| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the amendment. I declare an interest as my husband is a Westminster City councillor. There is particular concern about the emergency exits from the theatres.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, when we were discussing the previous amendment on pedicabs at Report, I said I thought that this was the taxi driver's revenge. I have subsequently met people from TfL who explained the purpose of the noble Baroness's amendment and some of the background. I listened carefully and questioned the definition of a pedicab. A pedicab is exactly the same as something that is not a pedicab if it is being
10 Jan 2006 : Column 118
plied for hire. If you have a pedicab that you just use for taking your family out on a Sunday afternoon, it is not a pedicab because you are not plying it for hire. In theory, a pedicab could be a two-wheeled tandem; it could probably not be one-wheeled, but it could certainly have three or four wheels. Therefore, I worry about the definitions in the amendment.
I have heard from TfL that it intends to move forward with a licensing system. That is clearly essential. Any vehicle that is plying for hire needs to have insurance and registration so that it can be identified. I do not have a problem with that. I am pleased that TfL is doing this, providing it does it fairly. I worry that there is no process for doing it outside London. TfL appears to be going down the route of calling them stage carriages under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869. Other authorities have tried to call them hackney carriages, which they clearly are not and could never be. There is a problem which is not addressed by this amendment or any other. I hope that my noble friend will make a commitment to look into a national system of registration that is appropriate for pedicabs.
I talked to the London Pedicab Operators Association—there is one, my Lords—which produced some very good arguments. I have also seen part of the London taxi drivers' campaign against them which is quite incredible. Cab Trade News of 1 October says:
"Whilst the third world is doing all it can to lose the last of these degrading pedal powered contraptions, some unscrupulous operators are clogging up the streets of the Metropolis with the same slow, traffic halting bikes".
In other words, it is preventing us taxis using our monopoly. Whether we think we can find a taxi late at night and would prefer to have one of these or one of the unlicensed cars that one sometimes has to take, I do not know, but the campaign is pretty horrible. There is a picture of the grim reaper and a scythe outside Big Ben, with a Transport for London sign saying "Licensed to Kill".
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I want to make it absolutely clear that my amendment has nothing to do with any campaign put forward by London taxis. This has come forward from Westminster City Council and Transport for London, and I do not want in any way to be associated with the campaign being described.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was not implying that in the least. I am simply saying that this is the background to a campaign by taxi drivers, including a picture of a taxi running into a pedicab.
What is quite so important about the offences in the amendment? One of them is driving a pedicab the wrong way up a one-way street. That is illegal for a bicycle, so one does not need separate legislation to stop a pedicab going the wrong way up a one-way street. Pedicabs would not be allowed to park on double yellow lines. Taxis stop on double yellow lines, and the difference between a taxi and a pedicab is that
10 Jan 2006 : Column 119
taxis usually ply for hire on the move, whereas a pedicab does not because the driver would get tired. That is why they congregate on pavements.
There have to be some rules surrounding parking and moving offences for pedicabs, but I really do not think that this is the right way to do it until we have a national structure for licensing and for what pedicabs are allowed to do which does not smell strongly—as many of these campaigns and proposed restrictions do—of the taxi people wanting to maintain their monopoly. Yes, pedicabs occasionally congregate outside fire exits, and that should not happen. Pedicabs occasionally clog up the corner of streets outside some of the West End theatres, but the clogging is done as much by people as it is by pedicabs. Why blame pedicabs? Why should a pedicab be fined for clogging up a pavement or a street if somebody has come along in a similar vehicle, which is not plying for hire, and locked it to the lamppost? It all seems wrong to me.
There is a great deal more work to be done on this. In the mean time, I urge my noble friend not to accept the amendment and to look at the situation carefully so that pedicabs, taxis and private hire vehicles can all work and live together in what I hope will be harmony.
7 pm
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for explaining the changes in this new amendment. However, I shall be resisting the noble Baroness's amendment.
The proposed new clause seeks to define a pedicab and make pedicabs subject to the civil enforcement of parking and traffic contraventions by local authorities. A number of rather uncomplimentary and critical things were said about pedicabs in the previous debate and I took careful note of that. In resisting the amendment today, I should again make clear that I am aware that concerns have been expressed about the operation of pedicabs, particularly in London. I agree that steps are necessary to address these concerns, not least in respect of safety but also in respect of the civil enforcement of certain parking and traffic offences which are the focus of this amendment. However, to pick up some of my noble friend's comments, I note that there is also a school of thought that pedicabs perform a useful service and that they add usefully to the diversity of London life and the range of transport choice in the capital.
The amendment refers to a licensing system that is not yet in existence in London. It is important to note that Transport for London has already promised to bring forward proposals which would introduce a licensing system for pedicabs in London. It hopes to have such a system in place by autumn this year, but we have not seen even an outline of what is proposed. We therefore cannot judge whether the proposed amendment would operate properly alongside it.
When this licensing system is in place it should provide the means of exercising more comprehensive control over pedicabs in London, including,
10 Jan 2006 : Column 120
importantly, the question of their safety, standards and area of operation. Transport for London will be drawing up its proposals in full knowledge of what is required and allowing for public consultation with all the interested parties. We do not know whether the amendment has been the subject of public consultation and debate with those concerned, so we do not know the reaction of the pedicab industry itself.
Outside London, pedicabs are already part of the taxi licensing system administered by taxi licensing authorities. We have not yet received calls for civil enforcement powers in respect of parking and traffic offences committed by pedicab riders other than in London. It is far better that we await the impact of the comprehensive licensing regime which Transport for London proposes and then consider whether parking and traffic offences by pedicabs remain a substantial problem to be addressed.
The identification and tracking down of offenders is of course crucial and I recognise that it is a problem in respect of pedicabs. Licensing as now proposed in London should provide just that means of identification as part of the wider system of control. We await London's detailed proposals, but our understanding is that the licensing regime will be enforced in the same way as the taxi licensing regime in London.
Pedicabs are already subject to police enforcement in respect of some moving traffic offences, obstruction of the highway and some cycling offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988. However, I recognise that this still leaves the question of powers for the civil enforcement of offences. Officials have discussed these matters with Westminster City Council and Transport for London since Report stage. The department has come to the preliminary view that regulations could be brought in under existing legislation—the Traffic Management Act 2004, for example—to provide for the civil enforcement against pedicabs of many or some of the offences covered in the noble Baroness's amendment. In view of that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, she noted that officials had been in consultation with TfL. Have they been in consultation with the London Pedicab Operators Association, whose members, after all, will be affected by this?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |