| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I understand that officials have not yet been in touch with that association.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that really helpful reply. Within the course of this Bill, we have if nothing else raised the whole question of pedicabs and the necessity for some form of regulation. I understand that the organisation concerned which has the riveting title of Bugbugs—the name of the major fleet owner, which seems to be at the forefront—is not anti-regulation. It is clear that if there is going to be consultation it needs to be included. So Bugbugs is the name if somebody would
10 Jan 2006 : Column 121
like to take that up. It is unlikely that pedicabs will ever become a serious threat to the London taxi. So we need not detain ourselves on that for very long.
I am also grateful to the Minister for her assurance. The reason for bringing the amendment forward was to get the necessary legislation in place, but as it will not require primary legislation, it could be introduced after the TfL legislation comes in. All in all, I am not unhappy with the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 22:
"REGULATION OF HUMAN TRANSPORTERS
(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State shall publish regulations on the construction and use of human transporters.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a "human transporter" is a self-balancing, electric-powered, software-controlled device, with the two wheels on the same axis and a top speed controlled by encrypted keys not exceeding 12.5 miles per hour."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked me to apologise on his behalf because he cannot be here, but he supports this amendment. This is another attempt at a different way to try to persuade the Government to bring forward regulations to make these "human transporters"—I do not particularly like the name, but Segway is the name of the manufacturer at the moment—legal somewhere, be it on a footpath, going slowly on a cycle track or a bit faster on the road, where it will presumably operate like a powered bicycle. Some noble Lords tried one out in the car park earlier.
I remind noble Lords that these transporters are already in use quite widely in Italian cities by the police for catching people. They are clearly effective there. One of the people who gave us a demonstration before Christmas sent me an e-mail this morning saying that he had been stopped by a police car in the middle of Hyde Park Corner going through Wellington Arch and told that he was riding a power-assisted vehicle illegally. He replied that the policeman was also driving his car illegally on a footpath or cycleway but I do not think that it did much good. It was actually harassment. Why is this man being harassed by the police just because there is no regulation? Why should he not use his vehicle? He is happy to comply with any regulations, but there are none. Therefore, I thought, "Let's put this amendment down and hope that within a year the Government will bring forth regulations".
The key to the "encrypted keys" is that there can probably be three different maximum speeds which could be preset depending on whether you are on a footpath, cycleway or road. With that short introduction, I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support this amendment. I had a ride on one of these vehicles. I thought that it would be terrifying but it was really very good. It might be a great asset for someone who has difficulty walking. However, I wonder whether an
10 Jan 2006 : Column 122
electric scooter would not come under the same category. I am not sure that it could not just be used as it is. I wonder whether regulations are required.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I feel that the Government should consider the amendment very seriously, and I should like them to accept it so that it can be given further consideration in the other place. It is obvious that, like wild boar that have escaped from domestic premises, these new devices will escape with human assistance on to our public highways, cycle ways or footways, and we need to know how they will be used and what the regulations are. After all, at the moment the police are not even sure when they stop someone whether they are acting within the law. The Government should help their own police in this respect—and one of the best ways in which to deal with the matter is to allow the amendment to go through for further consideration in the other place.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. We have discussed the issue of the Segway on previous occasions, and it seems that this amendment would be rather more facilitative than regulatory. But let me make the obvious points: such a vehicle would be regarded as a motor vehicle for the purposes of motor vehicle legislation, and the transporter would need to meet other statutory requirements, including type or single vehicle approval, insurance and so on, which are prerequisites for being licensed and registered for the roads. If it is suggested that such vehicles could be used on footpaths and cycle ways, we would need changes to primary legislation to permit these vehicles to have access to those areas.
We would need to ensure that legislation that enabled that interesting means of transport to be used was generic and not specific. It is not the duty of government to promote one proprietary product; it is the duty of government to facilitate aids to transport that are safe in the appropriate circumstances. So we would need to be very careful that we were not putting forward legislation designed to facilitate one product—which the amendment does. The amendment is also very prescriptive, in obliging the Secretary of State to make regulations and to make them by a specific date; that is rather more sharply defined than much significant legislation that many Members of this House can readily recollect.
I have had a ride on this vehicle, too, and enjoyed it hugely. I found it a good deal safer for my aged frame than I expected, and I got on and off safely without hitting anybody else. There is no doubt at all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, indicated, that they are a good deal better than walking—but they raise significant issues for other road users. Therefore, the Government believe that we should proceed cautiously on these matters. A great deal needs to be thought through, and we could not possibly accept an amendment which was so specific to one proprietary development, although we recognise the dangers of looking "stick in the mud" and not receptive to new technologies. It is important that we embrace new
10 Jan 2006 : Column 123
technologies when they advance our transport interests—but there is a real problem with regard to this particular device. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that he has given the subject a good airing and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I hope at least that a message could be given to the police not to harass people unduly, if they are operating safely; otherwise, they do not have any way forward. If they go on the road, they will be done for not having insurance, tax, two lights in the front and two lights in the back; if they go on a cycle way, they will be caught by police for driving in a car; if they go on a footpath—well, a policeman on foot probably cannot chase them. But I hear what the Minister says, and I am sure that either here or in another place we shall revert to this subject many times in future years. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 pm
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Carter): My Lords, in Division No. 3, the number of Not-Content votes was 143, not 142, as previously announced. That does not affect the result of the Division.
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 24:
"CAUSING OR PERMITTING CHILD UNDER 14 TO RIDE A CYCLE ON ROAD WITHOUT PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR
(1) Except as provided by regulations, it is an offence for any person to whom this subsection applies to cause or permit a child under the age of 14 years to ride a cycle on a road unless the child is wearing protective headgear, of such description as may be specified in regulations, in such manner as may be so specified.
(2) Subsection (1) above applies to the following persons—
(a) unless the child is cycling in the course of his employment, any person who—
(i) for the purposes of Part I of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12), has responsibility for the child;
(ii) for the purposes of Part II of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37), has parental responsibilities (within the meaning given by section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36)) in relation to, or has charge or care of, the child;
(iii) for the purposes of Article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)), has parental responsibilities in relation to the child;
(iv) in relation to Northern Ireland, has care of the child or is, otherwise than by virtue of Article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, legally obliged to maintain the child;
10 Jan 2006 : Column 124
(b) any person other than a person mentioned in paragraph (a) above who is above the age of 17 years and who has custody of or is in possession of the cycle immediately before the child rides it;
(c) where the child is employed and is cycling in the course of his employment, his employer and any other person to whose orders the child is subject in the course of his employment.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(4) In this section—
"regulations" means regulations under section (Regulations in relation to section (Causing or permitting child under 14 to ride a cycle on road without protective headgear)); and
"road"—
(a) in England and Wales has the meaning given by section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (general interpretation);
(b) in Scotland has the meaning given by section 15(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 54) (emergency work in relation to private roads); and
(c) in Northern Ireland has the meaning given by Article 1(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2994 (N.I. 18))."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25, which is also in my name. These are similar to the amendments that I moved in Committee and Report, but I have altered them in an endeavour to take into account concerns raised by a number of your Lordships at Report. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, did not like the inclusion of,
and I have removed that reference in the amendment, which will I hope make it more acceptable to him. I can quite see his point. My noble friend Lady Hanham, speaking to me outside the Chamber, told me that she did not approve of the possibility of children being liable for a criminal conviction, which was a possibility under my previous amendment. The amendment has been redrafted to take account of that; I am assured by the legal eagles that liability now rests entirely with adults.
The Minister has opposed my amendments in Committee and at Report, but seems to have no objection to it being compulsory for children to wear safety helmets when riding ponies or horses on roads. I find that illogical. I raised that question at an earlier stage and the Minister failed to comment on it.
I have with me a photocopy of an article from the Daily Mail of 6 December 2005, which is quite interesting. Its opening lines said:
"A police force has banned its civilian bobbies from patrolling on specially-bought bicycles—because they haven't got helmets.
Five months ago Enfield borough police invested in 12 bikes to help its Community Support Officers patrol parks.
But not one officer has used the cycles yet because the North London force will not risk sending them out on to the roads in case they have an accident".
I find it extremely odd that when a state-funded organisation insists on its adult officers being properly protected when cycling on the road, the Minister opposes the same level of protection for children who
10 Jan 2006 : Column 125
are likely to be much more vulnerable due to their age and inexperience. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look more kindly on the amendment at this stage. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |