Sections 80-99
1 NOVEMBER 2005
80. In 1999 Westminster Council challenged
us regarding street trading issues; the case was dropped. In 1999
the Crown, or Public Carriage Office, prosecuted a rider for illegally
plying for hire of a Hackney Carriage at Bow Street Magistrates'
Court. The case was dismissed and it was not appealed by either
the Crown or the London Taxi Drivers' Association. In 2000 we
had our first meeting with the GLA, with Jenny Jones, who is a
Green Party member, and we urged her to make representations to
regulate the industry, which had started to proliferate. In 2001,
with no licensing or regulatory framework in place, the market
became a free-for-all. Bugbugs put together a strategy for regulation
and presented the strategy to the PCA, the GLA, Westminster Council,
the Police and TfL, urging them to act without delay to ensure
the responsible development of the industry rather than allow
the lowest common denominator scenario to ensue, which obviously
is going to happen in an unregulated market.
81. Derek Turner, the then MD of TfL, responded
in a very positive manner - and, remember, this is 2001. Transport
for London then commissioned transport research laboratories to
carry out a study of the industry. We have, to date, been denied
a copy of this report, even though we were instrumental in the
initiative and spent some considerable time assisting TfL in making
it pertinent and representative. In 2003, the London Taxi Drivers'
Association made a private prosecution against Bugbugs and two
riders for illegally privatised Hackney Carriages and for soliciting.
The case was dismissed by London Bridge Magistrates' Court. In
2003, the London Taxi Drivers' Association appealed the decision
of the High Court. The Queen's Bench conclusion was that all charges,
again, were dismissed. In 2003, Transport for London again commissioned
a report, this time from Sinclair Knight consultants to prepare
a further report on the industry as a precursor to regulations.
Again, despite considerable contributions from Bugbugs we have
been denied a copy of this report as well. 2004, the London Taxi
Drivers' Association were refused leave to appeal to the House
of Lords.
82. Over this period of six years no measures
have been taken by either Westminster Council, the Public Carriage
Office, Transport for London or the GLA because it seems they
were all taking the view that the London Taxi Drivers' Association
would do the job for them and finish it off in the courts. In
2004 the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill
was drafted with Section 4, pedicabs, and this was being promoted
by Westminster Council and not TfL. A senior member of Transport
for London, who I spoke to at the time, Peter Hendy, indicated
to me at that time that Westminster Council had decided to go
it alone on this issue and that the TfL should have been involved
but were not included. It was indicated to me that this would
have been far more appropriate for this to be a TfL Bill because
they are responsible for transport matters in London. In 2004
the promoters were asked to redraft the Bill by the Department
of Transport because parts of it were unacceptable, i.e. it initially
started by defining pedicabs as motor vehicles.
83. In 2004 we established the voluntary association,
the London Pedicab Operators' Association, which has been talked
about already today. We have tried to bring together the entire
industry in an initiative to encourage selfregulation. The
key objectives have already been pointed out; I will not go through
that with you again. Obviously, this is a voluntary group and
it is extremely difficult for us to force anybody to enrol in
this organisation. We estimate we have about 50 per cent of the
members and the bikes involved in the LPOA, as has already been
mentioned, and we are making strenuous efforts to control the
industry. So we have management groups out every night to ensure
compliance with the rider code of conduct and we do withdraw people's
leases, depending on the offence basically. I will perhaps go
through them a little bit later when we get to the GLA report.
Incidentally, do all Members of the Committee have a copy of the
GLA report?
84. CHAIRMAN: No, we have not.
85. MR SMALLWOOD: Did the Promoters
receive them?
86. MR LEWIS: I received them, but I
did not know they were for the Committee.
87. CHAIRMAN: Are you referring to the
report of the Secretary of State for Transport?
88. MR SMALLWOOD: No, I am not. I am
talking about the Greater London Authority Report which I sent
to the Promoters for distribution to the Committee. I am sorry
you have not had the chance to read that report, but I can summarise
it. I will be able to summarise that, verbatim, in a moment. In
2004 the LPOA submitted a further strategy to the Public Carriage
Office, the Association for London Governments, Transport for
London and the GLA. In 2004 the Transport Committee of the GLA
commissioned a crossparty report on the industry chaired
by Murad Qureshi, who is the Chairman of the GLA Transport Committee.
This was published in early 2005 and that is the report which
you have just received. Just a little bit about the industry.
Bugbugs is a nonprofit company limited by guarantee with
clear environmental and social objectives. There are now about
15 other companies. We are not sure of the number of pedicabs
because many of the pedicab operators will not identify themselves
to us or anybody else. All pedicabs approved by Bugbugs and the
LTDA have been specifically designed for carrying passengers and
are manufactured by reputable and experienced companies. They
carry passengers on short emissionfree journeys in congested
inner city areas.
89. A vibrant market has been created and this
really would not have happened unless there was a strong demand
for this mode of transport. The safety record is good. One of
the earlier witnesses alluded to the safety record, that there
was no evidence put forward about safety issues with pedicabs
in terms of accidents and incidents on the road. Whilst, of course,
in the transport industry it is inevitable that there will be
knocks, bumps and scrapes certainly nobody has ever been killed
in a pedicab in the UK, or indeed, we think, anywhere in the world,
outside perhaps the Far East.
90. Pedicabs have a small footprint and therefore
can be accommodated easily on streets otherwise congested with
motor traffic. Pedicabs have a right to be on the streets and
must clearly be distinguished from motor vehicles. The industry,
as a whole, has strong social environmental outputs. The pedicabs
enhance safety on the streets by having a friendly presence, by
being mobile information posts and being connected with people
on the streets. There is considerable interest and many positive
initiatives by other local authorities, both in London and countrywide.
As a matter of interest we have just done a pilot project with
one local authority, which has been very successful, and I think
they are going to continue and start an operation themselves.
We have done a lot of work with other tourism organisations, including
Visit London, and many other Blue Chip companies wishing to associate
themselves with this new and colourful addition to the streets
of London and potentially UK-wide.
91. The industry worldwide is growing fast;
a large operation has just been launched in Sydney. The USA now
has over 2,000, Europe about the same and there are probably around
500 operating in the UK now. It is expected this is set to grow
in London and elsewhere, so therefore regulation is needed on
an urgent basis. The industry makes a small but nevertheless significant
contribution to CO2 reduction and reduced reliance
on fossil fuels.
92. We estimate that over a million journeys
are now made per annum in London alone using pedicabs. The GLA
Transport Committee Report, just to précis that a little
bit. The purpose of drafting a legal framework to incorporate
the activity of pedicabs must be to give Londoners confidence
when they use licensed pedicabs and an assurance they are dealing
with an honest, professional organisation with reliable riders
and safe vehicles. This Bill will make no headway whatsoever in
achieving this objective. On the contrary, it will give the public
a full sense of security and I am making no reference whatsoever
to the basic requirements such as insurance, training, type approval,
maintenance, rider licensing, accountability and the need for
a business to be fit and proper in all respects.
93. The Bill does not seek to regulate pedicabs,
merely to make them liable for bus lanes, parking and other road
traffic conventions: i.e. simply a definition and registration
scheme to allow pedicab riders and operators to be identified
to facilitate collection of fines. The GLA Transport Committee
Report broadly supports our case and it comes up with the following
conclusions. These conclusions are verbatim from the Report that
you have in front of you. The pedicabs are a welcome and colourful
edition to the streetscape of London. The pedicabs should not
be forced from the relative safety of the bus lanes. There was
a case on Blackfriars Bridge at the end of last year, where a
cyclist was killed where a cycle lane had been sited between the
bus lane and the mainstream traffic. Pedicabs must reach certain
safety and insurance requirements. There should be control over
numbers. The Committee does not support a ban on pedicabs. The
Committee supports the view that pedicab riders need to be liable
for parking enforcement. However, before any such enforcement
is acted upon, local authorities, TfL and pedicab operators need
to establish pedicab ranks where riders could legally ply for
hire and places where customers could reliably find a pedicab.
The Transport Committee supports the view that the pedicab industry
needs to be regulated and legislation is tabled soon. This was
January this year.
94. I would like to point out, at this stage,
that Graham Rivett, who is one of the members of the LPOA did
have a meeting with Martin Low about this issue and was told quite
flatly at the end of this that nothing would be done with regard
to any parking consent whatever until such a time as regulation
was in. You can imagine if this Bill goes through as is then Transport
for London will have a very, very hard time in negotiating particularly
with Westminster Council in terms of trying to obtain any sort
of rank space. So the key recommendations of the report were,
Recommendation number 1: that the proposed Bill be amended to
ensure that pedicabs are not subject to fines, should they be
required to use bus lanes. Recommendation number two: the LPOA
to include as part of their training the need for riders to avoid
the bus lanes where possible and, where not, to pull over and
allow buses to pass. Recommendation number 3: the pedicab operators
are treated as vehicle hire firms so that the riders are liable
for parking and other road traffic offences. Recommendation number
4: the Transport Committee recommends that part of the licensing
should be conditional upon operators providing certain levels
of training for their riders, specifically agreed models, management
of riders to ensure that riders can be tracked down and made to
pay fines and operators/owner-operators hold third party public
liability insurance. The final recommendation: the Transport Committee
recommends that any future regulation of the industry would include
powers for Transport for London to impose restrictions on both
the areas of operation and the number of licenses issued to pedicab
operators. Sir, a very brief summary and then I will move on to
the key issues.
95. MR AUSTIN: Can you repeat the fifth
point about restriction on numbers?
(Mr Low) The final
recommendation number 5, the Transport Committee recommends that
any future regulation of the industry would include powers for
Transport for London to impose restrictions on both the areas
of operation and the number of licenses issued to pedicab operators.
96. So the summary to date. The legal position
of pedicabs, the definition of mode of operation of pedicabs in
Greater London, i.e. the ability to ply for hire in any public
street, road or place in London as stage carriages, provided that
they charge separate distinct fares, as defined by the Metropolitan
Public Carriage Act 1869, has been established in the High Court.
Westminster Council, being the promoters of the Bill, have had
no consultation whatsoever with the industry. All the relevant
authorities have been consistently lobbied by Bugbugs to persuade
them to initiate a regulatory framework. Bugbugs and the LPOA
have submitted various strategies which would be appropriate,
practical and effective to address our serious concerns about
the lack of regulation and the potential for the industry to fall
into disrepute. There have been robust campaigns by other transport
industry sectors, including expensive litigation and shameless
attempts to discredit and crush the industry. The media, however,
have remained positive towards the industry whilst also recognising
the need for appropriate regulation.
97. The alleged purpose of the Bill is to provide
the foundations for subsequent regulation by Transport for London.
However, we believe that there is an entirely different agenda,
which is highly likely to damage or even destroy the industry.
The focus on the bill has been to try and make the activities
of pedicabs fit clumsily under existing legislation rather than
to be innovative in drafting new and appropriate legislation in
consultation with the industry and other stakeholders. It is therefore
a very blunt instrument, and if passed into law it would severely
prejudice Transport for London's ability to draft a licensing
regime which will work for all stakeholders. By redefining a pedicab
as proposed, as the promoters said, it could represent a serious
problem for the industry and could open up the industry to further
litigation. If I might read from the petition it would be of help.
Clause 17, as it provides a definition of a pedicab contrary to
current rulings, your Petitioner believes that pedicabs come within
the definition of stage carriage in the Metropolitan Public Carriage
Act of 1869. As a result pedicabs are not subject to regulation
because such regulations relating to stage carriages were repealed
by Parliament. There have been two prosecutions by the Public
Carriage Office and the London Taxi Drivers Association to challenge
this view. In each case, and in an appeal at the High Court, it
was held that pedicabs, cycles propelled by pedal power, which
charge passengers separate and distinct fares, are stage carriages,
pursuant to the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869. As a result,
pedicabs are not subject to regulation because regulations relating
to stage carriages were repealed by Parliament. The reason why
this clause, "Meaning of 'pedicab' and related expressions"
is a problem, is as follows. As explained above, it has already
been established in the High Court in the case of Bugbugs Limited
that a pedicab is classified as a stage carriage, pursuant to
the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869. The definition of this
stage carriage should be reflected in the meaning of a pedicab
under this clause, to avoid pedicabs coming within the definition
of an unlicensed Hackney Carriage. I do not want to get too technical
here but if at some stage the Committee would like to have copies
of the High Court ruling then I can provide that; I have it here
if anyone would like a copy of it. But I did not think that anyone
wanted to go through that today. In the Bill's definition of a
pedicab, a pedicab should therefore be described as a cycle, referred
to as a pedicab, which is propelled by pedal power, for the purposes
of carrying one or more passengers for hire and reward in Greater
London, and in which passengers are charged separate and distinct
fares. This would avoid the problems of pedicabs becoming unlicensed
Hackney Carriages, and by being described as a "cycle"
a pedicab would therefore be subject to the legislation affecting
cycles and cyclists and not motor vehicles.
98. This is very important because if this
goes through with this description the law is very precise, as
we all know, and court decisions are based on what the law actually
says and not what the legislators meant to say. This was a very
strong argument in the High Court, that the prosecutors were saying,
"What the legislators meant to say was this," whereas
in fact they did not say it. It is our view that the decision
arrived at in the High Court must stand, i.e. the description
of these pedicabs. It cannot be right to ignore those definitions
and the modus operandi of the business. It cannot be right
to redraft legislation without referring to existing law. Since
Transport for London are responsible for taxis, private hire,
buses, et cetera, then it must be up to them to draft new and
appropriate legislation by repealing old references in law and
replacing them, indeed utilising the basis of a licensing regime.
This Bill will almost certainly unintentionally put the industry
in jeopardy of further action. We live in a litigious world, and
having won one case in the Magistrates' Court very similar charges
were brought again, and then up to the High Court, and our big
fear is that with a completely different definition of a pedicab,
i.e. that it is not a stage carriage, then this could open up
the way for interested parties to take further litigation, which
would not be right.
99. By registering the pedicabs Transport for
London will give Westminster Council carte blanche to pursue
riders for parking fines. Westminster Council is likely to be
very aggressive with enforcement and the pedicabs could be driven
from the streets overnight. The Committee will be aware that to
challenge any parking fine is extremely difficult and sometimes
an intimidating process. Parking fines are currently limited to
motor vehicles registered at the DVLC. To bring the pedicabs into
legislation that was designed for motor vehicles would be totally
unjust. Without any appropriate places to stop or park their ability
to do business will be severely prejudiced; in short, they will
not be able to park anywhere, which, clearly for a human powered
vehicle, represents a serious health hazard. We have tried, with
Westminster Council, to find areas which would be acceptable for
them to stand, and nothing has been forthcoming whatsoever. We
need to be satisfied that registration with Transport for London,
which is essential for accountability - this really is important
- will not bring the pedicabs into Clause 21 for the purposes
of parking or bus lanes or any other moving traffic offence. Pedicab
riders should be and already are subject to the same moving traffic
regulations as are applicable to cyclists. Pedicabs must be able
to use all the road facilities, such as bus and cycle lanes, which
are there to protect vulnerable and slow moving traffic, unless
there are some specific problems, for example bus lanes that are
for buses only.
|
