Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Anelay of St Johns and Lord Berkeley

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.