Dr.
Ladyman: The hon. Member for North Shropshire alluded to
the fact that he and I were at a meeting of the all-party group on
motorcycling yesterday. I made it clear, and reiterate for the record,
that I have seen no evidence that there is any negative safety impact
of motor cycles using bus lanes. Indeed, I see positive benefits to it,
because as part of our national motor cycling strategy we want to make
motor cycling mainstream. We see it as one way in which we can help to
relieve congestion and improve social mobility, as long as we can do so
while maintaining the safety of motor cyclists and other road users.
Motor cycles using bus lanes would contribute to
that. Motor cycles
should not be able to use every bus lane in the country, as the new
clause would require them to do. I draw the line at that. I suspect
that there will be some bus lanes that, because of their construction
and the way in which they are commonly used in their local environment,
will not be suitable for motor cycles and therefore need to be
restricted to buses. Those lanes will be exceptional cases in one or
two places where the local authority has a good reason not to want
motor cycles in a bus lane. However, in 99 per cent. of cases I do not
see any disadvantage in a motor cycle using a bus lane. Local
authorities have the power to allow that to happen. It is entirely at
their discretion. I
shall go on to explain how we have reached a situation whereby most bus
lanes exclude motor cyclists. I want the Committee to realise that I
believe that most bus lanes are suitable for the use of motor
cycles.
Mr.
Knight: I have been pleased to hear what the Minister has
said so far, but will he put his money where his mouth is? Local
authorities may indeed have discretion, but his Department should give
guidance
that unless there are circumstances in which it would be unsafe, as he
alluded to, the default position should be that motor cyclists can use
bus lanes. Will he consider changing his Department’s guidance
to that
effect?
Dr.
Ladyman: The right hon. Gentleman brings me to the point
that I was going to make about how we have ended up in this position.
In 1997, when the document “Keeping Buses Moving”, which
described the construction of bus lanes, was produced, it said that
motor cycles should not normally use bus lanes. I was not involved in
the production of that document, and I do not know the rationale for
that. There may have been a perception that there was a threat to
pedestrians from motor cycles in bus lanes, and that may have been why
the recommendation was
included. To me, it
would have been more obvious to point out that the people who should
not be in bus lanes are pedestrians. Pedestrians should be on the
pavement, not walking over bus lanes. If they do cross a bus lane, they
need to take the same care as they are expected to take when crossing
any road. That requires them to be alive to the possibility that not
only buses but motor cycles might be in the bus lane. Nevertheless, we
are discussing the position that was established in 1997, and the
guidance on the Department’s website reflects
that. Since then, we
have carried out a number of experiments and some local authorities
have used their discretion. I understand that that discretion is used
in Bristol and Birmingham. Indeed, it is used in respect of the most
high-profile bus lanes for which the Department for Transport has
responsibility—the M4 bus lane allows motor cycles—so we
have shown that we believe that motor cycles ought to be allowed in bus
lanes. That discretion
is being used in London for an experiment. It was due to finish last
year, but the statisticians believed that sufficient data on accidents
had not been accumulated for them to be able to draw clear conclusions,
so it was recommended that it continue. As the hon. Member for North
Shropshire said, however, the interim report shows that there is no
evidence of a safety problem. In my view, the report is sufficiently
convincing that we should start moving to a position whereby we remind
local authorities that they have discretion, and I have taken steps to
do that. Assuming that
there is no major change to the outcome of the experiment, I give a
commitment that I will ensure that the guidance on the
Department’s website is completely rewritten as soon as the
experiment is finished, so that it is clear that there appears to be no
safety risk in allowing motor cycles in bus lanes. In the meantime, we
shall take steps to remind local authorities that they have that
discretion.
Mr.
Carmichael: If the situation is as the Minister says and
in 99 per cent. of cases it would be perfectly acceptable to allow
motor cycles in bus lanes, would it not be more appropriate to give
local authorities the power to exclude motor cycles from certain bus
lanes if they thought that the safety case for that had been made,
rather than giving them a power to allow motor cycles in bus
lanes?
Dr.
Ladyman: That is the current position: local authorities
have the power to exclude and the power to allow motor cycles in bus
lanes. Originally, the Government guidance asked them to take the view
that, normally, motor cycles would not be allowed in bus lanes. My view
is that, as soon as we have the final data to confirm that allowing
them in bus lanes is appropriate, we are likely to change the guidance
to say that normally they should be allowed
in. However, there
might still be one or two circumstances in which local authorities want
to exclude motor cycles from bus lanes. For example, it might be
inappropriate for motor cycles to be allowed in a bus lane leading
directly to a bus station. It might be appropriate to be very strict
about who is allowed in bus lanes in roads around schools, because of
the way in which the roads are engineered and the layout of the roads
and because of how the children—kids being kids—are
likely to behave when getting off school buses. A local authority might
want to exclude motor cycles from bus lanes in those areas, but my view
is that, by and large, local authorities should be using their
discretion to allow motor cycles in the vast majority of bus lanes, and
we need to work to change the guidance to reflect
that.
Mr.
Paterson: The Minister makes a sensible point: it might
not be appropriate to allow motor bikes in bus lanes near schools and
so on. However, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) made
a good point, too: the inconsistency is muddling for motorbike riders.
A consensus seems to be emerging between my right hon. Friend the
Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland
that it would be better for it to be the general rule throughout the
country that all bus lanes are open, unless a bus lane is clearly
marked as an exception. That would be much easier for motor bike riders
to understand; it is a response to the point about muddle and
inconsistency. I am
encouraged by the Minister’s comments, and this is a probing new
clause, but when he puts statements on the website, would it not be
better to switch the presumption? The presumption should be that motor
cycles are allowed in bus lanes unless a bus lane is near a school, a
bus depot or whatever. Those are perfectly sensible exceptions and they
should be clearly
marked. 10
am
Dr.
Ladyman: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I can
see a practical advantage in what he suggests. At present it would be
necessary for all the local authorities around the country to get out
little pots of paint and put little motor cycle signs on everything to
say that motor cycles are now allowed in. If excluding motor cycles is
to become exceptional, it would be much cheaper to say that they are
allowed unless there is a sign with a motor cycle with a red line
through it. It would be much easier to identify that. I will certainly
take that on board as we prepare the new guidance based on the outcome
of the experiment.
Dr.
Iddon: My point is the same. The lack of consistency
across the country on the usage of bus
lanes by all vehicles, not just motor cycles, causes confusion. When a
driver is entering a very busy town, paying attention to the movement
of traffic in front of him is often more important than observing the
signs approaching a bus lane. I find it difficult to read the signs on
the usage of bus lanes for that reason. The consistency argument is
very important.
Dr.
Ladyman: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend is saying,
not just in respect of motor cycles but in respect of all users of bus
lanes. I find it incredibly confusing in London that some bus lanes are
7 till 7 while others are 7 till 10, 4 till 7 and 24-hour. Once a
driver has missed the first sign at the beginning of the bus
lane—his mind may have been on avoiding a traffic
hazard—he has no idea whether the bus lane alongside him is
empty at 8 o’clock at night because it is a 24-hour bus lane or
because all the other drivers have also missed the sign and do not
realise that they are allowed to use it. I would be interested in
looking for some consistency and greater clarity in
signing.
Mr.
Knight: We are having an interesting debate. My view is
that we should never have 24-hour bus lanes when we do not have 24-hour
buses. When in 2007 will the report conclude its work? Will the
Minister give us a commitment that when he changes the guidance he will
let us know by way of a written parliamentary
statement?
Dr.
Ladyman: I will certainly make a statement when we change
the guidance. My understanding is that the full data should be
available this summer, so we do not have to wait much longer until we
can carry out the analysis. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s
point that there should not be 24-hour bus lanes when there are not
24-hour buses, although I am happy to say that there are 24-hour buses
in London. There are night buses. I now have the benefit of a
ministerial car to get me home to my flat, but before I became a
Minister I occasionally had to take the night bus. It was rather like
one of the Quentin Tarantino vampire films; I would wonder whether I
was the only person who was not about to turn into a werewolf.
Nevertheless, we have 24-hour buses in London and they should be able
to run congestion-free where appropriate. That is a matter for local
authorities. I hope
that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will be prepared to withdraw
his new clause, given my assurances, and that my hon. Friend the Member
for Bolton, South-East will explain to his assistant that I am entirely
committed to her cause. I perhaps cannot move as fast as she would want
me to, but I am determined to ensure that she can use bus lanes at some
point in the very near
future.
Mr.
Paterson: I am very encouraged by the Minister’s
comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
14Pedicabs ‘(1)
The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing
for—
(a) the application of relevant enactments to
pedicabs; and (b) the
enforcement of relevant enactments in relation to
pedicabs. (2) The regulations
may, in particular, make provision
for— (a) identifying the
person against whom enforcement action may be taken if there is a
contravention of a relevant
enactment; (b) the registration
of pedicabs by specified authorities and the provision and display of
registration plates on
pedicabs; (c) the payment of
fees for registration; (d) the
making of registers available for inspection and
sale; (e) offences relating to
registration; (f) transitional
arrangements. (3) In subsection
(11) of section 15 (parking on footways, grass verges, etc.) of the
Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, in the definition of
“vehicle”, after ‘means', insert ‘a
pedicab' (within the meaning given by section (pedicabs) of the Road
Safety Act 2006 (c. )). (4) The
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 is amended
as follows— (a) in
section 4(5) (penalty charges for road traffic contraventions), for the
words “motor vehicle” there is substituted
“vehicle”; (b) in
section 4(16), the definition of “motor vehicle” is
omitted and the following definition is inserted at the
end— ‘“vehicle”
means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on
roads, or a pedicab within the meaning given by section (pedicabs) of
the Road Safety Act
2005.”. (5) The
“appropriate national authority”
means— (a) in relation
to England, the Secretary of
State; (b) in relation to
Wales, the National Assembly for
Wales; (6) A
“pedicab” means a cycle constructed or
adapted— (a) to seat one
or more passengers; and (b) for
the purpose of being made available with a driver for hire for the
purpose of carrying
passengers. (7)
“relevant enactment”
means— (a) section 15
(parking on footways, grass verges, etc.) of the Greater London Council
(General Powers) Act 1974; (b)
Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (traffic in
London); (c) Part II of and
Schedule 1 to the London Authorities Act 1996 (bus
lanes); (d) regulations made
under section 144 of the Transport Act 2000 (civil penalties for bus
lane contraventions); (e) Part
2 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London 2003 (road
traffic and highways); (f)
regulations under section 72 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil
penalties for road traffic
contraventions); (g) any other
enactment relating to road traffic regulation, specified in regulations
made by the appropriate national authority, which provides for the
service of penalty charge notice or notices to owner on the owner of a
vehicle. (8) “specified
authority”
means— (a) in Greater
London, Transport for
London; (b) elsewhere in
England and Wales, a traffic authority.'. —[Mr.
Scott.] Brought
up, and read the First time.
Mr.
Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): I beg to move, That the
clause be read a Second
time. Although I
originally called for pedicabs to be banned totally, I am pleased to
speak in favour of new clause 14. It seeks to apply traffic and parking
restrictions to pedicabs or rickshaws and specifically to apply
penalties to the owners of pedicabs. I have received petitions and met
a number of organisations, including the Licensed Taxi Drivers
Association. Its members have direct and daily experience of problems
caused by pedicabs in London. Up to 300 pedicabs now operate at any one
time in central London, and they also operate in Bath, Cardiff and, I
understand, Newcastle. The problems are common throughout the country,
but are most intense in London.
Pedicabs are currently not
subject to parking or traffic regulations. Pedicab drivers are not
tested and are not required to train. They ride and park wherever they
choose. As a result, they cause obstructions for road users, taxis,
buses and emergency vehicles, particularly outside theatres and
restaurants in central London. They use and block bus lanes, pedestrian
crossings, pavements and box crossings. They also obstruct emergency
vehicle access points, which has implications for the safety not only
of road users, but of the wider public.
Thus, applying parking traffic
regulations to pedicabs is an urgent necessity. We seek to apply them
to the owners because of the nature of the industry. Many of the
drivers are employed casually and it would not be practical to apply
penalties to them. It is the owners who must take
responsibility—after all, they are the ones making huge
profits. As well as
being untested and untrained, and often casually employed, drivers are
not vetted, which of course contrasts with every other licensed taxi
trade. The dangers of unlicensed minicabs have been widely recognised
over the years. The same considerations apply to pedicabs. As an
illustration of the dangers, it is worth noting the tragic case that
concluded on 18 March last year, when a pedicab rider was sentenced to
eight years’ imprisonment for the rape of a 23-year-old female
passenger who had been in their care.
Pedicabs themselves are
dangerous. No standards are applied to their construction. They are
often poorly constructed and not subject to any tests, such as MOTs.
The Transport Research Laboratory—the independent body used by
the Government—was asked to examine one of the most common
pedicabs. It concluded that, in its professional opinion, the passenger
compartment would provide little or no protection in the event of an
accident. As
a result of all those points of concern, Transport for London
and Westminster city council, among others, have sought to regulate
pedicabs and apply a licensing regime to them. Licensing has been
promised but much delayed. As all parties, including the Government,
agree that unlicensed pedicabs cause obstructions to road users and
that the way in which they operate puts pedestrians, their passengers
and other road users at risk, there is no reason to delay imposing
traffic and parking regulations on them.I therefore urge the
Committee to support newclause
14.
| 
