Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL] Report 5.09pm Clause 2: Licences, fares
and other matters Amendment 1 Moved by Lord Davies of Gower 1:
Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert “(including, in
particular, provision about making noise)” Member's explanatory
statement This amendment spells out that provision in pedicab
regulations about the conduct of drivers can include provision
about making noise. Regulations might, for example, prohibit
a...Request free trial
Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]
Report
5.09pm
Clause 2: Licences, fares and other matters
Amendment 1
Moved by
1: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert “(including, in
particular, provision about making noise)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment spells out that provision in pedicab regulations
about the conduct of drivers can include provision about making
noise. Regulations might, for example, prohibit a driver from
making certain kinds of noise or noise over a certain volume at
some or all times or in some or all places.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships’ continued interest in
this small but important Bill. The Government have listened
carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords, and I reiterate
what I have said in private sessions: that your Lordships’
engagement has helped the Government reflect on the Bill’s
provisions.
The first group today consists of a single amendment. It will
amend Clause 2(6)(i), which relates to the conduct of pedicab
drivers. It will specify that pedicab regulations can include
provisions about making noise. During Grand Committee, I was
clear that the Bill as drafted provided sufficient scope for
pedicab regulations to address the issue of noise, under Clause
2(6). Furthermore, Transport for London has provided assurance
that the playing of loud music and causing disturbance would be
covered in its regulations.
However, it was clear that your Lordships felt particularly
strongly about this issue. This is understandable. The Government
are aware of the stories of loud music being played from pedicabs
during the day and long into the night, and understand the
disruption this causes to residents, businesses and those going
about their daily lives. The Government have therefore tabled the
amendment in recognition of the importance of this issue and to
support the emergence of an effective regulatory regime.
Consistent with the approach taken in the Bill, the precise
manner in which noise nuisance is addressed will be for Transport
for London to determine in bringing forward regulations, and,
again, this will be subject to consultation as per Clause 1(3). I
hope that noble Lords welcome this amendment and that it
satisfactorily addresses any outstanding concerns. I beg to
move.
(Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment tabled by my noble friend. I am
hugely grateful to him for having listened carefully during our
debates in Committee. I congratulate him on the influence he has
been able to have in the department in securing the Secretary of
State’s agreement to this change.
I note that my noble friend said that in the Government’s view,
the Bill’s original wording was sufficient to tackle the concern
about noise; none the less, it is reassuring to have noise
provisions in the Bill. I should be particularly pleased if my
noble friend emphasised when he winds up that the explanatory
statement alongside the amendment on the Marshalled List points
out that the regulations that can be made to deal with noise, and
which would be subject to consultation by Transport for London,
might
“prohibit a driver from making certain kinds of noise or noise
over a certain volume at some or all times or in some or all
places.”
As my noble friend knows, one of my concerns, and one of the
reasons why I was keen to get provisions on noise in the Bill, is
that there has been a tendency to talk about noise only after a
certain time of day. The existing law that allows any clampdown
on noise pollution very much kicks in after a certain time and,
as we know, the noise made by these vehicles and their drivers
can be particularly disturbing and disruptive at any time of day.
That is worth us reinforcing, so that TfL knows the expectation
of this House.
As this is probably the last time I will speak during the passage
of the Bill, I thank my noble friend again and congratulate him
on his successful stewardship of this important Bill, which
people have waited a long time for in London. I congratulate him
on what he has been able to achieve over the past couple of
months.
(Con)
My Lords, I repeat my declarations of interest from previous
occasions. I entirely agree with my noble friend Baroness
Stowell—she is right. I worry about the House of Lords
legislating for the difference between “noise” and “music”. We
might be in a minority in the country overall in our distinction
between the two, but this is a magnificent example of a Bill that
has been changed by good points made by Back-Benchers in this
House. The clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Davies is an
entirely sensible move.
(Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on his stewardship
and handling of the Bill. It is, perhaps, not the biggest, most
important transport Bill to come before your Lordships but is
none the less highly targeted, and we commend it. In particular,
I thank my noble friend for listening to the concerns about noise
that have been raised almost universally around the House. I have
witnessed this when walking back from your Lordships’ House to
where I often stay during the week, and I have heard this
extraordinary noise coming from these vehicles.
There is a problem, and the Bill is an enabling Bill. It allows
TfL to produce the regulations and regulate the operators of
these vehicles. Noise is one of the most important issues the
House has heard about, and I am delighted the Government have
recognised it and produced their own amendment.
(LD)
My Lords, there is a risk that this is beginning to sound like
Third Reading, but I put on record from these Benches my thanks
to the Minister and his team for their time and the care with
which they have considered the points we made on Report and in
meetings between then and today. They have been generous with
their time and prepared to give serious consideration to the
points made.
This amendment is, as noble Lords have said, about noise. Where,
when, how and how loud the noise is, is a key aspect of the
concerns about pedicabs. This is therefore a very useful addition
and clarification and is in direct response to points made in
Grand Committee. I am delighted that this amendment has come
forward.
(Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I will be very brief. We
support this amendment and congratulate the Minister on bringing
it forward; it demonstrates that Members of the House have been
listened to. There is clearly a problem of noise created by
pedicabs, and it affects people of all social classes who live in
Soho, Mayfair and parts of Westminster. We are glad to see this
amendment being proposed.
(Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the acceptance of this amendment. We
recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Stowell about
noise being disallowed after 9 pm. Clearly, during the winter
months and dark nights it is not good to have this sort of
behaviour and high levels of noise on the streets. That was very
much behind the thinking in bringing this amendment forward. I am
very grateful to all other noble Lords who have spoken, and I
will certainly pass the thanks on to the team.
Amendment 1 agreed.
Amendment 2
Moved by
2: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
“(6A) For the purpose ensuring greater safety of electric powered
pedicabs (of a type specified in subsection (6B)) and secondary
lithium-ion batteries used to power them, regulations must be
made within 12 months of the passing of this Act specifying that
such vehicles and the lithium-ion batteries used to power them
must—(a) have had conformity assessment procedures carried out on
them by a conformity assessment body authorised by the Secretary
of State to carry out such assessments; and(b) have the technical
documentation and declaration of conformity drawn up by the
manufacturer.(6B) The type of pedicab to which section (6A)
refers—(a) must be pedalled in order to receive electric-powered
back-up; and(b) has an electric motor with a maximum power output
of backup power of no more than 250 watts; and(c) can travel at
no more than 15.5 mph as the electric motor will not propel the
bike when travelling more than 15.5mph.”Member's explanatory
statement
This amendment would require the Government to make regulations
to introduce independent conformity assessment processes for
electric powered pedicabs and the batteries used to power
them.
(LD)
I regret to tell the House that this group will take slightly
longer than the previous one. This amendment in my name is about
the safety of pedicabs and the lithium-ion batteries that assist
with the pedalling to propel them in certain cases. It covers
only pedicabs where the battery back-up is available only when
the pedicab is being pedalled, where such back-up can be given
only up to 15.5 miles per hour and where the maximum power is up
to 250 watts. Currently, there are no requirements for
independent safety tests on such vehicles and their
batteries.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Foster put forward amendments
about these issues, which I also spoke to. He is unfortunately
unable to be here today, so I am attempting to carry forward his
work. From the outset on the Bill, safety and testing, in
general, have been at the centre of the Government’s thinking.
Clause 2(6)(c) refers to “safety requirements” and Clause 2(6)(f)
to “the testing of pedicabs”. In his opening speech, the Minister
referred to safety on four occasions.
My amendment builds on an issue that has been taken up by noble
Lords across the Chamber. I have also raised it previously in
different contexts, as has my noble friend Lord Foster. I raised
it on 11 July last year with the Minister’s predecessor and my
noble friend raised it on 23 November last year in a QSD.
Unfortunately, on both occasions, government responses lacked the
clarity that we need on the crucial differences in testing
requirements between the L-category vehicles up to 1,000 watts
and the sub-250-watt electric bicycles. The latter are pedal
cycles with an auxiliary electric motor and a maximum continuous
rated power of up to 250 watts. The other key difference is that
the more powerful vehicles, over 250 watts, have to be registered
and have a number plate, which vehicles up to 250 watts do not
require.
In Grand Committee, Amendments 21 and 22 dealt with charging
systems and with lithium-ion batteries powering electrically
assisted pedicabs. The Minister, in his response, said:
“I note that the requirement for power-assisted pedicabs to meet
suitable product regulation is covered by existing law and
therefore this amendment is not necessary”.—[Official Report,
11/12/23; col. GC 243.]
He then went on to point out that manufacturers are responsible
for ensuring that their products meet safety standards. That is
self-certification, which is exactly the point of the amendment
and why we need higher standards with third-party safety
assessments coming in. Those safety assessments should be
undertaken by conformity assessment bodies, also called test
houses. To assist noble Lords with a parallel, that is how fire-
works, for example, are tested and assured for safety.
In his response to our last debate, the Minister also said that
batteries must comply with the Batteries and Accumulators
(Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008. However, unfortunately,
those regulations limit only the amount of cadmium and mercury in
the battery and have nothing to do with fire safety testing. I
press these issues because already, 13 people have died as a
result of lithium-ion battery fires, one person on New Year’s Day
this year. Many more people have been very badly injured and
there has been a massive cost from the destruction of
property.
These amendments are supported by organisations such as the
National Fire Chiefs Council, the Association of British
Insurers, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and
the charity Electrical Safety First. They are also supported by
dozens of other similar organisations—30 in total.
In June, the noble Lord, , assured my noble friend Lord
Foster that the Government were taking action on these issues,
but nothing has happened since. A recent survey showed that a
third of e-bikes and batteries are bought online, where is it
known that standards are likely to be lower and the whole
situation is known to be riskier. As the Bill is intrinsically
concerned with a set of activities—pedicab riding—known to be
without any regulation, where the Government rightly say that
risks have been taken and these are dangerous activities, this is
exactly the kind of situation where some of kind of control over
the lithium-ion batteries involved in the vehicles would be very
useful, worth while and likely to save lives or reduce the risk
to people’s health.
Nearly half the people who charge their bike batteries do so in a
communal area. That is known to be the most dangerous place to do
it. If a fire breaks out, it blocks your exit and it is far too
hot in these circumstances for you to be able to go through that
area. More than half of people with electric bikes charge them
while they are asleep, so a fire is more likely to take hold. All
these risks could be dealt with by safety measures built into the
regulations flowing from the Bill and public awareness could be
raised. The Government have emphasised the dangers posed by
pedicabs and battery fires are clearly part of that. I am
certainly not going to push this to a vote today, but I ask the
Minister—who is clearly keen to listen to concerns—to think about
this very seriously. I urge him either to accept this amendment
or to bring something back of a similar nature.5.30pm
(Con)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the argument made by
the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I find it very strange that,
in this modern world, it seems impossible to rely on the safety
of something as straightforward as a battery. We have known about
battery-like things for at least 250 years. I think it was in the
18th century that the first battery was discovered.
Now we have lithium-ion batteries, which appear to be perfectly
safe in one’s telephone but not if they are attached to a
pedicab. We have a similar problem with e-scooters. On some
occasions, the batteries have been known to blow up, which is why
they are banned from every part of the London Underground
network—platforms and stations as well as trains; they are a fire
risk. How has this circumstance come about? I have no answer.
While I have sympathy with the noble Baroness’s argument, I am
glad to hear that she is not intending to advance this to a vote.
I am not entirely sure that this is the right Bill for the issue
to be addressed in. There is a wider question about what the
Government are doing to ensure the safety of batteries that are
available for consumers to buy as part of equipment. In this
case, they are allowed to buy e-scooters, but not to ride them on
the public highway. That is another anomaly that perhaps we will
address at some stage, when the endless trial the Government have
been conducting on e-scooters is eventually brought to a
conclusion and some determination is made about their future.
There needs to be a measure that addressees the safety of
batteries more broadly than simply in pedicabs, as this amendment
would.
We will come in the next group to the question of guidance. I
will simply say that if my noble friend were to say that safety
issues including the safety of batteries would be included in
guidance and covered by regulations, I think that would be
satisfactory, without the need for the noble Baroness’s
amendment. It is an issue that needs to be addressed.
(Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend; it all makes
sense. I shall give a little history: at one stage I was chairman
of a lithium battery manufacturer. It is possible in the
manufacturing of a lithium battery for a little strip of lithium
to move from one part of the battery to another during the
manufacturing process. That can later cause a fire.
The trouble with this amendment is entirely that, as my noble
friend mentioned, if we got it right in pedicabs, we would be
getting it right in only a tiny percentage of the total number of
vehicles with large lithium batteries. It is a particularly
serious problem when fires break out in big batteries in small
houses. These pedicabs are not going to be recharged in people’s
houses in the majority of cases; it will be done at a depot of
some sort.
This is a good provision in the wrong place. I would look forward
to supporting such a clause in a different place, if only there
was something equivalent. The noble Baroness has grabbed the
opportunity and should be applauded for doing that.
(Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the first part of the
noble Baroness’s amendment is very interesting but has a much
wider application. None the less, she has cleverly found an
opportunity to air broader concerns about lithium batteries.
However, I feel rather sorry for the second part of her
amendment, which is a very substantive measure. I do not think
she particularly referred to it in her remarks and it has not
been covered in the debate so far. It is about the amount of
power that can be deployed by these vehicles and that they must
be pedal-assisted and not just pure electric power.
The reason I support the noble Baroness’s sentiment behind that
is something that we have covered in earlier debates. With
electrically powered vehicles, which I think are great and have
the ability to solve all sorts of environmental and other
problems, particularly in cities, there is a blurring of where an
electric bicycle ends and an electric motorcycle begins, and
where an electric-powered but pedal-assisted vehicle ends and a
motor vehicle begins, and whether the words that the noble
Baroness has suggested really belong in TfL’s guidance or in the
Bill. My concern is about putting very specific things in the
Bill in terms of future-proofing. Who knows what will come along
in future developments? Perhaps it is better covered by
guidance.
However, there is a much wider concern about the difficulty of
keeping up, from a regulatory perspective, with very rapid
consumer change and the availability of electric scooters, which
we talked about a lot at earlier stages of the Bill. Perhaps when
the noble Baroness comes to wind up her remarks, she might just
dwell a little on the second part of her amendment.
(Lab)
My Lords, we on this side of the House have enormous sympathy for
the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has
proposed, and I find myself, at least on this occasion, in full
agreement with the remarks of the noble Lords, and , and the noble Viscount,
. However, it is the
Government’s decision that one of the few transport measures they
were prepared to put in their programme for this Session was a
pedicabs Bill which, of course, is of very limited reach and
scope. In fact, you could say that its reach is two wards of a
single London borough. That is a pity, given that the country has
enormous transport challenges in front of it, such as a failing
railway system and the need for bus regulation. I could go
on.
However, one of the issues that clearly has to be addressed is
the one highlighted in this amendment. Although it would be
inappropriate to try to carry amendments on this question of
electric batteries, I hoped that the Minister might be
able—indeed, I have urged him privately to do this—to come up
with a timetable for when the Government might address these
wider and more important questions. I am looking forward to his
speech because it seems to me that in the House we have had a lot
of concern raised about electric batteries and about the
experimental period, as it were, of regulation of e-scooters, and
we do not know how long that is going to go on for or what the
outcome is eventually going to be. I would have thought that the
Government must have a plan—after all, they are, I assume,
thinking they might be re-elected—so we would quite like to know
what future plans the Government have on what are very important
and serious matters in which lives are at stake.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for their diligence in
scrutinising this Bill’s provisions. This second group of
amendments is focused on electric pedicabs. My department is
aware of concerns held by noble Lords surrounding batteries in
e-cycles and e-scooters. Amendment 2 in the name of the noble
Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to place a requirement on the
Government to introduce independent conformity assessment
processes for electrically powered pedicabs and the batteries
used to power these vehicles. If I may say so, she Baroness puts
her case well, and I will now seek to answer some of her
points.
Noble Lords may recall my response to an amendment tabled in
Committee on conformity assessments and potentially placing
requirements on power-assisted pedicabs. My response to the
amendment debated today will echo my previous position. The Bill
is about closing the legal anomaly so that London pedicabs can be
licensed for the first time. The amendment raises a much wider
question about the construction of electrically assisted pedal
cycles.
The UKCA, the UK conformity assessment marking, and its EU
equivalent, the CE, the conformité Européene, demonstrate a
manufacturer’s claim of conformity with statutory requirements.
All e-cycles and e-scooters need to comply with UK product safety
regulations. This includes the Supply of Machinery (Safety)
Regulations 2008, which set out the detailed health and safety
requirements for the design and construction of a product.
Additionally, there is an existing requirement in these machinery
regulations that responsible persons for all machinery within
scope, which would include power-assisted pedicabs, must draw up
a detailed technical file and a declaration of conformity. There
are existing requirements to carry out appropriate conformity
assessment procedures. In instances where the responsible person
does not comply with existing requirements, they are in breach of
the regulations.
The Government are seeking to reform the UK’s product safety
framework through the product safety review. The Office for
Product Safety and Standards is currently reviewing responses to
its consultation on how it regulates all products on the GB
market, including machinery, and where multiple regulations apply
to specific products. The Government’s intention is to publish a
response later this year that summarises findings and sets out
its future plans.
Product regulations would not cover a scenario whereby a pedicab
driver or operator adapted their power-assisted pedicab following
purchase, However, Clause 2(6) provides Transport for London with
the ability to make provisions relating to matters such as safety
requirements, testing, speed restrictions, and the quality and
roadworthiness of pedicabs. Therefore, there is sufficient scope
for Transport for London to determine the expected standards for
pedicabs operating on London’s roads.
Although pedicab batteries when not supplied as part of a pedicab
would not be subject to a regime that requires the UK conformity
assessment marking to be affixed to them, their safety would be
covered by the General Product Safety Regulations. These
regulations require that all consumer products placed on the
market are safe. Furthermore, batteries must comply with the
Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations
2008, which restrict the substances used in batteries and
accumulators, as well as setting out requirements for their
environmentally friendly end of life.
In bringing my comments to a conclusion, I draw your Lordships’
attention to the work of the Office for Product Safety and
Standards, and Defra. They are in the process of reviewing the
position on batteries. This includes examining the new EU battery
directive and looking into the safety of the lithium-ion
batteries used in e-cycles and e-scooters. This work should
conclude in 2024. Alongside this, my department is developing
guidance on the safe use of batteries in e-cycles and e-scooters,
and we will publish this soon. I respectfully suggest that the
Bill, with its narrow focus on licensing London pedicabs, is not
the place to start tackling this issue. It is best dealt with as
part of the wider work being taken forward by the Office for
Product Safety and Standards and by Defra.
(LD)
I thank the Minister for his response, although it was rather
disappointing. The noble Lord, , makes the point that this is
not the right place for these regulations, but he accepts that
there is a clear danger. I simply approach it from the point of
view that this might be a good place to start dealing with this
danger. However, I accept that pedicabs make up a tiny percentage
of the problem, as the noble Lord, , says.
5.45pm
I say to the noble Viscount, , that the key point that I was
trying to tackle was that the second half of the amendment simply
explains that the safety measures in the first half of the
amendment apply specifically to pedal-powered bikes up to 250
watts. In our debate in Grand Committee, the issue became rather
opaque, shall we say? My hope was that, within the 12 months
specified in the amendment, perhaps the Government might actually
tackle the whole issue so that, in tackling the pedicabs issue,
they would also be tackling all the bikes concerned.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister thinks that Transport for
London could do something to address this issue, and time will
tell whether these are adequate powers for it. I am not arguing
that it should be given the additional powers in relation to
this, because I think this is a job for central government.
However, we will see whether it has the sorts of powers needed to
raise levels of safety. We will, I am sure, be looking to see
what the office of public safety recommends, because this is not
an issue that I have dreamed up. It is based on clear evidence of
danger and risk and repeated fires, which come when something has
gone wrong, when corners have been cut in the manufacturing
process. There is clear evidence, and I very much hope that the
Government pursue this with some additional urgency following
this debate. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my
amendment.
Amendment 2 withdrawn.
Clause 6: Procedure for pedicab regulations
Amendment 3
Moved by
3: Clause 6, page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (2)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that pedicab regulations will no longer be
subject to any form of parliamentary procedure.
(Con)
My Lords, this final group of amendments covers the process for
regulations made under the Bill. Amendment 3 places
responsibility for making pedicab regulations solely with
Transport for London, meaning that pedicab regulations will no
longer be subject to any form of parliamentary procedure.
Noble Lords will be aware that this marks a shift in the
Government’s approach. The Government have listened to, and
reflected on, the points raised at Second Reading and in Grand
Committee, and reached the conclusion that these powers should
rest with Transport for London. The Government have reached this
view for several important reasons. First, it is consistent with
the position for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in the
capital, where Transport for London has demonstrable experience
of operating effective licensing regimes. Secondly, the Bill’s
provisions extend to Greater London only, addressing the legal
anomaly that has meant that London’s pedicab industry has been
unregulated. The Bill presents a solution to a London-centric
issue. Thirdly and finally, the relative size of the pedicab
industry in London is an important factor. Estimates suggest that
pedicab numbers range from 200 up to 900 in peak season. This is
a significantly smaller industry than London’s taxi and PHV
industries, where there are over 100,000 licensed vehicles and
over 120,000 licensed drivers. Therefore, this amendment offers a
proportionate approach.
While I am confident that this amendment is supported by the
majority of your Lordships, I am aware that there may be some
noble Lords concerned that Transport for London would seize this
opportunity to remove all pedicabs from London’s streets, or to
impose draconian restrictions that all but ban these vehicles. I
reiterate that I do not—
(Lab)
I apologise for jumping in on this point but it is very
important. The Minister said that the generation of regulations
would be solely the responsibility of Transport for London, which
is exactly where we seek to be. In preparing for this debate I
looked through the Bill, and all the Minister’s amendment does—I
say “all” but it may be enough, in which case I will be
delighted—is to take a subsection out of Clause 6. Can I be
assured that that subsection’s deletion effectively removes any
DfT input to the creation of regulations other than the amendment
that goes with it to introduce guidance?
(Con)
Yes, that is my understanding of the amendment and is
correct.
Although I am confident that this amendment is supported by the
majority of your Lordships, as I said, I am aware that some noble
Lords may be concerned that Transport for London would seize this
opportunity to remove all pedicabs from London’s streets or to
impose draconian restrictions. However, I reiterate that I do not
understand this to be TfL’s intention and, furthermore, it is
highly unlikely that pedicab regulations could be used to do
this.
However, this moves me to Amendment 4, which gives the Secretary
of State the option of issuing statutory guidance to Transport
for London relating to how functions under pedicab regulations
are exercised. The amendment specifies that statutory guidance
may cover how functions are exercised so as to protect children
and vulnerable adults from harm. This amendment intends to strike
a balance with the removal of parliamentary procedure for
secondary legislation made under the Bill. The Government remain
aware this will be a newly regulated industry, and this amendment
will give the Secretary of State the option of influencing the
shape of the London pedicab regime.
Transport for London or any person authorised by it to carry out
functions under pedicab regulations on its behalf will need to
have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. This
provides a level of oversight which I hope provides assurance to
any noble Lords with concerns. Further to this, Clause 1(3)
requires TfL to conduct a consultation prior to making pedicab
regulations.
I hope this demonstrates that the Government have listened, and
that these amendments are viewed by your Lordships as a
thoughtful way forward, one which will best enable Transport for
London to commence work on bringing forward its regulatory
regime. I beg to move.
(LD)
My Lords, this is almost full circle for me. About six years ago
I received several complaints about pedicabs, and I tabled
Written Questions for the then Minister, to be told straight off,
“It is nothing to do with the Government—it is a matter for
Transport for London”. Therefore, it is quite good that, coming
full circle, many of these issues will be taken—with guidance—by
Transport for London. That is the right and proper place for some
of these issues; it makes sense to me.
I am particularly pleased that notice has been taken of
safeguarding issues, particularly for children, and I am sure
guidance will include that, and for anybody who is in a
vulnerable situation as well, whether it be children or young
women. That is absolutely right and proper.
I slightly worry that the issue of identification has not taken
place. For example, if a pedicab driver does something that is
not correct or behaves in an outrageous way—as we have often seen
happen—as I understand it, there is no way to identify who is the
owner or the driver of that pedicab and therefore to take action.
I hope that this issue might be raised, maybe in guidance to
Transport for London.
(LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5 but in doing so, I welcome
the Minister’s acceptance that this is very much an issue for
Transport for London. My Amendment 5 is simply there to give the
Minister the opportunity to provide this House with clarity on
the potential scope of the Secretary of State of State’s
guidance. Because we have had this complete somersault between
Committee and Report over who is going to be responsible for
this, it is important to get that clarification.
There is cross-party consensus that this really is an issue for
Transport for London. Like my noble friend , I am very pleased to see the
reference to safeguarding in Amendment 4. This legislation
obviously applies only to London, but it would be helpful if the
Government were to publicise it beyond London because, as we made
clear in our discussions at the previous stage, there are pedicab
regulations in other parts of the country. It would be useful to
have greater awareness of issues such as the importance of
safeguarding, registration, safety and so on.
My amendment is a kind of checklist of the main issues to
consider: environmental benefits; safety, which is about a lot
more than just battery fires; and minimising disruption, danger
and disturbance to other people, as some neighbours in London
have suffered from noise and inconsiderate parking for a long
time. We should not be discussing the suitability of cab ranks in
detail here, but it will clearly be of great importance when
decisions are made by Transport for London. My final issue is
that of licensing and penalties. I assume that licensing will
involve identification and registration.
It is important to make it clear that we do not want regulations
which are so onerous that they destroy this industry altogether.
Like other noble Lords, we want just to bring it under control so
that it benefits London and is an asset, not a liability, to
London tourism. For the people who hire these cabs, it should be
safe and fun, not risky. I press the Minister to reassure us that
the Secretary of State’s guidance will not be so onerous that it
enables penalties so stiff that they put people out of
business.
Proposed new subsection (6) of government Amendment 4 refers to
consultation, and rightly so. Can the Minister give us an
assurance that there will be Secretary of State consultation with
cycling organisations and the organisation representing pedicab
operators in London? Its representatives were in touch with us
prior to Committee, so there is clearly such an organisation, and
it is the kind of organisation that, in other industries, brings
a sense of coherence that raises standards, as taxi organisations
do. It is important that proper consultation is done.
(Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward this
suggestion, which, as he said, was proposed by many parties. But
I am still confused, in that the Member’s explanatory statement,
which is very sensible, does not quite tie up with Amendment 3
itself. Amendment 3 says “leave out subsection (2)”, but why is
subsection (1) still in place? That says that
“The power to make pedicab regulations is exercisable by
statutory instrument”.
If the intention is that they should not be exercisable by
statutory instrument, why should we leave in that phrase? Would
it not be better if the amendment left out both subsection (2)
and subsection (1)? I think that would improve the
Bill.6.00pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the Minister, as others have done, for
the amount of time he has taken on this Bill. Our central concern
was that this is a London problem, and we created TfL to look
after London’s problems. Now, I am in favour of TfL—somewhat
biasedly, because I helped create it—but it has lived up to our
expectations and has done a good job over the 23 years of its
existence. It is very much the right organisation to do this
task.
I thank the Minister for his Amendment 3, which he assures me
will give TfL sole responsibility for developing regulations. I
do take the point about why subsections (1), (3) and (4) are
being retained, but I am sure it is all right because I have
faith in the wonderful drafting powers of his team. If, upon
consideration, they become a concern, I am sure that a government
amendment will be tabled at Third Reading to amend any conflicts
between the different parts. I hope he will give that
consideration, if his team do advise him that there is a
conflict.
Having said that I am in favour of Transport for London doing
this task, I grudgingly accept that some of the concerns about
TfL getting carried away and banning everything in sight, and
making people bankrupt by charging them utterly unreasonable fees
et cetera, do make a case for Amendment 4. Therefore, I recognise
that that is the trade-off between the important position to take
throughout the parliamentary process, while making sure there is
a potential for government to create guidance that TfL has to
have regard to. The balance between the two amendments, from our
point of view, is acceptable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has produced Amendment 5,
which is drafted very much in the terms of many of her
amendments, in the sense that it is motherhood. I am actually in
favour of motherhood; it helps the world go round, and it says a
series of sensible things. But the problem with putting something
in legislation is whether it says all the things that should be
said, or whether, conversely, it contradicts things that might be
wanted. I am afraid I cannot support her. I do not think it is
her intention to press the amendment, but I do commend it as a
questionnaire for the Minister, to clarify the Government’s
position on the points raised.
(Con)
My Lords, I once again thank your Lordships for their careful
consideration of the Bill. I have outlined the purpose of the
Government’s amendments in this group, and will now address
Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady
Randerson.
I first reiterate the Government’s objective in bringing forward
this Bill. The purpose is to provide Transport for London with
the tools it needs to regulate London’s pedicabs so that journeys
and vehicles are safer and fairer. This means addressing both the
safety-related and traffic-related concerns, and tackling the
antisocial and nuisance behaviour of certain pedicab operators
and drivers.
Amendment 5, which attempts to set objectives to which the
Secretary of State must have regard when issuing statutory
guidance, shares the Government’s objectives. However, this has
been tabled in response to the Government’s Amendment 4, which
provides the Secretary of State with the option of issuing
statutory guidance to Transport for London relating to the
exercise of its functions and the pedicab regulations. This
provides clear parameters for the scope of any statutory guidance
and therefore Amendment 5 is not necessary, as the matters it
covers are addressed by provisions in the Bill. In addition, I
note that prescribing in detail what the Secretary of State must
consider when issuing guidance could have the effect of
inadvertently excluding from the scope of the guidance matters
which have not been specifically listed. For this reason, a
general approach is considered preferable.
I will highlight some of the relevant provisions in the Bill.
Clause 2(5) covers fares, including what fares may be charged and
how passengers are notified of these. Clause 2(6) covers a wide
range of issues relating to the operation of London’s pedicabs.
This includes safety, the quality and roadworthiness of pedicabs,
the working conditions of drivers and their conduct. Clause 2(7)
gives Transport for London the power to place limitations on
where and when pedicabs can operate, and Transport for London has
already confirmed it will need to give proper consideration to
the matter of pedicab ranks, taking into account the needs of
pedicab drivers, passengers and other road users. Clause 3 sets
out the enforcement mechanisms available to Transport for London
and includes details of penalties.
A couple of points were raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord,
, talked about identification of
the pedicabs. That really will be a matter for Transport for
London, however it intends to license them. I can think of
various ways it could do it; I am sure he could as well but it
will be a matter for Transport for London. On the point raised by
the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding the need to
consult, that is written into the Bill, most certainly, and I
feel quite sure that cycling organisations will be included in
that. I think that more or less covers everything apart from the
point from the noble Lord, . On that, we can confirm that
this is solely Transport for London’s responsibility.
Amendment 3 agreed.
Amendment 4
Moved by
4: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to
Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under
pedicab regulations.(2) The guidance may, in particular, include
guidance about how those functions may be exercised so as to
protect children, and vulnerable individuals who are 18 or over,
from harm.(3) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance
issued under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange
for any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of
it, to be published.(5) Transport for London, and any person
authorised by them to carry out functions under pedicab
regulations on their behalf, must have regard to any guidance
issued under this section when exercising their functions under
the regulations.(6) Before issuing guidance under this section
the Secretary of State must consult whoever the Secretary of
State considers appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This clause allows the Secretary of State to give guidance to TfL
about the exercise of functions under pedicab regulations.
Subsection (5) requires TfL, and those authorised by TfL to
exercise functions under the regulations, to have regard to the
guidance when exercising functions under the regulations.
Amendment 5 (to Amendment 4) not moved.
Amendment 4 agreed.
|
