains’ class 455 rolling stock is, but I have been enlightened and have even been shown photographs. The refurbishment is a joy to behold. It was carried out in consultation with cycling organisations and meets cyclists’ needs perfectly. It is not rocket science. It can be done and it should be done.

On long-distance services, the location of the cycle carriage should be displayed clearly on the platform, and someone should tell the platform staff where it is. The reservation structure should be clear and flexible because there are many stupid examples of where it breaks down.

First ScotRail offers bargain berth tickets on its Caledonian sleepers, which I know the Minister is well acquainted with, but those tickets can be booked only online. If he wanted to travel with his bicycle he could book his ticket online, but the only way to put his bike on the train would be by making a reservation in any way other than online.

A constituent of mine, Mr. Bankes Jones, had planned a surfing trip to Devon and did not want to drive. Two days before travelling, he booked his ticket online, but he could not book a bike space through the same medium. After being transferred from organisation to organisation by phone, he finally acquired a reference number, but not a ticket. At Paddington, ticket staff found that the reference number was wrong and that the reservation had been made out to a Mr. Bonkers. After all that fuss, no one bothered to check his reservation on the train. On his return trip, after four days’ surfing, he found waiting for him at home a reservation for the first leg of his journey in the name of Mr. Bonkoes.

Cycle-rail integration in this country has failed to keep up with the increase in the number of people and the quality of service that has been achieved on the rail network. Instead of trying to force cyclists off trains at every opportunity, we should encourage them to use trains by providing better parking and flexible carriage space, or cycle hire at major stations. I have spoken today as chair of the as all-party cycling group and have tried to take an overview of the problem, so I have not addressed particular issues in my constituency, such as the inadequate planning at Farringdon to cope with Crossrail, or Kings Cross and St Pancras or Highbury Corner. I would have liked to have time to draw the House's attention to some of the outstanding examples of good practice, such as the great work at York station. Although I have taken the mickey out of Scotrail, I wish that other train operating companies were more like it.

Northern Rail and Merseyrail should also be mentioned in dispatches. There are experts out there, and I hope that the Department will take the time to learn from them, and that this summer's policy publications will provide a framework whereby more than just voluntary codes and supportive gestures are offered to cyclists using the rail network. If there were only two messages I could give to the Minister they would be to beef up the franchise agreements on cycling and to force Network Rail to take cycling seriously now.

10:15:00

Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) on securing this important debate. I have two bicycles: one in London for commuting to and from the House of Commons, and one in York. I take my bikes on the train between London and York, usually when a major service is needed. I am sure that there are people in London who do excellent servicing of bikes, but when one finds a good provider, one tends to stick with him, and that is what I have done. My supplier for major servicing of bikes is in York.

Because I use two stations, I can compare and contrast. There is no doubt that facilities for cyclists are a great deal better at York. We have not 1,000 parking places—unless the railings that people tie their bicycles to are included in addition to parking stands—but 450. Waterloo is one of the busiest railway stations in the country and deals with 480,000 passengers a day, but I am told that it has only 200 parking spaces for bicycles. The station is run by Network Rail, which is bidding for authority to manage York station. I would rather see the station’s management rest with the operator of the east coast main line service. The current operator, GNER, has invested heavily in the station for cyclists and other purposes, and it has a strong commitment to its flagship station.

If Network Rail is serious about its bid to take over York, it should be serious about improving cycling provision at all its stations, including York, because although 450 spaces may sound a lot, it is not enough. Sometimes, it is difficult to find somewhere to park my bicycle because the racks are full, despite GNER adding 100 or so extra spaces every couple of years. The cycle parking area is conveniently situated for GNER trains to London, but not for daily commuters from York to West Yorkshire. Whoever runs the station in future should put some cycle parking racks there.

Cycle hire is also available at York station, although it is rather expensive compared with the cost of hiring bicycles at railway stations in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, it is available and I congratulate Europcar, which operates the concession. There is also secure overnight storage for cycles, which people pay for, and that highlights the security problem. My bicycle is tatty and old enough not to be attractive to thieves, but some people have bikes that cost hundreds of pounds, and sometimes more. They need to be kept secure, so security for cycle parking at stations is as important as the provision of cycle parking.

Other things need to be changed at York in addition to the amount of cycle parking. We have a good network of cycle lanes and paths in and around York, but they do not connect directly to the station. It would be relatively easy to connect to the station, because one of the cycle paths runs beside the River Ouse, which is almost next to the station. There should be collaboration between the station manager, Network Rail or the east coast operator, and City of York council to make that connection.

Turning to the White Paper, will the Minister consider introducing a common system for booking? Cyclists who use trains are confused, because each train operator has a different system. Some require reservations, others do not; some charge, others do not; some take a large number of cycles, others will not; and some let cyclists take their bicycles on the train during rush hour, while others do not. When the railways were privatised some 14 years ago, one criticism of the privatisation plan was that it would lead to fragmentation. One area of fragmentation is the range of different services that different train operators provide for cyclists, and I hope that the White Paper will propose a common regime.

When a rolling stock company or anybody else designs a new railway carriage, they should aim from the start to meet the needs of cyclists as a matter of standard practice. As part of the brief for the east coast main line refranchising, would-be franchisees must trial and prove in-service some new trains, which will replace the InterCity 125 rolling stock, one of the fleets of trains in use on the east coast line. I welcome that brief, but I ask the Minister whether the design for the new fleet of trains has examined how serviceable and usable they will be for cyclists.

I have had the same problem as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I, too, have found it difficult to get my bike into the guard’s van on an inter-city train and return to my carriage during the time that the train is stopped at a station. The difficulty with GNER’s current trains is that one has to wait until a member of staff arrives with a key to unlock the guard’s van. They have to wait while one secures one’s bike, they relock the van, and then one has to return to one’s carriage. It is a cumbersome and labour-intensive way of loading and unloading bicycles, and the new fleet of trains ought to be more easily accessible to cyclists.

There ought to be more provision for bicycles in the guard’s van, too. With better design, one could fit in many more bicycles. There would be fewer occasions on which cyclists were turned away because all the available storage space in the guard’s van had been taken. The same points apply to commuter trains. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has pointed out that if there were a reasonable number of folding seats on commuter trains, in off-peak times it would be possible simply to wheel on a bicycle and to hold it during a short journey from one station to another. It is not a solution for inter-city trains, but it is clearly possible for commuter trains. I should like the White Paper to stipulate bicycle accommodation in the design and commissioning of all new passenger rolling stock.

Northern Rail is, to its credit, the first UK operator to set up a proper cycle users’ forum and to produce a cycling strategy. It is an important step forward. However, it is a shame that other train operators have not followed suit, and it should be a requirement of all train operators.

I had a puncture recently on the Strand. It was late at night, I had been to the theatre and I wanted to repair the puncture at home in Victoria. I do not know what the law says about taking bicycles on buses, but very nicely, the bus driver let me take my bike on the bus, which saved me wheeling it for half an hour until I got home. I do not know whether he was bending the rules, but since more and more buses are designed for buggy and wheelchair access, one ought to be able to take one’s bicycle on buses, too.

I wrote to the Minister a few weeks ago about the White Paper. I hope for a positive reply to my letter, and I hope for a positive reply to this morning’s debate.

10:25:00

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) on securing this very interesting debate, and I congratulate the other Members present on their important contributions. I was particularly interested in the contribution of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who reminded us that in 32 years, not an awful lot has changed with trains and bicycles.

I do not intend to repeat what other Members have said, particularly as they know a great deal more about bicycling and rail than I do. However, I shall make a few suggestions. I am aware that the Minister is a cyclist; indeed, shortly after he was appointed to his current post, the first event that he and I attended was the national cycle-rail awards.

We all accept that the policy that was written by the Strategic Rail Authority and adopted several years ago is not working. There are more than 30 rail operating companies, but there is no clarity or uniformity. People are not encouraged to use bicycles to travel to railway stations, to put them on the train or to use them when they arrive at their destination. The policy must be rewritten urgently, and I agree with the suggestion from the hon. Member for Battersea that a UK cycle forum should be established. One of its first tasks should be to ensure that there is a uniform policy.

The Department for Transport is reviewing many regional and national networks. The review has recently been extended to include the provision of parking and CCTV at rail stations. I have read the document for Greater Manchester, and in the rail utilisation strategy, proper plans have been drawn up to ensure adequate parking and CCTV at our rail stations. I put it to the Minister that one immediate extension that he could make to the strategy would be to ensure that the review included provisions for cyclists.

I accept and understand that the number of bikes that can be accommodated on today’s heavily overcrowded trains will be strictly limited. I understand CTC’s wish to increase the number of bikes that can be accommodated on a train, but the number is likely to be limited. However, if we can develop policies so that people can leave and hire bikes at all main railway stations, we will encourage more people to travel by bike and unite bikes with rail travel. The White Paper is an opportunity to include that policy, and the ordering of additional carriages is an opportunity to ensure that it is built in.

Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) asked the Minister about the Department’s assessment of local transport plans’ inclusion of cycling. As expected, the response was that all local authorities are expected and encouraged to include cycling as part of their plans. That stops at the railway station. There is no point encouraging local authorities to develop cycle routes and get more people on bikes if there is nowhere safe for cycles at major transport interchanges. That point was brought home to me last week at Rochdale station. I bumped into someone who had left their bike for a few minutes and returned to find that it had been nicked during that time. We will simply not encourage people to travel by bike to stations if there is no secure storage.

The debate is about rail and cycle integration. That is the correct terminology. I hope that the Minister will take hon. Members’ comments on board and that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire will not have to wait another 32 years before we see some progress.

10:31:00

Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I welcome this important debate, which was excellently introduced by the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton). In her role as the chairman of the all-party cycling group, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) was right to commend cycling as healthy and environmentally friendly and, often, as the easiest way of getting to our destinations or the railway station.

In the course of my research for this debate, I found that there are an estimated 22 million bicycles in Britain and that an estimated 60 per cent. of the population live within a 15-minute ride of a railway station. However, the proportion of all rail journeys that start with cycling, as opposed to car, bus or walking, is only 1 per cent. Internationally, that figure is extraordinarily low. The Department for Transport has stated in a number of policy documents that it wants cycling to be integrated with public transport. The rail operators say that they are keen to encourage cyclists. A number of lobbying campaigns, such as the London Cycling Campaign, grownupgreen and others, have pushed the need for bike-rail integration in particular.

How can we make our rate of 1 per cent. of rail journeys starting with cycling more akin to the international norm? The hon. Member for Battersea talked about the rate in other countries and rightly mentioned Denmark, with 35 per cent., and the Netherlands, with 38 per cent. Even Germany has achieved 15 per cent., which is a relatively new and modest movement. A number of other hon. Members who have spoken broke the analysis into two parts. First, how do we encourage more people on the journey to and from the station? Secondly, how do we get more facilities for cyclists on trains?

Unfortunately, the journey to and from the station has become a problem in a number of instances. As a local councillor before becoming a Member of Parliament, I remember Transport for London saying that it would introduce measures to encourage cyclists to get to stations. Unfortunately, many of the processes have not been undertaken with proper consultation. For instance, TFL proposed a 20 per cent. increase in my constituency, but it was then told that that was unrealistic and that the modal shift was more likely to be 3 or 4 per cent. Also, TFL forgot, first, that its great idea was a contraflow cycle lane up the middle of the Broadway, which quickly became known colloquially in Wimbledon as the wall of death and was never introduced. Secondly—and most importantly, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned—was the failure in the plan to provide secure cycle parking places at Wimbledon station. Those were the obvious reasons why that plan failed. I am therefore pleased to see that the operator and TFL have had another go since, and that there has been an increase in the provision of cycle parking at Wimbledon station.

Cycle access to stations is clearly space-efficient, too. We live in a country with a high density of population. Car parking is always likely to be restricted, so the more that we can do to make cycle parking at stations available, convenient and secure, the better. The key point is security. Several hon. Members have talked about cycle theft, including the hon. Lady. In many cases, cycle parking seems to be about just putting a rack of stands outside the station. That is simply not good enough. Why should cyclists place one of their most precious assets on a rack of stands outside a station where there is no security?

If cycle parking is to be done properly, it must be protected outside stations by CCTV or, more properly, it should be in a secure area or a locked room within the bounds of the station. The simple provision of racks is not enough. It will not satisfy the cycling lobby and I am sure that it will not satisfy the Minister, either. Equally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) mentioned in his example of Waterloo station, the racks should be convenient. Cyclists should not be penalised by having to walk miles and miles to collect their bikes. The whole point is that if we are to encourage more rail journeys to start with cycling, we must make it easier for cyclists so to do.

I have been particularly struck by what is included in the local transport plans. Should not safe cycle routes to stations be considered essential prerequisites in those plans? The Minister will of course be aware of the Sustrans “Safe Routes to Stations” initiative, which involves developing safe and direct routes that link town centres, business districts and residential areas with stations, and give cyclists and walkers priority over traffic. The initiative also involves converting flights of stairs to runways, which the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) mentioned, so that steps at stations are easier to overcome. The Sustrans campaign aims to upgrade 30 stations a year. It is a laudable scheme and we should support it. Indeed, it has support from the Government, local authorities and the rail industry.

However, can we not do something to ensure that that initiative is speeded up? One way to do that would be to encourage local authorities to include those proposals in their local transport plans. Will the Minister be able to give some indication today of what the Government intend to do to further the increase of cycling to stations? Will the Government make some statements in their announcement on the high-level output specification or in the White Paper, which are due in the near future, on how they might encourage local authorities, Network Rail and the rail operating companies to write into schemes that cyclists and their parking should be protected at stations? Might the Government also consider prescribing that provision in franchise renegotiations or, as I have suggested several times before, in the next round of funding associated with the local transport plan phase 2 or the transport innovation fund? I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.

Several hon. Members have already mentioned the cycle hire schemes that are available, which we should also encourage. Cycle hire schemes in this country have suffered previously from a lack of trust and, frankly, from theft. The onset of mobile technology has made schemes both practical and practicable on rail journeys and in cities. Anything that we can do to encourage local authorities to place such schemes alongside city car schemes should also be encouraged, and I hope that the Minister will give us some encouragement on that.

The journey to the rail station is only one part of the journey. If we are to see more bike-rail integration, we must focus on the second part of that, the facilities on trains for cyclists. If we are to be honest, the current reality is that cyclists are seen almost as a nuisance. As has been said in a number of contributions, many of the TOCs have banned cycles on peak services. Also, the design of many—but not all—modern rail carriages has reduced space for bikes. What we need to see from the operating companies and the rolling stock companies, in conjunction with the Government, is a change in attitude, as well as a change in practice.

That is actually quite easy to achieve. I cited the example of Germany earlier. Less than 10 years ago, Deutsche Bahn actively promoted and encouraged what it called the bike-rail option. The company set up a bicycle hotline to answer questions about cycling, rail travel and reservations and introduced a complete “bike and Bahn” procedure and website, which provide information on which services carry bicycles. Interestingly, the company has in the past 10 years doubled the number of bikes carried on trains per annum. It has also required new rolling stock to carry more cycles. The same is true of the Swiss railway company SBB, which was the first in the world to produce a rail-cycle co-ordinator, and that is key.

A number of TOCs recognise the needs that we are discussing. The train operator One, formerly Anglia Railways, has had a comprehensive pro-bike strategy for the past decade and has increased the number of people using bikes. There has been approximately a 15 per cent. use of bike rides in East Anglia. That is consistent with one or two of the international examples: management persistence and the appointment of a project manager so that cyclists have dedicated services and know where they have to go.

One is by no means the only TOC to have done such a thing. If we want further integration of bike and rail services, the key is the provision of information from the TOCs. What services carry bikes, and where are the spaces? What can be reserved? The appointment of a bike-rail co-ordinator by the TOCs would be a sensible, small measure that would make serious inroads into the problem. The issue could be addressed easily with little financial consequence.

As has been stated, the big challenge for the railways is that of capacity. However, that does not mean that cyclists’ interests should be forgotten. Modern train design has tended to leave relatively little space dedicated for cyclists. The hon. Lady cited the example of the new class A on South West Trains services; only recently, I used it with one of my cyclist constituents and was impressed by it. We need to recognise that in future negotiations the design and conditions of the carriages need to be cycle-friendly and cycle-dedicated. I hope that the Minister will discuss what he is doing to force ongoing discussions with TOCs and ROSCOs to ensure that any new carriage orders will take that on board.

Finally, I should like to mention the laudable safer cycling campaign launched by the Evening Standard. Clearly, there has been a huge increase in cycling in London since 2003, but still only one fiftieth of London journeys are made by cycle. If we consider that only 1 per cent. of those are journeys to the railway station, we see what a small percentage that is and what more could be done. I was particularly encouraged that in its campaign, the Evening Standard isolated the issue of bike-rail integration, which we are discussing this morning. It made the point that adequate bike parking was needed at railway stations. I hope that in its articles on safer cycling in London, the paper will make as big an issue of the need for safer cycling and secure cycling places at railway stations as it has of the need for manning stations in the evening and other campaigns. That would be a huge step forward in London, and I commend the Evening Standard on its campaign and wish it well.

To encourage bike-rail integration and increase the number of rail journeys that start on a bike, we need the three s’s: safe routes to stations, secure parking at stations and spaces on trains available and dedicated to bikes. That should be the underlying principle. I commend the hon. Member for Battersea on having secured this fascinating debate and look forward to the Government’s response to the issues that have been raised.

10:44:00

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tom Harris)
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) for initiating this debate and giving me my first opportunity to speak in the House on this part of my remit. There have been many debates in this Chamber on the rail side of my remit, and I hope that today’s debate will finish with a more consensual and friendly mood than some of those previous debates have.

I shall begin by referring to comments that have already been made. My hon. Friend talked eloquently about the case for improved rail-cycle integration. He mentioned the need for wheeling ramps at stations. I trust his judgment that that would be a relatively cheap innovation at stations. I understand his cynicism in anticipating a negative response from Network Rail. I intend to seek a response from the company and shall keep him and other Members present informed of it. I accept that such ramps seem a fairly straightforward—and, I hope, cheap—solution to the problem that my hon. Friend raised.

However, my hon. Friend equated the need for capacity to carry cycles on trains with the needs of wheelchair users and parents with prams. I hope that he will forgive me if I suggest that that argument is difficult to make for various reasons. I would not say to a wheelchair user that he or she had the choice of whether to bring their wheelchair on a train. However, it is arguable, although not in every case, that those taking their bikes on a train do so as a matter of choice. I do not mean that as a point of principle or policy, but I hope that my hon. Friend will at least recognise that the circumstances are different and not immediately comparable.

Martin Linton
I do not say that the two sets of circumstances are socially or morally equivalent, merely that there is an equivalence. Often disabled people do not catch a train if they are not confident that they can get their wheelchairs on. Parents of young children will not catch a train unless they can be certain of getting the buggy on it. It is also true that many who want to cycle to the station, take their bikes on the train and cycle to work will leave their bikes at home if they cannot be certain that there will be a place for them on the train. There is an equivalence in that sense: each of those groups is dependent on space on the train to be able to make their journeys.

Mr. Harris
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point and am grateful for that clarification.

Emily Thornberry
Is my hon. Friend aware that the mobility of some people is restricted, given that they find it difficult to walk and easier to get around if they can use a mixture of train and bike? They can cycle further than they could ever walk. I appreciate that such people are a tiny minority, but bikes are a mobility aid for them.

Mr. Harris
That is why I deliberately qualified my comments and said that someone who cycled would not in every case necessarily have the option of not cycling.

Like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea talked about the need for a national, uniform policy on cycle-rail integration. My hon. Friend said that for a start all TOCs should be forced to accommodate at least 10 bikes—per train, I imagine. I shall come back to that. He also talked about the need for a cycle-rail forum. I assume from that that he is to a certain extent unhappy with the work being done by Cycling England, with the train operating companies, on behalf of the Department for Transport. I am very satisfied with how Cycling England is operating and shall be happy to comment later on the progress that it has made.

I am delighted that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is present. I regularly see him coming up Millbank on his bike of a morning as I pass in my ministerial car; that is more a confession than anything else. The right hon. Gentleman said that the paradox was that I seemed to have more control over train operating companies than my predecessor had over British railways when they were nationalised. As a former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Gentleman is informed about many areas of rail policy, but I caution him not to believe everything he reads in Conservative central office press releases. The influence that I have over train operating companies is certainly far less than that which Rail Ministers—or indeed Sports Ministers—had over British Rail in 1975.

The right hon. Gentleman talked of the need for a cycle challenge fund. Many of the outputs that he would anticipate from such an innovation are already being achieved through the cycling demonstrating towns that Cycling England is promoting. I am happy to say more about that later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has talked extremely passionately on the subject, not only in the House but to me over coffee in Portcullis House on a number of occasions, and I listen carefully to what she says as she is extremely knowledgeable: she is not only a cycle user but chair of the all-party group on cycling. I look forward to joining her and other colleagues on the annual Westminster cycle run, which I think will be next month. She mentioned that Southeastern Trains has decided to ban all cyclists from its trains during the Tour de France. That was raised with me on Friday by a member of the Cyclists’ Touring Club. I understand that that is not actually the case and that Southeastern Trains—I am prepared to be corrected—was approached by the organisers and asked to lift its existing restrictions on cyclists, and that it refused to accede to that request. Without commenting on that decision, I suggest that that is not the same as introducing a new ban on all cycles during the Tour de France.

My hon. Friend might want to clarify the point, but she criticised First Capital Connect for installing new bike parking at stations that already had CCTV coverage. She suggested that perhaps the Department for Transport should have specified the locations for the new cycle parking and went on to express concern about the increase in bike crime. I do not have an in-depth knowledge of First Capital Connect’s policy, but it seems sensible that if any train operating company is going to try to combat the increase in cycle crime and cycle theft, it should install new cycle parking where it is most secure. It seems that the best place would be in areas that were already covered by CCTV.

Emily Thornberry
I agree absolutely, and I agree that simply installing a cycle rack is not sufficient. My concern was that the contract with the Department seemed somewhat random: the company was given a lump sum of money and told to introduce a certain number of cycle parking places and it was left to it to decide what standard of parking to have and at which stations to introduce it. That was the point that I was making—the contract did not appear to have been agreed in any strategic way. It could be criticised as a case of simply, “Let’s tick that box; we have provided that amount of cycle parking.”

Mr. Harris
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I am more comfortable allowing train operating companies to make their own operational decisions about where cycle parking is best placed. I have nowhere near the depth of knowledge that First Capital Connect does, for example, about the level of demand for cycle parking at any of its stations. I accept that my hon. Friend’s concern is genuine.

My hon. Friend asked about the HLOS—the high level output specification, for the uninitiated—which will be announced in July. The HLOS is specifically about high level outputs, so it will not talk in detail about policy to support the amount of money that the Government will spend over 2008-14. However, alongside the HLOS we will publish a 30-year rail strategy, which will discuss some of the issues about rail and cycle integration about which my hon. Friend is concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) talked about the design of new rolling stock, and of course the Department is involved in the design and delivery of the new inter-city express programme. It is at a very early stage at this point, but I will take what he has said back with me. He talked about bikes on buses, and I am afraid that I will not be able to illuminate him very much on that point. I am delighted that the bus driver was able to bend the rules—I suspect that he was bending the bus at the same time. My hon. Friend mentioned that he had been at the theatre, and I am intrigued to know which theatres in central London have bike parking. That seems an excellent innovation.

The hon. Member for Rochdale inadvertently misinterpreted the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I think. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that in 32 years nothing has changed, which is what the hon. Gentleman thought that he said. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was being far more post-ironic.

The hon. Gentleman suggested, as other hon. Members have, a uniform policy on cycling. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea suggested the same thing. We have 20 or more rolling stock companies, a number of different types of rolling stock—inter-city, commuter and everything in between—different capacity challenges at different parts of the network and different areas are served, whether they are urban, suburban or rural. It would therefore be incredibly difficult, even if the Government were so-minded, to impose a standard access policy for cycle-rail integration throughout the network. I shall have to disappoint colleagues from both sides of the House—the Government do not plan to enforce a uniform policy—

Paul Rowen
Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Harris
I have four minutes left, and so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I try to make some progress.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) talked about local transport plans and safe cycle routes to stations. The Government encourage train operating companies to work closely with highways authorities to ensure that that is exactly what happens.

I know from my postbag at the Department, as Minister for both cycling and rail, that many cyclists are passionate about the subject and we are working hard to try to integrate such modes of transport. I want to take the opportunity to confirm our overall cycling policy. Let me first establish what that policy is, because that will help to put our bike and rail policy into context.

Many people have an interest in cycling whether they cycle now or not. Most of us have cycled at some time—since becoming the Minister with responsibility for cycling, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, I have been seen on a bike on a number of occasions. I am not sure that I would go quite as far as to say that I am a cyclist, but I have certainly been seen on a bike. As you can see from my badge, Mrs. Humble, I successfully passed my stage 3 Bikeability course a number of weeks ago. I encourage all hon. Members to do so, particularly the hon. Member for Wimbledon—of course, he is not the cycling spokesperson for his party, but perhaps he will encourage his shadow colleagues to take it up. I am more than happy to organise that for him and to arrange for the media coverage.

The Government want to encourage people to cycle more, but how do we turn non-cyclists into people who will consider using a bicycle for short journeys? The basic advantages of cycling are clear and have been set out in the debate: convenience, health, cost, the effect on the environment and enjoyment. Put simply, cycling contributes to a better quality of life and, importantly, improves one’s fitness and health while one simply undertakes regular commuting—it involves no expensive fees or trips to the gym.

The Government are committed to reversing the decline in the number of cycling trips—40 per cent. of all trips are under 2 miles, and in many cases they could be cycled, particularly in the case of trips to school and work. Good work is being done in London, where Transport for London reports an 83 per cent. increase in the number of cyclists. I want, too, to pay tribute to the Evening Standard campaign. Whatever criticisms the Evening Standard has of TFL, and those issues are worth debating, TFL has done a tremendous amount in the past few years to provide that step change—to use a pedestrian-friendly phrase—to encourage more people to get on their bikes. It is good that we are now in a political environment where a politician can say to people, “Get on your bikes”, without being lambasted for it.

Good work is also being carried out by Hull, York, Bristol and Brighton. Brighton is of course one of our six cycling demonstration towns. If we are to attract people out of their cars and on to two wheels, we have to make cycling as safe, easy and as convenient as possible. That also applies to bike and rail journeys. That is why we have given Cycling England—our delivery and advisory body on cycling—a remit to see how we might better integrate bike and rail journeys. It will report later this year, and I am sure that we all look forward to seeing that report.

Some cycle commuters use their bike for only part of their journey to work, combining the bike with public transport, which mostly means a bike and rail journey. Such journeys are important as they allow the bike to be used as part of a longer journey—

Mrs. Joan Humble (in the Chair)
Order. We must move on to our next debate.