The CTC has been accused of being dishonest, incompetent and of
deliberately failing to communicate it's concerns over the Highway Code
changes in order to create the impression of a crisis to build up it's
membership.
"it [the CTC] did not need a big letter-writing campaign or to
organise its membership to write to MPs to get that changed. Had it
simply requested a meeting with the Minister and a further meeting
with officials to make its concerns clear, we could have dealt with
the matter, but it chose not to, presumably for its own purposes,
because it is a membership-driven organisation that wants to build up
its membership base."
I'd be interested in seeing the CTC's minutes of the meetings they had with
the DfT on the issue. It seems clear that there was either a
misunderstanding of what the problem with the wording was, or that the CTC
changed it's view late in the day and decided to go for a greater change
than they'd previously sought. At least they did better than the all-party
cycling group who seem to have ok'd the original wording.
**************
I've just pasted the relevent bits. Link to full text at the bottom
**************
Mr. Carmichael:
I should commend the Minister for having met, eventually, the CTC—the
UK’s national cyclists organisation—and taken its concerns on board. My
impression of it as an organisation is that it is responsible and prepared
to engage, and I hope that the Minister would concur with that. However,
further to the point made about the process, it is unfortunate that it took
so long to get around the table with the CTC. There is a residual feeling
in that organisation and among many of its members that the effort required
to get their point across should have been unnecessary.
I hope that when we come to deal with this situation in the future, the
Minister, his successor or successors will be mindful of the fact that such
organisations have a good understanding of what they are talking
about—possibly even better than some of those who are advising him or
her—and that, as is evidenced by the fact that the Government’s position
has changed on rules 61 and 63, they have a contribution to make.
This has been a long, drawn-out process. It should not have necessitated
last-minutes changes. Part of the concern was that the wording before the
Committee would force cyclists to use cycle facilities that are sometimes
inadequate, perhaps because they have not been maintained or were not
appropriately installed in the first place. That needs to be addressed
perhaps well beyond the scope of the Highway Code.
Dr: Ladyman:
I would like to make a general point about the CTC in response to
what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. We went out of our way
to consult with it in tabling the version in front of us today. We listened
to all its comments and engaged with it, and my officials met its
representatives on many occasions to discuss this version. I also met the
chair of the all-party group who gave me advice. We talked about a form of
wording that she believed would be acceptable to everyone, and that was the
version that we tabled. It was a surprise when the CTC came back and said
that it was unacceptable.
My advice to the CTC is that it did not need a big letter-writing campaign
or to organise its membership to write to MPs to get that changed. Had it
simply requested a meeting with the Minister and a further meeting with
officials to make its concerns clear, we could have dealt with the matter,
but it chose not to, presumably for its own purposes, because it is a
membership-driven organisation that wants to build up its membership base.
It does so by being in constant touch with its members, and exciting them
about the great woes that the Government are about to inflict on them with
an end to cycling as we know it. It wound up its members and told them to
write to their MPs. That is why we had these big campaigns, but it did not
need to do that to engage with us. It would engage better and get better
results if it showed clearer leadership, set clearer targets for itself in
each version of the discussions, and approached Ministers and Members of
Parliament in advance of those big campaigns.
If it is not being listened to, it should engage in a big campaign, but if
it is getting its way, it should continue with that engagement because it
and the Government would both get more out of it, and hon. Members would
not spend their lives writing letters to Ministers who then have to write
back repeating the same point over and again, ad nauseam, thousands of
times.
Mr. Carmichael:
I want to read an e-mail that I received this morning from the CTC.
It states that the history leading to the necessity for the changes to
rules 61 and 63
“apparently happened because they”—
officials in the Minister’s Department—
“had refused to meet CTC the national cyclists’ organisation (who had led
on this issue with the full support of other cycling organisations).
Instead they hid behind spurious excuses relating to parliamentary protocol
as a reason for not doing so. Whether this was out of spite for the sheer
volume of the consultation response, or an unwillingness to admit they had
got it wrong, is unclear.”
The Minister said that the CTC should have asked for meetings, but the CTC
says that it sought meetings, which were refused.
Dr. Ladyman:
I have been advised that that is not true. My officials have had
regular meetings with the CTC; we have not denied it meetings. Even if what
the hon. Gentleman said was true—it is not—he knows well enough that the
correct thing for the CTC to do would be to approach a Member of the House,
who would request a meeting and discussion with the Minister. That way, the
CTC could bypass officials and go straight to a Minister. I shall write to
the new Prime Minister to tell him not to include me in the Government if
any Member can say that I have refused a meeting with a Member of the House
to discuss a matter of importance. I always hold meetings with Members who
request them, and I will do so for as long as I am in the Government. If
the CTC was in the position it says it is in—it is not—it could have gone
to any member of the all-party cycling group, or any other Member of the
House, and asked for a meeting with the Minister. That way, they would have
had a meeting with me and the Member concerned to sort the matter out.
The CTC has regular meetings, but it does not have a clear target or idea
of what it wants to achieve. As soon as it achieves something, it wants to
go one step further. The organisation has a disparate membership and a
strategy that does not allow it to focus on what it wants to achieve. It
never knows when it has benefited, or when to call it a day and wait for
the next version of the code—it constantly wants to go on and on and on.
That is not the way to lobby and it is not the way in which to achieve the
best outcome for cyclists.
I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall ensure that my officials and the
Department for Transport will learn the lessons of the consultation, and
that we will try to do better when coming up with the next version of the
code. In return for that, I expect the CTC and other organisations to learn
their own lessons about the way in which to campaign and represent the
views of cyclists, for the benefit of their members and the Government.
[1] The full text available here (the link takes you to the second page,
though there is also interesting and relevent stuff on the other two
pages).
<www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmstand/output/deleg/dg030706
27-02.htm>