Sections 1-19
1 NOVEMBER 2005
1. CHAIRMAN: Good morning. I apologise for
the delay caused by the fire alarm. The Committee intends to sit
this morning until 12.15 and we hope to deal with the first Petition.
We will sit again tomorrow starting at 10.30 tomorrow morning
and hope to deal with the second Petition and hear comment on
the departmental report. Would Counsel for the Promoters like
to begin?
2. MR CLARKSON: Thank you, sir. Can
I introduce who I appear for: the London Local Authorities and
Transport for London. Mr Smallwood appears for Bugbugs. Mr Bodanovicz(?)
is here, I think, for the cycle interest and Mr Fleming for the
London Cab Drivers Club. I think the first and the last of those
still may have some interest today that they want to bring and
the cycling is tomorrow and I think that is what we have been
told is the procedure the Committee would like to run to.
3. CHAIRMAN: We are only considering
Bugbugs this morning.
4. MR CLARKSON: Only Bugbugs today.
Just the formality of what we bring before the Committee: the
Bill deals with a number of London-related highways and traffic
matters. The formal procedure is the mechanics are promotion through
Westminster City Council, as lead authority, the Association of
London Government Statutory Committee, whose membership is made
of up of members from all the London borough councils, and Transport
for London. All 33 support the promotion of the Bill by resolution.
Transport for London have complied with the necessary procedural
requirement before the Bill was published and the standing orders
require mayoral consent and they have been complied with. Heading
European Convention of Human Rights it is a requirement that we,
as Promoters, make a statement about compatibility with the European
Convention. Written advice has been obtained from Counsel and
it states compatibility with Convention, the minister of transport
reported second on 28 January 2005 that he had no reason to disagree
with the Promoters' assessment. I would go very quickly, the Committee
will be keen I am sure that I do, to part four but just before
I do, two aspects of introduction. First on page 2 of the actual
Bill citation and commencement. Some elements under clause 1 subclause
2 come into operation at the end of the period two months beginning
on the date on which it is passed and some shall come into operation
on the appointed day and the appointed day is on the other side
of the page clause 3(1) on three aspects is, including pedicabs,
by decision of Transport for London or by resolution of the borough
council as the case may be subject to and in accordance of the
section. The pedicabs we are dealing with today is something that
is adoptive and it is adopted in this case by a decision of Transport
for London.
5. May I turn straightaway to introduce pedicabs
and that is part 4 on page 13. Because of the time constraints
with the Committee I do not propose to go into too much detail;
if of course, there is anything I am light on I have no doubt
the Committee will put me right. Clause 17 indicates what we are
concerned about. In this part of this Act, pedicab means "a
cycle constructed or adapted to seat one or more passengers and
for the purpose of being made available with a driver for hire
for the purpose of carrying passengers". Pedicab business,
over the page, means a business "which consists in whole
or in part of the ownership of pedicabs, letting out of pedicabs
to riders for use as pedicabs or taking bookings for the use of
pedicabs by passengers". Added to that is the registration
plate. This is the nub really, of why we are here: "registration
plate" means any device the purpose of which is to enable
a pedicab to be identified. That is why we are here. The purpose
of the exercise is to establish a registration regime, not to
introduce licensing.
6. I say in passing that two Petitioners, who
have withdrawn, brought Petitions saying registration will bring
legitimacy to pedicabs in circumstances where those Petitioners
(and it was the TGWU and the LTDA) perceive them as dangerous,
obstructive and charging unrelated fares. I have to make it plain,
and I do, the Promoters do not bring these clauses forward to
seek to necessarily legitimatise or give approbation to pedicabs,
simply to register them so the law can be enforced. The procedure
is, we believe, that it is unusual for individuals to own and
run the vehicles. It is more usual for them to be run by a business
of one sort or another who actually owns them. I have no doubt
the Committee will have some understanding of them. They congregate
in Soho, Covent Garden, the City of Westminster, Camden and the
London Borough of Islington and also Kensington and Chelsea. They
are currently completely unregistered. The purpose of this registration
is to make sure that the vehicles are compliant with the parking
or traffic requirements that everybody else is subject to in,
say, Covent Garden. There are concerns, for example, about parking
on footways, using pavements for manoeuvres, going down one-way
streets, blocking theatre accesses and the like. There is a catalogue
of material that, again because of the time constraint, I do not
think it is appropriate for me to open. What is simply sought
is that a plate is placed on a pedicab, the pedicab is identified
and the enforcement process can therefore be followed.
7. The issues are forthcoming from Bugbugs.
The short point that they raise is in their Petition. They say
they object because they make points about what the definition
of a pedicab is in their Petition paragraph 6 and the issue of
whether it is, they say, a stage carriage. We do not go into that
issue before the Committee, not least because of the time constraints
again. They seek at Clause 8 of their Petition if the Bill was
amended to recognise the definition of pedicabs as stage carriages.
Your Petitioner believes these clauses would go a long way towards
ensuring only fit and proper businesses can operate pedicabs.
8. On 10, they object because if parking restrictions
are imposed, as with motor vehicles, it will be impossible for
a pedicab business to operate, since pedicabs can legally ply
for hire, they must clearly be allowed to pick up and drop off
passengers. To avoid doubt about that, the simple answer is they
can. Furthermore, if they are unable to park anywhere, including
on a pavement where obstruction is not caused, there will be no
opportunity for drivers to rest, no recognised places where passengers
reliably could go to hire a pedicab. In short, they will not be
able to stop or park anywhere under the provisions of this clause.
This would include parking spaces unless they pay or have a resident
or business parking permit. They would not be able to stop anywhere.
9. They say at 11 a provision should be made
that the effective councils, particularly Westminster and TFL,
should provide pedicab stands at strategic and appropriate locations
which will not cause obstruction. Since a footprint of a pedicab
is much smaller than a motor car, there is scope to provide official
ranks without compromising traffic or pedestrian movement.
10. Then in the next paragraph of the Petition
they seek to be able to use bus lanes and that is not accepted,
and indeed that is not the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of
the Bill is just to do no more than register these vehicles, so
everybody understands what they are. Whether they are obstructing
any bus lanes or not is a matter for separate issue.
11. Then, at 13 we submit that this sub-section
should be totally amended to include enactments only applicable
to cycles, riders should be subject to the same penalties for
road traffic and parking offences applicable to cycles and cyclists
which are patently different to regulations applicable to motor
vehicles. Then, they have objection 40 seeking to make the owner,
the operator-owner business, responsible for all penalties accrued
by riders as a result of infringement of the enactment.
12. On that last point, the reason why the
Bill seeks to make the responsibility with those running the pedicabs,
the operators as opposed the drivers, is to get a point of responsibility
in circumstances where it is understood that the drivers of the
pedicabs are at best peripatetic and not long term. It is the
process of short-term hire, we believe, from the operator that
means that it is unclear at any one time who the driver would
be.
13. I am going to very briefly turn to the
witnesses. Hopefully I will be brief. I shall take more time with
the witnesses. Can I, in passing, make one point to the Committee.
There has been a report from the Secretary of State on Part 4
of the Bill. Putting it as neutrally as I can, I believe it is
not going to be pursued in any detail at this stage. There may
be minor drafting issues that will have to be resolved at another
stage, but in due course you will hear from the Government on
this as to whether there is an issue that the Committee is faced
with, but it is not for me to elaborate on it. Certainly, it has
not been elaborated to us in any detail what the issue is if there
is one. I do not pursue any more than that. Unless there is anything
I can deal with more, I have opened it very shortly because of
your time constraints. I will call my first witness who is Mr
Martin Low who is the Director of Transportation at Westminster
City Council.
MR MARTIN PAUL JOSEPH LOW, sworn
Cross-examined by MR CLARKSON
14. MR CLARKSON: Thank you very much.
Has the Committee been given a bundle of exhibits?
15. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
16. MR CLARKSON: I will introduce the
witness. You are Martin Low?
(Mr Low) I am.
17. A chartered civil engineer, correct?
(Mr Low) Yes.
18. Director of Transportation with Westminster
City Council, having held other posts in Westminster City Council
before.
(Mr Low) Yes.
19. You have had a number of posts in London
boroughs in the traffic field?
(Mr Low) I have,
yes.
|
