Greater London Authority Bill

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 did not relate to the type of transport referred to in the Long Title. I hope that my noble friend can give some idea of the Government’s thinking on these interesting machines. 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, respondedthat, 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 provide the necessary safety, security and insurance requirements for England and Wales, and possibly even Scotland if it wanted them. I beg to move.