Sections 100-119
1 NOVEMBER 2005
100. Pedicab operators must be treated in the
same way as vehicle hire companies. To amend this would be a perverse
use of the law. All the respectable companies have full accountability.
We can tell you who was on which bike on 21 January of this year;
we have full personal details of those people, and I do not think
that anyone would be able to come up with an instance where there
has been an incident, accident or any inquiry about a rider -
certainly from Bugbugs and hopefully now from all the members
of the LPOA - where we have not been able to produce the rider.
That is quite an important point, and I will come back to that
later.
101. We have serious concerns as to whether
there has been a full and frank consultation with all the other
London boroughs. Whilst Westminster Council are the promoters
this would affect all the 33 London boroughs, some of whom are
proposing to run operations themselves. Can you really imagine
Transport for London negotiating with 33 London boroughs for parking
or rank concessions? So what I am saying there is that the problem
with this parking issue going through, as it stands, is that Transport
for London, as part of the regulatory scheme, would have to negotiate
with all those London boroughs for rank space, which is going
to be far more difficult for them to do than if this is not in
place. Once it is a done-deal, so to speak, for Transport for
London to be able to negotiate for rank concessions is going to
much, much more difficult.
102. So the possible remedies. One is to scrap
the Bill and for the government to urgently draft some legislation
significantly designed for the industry, and in this way we would
not only regulate the industry successfully in Greater London,
but it could also be adopted by other local authorities in the
UK. This has been done with success in Germany. Or to define the
pedicabs according to the existing legal definition and modus
operandi as per the High Court judgment, so as to avoid any
possibility of further litigation against the industry, operators
or riders. Prior to registration, which the industry applauds,
Westminster and other local authorities must allow parking or
rank concessions at appropriate, strategic locations throughout
Greater London. Or the registration scheme must be for Transport
for London use only, to provide accountability in case of accident
or incident, and cannot be used to enforce parking, bus lane or
any other non-moving traffic offence. Pedicab companies must be
treated as hire companies like vehicle hire firms. Again, I have
a copy of the Vehicle Hire Act, if anyone is interested in it.
Essentially vehicle hire, whether it be car hire, taxi hire or
whatever, the person who is hiring that vehicle signs a statement
that they are liable for any transgressions that they may make
while they have that vehicle. The fines will go to the company
and the company is obliged to hold records of who hired that car
on that day and then pass on the vehicles to the driver. So to
change the meaning of a vehicle hire company really does not seem
right to us. Pedicabs must be allowed to use bus and cycle lanes,
for the reasons I have outlined before. It is unclear whether
the registration scheme would draw pedicabs into the congestion
charge scheme. This really needs to be clarified because the congestion
charge scheme has not come up in this and has never been mentioned,
but there is a chance that they might also be accountable for
that. But that is a question that needs to be answered by the
promoters, I guess.
103. To sum up. Bugbugs and the LPOA, of which
I am Chairman, and its members, have consistently lobbied for
appropriate regulation. This would not only address all the key
issues proposed in the Bill, but would also go much further in
ensuring that the industry is reputable, safe and run by fit and
proper businesses. The GLA Transport Committee agrees with the
above and has cited in its report some similar objections to the
Bill, as have Bugbugs. This was a Cross Party Committee and their
report is the only comprehensive and unbiased report available.
Mr Justice Pitchford, when summing up the legal position of pedicabs
in the High Court, recognised the consequence of the decision,
i.e. that pedicabs plying for hire as stage carriages in London
is lawful and is subject to no licensing regime, which may be
regarded as an unwelcome consequence. "The first Respondent,
Bugbugs Limited, has submitted to the London Public Carriage Office
a draft strategy for pedicab regulation and it is anticipated
that the scheme will be prepared in the next few months."
He said also, "I comment only that unless my decision is
wrong in law primary legislation will probably be required."
104. Since this industry is developing in the
UK it would be much more sensible and economical for Parliament
to consider drafting pedicab-specific legislation. I know this
is perhaps off the mark, but we have two or three a week from
local authorities around the country wanting to start these types
of businesses, either as people applying to them or as the Council
themselves. This would save a lot of time if Parliament did this
and it would probably be very straightforward, rather than for
Greater London only to specifically cover pedicabs in their operations.
This would have the added advantage of encouraging zero emission
transport as part of the integrated transport policy in the UK,
thus reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Considering the number
of local authorities who have approached us for advice, we would
conclude that the industry would flourish as a reliable, respectable
and safe form of transport, with integrity, and commanding a similar
respect as the Hackney Carriage industry does today. I see that
the government has also come up with objections to all the clauses
in Part 4 of the Bill, but, as has been said, we are not privy
to the reasons for that at this stage.
105. The London Cycling Campaigners also objected
to Clause 21 on the basis that pedicabs, which are cycles, would
be liable to certain offences previously restricted only to motor
vehicles. This is where we get slightly confused. Ken Livingstone
was on BBC Radio London last week and he said that the PCO was
not going to license pedicabs and that he had neither the legal
power nor the power to take them off the road. He also said that
he needed the Government to pass legislation to allow him to deal
with them. He summed up on the radio by saying that he is certainly
not going to start licensing them. At the same time, yesterday
I spoke to the Head of the Public Carriage Office, who we have
heard today, Roy Ellis, and he said that TfL are proposing a licensing
scheme. So I am not quite sure what is going on there.
106. I was also informed by Roy Ellis that
the PCO and the LTDA, Gwyneth Dunwoody and Karen Buck (a Minister
in the Department for Transport) had had a very lengthy and intense
meeting about this whole subject, and it was very clear there
was some headway made in terms of defining the licensing criteria.
One key thing that came out of that was that the PCO/TfL would
then be required to approach all 33 councils again for rates.
It beggars belief that, again, no representative of our industry
was invited to be involved in these discussions which were at
ministerial level, yet one of the most powerful lobby groups,
the LTDA, were invited and allowed to make representations.
107. Finally, I can confirm to the Committee
that Bugbugs and the LPOA members fully support and understand
the need for urgent regulation. However, we believe this Bill
is inadequate, inappropriate and not proved, and that the entire
issue should become either a Government initiative that can then
be adopted by TfL and other local authorities throughout the UK,
or that the entire issue should be introduced in the next Transport
for London Bill, which I gather is being prepared at the moment
for later on this year (hopefully with proper consultation). I
would like to thank the Committee for their time in hearing the
matter.
108. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
Mr Smallwood. Would counsel like me to put any questions to Mr
Smallwood?
109. MR CLARKSON: I do not think so,
sir. There are two matters that were flagged up and I feel I should
deal with. One was the congestion charge and the other was consultation
on licensing.
110. CHAIRMAN: If you would like to
clarify issues related to documents which have been put before
the Committee?
111. MR CLARKSON: It is not a cross-examination
issue, it is just a couple of matters that have been raised. First,
on the congestion charge - that is for motorised vehicles. Second,
the scheme is promoted jointly by the London boroughs and TfL.
Third, it is proposed, as you have heard, that there be consultation
on licensing and that will be next year. Fourth, we laid before
you, Mr Smallwood, an agreed position that there should be registration,
as he has said. Fifth, the device of leases being withdrawn that
he identified is exactly what we are seeking in the sense that
we are looking for owner and operator to take responsibility so
that the drivers are encapsulated by that responsibility.
112. Next, please note, if the Committee would,
this is only representative of 50 per cent of the industry and
we do not know, the Committee does not know - nobody knows - how
the others could be traced or controlled. The penultimate there,
sought by Mr Smallwood's organisation, is licensing. We do not
offer licensing but if there is to be licensing there has to be
understanding of whose the vehicles are by registration.
113. CHAIRMAN: Do any Members of the
Committee have any questions they wish to put?
114. DAVID MUNDELL: I would like to
ask one question just to clarify: there are no pedicab racks anywhere
within the London boroughs.
115. MR SMALLWOOD: No.
116. CHAIRMAN: I have one question.
Do you have any legal advice that suggests the definition in this
Bill will in any way alter the definition of pedicabs as being
stage carriages? Surely they can be both.
117. MR SMALLWOOD: That is the difficulty.
The lawyers that represented us in the High Court have been very
clear on that matter. That is the part they are most worried about.
One of the big problems here is that those court cases change
the monopoly on ply-for-hire (?) or hackney carriages in London,
and so there has been a very robust campaign to actually close
that. Both Matrix Chambers and Richard Buxton, who were the lawyers
in the last case in the High Court, are of the view that if "pedicab"
is not defined correctly then it could open up another possibility
of some sort of repeat litigation - ie, again trying to close
that particular avenue.
118. MR CLARKSON: It makes absolutely
no difference, sir. The picture is, as the law currently stands,
that bicycles, rickshaws, pedicabs are not Hackney Carriages.
So howsoever defined, howsoever a pedicab is defined, the law
as it currently stands is that it is not a Hackney Carriage. Full
stop.
119. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to ask
me a question to put to counsel that might enable you to express
the view you want to express?
|
