---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for explaining the changes in this new amendment. However, I shall be resisting the noble Baroness’s amendment. The proposed new clause seeks to define a pedicab and make pedicabs subject to the civil enforcement of parking and traffic contraventions by local authorities. A number of rather uncomplimentary and critical things were said about pedicabs in the previous debate and I took careful note of that. In resisting the amendment today, I should again make clear that I am aware that concerns have been expressed about the operation of pedicabs, particularly in London. I agree that steps are necessary to address these concerns, not least in respect of safety but also in respect of the civil enforcement of certain parking and traffic offences which are the focus of this amendment. However, to pick up some of my noble friend’s comments, I note that there is also a school of thought that pedicabs perform a useful service and that they add usefully to the diversity of London life and the range of transport choice in the capital. The amendment refers to a licensing system that is not yet in existence in London. It is important to note that Transport for London has already promised to bring forward proposals which would introduce a licensing system for pedicabs in London. It hopes to have such a system in place by autumn this year, but we have not seen even an outline of what is proposed. We therefore cannot judge whether the proposed amendment would operate properly alongside it. When this licensing system is in place it should provide the means of exercising more comprehensive control over pedicabs in London, including, importantly, the question of their safety, standards and area of operation. Transport for London will be drawing up its proposals in full knowledge of what is required and allowing for public consultation with all the interested parties. We do not know whether the amendment has been the subject of public consultation and debate with those concerned, so we do not know the reaction of the pedicab industry itself. Outside London, pedicabs are already part of the taxi licensing system administered by taxi licensing authorities. We have not yet received calls for civil enforcement powers in respect of parking and traffic offences committed by pedicab riders other than in London. It is far better that we await the impact of the comprehensive licensing regime which Transport for London proposes and then consider whether parking and traffic offences by pedicabs remain a substantial problem to be addressed. The identification and tracking down of offenders is of course crucial and I recognise that it is a problem in respect of pedicabs. Licensing as now proposed in London should provide just that means of identification as part of the wider system of control. We await London’s detailed proposals, but our understanding is that the licensing regime will be enforced in the same way as the taxi licensing regime in London. Pedicabs are already subject to police enforcement in respect of some moving traffic offences, obstruction of the highway and some cycling offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988. However, I recognise that this still leaves the question of powers for the civil enforcement of offences. Officials have discussed these matters with Westminster City Council and Transport for London since Report stage. The department has come to the preliminary view that regulations could be brought in under existing legislation—the Traffic Management Act 2004, for example—to provide for the civil enforcement against pedicabs of many or some of the offences covered in the noble Baroness’s amendment. In view of that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendment.