Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Committee

Clause 1: Power to regulate pedicabs

Amendment 1

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “Transport for London” and insert “The Secretary of State” Member’s explanatory statement This and related amendments in the name of Lord Berkeley empower the Secretary of State (rather than Transport for London) to make pedicabs regulations.

This is a long group of amendments but, in my case, they all say the same thing, which is probably just as well. I wish to speak to Amendments 1, 6, 10, 13, 27, 29, 30, 37 and 41. These are all to do with the regulatory framework for pedicabs and what I would call a national one.

At Second Reading in your Lordships’ House, a lot of colleagues talked about the difference between the rules governing pedicabs in London and those in the rest of the country. There was general agreement that the London situation needs changing but that it must not be changed to the extent that it prevents legal pedicabs from operating in a safe and sustainable way. We have to learn from the experience of some other cities, such as Oxford, Salisbury and York, where the pedicabs have effectively been put out of business by the taxi crowd. I am sure the Minister would agree that the purpose of all these things is to make the operations of pedicabs as close as possible to the way that taxis operate around the country, bearing in mind that pedicabs are smaller and lighter than taxis, as well as being safer, I think. However, they all need to live together.

My purpose in tabling what is effectively one amendment is that it would be better if the Secretary of State were responsible for all the secondary legislation. While I have great faith in what Transport for London is trying to do, things can change. We may find in a few years’ time that even those of us who love pedicabs will be badly affected if a different council in London decides to make life so difficult for pedicabs that there would be none left. That would be an equal shame.

I know that the Minister has a couple of amendments down on the same thing and I look forward to debating those. The key for me is that the Secretary of State should take ultimate responsibility for the regulations under the Bill, just to make sure that those regulations are fit for purpose and have a common fairness in how they deal with pedicabs and taxis across the whole of England. The Bill applies only to London, as we have been told many times, but if it then became a model for change in other cities later, if the local authorities wanted it, that would be good too. That is my reason for suggesting that it would be good if the Secretary of State were the person by whom the regulations were applied, so that he or she were in charge. I beg to move.

My Lords, my name is attached to two amendments in this group. Amendment 2 is a probing amendment to simply ask my noble friend the Minister why the draftsman uses “may” in some instances and not “must”. I would have thought that these are “musts” that we want to see. In his Amendment 44 in this group, my noble friend has helpfully chosen a “must”, but that is the other way round, requiring that TfL

“must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State”.

He will see why I want it in the direction that I have requested.

My Lords, my contribution to this group of amendments is in having given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. In doing so, I take a contrary view to that of all the amendments about how this issue should be dealt with. All the amendments have a centralising thrust, whereas my thrust is for decentralisation. In one aspect, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that these regulations need to be used to improve the services provided by pedicabs and not to kill them off entirely. We need to use this opportunity to turn the negative into a positive so that they enhance rather than damage the tourism offer in London.

I tabled my notice of intention to oppose Clause 6 standing part of the Bill to probe why the scrutiny of regulations made by Transport for London is to be undertaken by Parliament and not the London Assembly. The legal situation in England is that, outside London, pedicabs can be licensed as taxis. Taxi and PHV licensing is undertaken across England by 262 lower-tier and unitary authorities of a vast range of sizes. The taxi legislation therefore gives licensing authorities significant discretion in vehicle requirements. A taxi driver must be deemed fit and proper to hold a licence, must have held a car driving licence for the last 12 months and must not be disqualified on immigration grounds, which is covered by the right-to-work check.

Some authorities, such as Herefordshire, York and South Lakeland, have policies that detail specific requirements for pedicabs, whereas other authorities state in their licensing policies that they do not license pedicabs. There have been complaints since 2006 about pedicabs in London, but all that time other local authorities have had the powers to deal with this and design and implement their own regulations. That is a satisfactory approach. As I said, there have been complaints over 20 years, but successive Governments have not considered this issue important enough to deal with or they have not had time in the parliamentary timetable to do so.

My Lords, in this exciting ideological divide I find myself, curiously, much on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, rather than the side of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, or even the Government.

We have been here before. In 1514, we enacted a Bill to regulate the fares charged by water taxis on the Thames and it ran into exactly the same problem that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will run into, which was that there was nobody to enforce it. Who in the Department for Transport will turn up and enforce the regulations made by the DfT if TfL, which has an enforcement department, is cut out of it?

The Act of 1514 became, in effect, a nullity. Undeterred, Parliament returned to the subject in 1555 to have another go and this time more sensibly. We delegated the power of setting these fares and enforcing them, as far as river-borne traffic was concerned, to what were known as the rulers of what became the Company of Watermen and Lightermen. The regulation of horse-drawn traffic in London, including things like cabs and taxi meters, has—as far as I am aware, and until the creation of Transport for London under the GLA Act of 1999—always been the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police. Again, that is a local body and one well acquainted with enforcement.

Now, for the first time in at least half a millennium of legislation, we appear to have the notion from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that all regulation should be set by the Government and from the Government the not terribly dissimilar notion, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that while Transport for London should be allowed to draft, in effect, the statutory instruments and must submit them immediately—“immediately” is the word used—to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, with no time limit, requirement or obligation on him or her, then has to approve, amend, change or reject them. Why? What is the advantage to the Government or to the travelling passenger of doing this? Why are the Government not under the same obligation to act immediately, or at least within set time limits, in dealing with the SIs sent to them by Transport for London?

We should learn our lessons from history. This sort of regulation and enforcement is best done at local level. We have a body in place in the form of Transport for London, which has considerable experience of regulating the analogous taxi trade, so why would we want this to be done by the Department for Transport, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and why do the Government feel that they need to bring these provisions before Parliament, when they do not expect taxi fares to be set in a like manner? What is the objective here?

When I raised this at Second Reading, I thought it might give a friendly hint to the Minister perhaps to moderate or withdraw that clause. Far from doing so, it appears to have alerted him to what he considers to be a lacuna in the Bill and he has come back with a government amendment to make the department’s grip on this process even tighter. The Government should think about this again and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, should think about the practical effects of his proposal.

My Lords, I declared my interests in full at Second Reading. I declare them again, only as they are in the register.

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. This seems a strange way of regulating the pedicab industry. I am not sure why my noble friend is regulating in this complex way. As I understand it, Transport for London will form the regulations, then the Secretary of State will turn them into statutory instruments. They will enter a new queue here to be given the time to be dealt with.

I have had problems in the past with statutory instruments from the Department for Transport. The Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023 were debated in the Moses Room on 16 May this year. It took five years from consultation before they were promulgated here. I am not sure what was achieved in those five years, because the regulations were not changed. The only thing that happened was delay.

I think we all agree that the Bill is urgent, important and should be done immediately. As my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned, it is good news that the Government, in their Amendment 46, use the word “immediately”:

“Transport for London must, immediately after making pedicab regulations, send the statutory instrument containing them to the Secretary of State”.

Should we not volunteer to propose the regulations as statutory instruments immediately? I understand that, even then, there would be a queue, but the word “immediately” does not seem to have produced the urgency that is truly required.

This is a very good Bill. I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who said that the taxis are regulated by the Secretary of State. I think he will find that they used to be, a long time ago in the old and hallowed days when they were regulated through the police force—and very much better they were, too—but, in recent years, they have been regulated by Transport for London. It can change things and get new regulations through much faster than would be implied by this structure. So, not only are they closer, as my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned; they are also altogether faster than the system, which is inevitable with a big department.

My Lords, I find myself, in my position speaking for the Opposition, in favour of devolution on this issue. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said; I do not know why she thought that I would disagree but I agree totally with what she said.

I did not say that.

The noble Baroness did.

I did not—at least, I did not intend to imply that.

In that case, I apologise, but I agree completely with what the noble Baroness said. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley and agree with the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Borwick, on this issue. It is the responsibility of Parliament to set the framework to empower Transport for London to make these regulations, but their detail should be a matter for it and it should be given the power to do this. One of the amendments I have tabled suggests that we push ahead quickly with this and that TfL should be given the power to get on with it as quickly as possible. I suspect that the real argument one ought to have concerns whether this is a Westminster borough issue or a London-wide one, but it makes the most sense for TfL to have the legal responsibility. I am sure that the borough of Westminster will be consulted by it on this matter very thoroughly.

This is certainly an important principle. If we want speedy action in this area, it should be supported across the Committee. With great respect to civil servants in the Department for Transport, it is also ridiculous that they should spend their time monitoring these, which are, frankly, of minor significance in the overall scope of their responsibilities. I therefore urge the Government to think again on this matter, otherwise, we might have a bit of an argument on Report.

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ consideration of the Bill and very much welcome the scrutiny of those here today as it continues its parliamentary passage.

This first group of amendments covers the process for secondary legislation made under the Bill. Before moving on to the amendments tabled by noble Lords, I will explain the purpose of the two government amendments that have been tabled. Amendments 44 and 46 are intended to provide clarity on the parliamentary procedure for the secondary legislation that will come forward to regulate London’s pedicabs. Let me take them in turn. Amendment 44 makes it explicit that Transport for London would have to obtain approval from the Secretary of State to make a pedicab order; this should assure the Committee that there will need to be consensus between the Government and Transport for London.

On Amendment 46, convention dictates that only Ministers may lay orders in Parliament, and Transport for London would therefore be unable to do this. Again, this amendment is intended to be explicit on this point, making it clear that Ministers would be responsible for laying a pedicab order. This is the right approach. The Bill will require that pedicab regulations be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the negative resolution procedure. This strikes an appropriate balance between conferring a discretion on Transport for London to consult and design pedicab regulations, and a scrutiny role for Parliament in their approval. The opposing amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seem to suggest that the Bill’s drafting and procedure is in the right place. As I set out, it will be subject to the negative procedure. The point raised my noble friends Lord Borwick and Lord Moylan on the immediate response by the Secretary of State has been taken on board, and we will go back and look at it.