Mr.
Carmichael: I shall not detain the Committee for long, but
I cannot support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. Although there
is clearly a problem to be dealt with, I am concerned that the new
clause would in effect drive pedicabs off the streets, which is not
what we should be seeking to do through the Bill. I continue to work on
the issue myself, and hope to table an amendment on Report, if the
Speaker considers that appropriate.
Stephen
Hammond: I am disappointed to hear that response from the
hon. Gentleman. Let us cut to the thrust of the argument. The pedicabs
and rickshaws operating in London exploit a legal loophole that permits
pedal-powered vehicles to operate outside the hackney carriage and
private hire vehicle regulations. Their construction and maintenance is
not standardised or regulated, and most of them have no insurance. The
riders are often untrained and are usually overseas students being
charged a fee by owners to operate them. The riders have no experience
either in the operation of the vehicles or in the routes.
There is no set fee. Clearly,
we are in favour of the free market, but the potential to rip off
customers and exploit overseas tourists, which is bad news for London
business, contrasts with the regulation of most vehicle hire in London.
The green, alternative argument that is often put is a fallacy, because
most of the journeys that pedicabs operate are short and could be
walked. Very often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr.
Scott) pointed out, their obedience to traffic regulations is somewhere
between zero and none. They block west end streets, they congregate at
theatres, blocking roads, and there are problems with complying with
red lights, which we have discussed on numerous
occasions. More
importantly, this is the Road Safety Bill, so let us expand on three
points made by the Transport Research Laboratory on the safety of
pedicabs. It
said: “A
literature review considered existing regulations and standards that
could be applied to Pedicabs and found that although both construction
and use regulations and the Highway Code could be applied to Pedicabs,
no specific mention of them was made in either. The Pedicab tested
failed to comply with certain aspects of the regulations
reviewed.” It went on to
say: “Braking
and Handling trials tested the braking performance and stability of the
Pedicab under various conditions. The braking performance of a laden
Pedicab was found to be significantly lower than that of a
car.” Finally, as my hon.
Friend said, the
TRL “concluded that the
passenger compartment would provide little or no protection in the
event of almost any
accident.” If there was
ever a compelling case for a clause to close this legal loophole and to
make registration compulsory, this is
it.
Dr.
Ladyman: Should pedicabs be licensed and properly managed?
Yes, of course they should. Everywhere else in the country, outside
London, they are licensed as taxicabs and local authorities control
them well. We have received no requests or lobbying from anybody
outside London for any changes to the existing system or law. In those
areas, the pedicabs seem to co-exist happily with the local community.
Inside London, I agree that there is a different
problem, because currently pedicabs fall outside the licensing regime.
Transport for London is intending to bring them inside the licensing
regime very shortly. I hope that when it does so the problems
identified by Conservative Members will be
resolved. If I may
introduce a note of controversy in what until now has been a pretty
consensual Committee on most issues, I suspect that the Conservative
Members’ briefs were written for them by the taxi associations.
Those associations do not want pedicabs to be managed or to be brought
within a licensing regime. They want them off the road, because they
perceive that pedicabs are taking away some of their money. The hon.
Member for Ilford, North says that pedicab owners are making profits,
but what does he think taxi drivers and the people who own taxis are
doing?
Dr.
Ladyman: Let me finish. The hon. Gentleman has made his
point; I am entitled to put the alternative case. The hon. Member for
Wimbledon says that people have to pay to pull pedicabs, but how does
he think most of the hackney cabs in London are financed and put on the
roads? It is exactly the same situation. If managed properly within a
licensing regime, pedicabs could provide an additional level of
diversity in the way in which people may move around the
city. I do not imagine
that pedicabs will be the transport of choice for people who work in
London, but they may be the occasional transport of choice for
tourists, people attending the theatre, or those out for a romantic
evening who feel that it would be fun to be pulled through the park. If
that is what they want to do, why not allow them? [Laughter.] I
probably did not phrase that very well. Never having been pulled in the
park, I did not realise how that would sound until it came out of my
mouth. Pedicabs can add to the diversity of transport in the city, so
long as they are properly licensed and the issues about the people who
pull them and the ways in which they are parked and use the streets are
managed
properly. Pedicabs
must follow the same rules of the road as everybody else and they are
subject to police enforcement. We discussed cyclists in earlier
sittings, and the police should be stopping pedicabs that are breaking
the rules just as they should be stopping cyclists who are breaking the
rules. 10.15
am
Mr.
Scott: Licensed taxi fares are regulated, but pedicab
fares are not regulated by
anyone.
Dr.
Ladyman: That is an extraordinary statement for a
Conservative to make; are pedicab fares not regulated by the
marketplace? If people are being charged too much, will they not simply
not get in to pedicabs? I know that the Conservative party is
chameleon-like and is trying to change its image, but I did not think
that it had completely divorced itself from market philosophy. Clearly
that change has happened today. I hope that my colleagues will relay
that message to the Prime Minister so that he can take account of
it.
Certainly, pedicabs should not
rip people off, and should be within a licensed regime. That is what
Transport for London is trying to achieve.
Stephen
Hammond: The Minister is at his most disingenuous today.
As we have seen throughout our proceedings, his inspiration usually
comes not out of his own mouth or mind, but from some gentlemen or
ladies who sit at the top table—as does most of his
briefing. We have had
several representations on this point. This is not about stifling free
enterprise. If the Minister wants a taxi drivers’ regime across
London with no regulation, he should introduce it. That seems to be the
thrust of his recent argument, although I am sure that that is not what
he meant to say. This is about a group of people who currently act
outside the law and potentially exploit visitors to this country. If
the Minister or I were to walk this afternoon to a theatre in
Westminster and decide afterwards that we wanted a ride back to the
House of Commons in a pedicab, we would know the going rate for that
trip, but a tourist from anywhere in the world might not know that the
going rate from a theatre in Westminster to the House of Commons is not
£50. All we are
trying to do is bring pedicabs inside a proper licensing regime. We
have heard a lot of nonsense about chameleons and the free market, and
I am sure that on reconsideration the Minister will want to
disassociate himself from that burst of comedy. Let us get back to the
serious point behind the new clause: the regulation of pedicabs, and
correcting the loophole that exists only in London. Any fair-minded and
sensible member of the Committee should want to support the
clause.
Dr.
Ladyman: First, let me defend myself. The hon. Gentleman
might not have noticed, but I have used the copious packs of briefing
put before me every day for precisely one clause during our
proceedings. I have not otherwise referred to any of it. In any event,
the officials who provide me with inspiration and briefing do so
according to instructions that they were previously provided with by me
and other Ministers. That is different from using a taxi association
briefing, which is truly disingenuous, because it is from people who
see pedicabs as competition and want them off the road.
The hon. Gentleman’s new
clause argues for what I hope he accepts is the appropriate way to deal
with this: for pedicabs to be properly licensed, brought within a
licensing regime, allowed to compete with taxi drivers, and made to
follow the rules of the road. Enforcement of those rules is a matter
for the police.
Dr.
Ladyman: Transport for London is already bringing pedicabs
within its licensing regime, so new legislation is not required for
that. The rest of the country seems to have managed this issue
perfectly satisfactorily without new legislation, so I do not see any
need for the new clause. Does the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire
want to intervene?
Mr.
Knight: I did want to intervene, but the Minister answered
my point in that summing up. I was going to ask whether Transport for
London needs any further powers from us to make that change, but he
covered that point. However, I must say, in passing, that he is
beginning to sound rather demob
happy.
Dr.
Ladyman: Demob happy is probably a good way of putting it.
It is rather a lot of work for a Minister to have to take a Bill
through a Committee by himself. It is lonely work, but I can now see
the distant light at the end of the tunnel. Nevertheless, I shall
answer the right hon. Gentleman’s serious point.
Transport for London has not
asked for new powers to deal with the problem, and I believe that the
matter can be properly managed under the law as it stands. In any
event, we will not legislate to take pedicabs off the road simply to
give others the free use of the marketplace. Pedicabs have a
contribution to make—not a major one, I suggest—and with
a proper licensing regime they will be satisfactorily
managed.
Mr.
Scott: I should like to press the motion to a
Division. Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
16] Question
accordingly negatived.
New Clause
15Passenger
side mirrors ‘All HGV
vehicles, operating in the UK, must have a mirror positioned on the
exterior of the vehicle on the passenger side, which enables the driver
to have a full view of vehicles and other road users in the
neighbouring lanes, when driving on all roads in the United Kingdom.'.
—[Mr.
Paterson.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Paterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. I am indebted to
a near neighbour of the Minister’s—my hon. Friend the
Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—for bringing this matter to
my attention. It is not particularly controversial. It is partly to do
with the welcome expansion of the European Union and the enormous
increase in traffic between us and the continent.
The problem is simple. We have
the steering wheel on the right-hand side of the vehicle, and on the
continent
it is on the left. Continental trucks have no need for a wide-angled
mirror on the passenger side when they are on the continent—but
in the United Kingdom that is what would be the driver’s
side. The wife of my
hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had a horrible experience when
overtaking a Hungarian lorry on the M2 near the Minister’s
constituency. She was pushed into the central barrier, and the young
Hungarian driver was aghast and horrified at what had happened. His
lorry was completely legal according to Hungarian regulations, but did
not have a wide-angled mirror fitted to the passenger side of his
lorry. As a result, he simply did not see her.
My hon. Friend had a similar
constituency case, in which a man was overtaking a continental lorry in
the fast lane. The lorry did not see him and pulled out. I am not sure
which country the lorry driver came from,
but he was professional and had a good record; he was similarly
horrified at what had happened. I understand that an EU
directive will make it compulsory for all new heavy goods vehicles to
have wide-angled mirrors from 26 January 2007. The new clause is
simple; it would require all HGVs in this country to have such mirrors
fitted. It would make it mandatory. It is interesting that Holland and
Belgium have already gone down that route. They have gone ahead of the
Commission and made it compulsory to fit class 4 wide-angled mirrors to
all HGVs. Analysis shows that the retrofitting of mirrors has been
effective. There is clear anecdotal evidence of the danger. The
directive as it stands is not good enough because it would apply only
to new— It
being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
