IT’S no surprise that Reform are opposed to cycle paths (Courier, November 13) given who funds them.

For instance, Jeremy Hosking, who has given Reform £140,000 and whose fund, Hosking Partners, has tens of millions invested in oil firms and the wider fossil fuel sector.

Or Nova Venture Holdings, one of several companies controlled by energy executive Jacques Tohme, who previously lobbied the government on the windfall tax on energy firms in his role as head of a North Sea gas and oil industry body.

Or First Corporate Consultants, a think tank that has given Reform £200,000, is owned by Terence Mordaunt, former chair of the opaque think tank Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) which campaigns as Net Zero Watch.

GWFP has been funded by an oil-rich foundation with huge investments in energy firms. They really don't want us using less petrol.

I am surprised at their desire to save tax revenue though.

Particularly given that Reform wishes to reduce tax on capital gains from crypto and shareholder dividends and generally lower taxes on the wealthiest.

Also that their financial backers tend to base themselves in tax havens so tax revenue is less relevant to them.

Of course total tax expenditure is reduced the more exercise a nation benefits from.

A report by Sport England and Sheffield Hallam University (2019) into the Social and Economic Value of Community Sport and Physical Activity in England found that physical activity’s role in preventing a number of serious physical and mental health conditions which provided over £9.5 billion in value to the economy.

Of this amount, £5.2 billion was in healthcare savings, £1.7 billion was in social care savings.

More than £3.6 billion worth of savings were generated by the prevention of 900,000 cases of diabetes.

A further £3.5 billion of value was generated in avoided dementia cases and the related care.

£450 million was saved by preventing 30 million additional GP visits.

Rather suggesting that cycle paths are likely to reduce overall tax expenditure.

For Reform to suggest environmental concerns are behind their opposition to cyclepaths is particularly laughable given their complete lack of environmental policies.

Other benefits of cyclepaths include reduced congestion, traffic accidents and parking difficulties.

Of course on weekends city dwellers would also be able to access town and country whilst benefiting from exercise and avoiding traffic chaos.

Not to mention the freedom of choice to exercise safely rather than joining the daily traffic jam to work and back.

Tom Coomer

By email