Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nickie Aiken and Christopher Chope

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I begin by putting on record my appreciation for the positive way in which the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), has engaged with our deliberations on this Bill.

As discussed on Second Reading, the differences of opinion on the Bill centre around whether its consequence, deliberate or otherwise, will be to legislate pedicabs out of existence. Pedicabs are to London what gondolas are to Venice. They are an essential part of the colour and vibrancy of our capital city. The Evening Standard recently warned of the damage being done to London’s nightlife and the night-time economy, and pedicabs are an essential part of that economy. I am sure we would not want to do anything to further undermine the viability of that night-time economy.

Is this Bill the equivalent of a morphine syringe driver to kill off pedicabs, or is it a necessary protector of responsible pedicab operators? Both I and, I think, the Minister want it to be the latter, and so does Cycling UK, which has a membership of some 70,000 cyclists—it is quite a large organisation—as well as the London Pedicab Operators Association.

I expressed my concern about over-regulation on Second Reading, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who asked the Minister for an assurance that

“when this regulation comes into force, it will be light touch and not onerous, so that we do not kill this young and perfectly acceptable industry?”

And the Minister replied:

“The answer is yes and yes.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 375.]

That clear and unambiguous response is extremely welcome.

It is important that we are able to deliver on that commitment. The question often arises of whether we can trust Transport for London. Those of us who live in London during the week, and others who are resident in London throughout the year, are quite concerned about Transport for London’s failure to listen on issues such as the ultra low emission zone extension and the proliferation of 20 mph zones.

Transport for London produced an outline of how it will use the process of regulation, which it will be given under this Bill, in January 2022, and it was updated in February 2024. The Minister made arrangements for the new draft to be circulated to all interested Members. Unfortunately, and I know it was not his fault, the draft was circulated not with his letter but late on Thursday, about half an hour after the House had risen and the deadline for tabling amendments had passed. My amendments therefore take no account of that document. Had I seen it before the deadline, I might well have tabled additional amendments.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point that there was an issue with the TfL regulations not being provided until Thursday. He may recall that he was involved in meetings with me and TfL on my private Member’s Bill back in 2021-22, when my office emailed him the same draft regulations on 20 January 2022. He has had a couple of years to read those regulations, which I do not believe have been changed.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the draft regulations have been changed to take into account the discussions on the Bill in the other place. As she confirms, a document existed in 2022 yet, when I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister asking for the draft regulations to be made available, I was told that they were not available. It is important that draft regulations are shared with all legislators and are not the subject of private meetings.

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) is as eager as anybody to ensure that Transport for London’s intentions are explored so that we can be sure that it genuinely wants to retain the benefits of having a lively and vibrant pedicab industry in London. I will address the content we have now seen in the potential licensing framework for pedicabs in London, because I do not think it will excite much support from people who are keen to defend the interests of genuine pedicab operators.

There is an issue with the ability of pedicabs to lawfully ply for hire in London. When people think of pedicabs, they think of going up to the driver of a stationary pedicab on the side of a London street and asking for a ride. I am not aware of any statement from the Government suggesting that they believe that pedicabs should not be lawfully available to ply for hire yet, when one looks at the draft regulations, one can see that Transport for London is raising the question of whether or not pedicabs should continue to be able to lawfully ply for hire.

I come to another area of concern. Currently, there is no regulation of fares for private hire vehicles, and for good reason. As the document sets out, we do not have to regulate the fares of private hire vehicles because they are subject to a lot of competition. Yet the draft regulations suggest that TfL would wish to regulate the fares of pedicabs, even when they are being used, in essence, for private hire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

It is important to note that Pedal Me, an organisation that carries out freight deliveries via pedicabs, has always been supportive of the Bill, because it firmly believes that there should be regulations and that the whole industry should be properly regulated. It already ensures that its drivers are properly checked and safe, and that its vehicles undergo regular, proper security and safety checks. It is an important point to make that parts of the industry—particularly those that carry freight—are supportive of the Bill.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which is similar to one made by the London Pedicab Operators Association, which has been campaigning for 20-plus years to have proper regulation of pedicabs so that its business can be carried out in a lawful and responsible way and not be plagued by rogue operators. It is good to hear that the organisation to which she referred is of a like mind. Indeed, I think nobody across the House is against the idea of having some regulation of pedicabs. The difference is in whether we want to introduce safeguards that will prevent those regulations from being so stringent that they regulate pedicabs out of existence.

When my hon. Friend and I had the discussion to which she referred earlier, she was unfortunately unable to commit—in what was her Bill at that stage—to including provisions that would have set that out in clear language. I suspect that was because, as we know, one of the organisations that would like to legislate pedicabs out of existence is the London Taxi Drivers Association. That is perfectly understandable—it is much easier for its drivers if they have fewer competitors on the streets—but we owe it to the people who have transformed transport for people in the centre of London, particularly in the late evenings and past midnight, and have introduced this alternative: namely, the provision of pedicabs.

Amendment 15 would ensure

“that the powers to immobilise and seize pedicabs are assigned to police constables in uniform or to traffic officers duly authorised by local authorities, and that they are proportionate to the powers to immobilise and seize motor vehicles in section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.”

I hope that that is a no-brainer and that, in responding, the Minister will be able to assure us that exactly that will happen in practice. At the moment, it is not clear in the regulations that Transport for London has that in mind. It seems to be keen on the fixed penalty notice regime, with all the potential injustice that flows from that.

Amendment 18 is on how we define a pedicab. The amendment would ensure that power-assisted pedicabs—pedicabs not just driven by human effort but assisted with a battery—are defined as a pedicab that conforms to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983, thereby securing some consistency across the regime. As you will know, Sir Roger, a power-assisted pedal cycle under those regulations is not allowed to go more than 15.5 mph, although apparently quite a lot of them do. I have seen cyclists going a lot faster than 15.5 mph, but Transport for London has it in mind in the draft regulations to require pedicab operators to install equipment—in effect a speed limiter—that would prevent the pedicabs from going faster than 15.5 mph. That must reinforce the case for saying that electrically assisted pedicabs should be regarded as electrically assisted cycles rather than as other sorts of powered vehicles. There is a clear distinction in law between vehicles subject to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations and those that are not, which could be regarded as ordinary motor vehicles.

Whether we define a pedicab as a cycle or as a motor vehicle will have significant implications in third-party liability insurance. One of the biggest constraints on pedicab operators is the cost of insurance. The regulations will rightly require insurance, but it is important that they should be drafted in such a way as to make it easier for the costs of that insurance to be less penal than they might otherwise be if pedicabs were defined as equivalent to an ordinary vehicle.

I have referred to amendment 19, and amendment 3 offers a less preferable alternative.

Amendment 10 would clarify that which is not clear in clause 7: that the Secretary of State’s guidance to Transport for London should encompass the making of the regulations as well as the exercise of the functions under those regulations. You will appreciate the difference between those two propositions, Sir Roger. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can provide us with some reassurance in relation to that guidance.

Amendment 11 goes back to the objectives of this Bill. Chris Smallwood, the spokesman for and on behalf of the London Pedicab Operators Association, has written to me to express his support for my amendments, and he has suggested a number himself. He has said that he has had introductory meetings with officials from TfL. He names them, but I will not repeat their names in the House. He says:

“A concern was that when questioned about the objectives that TfL’s regulations are seeking to achieve, they”—

those officials—

“talked only about the safety of pedicab drivers and other road users, which of course is a very important objective, and is reflected in our proposed amendment on the objectives for the Regulations. However, they seemed reluctant to acknowledge that a well-regulated pedicab sector could provide health, environmental and other benefits, and that securing those benefits should also be an objective.”

He went on to say:

“It’s not essential that this should be written into the Bill itself, if the Government states that these objectives be written into their guidance to TfL.”

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nickie Aiken and Christopher Chope

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I, perhaps more than most here today, welcome the Second Reading of the Pedicabs (London) Bill. It does seem to be groundhog day for me, as this will be the third time since entering Parliament in 2019 that I have stood in this Chamber and spoken on Second Reading to highlight the need for a licensing scheme for pedicabs in London.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you and others in and outside Parliament could be forgiven for wondering why on earth the Government have given time for this small Bill. One would expect that it should become law via a private Member’s Bill, as the Minister mentioned. It should have done, as four attempts have been made via private Members’ Bills to introduce a pedicabs licensing scheme in London. One was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully); a second by my predecessor, Mark Field; and since entering Parliament I have twice promoted a private Member’s Bill on pedicab licensing, but because of the way such Bills fall due to a single objection, mine have failed.

Therefore, I am truly grateful for what the Government have done, first under the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who was 100% behind the wish to secure pedicab legislation. He agreed with the then Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), to put a clause in the planned transport Bill, which fell when Mr Johnson resigned. I then started my lobbying from scratch and met No. 10 officials from the current Administration to make the case for pedicab legislation to be given Government time.

I would like to put on record my thanks to people from across Parliament who have provided help, particularly Baroness Stowell of Beeston, who supported my campaign to lobby Ministers and their special advisers. I would also like to put on record my thanks and admiration for the two special advisers, James Nation and Will Tanner, who accepted that we needed to introduce pedicab regulation. Without them, we would not be here today and I thank them, the Minister and the Transport Secretary for understanding the reasons why we need this legislation. I did not know for certain whether we would get Government time for this legislation, so when I stood in the other place and heard His Majesty announce

“A Bill will be introduced to deal with the scourge of unlicensed pedicabs in London”,

you could have knocked me over with a feather.

It is fair to ask why we need this legislation at all. First, I wish to point out that this Bill does not and will not propose to ban pedicabs from the streets of London; it is about improving the conditions for drivers and passengers. I firmly believe that if we could have properly regulated pedicabs, they could offer a very positive and special visitor experience. I understand that pedicab regulation already exists in this country and where it does, in places such as Oxford, York and Salisbury, we still see pedicabs, but they provide a much better offer. It is clear that the regulation of pedicabs does not mean their eradication.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend will have seen, as I have, the briefing from Cycling UK. Does she recall that it says:

“Even where local authorities have been keen to support local would-be pedicab operators (as has happened in Oxford, Salisbury and York), they have been unable to operate on a ply-for-hire basis, because the local taxi operators (who view them as competition) start asking questions about whether the pedicabs and their operators have the same insurance etc”?

Pedicabs have not been able to operate in those areas outside London because of the opposition from the licensed taxi drivers.

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. As far as I am concerned, Cycling UK has supported this Bill—I have had several meetings with Cycling UK and I believe my hon. Friend may have been involved in some of those meetings previously. It has always understood why I want to bring in this Bill. It is important to make the point that the drivers and vehicles must be safe. There have been too many instances where police operations and operations in conjunction with Westminster City Council have found drivers who are unfit to be taking passengers, including those who are wanted for serious crimes, such as sexual violence crimes. I believe that one person was even found to be wanted for murder—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I accept what my hon. Friend says, but if that is not the intention but it happens in practice that it is regulated out of existence, what will the Government do about it? Perhaps he will intervene and answer that question. At the moment, there is nothing in the Bill to enable the situation to be rectified. If TfL behaves in the irresponsible way it has in relation to the ultra low emission zone, and appeases the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association and effectively outlaws pedicabs in London, what is going to be done about it? I hear no response, but that is why proper safeguards must be written into the Bill. As for the Minister’s point that Transport for London has only just found out about its responsibilities, TfL proposed its own legislation in 2005, and I imagine that it had in mind exactly what it wanted to do.

When my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and for Cities of London and Westminster produced their private Members’ Bills on this subject, it was already clear that the regulations would be introduced by TfL. When we asked TfL what would be in them, we were told, “We have not the time or the inclination to start drafting the regulations now.” Even as we speak, we do not know what the timescale is for the production of the regulations and the introduction of this regime.

I am not sure whether the Minister said that he had read Roger Geffen’s four-page briefing, but if he has not, I will happily share it with him after the debate. In the briefing, concern is expressed—and I certainly share that concern—about the Bill’s requirement for TfL to consult “whoever it considers appropriate”. What is the point of that? Why not say something specific, such as “Transport for London must consult organisations representing pedicab operators, cyclists and pedestrians—and others, but including those”? At present, the Bill places no obligation on TfL to consult pedicab operators, cyclists, people involved in the hospitality industries, and so on.

[Nickie Aiken]

My understanding—although the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) may be able to correct me, having carried out the role of transport committee chair at City Hall—is that TfL must undertake a statutory consultation with all the relevant parties, including businesses and residents, on any regulation that may be introduced if the Bill is passed before this can become a proper licensing regime.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because in that case I am sure she will support an amendment, or perhaps draft it herself, to place on the face of the Bill exactly what she has said. At the moment, the discretion as to who should be consulted rests solely with TfL, which I think is ridiculous.

Let me expand a little on the point I was making about clause 5 and the need for clarification of what is meant by “a power-assisted pedicab”. Cycling UK believes that the potential pitfalls could be avoided through reference to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 to define the vehicles that will be exempt from the legislative requirements for private hire vehicles. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.

Cycling UK has made a number of other suggestions. It asks, for instance, what will happen about pedicab stands:

“Subclause 2(7) of the Bill currently provides for TfL to make regulations to limit the places, times and/or circumstances in which pedicabs may ply for hire or operate”—

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

Debate between Nickie Aiken and Christopher Chope

Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is simple: it imposes upon the Treasury a duty to make regulations under section 153A of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. You might think it extraordinary, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have to legislate to require the Treasury to implement legislation that we in the House approved in 2015 and that I have been promised by numerous Ministers since is on the cusp of being brought into law. It has not yet been brought into law, and the consequence is that the taxpayer is probably about £1 billion worse off—the benefit to the Exchequer of the provisions in the Act was about £200 million each year.

It is against that background that I was very pleased to have a meeting with the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He has some background knowledge of this that dates back to before even I took an interest, because he was on the Public Accounts Committee when it looked at this issue in the early 2010s. The beginning, after the Committee had looked at it, came in January 2015, when the current Home Secretary, who was then a Treasury Minister, announced that it was intolerable that there were so many exit payments of such large sums. She called it a long-overdue reform and said:

“It’s not right that hard-working taxpayers, many on low salaries, have to fund huge payouts.”

As a result, after the Conservative election win in May 2015 the then Chancellor confirmed the commitment to legislate that was in our 2015 manifesto, saying:

“We will end taxpayer-funded six-figure payoffs for the best paid public sector workers.”

Then, in 2017, when nothing had happened, I had the temerity to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 June

“when the Government plans to bring forward secondary legislation to implement the policy”,

and the answer I got on 6 July from the then new Chief Secretary, now the Secretary of State for International Trade, was:

“The Government announced in 2015 that it intended to end six figure exit payments for public sector workers. We legislated for a £95,000 cap in the Enterprise Act 2016 and are currently in the process of drafting the necessary regulations.

In the interim, the government expects every part of the public sector to demonstrate that it is using public money efficiently and responsibly and to ensure that pay and terms are always proportionate, justifiable and deliver value for money for taxpayers.”

Having received that non-committal reply, I asked more questions and then introduced a private Member’s Bill in the 2017-19 Session that was exactly the same as this one, except with different dates.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

As a former local government leader, I was involved in many cases in which we had to ensure that the person leaving had received the correct money and final settlement, but does my hon. Friend agree that some of these people have often been working for a local authority —I can only speak for local authorities—for decades? Their salaries will have increased over time, and there should, whatever the legislation, be flexibility in such cases. If a case is sensitive, the local authority should be given powers to ensure that that person is given the amount of money that they are due, but not too much for the public purse.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That was a very long intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am afraid that I do not really agree with the tenor of it, which excuses some of the appalling behaviour that is taking place in local government. A recent article in The Times revealed that Steven Mason, a former Northumberland County Council chief executive, was given a £370,000 pay-off, but took up a job four months later at South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust on £180,000 a year, despite Ministers having pledged to take back exit payments if the recipient returned to the public sector.

One reason why I got interested in this subject was that I was concerned that proposed local government reorganisation in Dorset would be an excuse for a whole lot of public officials employed by local councils to look after each other’s interests at the expense of the local taxpayer and give themselves big handouts. I am afraid that my worst fears proved to be well founded, and some unconscionably high payments were made as a result.

I take the view, unlike my hon. Friend, that this issue is urgent and overdue for action. Indeed, I think an alternative a title to my Bill might be the Overcoming Sir Humphrey’s Resistance Bill, because the resistance of the civil service to what is proposed in this Bill is a textbook example of how the civil service can conspire to frustrate the will of Parliament and, indeed, of the elected Government. How is it, all this time later, that we do not even have the regulations? We have not even had a response to the latest consultation, which was originally promised to be delivered in 2018. I went to see the then Chief Secretary back in 2017 and said to her, “Has it occurred to you that this measure is supported by almost everybody in politics and in public life? Has it occurred to you that the resistance to it is coming from the civil service, because they are going to be losing out as a result of the implementation of the Bill?”