Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Monday 11th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 3, I shall also speak to Amendment 4 in my name. The objective of both is to highlight the importance of having a clear definition of pedicabs and their use, so that the Bill can deliver its objectives effectively and fairly.

At Second Reading, I made it clear that I support the Bill but was concerned that the current drafting means that it could unintentionally exclude from its remit activity that really is a business and yet, at the same time, trap activity that clearly is not a business. I tabled Amendments 3 and 4 to give the Government the opportunity to take action to remedy what appear to be defects in the Bill.

Amendment 3 probes whether the definition of “pedicab” fails to cover cargo bikes adapted for passenger use. At Second Reading, I asked the Minister, at col. 778 of Hansard, whether the Government intended to include in the definition of “trailer” a bike that has a cargo box attached at the front which has been adapted for passenger use, since the existing drafting appeared to fail to do so. That would give an open sesame to those in the business of driving or operating pedicabs, which have trailers, suddenly to switch to using seating for passengers attached to the front of the bike to circumvent the legislation. At that stage, my noble friend was not able to give an assurance on this matter.

I was therefore pleased last week to receive the letter sent by the Minister to all who had spoken at Second Reading and to see that the Government had tabled Amendments 43 and 50, which deal with the issue I raised. The government amendments appear to resolve the problem I identified, because they ensure that the meaning of “trailer” now includes a sidecar or seating for passengers attached to the front of the vehicle.

I look forward to hearing later from the Minister his explanation for tabling Amendments 43 and 50 and his response to Amendment 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, because that also supports the position I took at Second Reading. However, I anticipate giving my full support to the Minister’s amendments.

I tabled Amendment 4 to seek clarification about the implications of the word “reward” in Clause 1(2). I was concerned that it could unintentionally bring within the remit of the Bill activity that cannot be considered a business. The example I gave at Second Reading is the transport of a child or baby to school, nursery or perhaps to a doctor’s appointment, when somebody doing that transporting is not the parent. I am not talking about a parent doing it, but cases where the parent cannot—they could be at work—and a neighbour, friend or relative does it in their place. As we reach Christmas, there may be times when one gives a present—a small gift, perhaps a box of chocolates—to the person who has been helping out. My concern is that the lack of definition of “reward” in the context of the Bill makes it possible that the act of a good Samaritan could be brought within its remit.

In his response at Second Reading, my noble friend said:

“As I understand it, the Bill is intended to cover pedicabs plying for hire”.—[Official Report, 22/11/23; col. 790.]


However, Clause 1(2) does not refer to plying for hire. That phrase appears in the Bill only in Clause 2 and does not address the problem I have raised, because subsection (7)(a) refers to a power to impose regulations that may

“prohibit drivers from using pedicabs for standing or plying for hire”

in certain circumstances.

I was going round in circles mentally at this stage, so I decided that the only thing to do was table Amendment 4 to seek further reassurance from my noble friend the Minister. In his letter of 6 December, he stated that a scenario

“where an individual receives a gift as a thank you, is unlikely to be captured under this Bill’s provisions”.

However, that leaves open the fact that it might be captured by the Bill’s provisions. He went on to say that,

“where a formal arrangement is in place for an individual to transport other people’s children on a daily or regular basis in return for a pre-agreed payment, this might be caught by the Bill’s provisions”.

I absolutely see the logic in that because, as a business, it should be within the remit of this Bill. He went on to say that

“it will be for TfL to take a view on such matters in designing the regulations”

and that

“TfL could choose to exercise their regulatory powers in a manner that takes certain types of pedicab usage outside the scope of the regulations”.

This means that the good Samaritan is left in limbo, not knowing whether they are likely to be covered by the Bill in future. We have just had a discussion about who will have the final authority. I can operate only on the basis that the Bill will go forward unchanged because, as we know, amendments can be made here only with the agreement of all Members; if there is a vote, it cuts the Grand Committee dead. I must work on the basis that the Government’s position at the moment will continue until Report, at the very least.

My questions concern how people will know what is going on. Will the Government ensure that regulations impacting those who are not operating a business and who receive small gifts only occasionally will not be imposed? As the Bill stands, the Government could decline to make TfL’s brought-forward regulations. Might the Government then say no to TfL? After all, their Amendment 44 gives them the power to refuse TfL’s regulations. If my noble friend cannot give me the assurance I seek today, can he say how, in these circumstances, the Government and/or TfL will make the public in London aware of what really happens if a good Samaritan decides that it is not worth a candle for them to carry on in case they get caught by regulations and have to go through all the processes—good processes—to check that they are a fit and proper person to carry a friend’s child in their trailer, whether it be a front, side or back trailer? I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly support these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who cannot be here today.

In moving her amendment, the noble Baroness gave some good examples of the concern that this Bill may get the wrong people as well as the right ones, if I can put it that way. I have an example: a relation of mine, who is in his 20s, works for a firm that delivers baby food around London on the back of a trailer. I do not know whether it is electric or pedal-driven—that does not really matter—but it is a trailer. On some occasions, he might want to take a passenger with him. His business is doing quite well—it is a business—but he does not really want to get caught up in all the TfL regulations concerning what we normally call pedicabs.

We have to somehow improve the definition. The noble Baroness has made a good start on this; we should have another chat about it, I hope with the Minister, and see what exactly we are trying to stop. Removing the words “or reward” is certainly a good start, but it does not go far enough.

Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Monday 4th November 2013 Lords Chamber

59A: Clause 43, page 27, line 18, leave out “may” and insert “shall”

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I invite colleagues to leave the Chamber quietly so that we may at least hear the mover of the amendment.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hanworth, is to require the Secretary of State, in dealing with the modifications to the licence conditions, to include in Clause 43(3)(b),

“provision imposing restrictions on the sale or purchase of electricity to or from group undertakings”.

This is an attempt to persuade the Minister, when she responds, to go a little further than she did in Committee last Monday when she said:

“There is no clear evidence that the divestment of retail businesses will increase competition or lower consumer prices”.—[Official Report, 28/10/13; col. 1386.]

I think that there is probably quite a lot of evidence, but we now have the opportunity to test this because, among many statements by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy last week, Ed Davey said that they would introduce annual reviews of the state of competition in the energy markets and that the first of these new competition assessments will be delivered by spring of next year. He went on to say:

“The assessment will be undertaken by Ofgem, working closely with the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition and Markets Authority, when it comes into being”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/10/13; cols. 1095-96.]

Those organisations, separately and together, are probably some of the best experts on competition issues we have in this country. It would be logical and right for them to include within certainly the first annual review a comment about separation. There has been an awful lot of talk about competition, which appears rightly to boil down to considering whether there is competition among those from whom you buy your electricity. However, the issue of competition at the other end and separating the generators from the retail end is just as important. I therefore wish to persuade the Minister to agree that the issue of separation within the assessment of competition that has been announced—and is very much to be welcomed—should be included. I beg to move.

Marine Navigation Aids Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Friday 21st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is able to make his speech, it falls to me to make the following statement. I see one or two puzzled faces opposite, but this is very much a normal matter.

I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Marine Navigation Aids Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip for that introduction. The predecessor to this Bill had its Second Reading nearly a year ago, on 5 February 2010, and I refer noble Lords who are interested to col. 432 of Hansard for that date. In its present form, this Bill is in exactly the same format as the Bill that I introduced then and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to make the same Second Reading speech.