UK Parliament / Open data

Greater London Authority Bill

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Yes, I recall, as my noble friend said, coming down the east side of Trafalgar Square with my wife, who was wearing a wedding dress, wondering whether the brakes worked. That was when the potholes were larger than they were before Trafalgar Square was redone. On the whole, pedicabs are rather good. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised an interesting point. I, too, read the Long Title and wondered why my proposed amendment could not be considered. We could not include such a provision in last year’s Bill and there are rumours that there will a road safety Bill at some time in the future. In what kind of a Bill can such a provision be included? Secondly, my understanding of the issues being discussed in the court is simple: are pedicabs taxis? They do not look the same, they are not driven in the same way and I can envisage legal arguments about that. I would not bet on the outcome. Such arguments may continue for years, depending on who runs out of money first. My noble friend said that TfL and the industry were actively pursuing a voluntary scheme; that is terribly important and to be welcomed. It would be great if that were achieved and maybe one does not need legislation—but such a scheme would need to be enforced. I am not sure how a voluntary scheme could be enforced, considering the nature of some of the people who drive pedicabs but are not members of Bugbugs. I hope that my noble friend will reflect on how we could bring forward legislation, if that is needed. However, in the mean time, I will not oppose the Motion that this clause stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 agreed to. Clause 20 agreed to. Clause 21 [The Health Adviser and the Deputy Health Advisers]:

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

691 c98GC 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top