Sections 1-19
2 NOVEMBER 2005
1. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, the Committee will
meet today from now until 11.55 a.m. and then, if it is necessary,
we will meet again tomorrow morning from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. Could
I ask counsel to introduce the clauses being petitioned against?
2. MR CLARKSON: May I, before I do so,
just fill in an area that may have raised question marks in the
Committee's mind yesterday? That is as to the ranks and whether
there should or should not be, and may I give the formal view
of those who promote the Bill? The view is that a location for
pedicab ranks would most appropriately be addressed as part of
any pedicab licensing regime. In the event of pedicabs being licensed
it is expected that TfL, who would be responsible for it, would
seek to implement a process similar to that which applies to taxi
rank locations, whereby ranks are established after consultation
with the relevant taxi boroughs. Taxi rank locations have been
agreed successfully with the boroughs for many years, and there
is confidence that a combination of TfL working with the boroughs
would achieve that. I need not elaborate on that, just to give
you one extra piece of information, which perhaps is useful. At
the moment there is nothing to stop a pedicab from using an existing
parking bay providing the relevant charge is paid. That is £4
an hour in Westminster, as an example, with a minimum payment
of 20 pence, which gives three minutes. There has, historically,
been discussions about using spaces in City council car parks
and there were discussions and, I believe, almost agreement. That
agreement was not necessary because those with whom there were
discussions contacted the Council to say that they had found somewhere
else to park and there was no agreement necessary. So that is
how we see the current position and any future position as to
ranks in the circumstances of licensing.
3. We have left over from yesterday one further
Petitioner dealing with pedicabs, and that is the London Cab Drivers'
Club. I do not propose to say anything about them. The representative
is here.
4. CHAIRMAN: You do not wish to bring
any witness?
5. MR CLARKSON: No, Sir. We dealt with
it yesterday and I do not propose to deal with it further.
6. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Could I invite
the Petitioner to make a case?
7. MR FLEMING: Good morning. The London
Cab Drivers' Club support the proposals that there will be some
form of regulation for this type of transport. We support the
fact that the bill seeks to address this by bringing pedicabs
into the regulatory framework that other road users have to comply
with. However, we have serious concerns about Clause 17(2)(b)
of the Bill, where it states that pedicabs must be available for
immediate hire. The London Cab Drivers' Club take the view that
this constitutes plying for hire. Were this to be permitted it
would have serious consequences for the London cab trade. We believe
that pedicabs come within the scope and definition of performing
the function of Hackney Carriages, for the following reasons.
Clause 21(5) of the Bill proposes that: "'Vehicle' means
a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on
roads and a pedicab within the meaning given by section 17."
The London Cab Drivers' Club are of the opinion that pedicabs
come within the definition of a Hackney Carriage due to section
6(2) of the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act of 1907. This states:
"It is hereby declared that for the purpose of any act relating
to Hackney Carriages or cabs in London the expression 'Hackney
Carriage or cab' include any such vehicle, whether drawn or propelled
by animal or mechanical power," mechanical power being the
phrase in the definition of pedicab in section 21.
8. There has never been an exhaustive definition
of "plying for hire"; however, it is defined as akin
to waiting. (This is in Butterworth's legal dictionary).
This is also supported by Section 35 of the London Hackney Carriage
Act of 1831. Any Hackney Carriage found standing in any street,
road or any place will be deemed to be plying for hire. This is
what pedicabs are currently doing. It is not commonly known that
a Hackney Carriage only plies for hire when found standing, hence
the reason for cab ranks. The moving vehicle does not ply for
hire, as many people commonly think. That was a judgment that
was handed down by Lord Chief Justice Goddard in 1949. Pedicabs
claim that they are stage carriages because the Judge, in the
case which was brought against them, said that they are acting
like stage carriages as they charge separate fares. "Acting
like" and being like are quite different. It is a fact that
stage carriages can and do ply for hire; this is the function
of the bus which plies for hire at designated stops on a prescribed
route with a published timetable, and it is not permitted to stray
from the route. Pedicabs cannot reasonably claim to be stage carriages
as they do not function like this. The conclusion of the London
Cab Drivers' Club is that if the Bill passes into law there will
be a challenge from the Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) industry to
have the same right, and the licensed cab trade would soon disappear.
No one would want to enter the licensed taxi trade when the cost
of a taxi is in excess of £30,000. Riders could go to work
for a fraction of that cost as PHV drivers.
9. We also take the view that the riders of
pedicabs should have a criminal record check, the same as a licensed
cab driver. We take this stance because a pedicab rider was recently
jailed for eight years for the rape of a female passenger. The
London Cab Drivers' Club may well consider withdrawing its opposition
to the Bill if section 17(2)(b) were amended to read, "To
be hired by telephone bookings only", as PHV drivers are.
And a further amendment that requires that all pedicab riders
must have a criminal record check before they are allowed to operate.
Thank you.
10. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed.
11. ANNE SNELGROVE: Could I confirm
with Mr Fleming, do the Hackney Carriage drivers undergo a criminal
record check?
12. MR FLEMING: Every time they renew
their licence.
13. CHAIRMAN: We will hear from counsel
again and then move to the next Petitioner.
14. MR CLARKSON: I do not think we can
deliver what the last Petitioner is asking for. A pedicab is not
a Hackney Carriage, according to the High Court definition. All
we are seeking to do, in our definition of 17, is to describe
what a pedicab is for the purposes of enforcement of road traffic
issues.
15. MR FLEMING: May I respond to that?
16. CHAIRMAN: Yes, if you wish to.
17. MR FLEMING: I have heard what counsel
has said and I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee
that in 1997 a case was heard in the High Court on the subject
of pedicabs or rickshaws. The case was brought by Mr Simon Lane
against Cambridge City Council. The reason was because the Council
refused to allow him to operate his pedicabs in the city as they
believed they were Hackney Carriages and that riders would have
to do the "knowledge". The case came before the Vice
Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott, and his judgment was that they
came within the scope and definition of a Hackney Carriage under
the Town Police Causes Act 1847. I do know that the Town Police
Causes Act has no bearing in London - it does not apply. But as
soon as that judgment became known Oxford City Council, who had
been licensing the vehicles as stage carriages, buses, withdrew
the licence for them to operate. I think it would be rather perverse
if we were to allow pedicabs to operate as stage carriages in
London when one city has already withdrawn that. It seems quite
peculiar to me.
18. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We now come
to the third Petitioner.
19. MR CLARKSON: That is the cyclists'
issue. Let me flag it up in a reverse approach, if I may, because
of the time, by inviting you to look at their petition, the petition
of the London Cycling Campaign, and I propose in due course to
call Mr Lester, erstwhile founder/Chairman of the London Cycling
Campaign and also an officer of one of the promoting authorities.
He will speak to what is set up by Clause 14 of the petition,
where it says: "Your Petitioner respectfully submits that
Clauses 13, 35 and 36 should not be allowed to pass into law."
They are pushing at an open door in two of those; it is only Clause
13 that is live. And that Clauses 14 and 21 should not be allowed
to pass into law unless appropriate amendments are made. What
I would like to do, subject to the Committee's approval, is to
call Mr Lester to speak to the several clauses under cycling and
then we can explain to you what the issue is with those petitioners.
So I will call Mr Lester first of all.
| 
