Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kit Malthouse

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I hope that my hon. Friend will make his own speech in due course, because I know he believes passionately about this issue. May I just refer him and other Members to the briefing from Cycling UK? My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred in her opening remarks to Roger Geffen, the policy director for Cycling UK. The briefing he has produced has a section entitled “Beyond the Bill: the need for a ‘national’ regulatory framework for pedicabs”. It states:

“As things currently stand, pedicabs can operate in London under legislation dating from 1869, which permits the operation of Stage Carriages… Conversely, in the rest of Great Britain (i.e. outside London), pedicabs have to operate under the same legal framework as taxis. This makes it almost impossible in practice for pedicabs to operate on a ply-for-hire basis outside London, because the insurance and other requirements for taxis are so onerous, and are entirely disproportionate for addressing the potential risks. Even where local authorities have been keen to support local would-be pedicab operators”,

those pedicab operators have not been able to start up, because of the weight of regulation. I made that point in an intervention on the Minister.

Roger Geffen then states that it is “potentially valuable” that the Secretary of State will now be able to issue guidance to TfL, but that it would be great if that guidance

“could in future be extended to other non-London licensing authorities, at such time as a new regulatory framework is put in place for licensing taxis and minicabs.”

He, as a cyclist, is concerned that this great method of transport—a pedal-driven rickshaw—is not being used outside London for the purpose of enabling people to apply for hire and travel from one place to another. That is why I think the assertion that the Bill aims not to regulate pedicabs out of existence but merely to bring in a regulatory regime that outlaws the most extreme examples of bad behaviour is naive.

It is incumbent on Transport to London to produce a draft regulation. As we have heard, it has been at this for 20-plus years, and even as we speak it cannot produce drafts of the regulations it has in mind to introduce. I put out this challenge to Transport for London, which I hope will be carried to it by my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not know when the business managers will decide we will have the Bill’s Committee and Report stages, but before we get to Committee it should bring forward a draft of the regulations that it has in mind. If it does that, we will be able to see whether our fears and suspicions, which are shared by Cycling UK, are well founded or wide of the mark. That is a perfectly reasonable way to proceed.

It is commonplace in the House to see draft regulations before we finalise legislation, but there does not seem to be any appetite for that on the part of Transport for London. We have not even had an indication of the timescale in which Transport for London wishes to introduce the regulations. How much longer will the good pedicab operators of London have to wait before the lightweight regulation, for which they have been campaigning for so many years, is introduced?

One of my suggestions is therefore that the Government should recognise that, in the rest of the country, where a different regulatory regime relates to pedicabs, they do not exist because they are regulated out of existence. If the Government wish to promote emission-free forms of transport such as pedicabs, why do they not get on and introduce a guidance system for transport authorities and local authorities outside the London area so that they can take the burden of regulation off potential entrepreneurs who wish to be able to provide pedicab services in cities such as Oxford, Salisbury and York, as we have heard? If such a commitment from the Government were to come out of the Bill, it would be a really worthwhile exercise.

I do not think that the Government are right to be sitting on the fence in relation to e-bikes and e-scooters. Why are we concentrating on the small number of pedicabs rather than the very much larger number of e-bikes and e-scooters, which are causing mayhem for many residents living in London, not to mention elsewhere in the country?

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the use of e-scooters on the highway—other than in certain pilot sites—is illegal. Therefore, it is not really a matter of regulation; rather, it is a matter of enforcement. Many of us would love to see much more enforcement. Similarly, on e-bikes, of which I used to be a regular user and owner, my hon. Friend will know that there are significant regulations, not least that they are speed-limited to 15 mph. However, many manufacturers have hidden in their bikes somewhere the ability to override that speed limiter. Similarly, that is a subject for enforcement rather than for regulation. Therefore, although I appreciate his point and agree with him, I do not think it is a matter for legislation; frankly, in London and elsewhere, it is more a matter for the police.

Extreme Heat Preparedness

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kit Malthouse

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, there are significant plans in place to deal with all manner of extreme weather events, and all local resilience forums have their plans in place. As I said earlier, there is guidance available for schools and hospitals, particularly on the safety and welfare of their staff, but also of other people in their facilities. The Health and Safety Executive is available to give guidance to employers, and there is already a clear obligation in law for employers to maintain a reasonable temperature at work; obviously that varies from building to building and from facility to facility, but nevertheless it is clear that employers have that obligation.

As for the Prime Minister and Cobra, as I said earlier, I have attended many Cobra meetings since 2011, and only one—during the 2011 riots in London—was chaired by the Prime Minister. Others have routinely been chaired by Secretaries of State, and, as I said earlier, it is literally my job to do so. On that issue of non-attendance, I gently point out that my direct shadow, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), is not in her place on the Opposition Front Bench; obviously this is not as important as her radio show today.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Government seem to be creating a lot of unnecessary anxiety? Is not the key issue that we should adapt to our climate as we have in the past? Is not there a real problem now that too many buildings are being built without natural ventilation—for example, many buildings on this estate? Why do we not go back to having natural ventilation, so that we do not have to rely so much on air conditioning?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In all our public messaging, we have tried to be balanced and moderate in our view, and to point to the particular vulnerability of certain smaller groups. Indeed, I have asked Secretaries of State to identify those vulnerable groups and possibly to target them with more urgent communication—particularly the elderly, who often live alone, and who we know from elsewhere in Europe are vulnerable in this kind of weather. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about our adaptation to climate change. As we see more extreme weather events, we must bear in mind that we need to protect ourselves from the heat, but at the same time we need to be able to adapt to cope with the cold as well. That often creates a challenge.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kit Malthouse

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As usual, SNP Members mischaracterise what we are trying to do. The key feature of the strategy is twofold. First, we are ramping up restrictions on supply, building on our success thus far, particularly on dismantling county lines, which will have a direct impact on drug supply in Scotland. The reason we are doing that is that by restricting supply we believe we can create more space for the £780 million we will be spending on therapeutic interventions, particularly with heroin and crack users, to have an impact. Critically, the two have to go together. If we are dealing with a heroin or crack addict, very often they will leave a therapeutic intervention—I am sure hon. Members see this in their own constituencies—and walk straight back out into the hands of a drug dealer. We need to make that less likely if we are going to ensure those therapies stick and have an impact. As far as criminalising addicts is concerned, large numbers of them do commit crime. They commit crime from which there are victims. Those victims deserve to see justice done, too.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the Minister be supporting my new clause to the Local Government (Disqualification) Bill, which is coming up for debate on 14 January? My new clause would make offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 a ground for disqualification from being able to serve as a local councillor.

[Kit Malthouse]

It is unusual that the doings of my hon. Friend pass me by in this House, but sadly that amendment has. It is an interesting proposal, but I hope he will give me a moment to consider it before I give him a response.

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kit Malthouse

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 25th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), whom I congratulate on introducing the Bill and addressing this subject following his success in the private Member’s ballot. I am sure we all agree that we want a fine, good-quality forensic service.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that we need the regulator to take action to improve quality. I am sceptical, because we have had a regulator in place since 2007 and it has the powers to bring in codes of practice and, in essence, to encourage, by one method or another, people to comply with those codes. The Bill refers to the introduction of statutory codes of practice that would have to be subject to consultation, but it is not clear to me whether the existing powers have been used sufficiently. It is one thing to say that the regulator has the powers, has been using them and has not been able to make them work so needs them to be put on a statutory footing, but is not clear to me that the existing regulator has been using the available non-statutory powers.

Let me give an example. In her annual report, the forensic science regulator says, in paragraph 2.1 on compliance with the regulator’s codes of practice and conduct:

“The number of organisations that have demonstrated compliance with the Codes has now risen to 42. This leaves approximately 17 organisations in England & Wales that hold accreditation to ISO 17025 but not the Codes and are regularly practising forensic science in the CJS”—

the criminal justice system.

She goes on:

“Of these, 12 are in policing”.

The Home Office, which funds the regulator, also funds the police service. If the Home Office talks to the regulator, why has the Home Office not been successful in persuading 12 police organisations to comply with the codes prepared by the regulator? I do not understand what is going on. I hope that when the Minister responds he will explain why there is this dichotomy: the Government say that they support the Bill because we need a statutory regulator, but at the same time they seem to have been doing nothing to try to bring the recalcitrant police forces into compliance.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is raising an important point, but there are two things to say. Part of the complication is obviously the operational independence of chief constables, in that the Home Office cannot bring any direct sanction to bear where something falls within their ambit, and as this issue does. However, as a strong champion of the authority and importance of this House, he will also know that transposing regulations into law has had enormous effect in the past. Back in, I think, March 2019, this House passed a statutory instrument on fingerprinting and DNA standards that took us from 9% compliance to 90% across police forces. That illustrates the power that he has from the Back Benches to mandate that kind of action across the country.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am fascinated by my hon. Friend’s response. The chief constable of Dorset is the lead chief constable on this very subject. Perhaps following today’s debate I will be able to have a conversation with him on this matter; but I still despair, really, that it is necessary for this House to intervene to get the police to do what we and an independent regulator think is the right thing for them to do.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Obviously police forces face constraints, but ensuring that the best quality forensic evidence is presented in the court system should be the top priority. Why should that be relegated as a lesser priority? My view would therefore be: yes, it is very important, but chief constables should be addressing that issue.

I am slightly sceptical about the need for this Bill, and my scepticism was increased when I looked at the regulator’s annual report and saw that her budget, supplied by the Home Office, runs to only about £400,000 in total admin expenditure for a year. What will be the costs of this legislation, which the Minister is supporting? We are now told in the explanatory notes that it will add about £400,000 a year to the costs of the Home Office, so the admin budget for the forensic regulator would be doubled. How does that compare with the estimate given when my hon. Friend the Member Bolton West (Chris Green) introduced his Bill in the 2017-19 Session? The explanatory notes for that Bill said:

“An impact assessment has been conducted by the Home Office. The Home Office estimates that the statutory powers of the Regulator will cost an average of £100,000 per year in addition”.

How is it that in the space of just two years the Home Office’s estimate of the cost of this legislation has quadrupled? And how, on that basis, can we rely on any of its promises about what the costs will be? I do not know whether in due course we will have a separate debate on the financial side of this Bill—I imagine that we would need a money resolution—but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can answer that point now.

[Kit Malthouse]

I think my hon. Friend has missed his calling: his forensic examination of these documents is to be admired. During the course of the debate I will seek an answer to the question that he raises; I do not have it at the moment. In response to an earlier point that he raised, it is not just the police who are the users of forensic services; very often defence will use them. Having a consistent regulatory environment that is observed by all means that we will get greater consistency in courts, and therefore there will presumably be less time lost—and a saving—in trials that are broken, cracked or have to be delayed because of differences in forensic evidence.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to say the hon. Gentleman’s calling is Friday.