| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should not wish to suggest that the Minister does not believe wholeheartedly in what he is saying. I accept his assurances that the Government believe they have all that is necessary to enable the GLA and in particular TfL to invest. He talks about a range of possibilities. Apart from the public finance initiatives, those are all subject to the Secretary of State, which is our main objection and underlies the amendment.
I do not make the presumption that no funding will be available, but my amendment stems from the sheer scale of the programme. I accept that it may be possible to borrow against an income stream from road-user charging, but there are many unknowns about that. I accept that the Secretary of State may decide that plenty of funding will flow. What I do not see in the Bill is the opportunity for Transport for London to get to grips with the job and do it without having to go cap in hand to central Government. The Minister says that we need to understand that the amendment would put the GLA into a category substantially different from local government. I suggest that Transport for London, in particular, is in a category substantially different from local government.
We on these Benches feel strongly about this issue and, for that reason, given the stage we have reached in the Bill, we wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 343) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 134.
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Bradshaw, L.
Calverley, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Carlisle, E.
Clancarty, E.
Clement-Jones, L.
Coleridge, L.
Dholakia, L.
Ezra, L.
Falkland, V.
Geraint, L.
Goodhart, L.
Grey, E.
Hampton, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Hooson, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.
Jacobs, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Leigh, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
McNair, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. [Teller]
Morris, L.
Newby, L.
Nunburnholme, L.
Ogmore, L.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Porter of Luddenham, L.
Razzall, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rennard, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Russell, E.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Swansea, L.
Taverne, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B. [Teller]
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Thurso, V.
Tordoff, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Acton, L.
Ailesbury, M.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Ampthill, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Blackstone, B.
Borrie, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Burlison, L.
Carter, L. [Teller]
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Crawley, B.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Eatwell, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grantchester, L.
Gregson, L.
Grenfell, L.
Hacking, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hayman, B.
Healey, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Islwyn, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)
Jeger, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Judd, L.
Kilbracken, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kintore, E.
Laming, L.
Lauderdale, E.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Longford, E.
Lovell-Davis, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Marsh, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Molloy, L.
Monkswell, L.
Montague of Oxford, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Nicol, B.
Parry, L.
Peston, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Puttnam, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rogers of Riverside, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sefton of Garston, L.
Serota, B.
Shannon, E.
Shepherd, L.
Sheppard of Liverpool, L.
Simon, V.
Stair, E.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Thornton, B.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Varley, L.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Walpole, L.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Old Scone, B.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 343A not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 344:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment involves further changes to Clause 126(3). It ensures that the services and facilities which the transport strategy should provide will include, as well as those already on the face of the Bill,
I believe we all know what “vulnerable road users" are. Broadly speaking, they are those people who always come off worst in a collision; those who, in other words, are not protected by the carapace of a car, bus, lorry or other such vehicle.
My argument in wishing to amend the Bill in this way is parallel to the argument which I used when proposing Amendments Nos. 242B and 243A. Once again, it is an attempt to have an important concern expressed by Members during the Committee stage placed in an economical and brief way on the face of the Bill at an early stage in the Bill. I believe that noble Lords understand those arguments. I have used them already in connection with the other amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having been here at the very beginning of her introduction of this amendment. However, I had studied it before she moved it. I well understand the good intention behind it but, if I may say so, from the drafting point of view, it produces a slight difficulty. It refers to,
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. At the previous stage of the Bill she and I tabled a number of amendments. I believe this is a very constructive compromise of all those amendments which were produced at an earlier stage. Given the importance of cycling in the context of London and the mayor's duties, I shall take some time--not too much, I hope--to flesh out what the noble Baroness has said. I have, therefore, put my name to this amendment.
At previous stages of the Bill, I have been able to speak with the support of the cycling fraternity--in particular the LCC, which, as all noble Lords probably know, stands for the London Cycling Campaign. That body takes the matter seriously and hopes to use this Bill and the mayor's duties in order to complete the London cycling network and also to engage in constructive collaboration with the mayor.
I turn to the word “vulnerable" used by the noble Baroness. Thanks to the LCC, I have the benefit of having up-to-date figures for Greater London of the number of casualties who were travelling by pedal cycle and by other modes of transport. I believe that I have the official figures; they are taken from the London Research Centre report, which includes figures up to 1998. We have the official figures for all the London boroughs.
The number of casualties involving pedal cyclists up to the age of 24 has recently reduced and is continuing to reduce. However, to quote from the report:
The same section of the report from which I have just quoted refers to the fact that the level of casualties for those above the age of 25,
Sometimes, when one produces a helpful amendment, as this is meant to be, other people then climb on the bandwagon and one feels that one's amendment is counter-productive. However, I must mention in the context of this report, which I happen to have, that there is also a reference to motor cycles. In the conclusion to the report on page 12, it is stated:
Paragraph (ii) of this amendment refers to “interchange between different modes". At the previous stage of the Bill, we produced amendments which might have been regarded as too detailed and too specific; for example, encouraging rail franchises to be renegotiated in dealing with bicycles. That may have been too ambitious. However, in my opinion this part of the amendment, as does the one I have just discussed, provides a very workable compromise. It provides a general exhortation and a general reminder to the mayor that the problems of interchanges, which are liable to be forgotten, should be remembered when the mayor tries to bring forward schemes.
By putting such a provision on the face of the Bill we give the mayor a weapon--perhaps that is not a friendly word to use--or a device which enables him to remind people who come forward with projects that he is under a duty to bear in mind the problems of interchanges of one type of travel with another. So I hope that the Minister will accept this compromise.
Page 70, line 15, after (“London") insert (“, including--
(i) those required for the protection of vulnerable road users, and
(ii) those required to promote interchange between different modes of transport").
“those required for the protection of vulnerable road users, and ... those required to promote interchange between different modes of transport".
Again, those two subjects--vulnerable road users and/or cyclists; not cycling but cyclists--were mentioned on a number of occasions, as was the question of interchange facilities, during the course of our debates in Committee.
“the protection of vulnerable road users".
In the experience of all of us, all road users are vulnerable in one way or another. One cannot get away from that. I say with deep respect that I believe that the amendment would make more sense if it referred just to “the protection of road users".
“Adult pedal cyclist casualties are still over 50 per cent above the baseline".
I believe that that baseline is the one used in the White Paper in which the Government stated that they would reduce cyclist casualties by one-third. That is very laudable and commendable. But when we saw those figures, we wondered how big the reduction would be.
By drawing attention in the Bill to the word “vulnerable" I believe that the Government may be able to take the opportunity to encourage the trends to go in the right direction.
“gives particular cause for concern, especially taking into account the national initiatives currently being taken to promote greater use of bicycles as a sustainable and healthy mode of transport".
As the Minister may point out, I realise that the word “safe" is included in the second line of this clause. Therefore, some consideration has been given to safety in the Bill. However, if the Government are trying to achieve those very commendable reductions in the level of cycle casualties, I do not believe that it does any harm to reinforce that by referring to “vulnerable road users".
“In addition, it was found that for the third year in succession powered two-wheeler casualties increased, although they had previously shown a generally downward trend since 1989".
I realise that motor cyclists are vulnerable in a different way from cyclists. However, I believe that motor cyclists, in their own way, should be given the same consideration, using the rather interesting definition of “vulnerable" given by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, when she referred to “those who come off worst in a collision".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page