May 2021


Laurence Robertson (Con)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to help cyclists to become more safety conscious when using the roads; and if he will make a statement.

 

Answer

 


 

Lord Mawson (Crossbench)

 

Her Majesty’s Government what research they have commissioned in the last three years on the causes of road traffic accidents between motor vehicles and cyclists in cities.

 

Answer

 


 

Conor McGinn (Lab)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps his Department is taking to improve road safety awareness among (a) young and (b) all drivers.

 

Answer

 



Lord Berkeley (Lab)

 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to reduce the numbers of speeding drivers following the data published by the Department for Transport that showed that 56 per cent of drivers broke the 30mph speed limit between January and March 2021.

 

Answer

 


 

Rachael Maskell (Lab)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he has taken to pilot or establish e-mobility scooter schemes for disabled people as part of his active travel policy.

 

Answer

 


 

Kerry McCarthy (Lab)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps the Government plans to take to meet the target of the UN General Assembly resolution 74/299 on reducing road traffic deaths and injuries by at least 50 per cent by 2030.

 

Answer

 



Lord Berkeley (Lab)

 

Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 29 April (HL15320), how many times the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency revoked the driving licence of a driver who reached 12 points on their driving licence in each of the last 10 years.

 

Answer

 


 

Lord Berkeley (Lab)

 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what data they hold on the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers; and what public information programmes, if any, they are planning to remind drivers of the laws on mobile phone use.

 

Answer

 


 

Rachael Maskell (Lab)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps is he taking to ensure that new planning proposals incorporate the Government’s recommendations from its Gear Change initiative and the LTN1/20 guidance.

 

Answer

 



Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

 

My Lords, according to the Department for Transport—a tad opportunistically—lockdown provided a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make lasting changes to how we make short journeys. The Minister said this would get people walking, cycling and on to public transport. Can she assure us that transport decarbon-isation will not exploit the new normal to reduce choice by imposing top-down green solutions, often at the expense of car drivers, as we have seen in the recent imposition of low-traffic neighbourhoods by councils despite rank and file community opposition and no consultation

 

Answer

 


 

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green)

 

My Lords, I associate the Green group with the accurate description by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, of the plan as scattergun, and with many of his other concerns. I am sure the Minister will recall that point 5 of the plan refers to green public transport, cycling and walking, but when I look at the progress Statement I can find no mention of cycling and walking—or indeed of public transport, although the Minister mentioned it in response to the noble Lord, Lord Grandchester.

The Statement and the Minister have said a great deal about electric cars. Given the recently published Heinrich Böll Foundation European Mobility Atlas noting that on average commuters in London spend twice as long in congestion as those in Paris, in order to be the world-leading and attractive destination for businesses that the Government so often stress they want us to be, should they not be paying far more attention to walking and cycling across the nation, with their many Covid efforts at reducing congestion, improving health, fitness and well-being and supporting small local businesses?

 

Answer

 


 

Kerry McCarthy (Lab)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the recommendations of the Cycle to Work Alliance in their report entitled, Future-proofing the Cycle to Work scheme: Unlocking access for all workers, on making the Cycle to Work scheme more widely accessible to (a) lower earners, (b) self-employed people and (c) employees of SMEs who are currently excluded or resticted from participating.

 

Answer

 


 

Kerry McCarthy (Lab)

 

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of including the cost of a bike as an allowable expense on self-employed workers’ self-assessment, to ensure all workers can participate in the Cycle to Work scheme, regardless of their employment status.

 

Answer

 


 

Dame Vera Baird, the Victims’ Commissioner, giving evidence on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

 

It is hard to say because we do not get a lot of victims coming to us and talking about sentencing; they are usually talking more about their own treatment by the justice system. But what I can tell you is that although they are broadly supportive of different sentencing, the briefing that you have probably had—and that we certainly have had from RoadPeace, Brake and British Cycling—suggests that they are worried about the difference between a sentence where someone has caused death and a sentence where someone has “only” caused what might be the very most serious of harms, and they wonder whether there ought to be some nearer proximity between the two.

But victims do say quite clearly that they have concerns about making causing death by dangerous driving and causing severe injury by dangerous driving have much higher penalties, because of the factor I mentioned before: it might deter prosecutions, or it might deter juries, who can pretty easily see themselves in a driving seat when something goes wrong, from convicting. So they have that reservation.

I think the telling line is that victims are not sure why there is such reliance on custodial sentencing for people who may have driven dangerously but are not dangerous people. Is it not better to use driving bans more effectively and not to allow such leeway about the unfairness of it but to make them pretty well automatic? That is their take on it, and I do not think I can second-guess them.

 

Answer