| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Given my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
6.15 pm
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Baroness for that answer. No one denies that Transport for London must have a strategic role. As I have said, it is welcome that borough councils can be represented on it. I thought that the Government believed, as I do, that we lived in a world of more localism—that one has to have the strategic with the local. The Local Government Bill, which we shall consider soon, provides for much more local working. I shall not refer again to Essex, but we want more transport decisions to be taken locally rather than strategically. Local people must be involved if we are to make more popular decisions. Transport for London needs to be both strategic and local. I do not agree that the present position is right and I welcome the borough representation on Transport for London. I simply want a provision that ensures borough representation across the parties. That would work much better. Although I shall withdraw the amendments for now, I shall pursue them because Transport for London could be improved by increasing the number of local representatives from boroughs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Membership of Transport for London: eligibility of holders of political office]:
[Amendment No. 41A not moved.]
Clause 19 [Remuneration and allowances]:
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Berkeley: I shall use this opportunity, not to talk about remuneration and allowances, with which I am satisfied, but to probe the Government’s intentions in relation to pedicabs, a matter that I raised at Second Reading. We drafted an amendment, but it was, unfortunately, rejected. It related to transport, but it
2 May 2007 : Column GC94
As everyone in London knows, pedicab operators ply for hire. There is general agreement that they require some regulation to ensure safety, and they certainly need to be properly insured, but there is also agreement that there needs to be a fairly light touch. The Committee will probably be aware that this debate has been going on for six to 10 years. It is about time that these machines were brought under a common licensing arrangement. It should not apply only to London; there are similar problems in many other cities and towns.
A recent debate in Westminster Hall on this matter was raised by the MP for the Cities of London and Westminster. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Gillian Merron, responded that, although it was an interesting subject, she welcomed,
- “the steps being taken by Transport for London, as the taxi licensing authority in London, to put in place measures to bring pedicabs into its existing taxi licensing regime”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/07; col. 259WH.]
I worry about that, because pedicabs are not taxis. First, they do not have motors; they are humanly and mechanically powered and travel much more slowly than taxis. They also address a very different market—the tourist market—and do not go too far for too long.
The amendment that I had intended to table defined a pedicab as a mechanically propelled vehicle that can ply for hire and take one or two passengers. Lighter-touch regulation is appropriate; quite a few local authorities in London seem to support that. They suggest that there should be licensing but that it should be light touch. Bromley wanted some form of regulation, focusing on safety, security and inspection of vehicles—that is all right—Westminster wanted some form of regulation because of concern about public safety; Croydon thought it was essentially a social service and that not much was required; and Southwark wanted a common-sense approach without going over the top.
That sums up this issue. The London Pedicab Operators’ Association wanted me to table the amendment, and I would have been pleased to had I been allowed. It would like some light regulation—even self-regulation, if that were necessary—to get things moving and provide credibility. It represents only about 30 per cent of pedicab operators; clearly, it would be much better if all operators were brought into the association.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to indicate that, if we cannot have an amendment in this Bill, perhaps in the next transport legislation the Government will look seriously at these issues and create a framework not just for London but for other towns. I live in Oxford, where pedicabs were operated briefly until the taxi drivers saw them off, rightly or wrongly. They all have a role to play. I hope that my noble friend will consider how this should be done to
2 May 2007 : Column GC95
Baroness Hanham: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on his ingenuity. I would not have thought that the clause could have sustained the arguments he has put forward. However, one has only to say “clause stand part”, without giving any indication of the basis, and almost any issue can be shoehorned in.
This is a serious problem. We tried to include similar provisions under the Road Safety Bill last year but were told that it was not appropriate there. If you cannot get these provisions into a Road Safety Bill, goodness knows where they can go. After all, pedicabs transport people from one place to another.
Westminster City Council is greatly exercised about this; there are a great number of pedicabs in central London and around the theatres. If we cannot get such a provision into this Bill—and I can see that there may be reasons why not—I urge the Minister to consider where primary legislation can be used to include these measures. If we are to try in every Bill that comes before us to find a loophole, it will be trying, apart from everything else, and will leave the potential problem, raised by the noble Lord, that pedicabs are not properly insured or licensed. They are a tourist attraction, and somebody will get hurt at some stage. That is an open question.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I, too, support the amendment. I declare a slight interest in that I live in Westminster. I have heard from councillors that there is also concern that pedicabs park on the footpath outside theatres and similar places. If there was a fire and people were trying to get out, they could be dangerously obstructed by these vehicles. I have been on buses in Oxford Street that have found it very difficult to pass these vehicles. There is definitely a case for doing something.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I declare an interest as a special adviser to the board of Transport for London. I might have been appointed to the board had it not been for the political restrictions discussed under the previous clause.
I have to praise my noble friend’s ingenuity in raising the issue in this fashion. He has, quite properly, highlighted an issue.
The issue does not just affect tourists. I could take noble Lords to a Sainsbury’s in Liverpool Road, Islington, where pedicabs queue outside to take people and their shopping home. There are real safety questions involving the roadworthiness of the vehicles, the trustworthiness or skills of the people who propel them, and how those people behave on the road or pavements. A proper system of regulation and registration would be appropriate. Before the regulation of minicabs in London, reservations were expressed about whether it could work. Yet, I do not think that many people now would say that that regulation has been anything other than highly
2 May 2007 : Column GC96
Baroness Hamwee: Far be it from me to challenge the Clerks, but I am concerned that a Bill in which the Long Title includes the words,
such as Transport for London, rules out such an issue. It also makes provision for the Greater London Authority and allows for new strategies to be promoted by the Mayor. That does not seem to stack up, so I congratulate the noble Lord on persisting by whatever means he can.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: This is clearly an issue. I, too, pay tribute to the ingenuity of my noble friend for raising this matter. We have had an interesting debate and I hope that I can offer him reassurance. I welcome the opportunity to debate pedicabs, a topical issue that reflects the proliferation of such vehicles on the streets of London.
A range of views has been expressed about these vehicles. Some people, including my noble friend, enthuse about their contribution to London’s transport system. I can understand his affection for pedicabs, having heard in an earlier debate how he and his bride travelled from their wedding to their reception in one. That conjures up a pleasant image of a romantic pedicab experience. However, not everyone’s experience of them will be similar.
Other views have been expressed. Some taxi drivers think that pedicabs should be banned altogether. The Government’s view is that they would make a valuable contribution to wider transport provision, provided that they are properly regulated. It is a concern that they are not, at present, regulated in London or, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in the boroughs.
The main issue identified by my noble friend is how to achieve proper regulation in the public interest and to ensure safety, particularly for passengers, pedestrians and other members of the public. I know that the principal operators share that objective. For example, the delightfully named pedicab operator Bugbugs met officials from the Department for Transport to explain that it wants an effective system of regulation.
I should make it clear that the issue of regulating pedicabs relates only to London. Pedicabs in the rest of England and Wales are already subject to licensing by local authorities, although my noble friend has highlighted concerns about that. Plans to license pedicabs in London are being developed, and it is welcome that Transport for London is taking this matter seriously, although I hear the criticism that it is taking a long time to develop those plans. TfL is the appropriate licensing authority for London and it is only right and proper that it should take responsibility for regulating pedicabs, which are very much a form of local transport within London. TfL
2 May 2007 : Column GC97
6.30 pm
Once achieved, the licensing system will provide a means of exercising comprehensive but proportionate control over pedicabs in London. The licensing system will address the important issues of safety and standards that are of concern to my noble friend. It will, for example, require insurance; it will subject riders to criminal record checks; it will involve safety checks on vehicles; and it will make the riders identifiable.
As part of the process of establishing a licensing system TfL seeks clarification from the courts that pedicabs can actually be licensed as taxis—or hackney carriages as they are termed in the legislation. This is taking time and is a main reason why the introduction of a licensing system has taken longer than all parties would have hoped. I cannot speculate on the likely outcome of the court's deliberations. TfL has powers to make the legislation needed to license and regulate pedicabs within the taxi-licensing regime. Indeed, it is now working on the necessary amendments to the London cab order to facilitate the licensing of pedicabs. However, given that there is some concern about this approach, as the noble Lord described, I welcome the fact that TfL is initiating discussions with representatives of the pedicab industry about the trade's proposal for a voluntary licensing scheme, ahead of the resolution of the legal issues. TfL is hopeful that a voluntary licensing scheme, if it proves possible, could become the basis for the enforceable licensing scheme that it is trying to achieve.
I hope that the noble Lord and the principal operators will find that encouraging, because I can see the possibility to discuss the concept of light-touch regulation. I hope he also appreciates that steps are being taken to establish a suitable licensing regime for pedicabs in London that seeks to ensure that pedicabs are appropriately insured. I know that the noble Lord is very concerned about that. Having said that, I support the clause.
Baroness Hamwee: Can the Minister help me? Do the Government not actually support taking the matter forward? If they do—they seem to from the tone of the Minister’s remarks—would it not be much more straightforward and save a lot of time, effort and money to clarify the legal issues in the Bill?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: That is an interesting question. I have tried to be clear, although I may not have been clear enough. The Government welcome the fact that TfL is trying to take this forward, but it is a matter for TfL. We welcome the fact that TfL is discussing a voluntary scheme with the pedicab providers. We are speaking here about a hypothetical situation, which I think we should avoid, but we welcome those talks. If things are taking longer than TfL and the industry would like, there is obviously an opportunity through talks to come up with a speedier
2 May 2007 : Column GC98
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister said that TfL sought clarification of its powers through the courts. That was what I was pointing to. If there is an issue there—and unlike buses, these Bills do not come along very frequently, or in many groups, as we heard in the Road Transport Act—the Government could, without having to come off the fence regarding the detail of any scheme, ensure through the Bill that TfL had the powers to introduce a scheme and talk to the industry while ensuring that a legal backstop was available.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Yes, I recall, as my noble friend said, coming down the east side of Trafalgar Square with my wife, who was wearing a wedding dress, wondering whether the brakes worked. That was when the potholes were larger than they were before Trafalgar Square was redone. On the whole, pedicabs are rather good. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised an interesting point. I, too, read the Long Title and wondered why my proposed amendment could not be considered. We could not include such a provision in last year’s Bill and there are rumours that there will a road safety Bill at some time in the future. In what kind of a Bill can such a provision be included?
Secondly, my understanding is that the issue being discussed in the court is simple: are pedicabs taxis? They do not look the same, they are not driven in the same way and I can envisage legal arguments about that. I would not bet on the outcome. Such arguments may continue for years, depending on who runs out of money first. My noble friend said that TfL and the industry were actively pursuing a voluntary scheme; that is terribly important and to be welcomed. It would be great if that were achieved and maybe one does not need legislation—but such a scheme would need to be enforced. I am not sure how a voluntary scheme could be enforced, considering the nature of some of the people who drive pedicabs but are not members of Bugbugs.
I hope that my noble friend will reflect on how we could bring forward legislation, if that is needed. However, in the mean time, I will not oppose the Motion that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 [The Health Adviser and the Deputy Health Advisers]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 42:
“( ) In section 61 of the GLA Act 1999 (power to require attendance at Assembly meetings), after subsection (2)(a) insert—
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this might prove to be a gentle forerunner to our debates on Part 4. Earlier, we sought to insert a provision whereby
2 May 2007 : Column GC99
The health adviser’s function is to advise Assembly members on matters of public health, yet the Bill does not require him to attend the Assembly in any formal manner. At Second Reading, we welcomed the initiative that the health adviser would be subject to summons in public and we wish to know why it is not intended that the Assembly should have the power to summon those advisers to its meetings. Given the wide-ranging remit proposed in Part 4, it seems entirely appropriate that the Assembly should have such powers. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I can see no reason why it should not be permitted that the health adviser and the deputy health advisers be summoned by the Assembly in the same way as other people who are appointed. The only reason that I can conceive is because it is envisaged in the Bill that that person may be a civil servant. We are about to consider an amendment that suggests that that person should not be a civil servant. I fail to understand why that is sufficient reason not to permit such an individual to be summoned.
Baroness Hamwee: I support both noble Lords. I am aware that the Government are sensitive about their toes being trodden on and feel that the Assembly should not step in when an individual is answerable to the Government. Given that the health adviser’s remit will be to give advice to the Mayor, the Assembly would wish to be able to ask questions. If the Government are worried that that needs clarification, I am sure that that could be done quite easily. One can have a debate about whether it should be possible to have greater and more open dialogue between London and central government, but that need not be an issue with regard to this provision.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I hope I can offer noble Lords some reassurance. The regional director for public health in London, in her current, informal capacity as health adviser to the GLA, provides the Mayor and the Assembly with expert advice on the patterns and causes of ill health in London and on proposals for action to improve health and narrow the health inequalities between Londoners. This dual role ensures that the Mayor and the Assembly can access expert advice from the person responsible for public health in London and provides a strong link between the GLA’s work on health and the work of the strategic health authority and Department of Health.
The role of health adviser to the GLA was established in 2000, and is widely regarded as working well. However, the role is currently on an informal basis. We are making the role statutory simply to formalise the current arrangements and ensure that the successful co-ordination of work to improve the health of Londoners continues irrespective of changes in the political cycle or who is elected as Mayor or as an Assembly Member.
2 May 2007 : Column GC100
Amendment No. 42enables the Assembly to require the attendance of the health adviser and any deputy health advisers at Assembly meetings. We will resist this amendment. In her current, informal capacity, the health adviser meets regularly with the Mayor and the Assembly. She provides advice on public health issues and detailed briefing to Assembly scrutiny committees. She has also worked with the NHS in London to ensure that the most appropriate people are invited to give evidence to the Assembly.
Clause 21 ensures that the health adviser advises the Greater London Authority—that is, the Mayor and the Assembly—which picks up the point that was being made. We find it inconceivable that, in her capacity as adviser to the Assembly, the health adviser would not wish voluntarily to continue to attend Assembly meetings when invited to do so. We therefore see no need to compel the health adviser to do so.
My noble friend Lord Harris picked up the fact that the regional director of public health for London is a civil servant, accountable to the Department of Health and the strategic health authority. As such, she is accountable to Ministers and, through them, to Parliament. The Government have made it clear many times that it would be wrong to overturn the current constitutional arrangements by requiring civil servants to attend Assembly meetings. That said, given the health adviser’s unique role, we would expect her to continue to work closely with the Assembly and continue to attend Assembly meetings when appropriate. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am not sure if that is a sufficient reason why the provision of a requirement to attend should not be included in the Bill. The fact that a particular post holder—the public health director for London—is accountable to the strategic health authority and, through that, to Ministers does not seem to alter the fact that it would be helpful for the transparency of work on public health if that person might, on occasions, be required to attend Assembly meetings. The fact that the current post holder voluntarily agrees to do so does not help if, in future, the post holder decides that that is not something he wants to do. The Government could take that away and look at it again.
Baroness Hamwee: ew Section 309A uses the term “officer”. It states:
Can the Minister clarify, either today or later, whether the officer is a member of the staff of the authority under Section 61 of the Act?
6.45 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |