-
Emphasises cross-party support for pedicab regulation, citing a Labour Mayor and a Conservative Mayor's endorsements. Supports the view that the industry itself seeks proper regulation to rid it of bad actors.
-
Supports changing a 19th-century legislative anomaly to regulate pedicabs, noting that this should have been done years ago. Argues for broad support among various stakeholders.
-
Questions the motives behind regulation, suggesting that it could be an attempt to ban pedicabs rather than regulate them. Cites historical evidence where the taxi drivers' association campaigned for a complete ban.
-
Supports regulation to ensure clear operators, licences, fees, suspension, and charging regulations. Argues that this will enhance accessibility and contribute positively to London's transport mix.
-
Requests assurance that future regulation will be light touch, not stifling young entrepreneurs. Concerned about potential over-regulation and its impact on a small but growing industry.
-
The bill will regulate pedicabs to ensure safety while allowing them to continue operating as part of London's unique character. It is long overdue after years of asking for these powers from the Government. The bill will make provision for regulation on noise nuisance and remove subsection (2) of clause 6, devolving power entirely to Transport for London.
-
Agrees with Simon Lightwood that there is a similar situation with other new forms of transport like e-scooters and e-motorbikes. There should be a discussion about safety issues and balancing the need for new forms of transport against pedestrian safety.
-
Intervened to raise a point from Cycling UK regarding the difficulty pedicabs face in operating outside London due to opposition from licensed taxi drivers. He emphasised that local authorities have been unable to support pedicab operators on a ply-for-hire basis because of insurance and other regulatory concerns.
-
Agreed with the need for regulation to ensure a fair and transparent fare model, criminal checks on drivers, and their right to work in the UK. She also highlighted instances of extortionate rip-off fares reported by the BBC Democracy report and the disruptive noise levels outside St Thomas’s Hospital in her constituency.
-
The hon. Member supports the Bill and its amendments, arguing that it is necessary to regulate pedicabs for safety, cleanliness, and fair pricing. She highlights issues such as unregulated drivers, poor roadworthiness, noisy music, and exploitation of drivers. Eshalomi also emphasises the need for robust criminal checks on drivers and fare transparency.
-
Mr. Chope is concerned that Transport for London (TfL) has been unwilling to produce draft regulations, raising suspicions about its intentions regarding pedicabs. He argues there should be safeguards in place to prevent pedicabs from being regulated out of existence and calls for more transparency on TfL's future actions.
-
Welcomes the legislation to regulate pedicabs, advocating for its positive impacts such as employment opportunities and affordable transport. Emphasises the need for effective regulation through consultation with councils and user groups to ensure smooth implementation. Highlights the issue of Hammersmith bridge closure and proposes a temporary pedicab service as a solution to connectivity problems. Supports the creation of a new pedicab service across the bridge, urging Ministers to work with TfL to implement this. Mentions the positive reception from various stakeholders for the proposed service.
-
Mr. Malthouse supports the bill for four primary reasons: ensuring a level playing field in competition, maintaining order on London's streets, curating a vibrant city centre environment, and addressing criminal activities associated with unregulated pedicabs. He notes that the current lack of regulation allows pedicabs to exploit loopholes, causing nuisances such as obstructed roads, dangerous driving, and potential criminal conduct. He also emphasises the bill’s role in protecting London's international reputation.
-
Supports the Bill due to its importance in improving safety for passengers and road users, protecting the tourist economy, and regulating pedicabs. Highlights TfL evidence of collisions involving personal injury, overcharging cases, and noise nuisance as reasons for regulation.
-
Acknowledges the need for order in transport and addresses concerns about crime and city perception. Discusses the impact of unregulated noise on residents and businesses, welcoming efforts to allay concerns before Committee stage.
-
[INTERVENTION]: Requests for circulation of TfL’s licensing framework to help understand the potential impact and scope of regulation.