Sections 20-39
2 NOVEMBER 2005
20. ANNE SNELGROVE: Mr Chairman, could
I just ask for clarification? There is a line through Clauses
35 and 36; does that mean that they have already been withdrawn?
21. MR CLARKSON: Yes. I beg your pardon,
I think the technical position is that we are seeking leave for
them to be withdrawn, but we are certainly not promoting them.
MR NICK LESTER, sworn
Examined by MR CLARKSON
22. MR CLARKSON: Are you Nick Lester?
(Mr Lester) I am.
23. Of the Association of London Government,
and Director of Transport?
(Mr Lester) I am.
24. Chief Officer of the ALG Transport and
Environment Committee?
(Mr Lester) Correct.
25. And a statutory Committee of the 33 London
local authorities?
(Mr Lester) That
is correct.
26. We need not go into your history, save
for one aspect. I think you have historically been involved in
the LCC?
(Mr Lester) Yes,
indeed. I was the person who established the London Cycling Campaign,
with a number of other people at the time, and was the first Chair
of the London Cycling Campaign.
27. Let us go, if we may, to the areas of issue,
and we begin at Clause 13. What I would like to do is for you
just to take us through the clauses and explain to the Committee
why these are promoted.
(Mr Lester) If
we start with Sub-clause (1) of Clause 13, the objective of this
Sub-clause is to address a problem which is repeatedly raised
as a high priority of our communities: cyclists cycling on the
footway in a way such as to cause nuisance and potentially cause
danger. I will say it is regularly raised as a high priority by
communities and, although it is an offence which can be enforced
by the police and the Police Community Support Officers at present,
the level of enforcement is very low; it is spasmodic in some
places. There is a blitz which is undertaken, but like all such
blitzes they start and then finish and the level of enforcement
drops down again, and the proposal in the clause is to allow local
authority officers to supplement police enforcement by allowing
them to stop cyclists and to issue a fixed penalty notice in exactly
the same way as the police have the powers to do at present.
28. Yes.
(Mr Lester) I think
that covers Sub-clause (2). Sub-clause (3) explains in exactly
the same way that if a cyclist who was requested to stop by the
police failed to stop, they would be guilty of exactly the same
offence. Sub-clause (4) puts the fixed penalty notices that would
be issued into the context of the London Local Authorities and
Transport for London Act 2003, which allows the London authorities
to issue fixed penalty notices in other circumstances relating
to the highway, and is in the process of being implemented. Sub-clause
(5) is the protection against double jeopardy. It ensures that
if the police wish to take action their action takes precedence,
and no local authority action would then follow through in those
circumstances.
29. Six, explain how anybody would know who
was stopping them.
(Mr Lester) This
is set out in (6), that the officers who were engaged in this
task would have to wear a distinctive uniform, and distinctive
and separate from the police uniform, so it should not be confused
with the police. In order to ensure that this condition is achieved,
Sub-clause (6) provides that the Mayor of London, after consultation
with the Commissioner of the Police, would approve any such uniform.
It would be clearly meeting those objectives by an independent
verification and, indeed, as far as approval of uniform by the
Mayor is concerned, this is the case with London's parking attendants
at present; their uniforms must also be approved by the Mayor.
30. You have in front you - if you have not,
I will read it out - Paragraph 6 of the Petition, reflecting Clause
13.
(Mr Lester) I am
not certain I have that here.
31. It says: "Currently the police and
police community support officers have power to stop cyclists
and issue fixed penalty notices for illegal footway cycling."
Your Petitioner believes that this Clause would establish a parallel
penalty and enforcement regime operated by officers with lower
levels of training and supervision." I will pause there.
Do you accept that?
(Mr Lester) I cannot
accept that, the point of lower levels of training or supervision.
There is no evidence to suggest that that would be the case and,
indeed, local authorities have a reputation for providing high
levels of training to their staff.
32. Next, that the new regime would be ill-fitted
to take account of the way circumstances can vary and the complexity
of the law about pavement cycling, and that for all these reasons
the pavement cycle would be detrimental to fair enforcement of
the law.
(Mr Lester) I am
not sure I fully understand what that comment means. Certainly
as far as the way circumstances can vary; but, in approaching
the issue of the complexity of the law in pavement cycling, all
law to do with traffic regulation is surprisingly complex. Indeed,
when we took the powers on to enforce box junctions, which started
to be enforced just last year, we found that on the surface what
looks a very straightforward piece of regulation is, in fact,
very complicated. We have successfully developed an enforcement
regime which has been very much fairer than that which existed
in the past, but which also has been much more effective at stopping
junctions being blocked by inconsiderate drivers. We have negotiated
that through quite a complex piece of regulation. Indeed, in all
parking and traffic enforcement the regulations are extremely
complex, as anybody who has had any close involvement will be
able to attest. Go now to the black folder, would you, page 19,
tab 6. We looked at this yesterday, Highway Code. You must not
cycle on a pavement, do not leave your cycle where it would be
dangerous, obstruct road users or pedestrians, for example, use
parking facilities where provided. You must not cycle on the pavement.
Is it your understanding that the Petitioners are in any way trying
to gainsay that?
(Mr Lester) No,
I do not think it is.
33. Over the tab, page 21, tab 7, reading out
the penultimate paragraph, "If you are stuck in traffic and
vehicles are blocking your way forward, you should not mount the
kerb and ride on the pavement. Instead, wait until you can safely
cycle forward, or get off and walk your bike until you can cycle
on the road again. You are still likely to be faster than any
other traffic." That is the London Cycling Campaign, is it
not?
(Mr Lester) Indeed.
34. The next tab is 8, please, now explain
what this is. It is a draft code of practice for stopping - not
stooping - cycling on a footway?
(Mr Lester) Were
the powers in this Bill to be granted by Parliament, we would
expect to operate any enforcement regime as we do with all other
forms of code of practice. This is a draft skeleton of such code
of practice, setting out how we think we might approach the programme
of stopping cycling on the footway. I should emphasise that this
is in draft. Were we to be given the powers to proceed we would
expect to consult on a code of practice widely, particularly with
cycling organisations and also with others before coming to a
firm conclusion, but the purpose of setting it out in this way
is to emphasise that we do not see stopping cycling on the footway
as a sort of ad hoc exercise. An officer might be walking
down the footway and see a cyclist and say, "Stop".
It is a planned exercise. Firstly, the authorities need to have
a policy and it is important to have a policy in cycling on the
footway. They need to have clear understanding that where there
are specific areas where action needs to be undertaken, following
complaints and surveys to identify there is a genuine problem,
that there is a series of activities and actions that the authority
should consider first of all, such as are there particular ways
of providing better approaches for cyclists in the area? Is the
signing correct? Can the signing be approved? Is there scope for
warnings? All of these should take place before any enforcement
action is undertaken. There is a need for consultation and continued
liaison with the bodies representing cyclists during this process
and only then, when effectively all other action has been found
wanting, would enforcement take place and then the code would
set out how you plan and undertake enforcement activity: the uniforms,
the training that would be needed for enforcement officers, what
their powers are and how the enforcement action would proceed
following the activity on the street.
35. Has a code of practice been used in similar
circumstances before?
(Mr Lester) Yes,
indeed. We have been using a code of practice on parking enforcement
since 1993. We have a similar code of practice for dealing with
traffic law enforcement that we have had in use for bus lanes
since 1999 and for other forms of traffic enforcement since 2003.
36. Moving on from Clause 13, I do not know
what is made of the next point; it is Clause 14, which is the
Petition, Paragraph 7. The point is made there that cycle tracks
are excluded. I can shorten this with a leading question: does
Section 1(5)4 of the Highways Act include cycle tracks in its
definition, the greater including the lesser of the highway?
(Mr Lester) That
is my understanding, yes.
37. Paragraph 8 of the Petition, the last point.
I raise it here, albeit it is a pedicab issue because it is raised
in Paragraph 8, Clause 21, "prejudicial of the aims of developing
sustainable transport in London because it would make pedicabs
liable for certain offences previously restricted to motor vehicles,
denied access to parts of the highway used by taxis and similar
forms of public transport and this discrimination would prevent
them from providing any effective public service." Any comment
on that?
(Mr Lester) I do
not think that is correct as a generality. All of the provisions
here are subject to orders made in every location and orders can
include or exclude cyclists at present, as the authority feels
appropriate; and, similarly, orders could include or exclude pedicabs,
as the authority feels appropriate. It is down to individual cases.
This clause would not affect that.
38. Thank you very much, Mr Lester.
39. CHAIRMAN: Would Mr Smyth like to
crossexamine the witness?
| 
