SPECIAL REPORT
Mr Peter Lilley reported from the Committee on
the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill, That
it had agreed to the following Special Report:—
Introduction
1. The London Local Authorities and Transport
for London Bill, jointly promoted by Westminster City Council
and Transport for London, was deposited in Parliament in November
2004. The bill was opposed by eleven parties; seven parties subsequently
withdrew their petitions against the bill.
2. The bill received its second reading on 21
June 2005. This Committee was nominated on 19 October 2005 and
met for the first time on Tuesday 1 November. Over the course
of three days we heard the evidence and arguments from the promoters,
their counsel and witnesses and the petitioners, namely, Bugbugs
Limited, the London Cab Drivers Club Limited and the London Cycling
Campaign. We also heard representatives of the Secretary of
State for Transport explain the recommendations contained in his
report on the bill.
3. The purpose of this Special Report is to
draw the attention of the House to our disagreement to some of
the recommendations made in the Report of the Secretary of State
for Transport on the London Local Authorities and Transport for
London Bill and to state our reasons for dissenting, as required
by Standing Order 144.
The Bill
4. The bill seeks to give further powers to local
authorities in London and to Transport for London in relation
to parking, road traffic, highways, pedicabs, filming on highways
and the enforcement of penalty charges.
Clauses requiring further clarification
CLAUSES 4 -12
5. We acknowledge the Government's opposition
to clauses 4 to 12. In each of these cases the points raised in
evidence by witnesses and counsel in support of the clauses were
not adequately met by the representatives speaking on behalf of
the Government. We would like the Government and the Promoters
of this Bill to have further opportunity to clarify the purpose
of these clauses and to reflect on the evidence presented to the
Committee. Consequently, we have not deleted the clauses from
the bill at this stage. The Bill is at an early stage in its passage
through Parliament and our view is that the Committee on this
Bill in the House of Lords will be well placed to reconsider
these issues at a later stage.
CLAUSE 14
6. We would like the promoters of the bill further
to investigate amending this clause in line with the points made
by the London Cycling Campaign. We do not see a difficulty in
including cycle paths within the definition and, indeed, believe
that cycle paths would already be covered by the current definitions
used in section 329 of the Highways Act 1980. We recommend that
the promoters either amend the bill as necessary or explain why
a clarification of the current definition would require an additional
provision in the bill, and thus the invocation of additional parliamentary
procedures. The matter can then be taken further in committee
in the House of Lords.
CLAUSES 25 TO 33
7. We noted the Government's opposition to clauses
25 to 33. The Departmental report stated that the Government wished
to bring into force sections of the Traffic Management Act 2004
in order to make similar provisions. The officials representing
the Minister could not tell us when these provisions might come
into force.
8. We were told by counsel for the promoters
that the provisions in the bill would have a different effect
from those provisions included in the 2004 Act. As before, we
would encourage the Government to reflect on the evidence presented
to the Committee and continue its discussion with the promoters
of the bill. Any report that the Government may choose to make
on the bill in the House of Lords might usefully address these
issues and state more comprehensively what Government intends
to do, and by when.
9. We were not minded to remove these sections
of the bill merely on the basis that the Government might bring
different provisions forward at an unspecified date in the future.
Clauses removed from the Bill
CLAUSE 13
10. We agree with the Government and the London
Cycling Campaign that a consistent approach is needed when issuing
fixed penalty notices to cyclists who are cycling on the footway.
We recognise that London has a complicated cycle network and the
evidence presented to us showed that it was not always clear where
it was permissible to cycle on the footway and where not. We
also believe that the power to stop cyclists is best left to the
police and community support officers.
CLAUSES 16 TO 21: PEDICABS
11. The Government told us that the clauses relating
to pedicabs were technically deficient. The clauses did not address
the Department for Transport's main concerns about the pedicab
operation. We were told that the Government opposed the clauses
as drafted and would like to see them deleted from the bill.
12. The clauses relating to pedicabs did not
address the concerns the Government had about passenger safety.
The clauses made no provision for any minimum standards to be
applied to or for any checks to be carried out on pedicabs, their
riders, or their operators, nor for any training to be required
or for a registration to be refused, suspended or revoked. The
Government pointed out that the registration of pedicabs under
these clauses could be mistakenly viewed by the public as an endorsement
of the vehicle's basic roadworthiness and the character of the
rider.
13. The Government told us that there were ongoing
negotiations with Transport for London regarding a licensing scheme.
Transport for London proposed to license pedicabs using existing
legislation.
14. We also heard opposition to these clauses
from the petitioners against the bill, the London Cab Drivers
Club Limited and Bugbugs Limited. Both petitioners were unhappy
about the definition of the term "pedicab" in the bill.
They felt that the proposed definition would lead to future litigation.
Bugbugs supported registration in principle but were concerned
that the proposed registration system would enable traffic wardens
or local government contractors to issue parking fines to pedicabs
before defining any specific parking areas for pedicabs or clarifying
whether a pedicab would be able to use a bus lane. These are significant
issues for the pedicab industry and should be tackled before or
in conjunction with any legislation attempting to regulate it.
The Government told us they would be sympathetic in principle
to a fuller regulation of pedicabs rather than the very basic
registration system proposed in the bill.
15. The clauses did not offer any useful solutions
to the issues raised. Counsel for the promoters of the bill told
us that it would be impossible to introduce a licensing scheme
under the proposed legislation.
16. We recommend that the promoters of the
Bill give more thought to the registration and licensing of pedicabs.
We believe that registration and licensing of the pedicab industry
would be broadly welcomed. However such legislation would need
to resolve the issues raised by the Government and by the industry.
The evidence we heard indicated that the clauses in the bill would
damage the industry if introduced ahead of any future licensing
scheme. We have accordingly deleted them from the bill.
Conclusion
17. During the examination of the arguments against
sections of this bill, we found that the Government representatives
were frequently unable to clarify the Government's intentions.
We recommend that any report the Government may chose to make
on the Bill in the House of Lords should provide a more detailed
statement of the Government's views on the bill.
18. We hereby draw these matters to the attention
of the House.
| 
