Westminster Hall
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to have secured this debate and really grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which we urgently need to see progress on.
This is a timely debate because I hosted a roundtable on this very topic last week. Twenty-five individuals attended. There were senior-ranking representatives from nine police forces across the country, five police and crime commissioners, one borough commander and one assistant chief constable. The officers who were present were from the Met, Derbyshire, Merseyside, Surrey, Lancashire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Hertfordshire, and Devon and Cornwall. There were industry representatives, campaigners, policy experts, academics, doctors and MPs. I am thankful to all those who attended and shared their insights and expertise with me and the other MPs who were there. The fact that so many individuals representing diverse groups and interests travelled across the UK to London to speak about this issue highlights the urgency and the need for action.
How did this issue become so important to me? It all started when I was canvassing to become an MP, and I met so many constituents who raised the issue of e-scooters and e-bikes in my constituency of Epsom and Ewell. It became a top issue. One of my constituents, Ed Dark, told me that his little boy is now too scared to go to the beautiful park that is next to his house.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Many people in my constituency feel frightened and intimidated when just walking on the pavement runs the risk of them colliding with an e-scooter or e-bike. I have raised the matter with the police, but they say they are unable to take action unless the riders are caught riding the vehicle. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater enforcement powers, clearer national guidance and stronger controls on the sale of illegal e-scooters and e-bikes, so that we can better protect our residents and restore confidence in our neighbourhoods?
Helen Maguire
I agree with everything the hon. Member says, and I will talk about those points in my speech.
Edward Dark’s son was walking home from school one day when he was nearly hit by an e-scooter. That could have been fatal. Thankfully, it was not. Another constituent told me they have even considered moving house—just consider that: moving house—because of the e-scooter misuse in their neighbourhood.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The hon. Member has rightfully secured a debate on this extremely important topic. In the summer in Tamworth, there was an extremely serious collision between a six-year-old girl and an e-motorbike. She was in a critical condition as a result, but fortunately she did not die. Will the hon. Member be pressing the Government to give more resources to policing and to clarify the legislation for e-bikes and e-motorbikes?
Helen Maguire
I am really sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s constituent; I hope she is okay now. I will indeed be raising those issues.
One constituent told me that her car was hit by an illegally ridden e-bike on the wrong side of the road. She got the individual’s details and reported it to the police, but she was told that they would keep a lookout rather than seize the bike from the known address.
This issue goes far beyond Epsom and Ewell, as Members have already demonstrated. Across the country, we are seeing young people on e-scooters riding at high speed through red lights, parks and pedestrianised areas.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for the excellent seminar she held last week, which I attended. Illegal e-motorbikes are a blight on my constituency. I have spoken to the police and to the lead police officers who she convened last week, and they say that this is the preferred vehicle of choice for organised criminals. Will she press the Minister to work with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to ensure that non-compliant conversion kits are banned from sale as soon as possible?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree: this is one of the matters that the Minister needs to take forward.
We have the issues of illegally modified e-scooters, which can now reach speeds of up to 70 mph; e-bikes, which are catching fire due to uncertified lithium-ion batteries; and the use of e-vehicles in criminal activity and antisocial behaviour, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) alluded to. Pedestrians have the fundamental right to feel safe. They should not need to worry about being hit or knocked over when simply walking in the park or on the streets. That is particularly important for vulnerable groups, especially those with vision loss or mobility needs.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for making such a strong argument. Along with other hon. Members, I recently met representatives of Guide Dogs for the Blind. They made a strong case for visually impaired and blind people, who are often put off going out on to their own streets, due to the silent nature of e-scooters and e-bikes. Does she agree that that point alone underscores the need to enforce the law properly in this area?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree. This is a critical issue for the high number of visually impaired people living in Swail House in Epsom in my constituency.
There are flaws in the current collision data. In 2023, there were at least 1,299 collisions involving e-scooters, but those statistics do not show the full picture. How can they, when the data is not consistently collected or identified? Data on death and injuries in reported road collisions is reported to the Department for Transport by police forces in Great Britain via STATS19. A new powered personal transporter category was introduced to cover e-scooters, but not all forces currently use the new specification. I urge the Minister to enforce the use of the new STATS19 specification for all police forces, so that we can understand exactly what is going on.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Surely, the answer is relatively simple: if a scooter or bike operates purely through an electronic motor and not human propulsion, it should be taxed, insured and subject to an MOT like any other motorbike.
Helen Maguire
I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure he can put that point to the Minister.
E-bikes are not currently distinguished from pedal cycle or electric motorcycle categories depending on their power rating. The Government have stated that there are no plans to change STATS19 data to introduce specific categories for e-bikes. I urge the Minister to reassess introducing a specific category for e-bikes within STATS19.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I went to the Queen’s Medical Centre, the main hospital in Nottingham, to meet the paediatric teams. They told me that there had been 10 serious acquired brain injuries since April this year. They are looking at two a month, with the curve on an upward trajectory. The data on the ground is clear that this is a problem, so Ministers need to get beyond the lag in the data and start taking the action called for by people such as the medics I met. Does the hon. Member agree that the human cost and the long-term impact on those young people needs to be prioritised?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree and will talk more about the human cost. The changes would provide an accurate oversight of the scale and distribution of the issue. That would lead to more effective enforcement and legislation. How can we begin to address the issue if we do not understand the full picture? Behind the limited statistics is an unacceptable price of injury and death, particularly for children.
At my roundtable, I spoke to Dr Durand, a consultant in paediatric emergency medicine. Her research in the Emergency Medicine Journal analysed e-scooter injury data over six years, from three major children’s trauma centres, in Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield. She found that 447 children attended hospital following an e-scooter-related injury; one in 10 had serious head injuries requiring hospital admission and surgery; and 95% of injuries involved the rider. She also found that the average age of an injured child was 12, with half aged between 10 and 13; that annual cases rose from fewer than 10 in 2019 to almost 150 by 2024; that as many as 74% of the injured children live in areas with the greatest socioeconomic deprivation; and that under 2% of riders were wearing a helmet.
I want to tell you about Jacob’s journey, because behind each of the statistics is a child with possible life-ending injuries, and permanently changed families. One of those is the Calland family. I was fortunate to meet Carly Calland for the second time at my roundtable. The Calland family tragically lost their son, Jacob, in an e-scooter incident.
On 19 March 2025, Jacob left home and met up with a friend. He decided to ride as passenger on the back of that boy’s e-scooter, without any protective gear. That decision cost him his life. At 3.59 pm, the e-scooter collided with a car. Jacob was thrown to the other side of the road and landed in front of oncoming traffic. He suffered a catastrophic head injury, and was brought into the intensive care unit and put in a coma. He underwent multiple surgeries to try to control the bleeding and swelling on the brain, but his condition began to deteriorate, and there was nothing more that could be done to save his life. Jacob Calland passed away at 5.18 am on Thursday 27 March 2025. He was just 14 years and nine months old.
How many more children need to die for the Government to take this issue seriously? There was no mention of e-scooter and e-bike legislation in the King’s Speech, and the DFT said that the earliest that legislation could be considered is May 2027. That is unacceptable. The lack of time in the parliamentary calendar is not an excuse for failing to act to save our children’s lives.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that, in advance of the change that we all want, we need to see a consistent approach across the country? I have had parents say to me that senior police officers in one part of the country have one attitude to this ongoing and worsening problem, and other compatriots have another.
Helen Maguire
Absolutely, and I will come to the police powers and the Acts available to them.
I have three children myself, and Jacob could have been one of mine. He could have been the child of anyone in the Chamber. As MPs, we have a duty to keep our children safe. Jacob Calland lived in Wythenshawe, Manchester, close to Makerfield, so if the Prime Minister is listening, I urge him to act now.
That brings me to the unending rental e-scooter trials. The trials began in July 2020, and were intended to run until November 2021. They were launched to review whether e-scooters reduce pressure on public transport and motor traffic, and to look at their safety impacts. They were extended until March 2022 to allow for more time for evidence to be gathered due to covid. They were then extended again until November 2022 due to the DFT issuing guidance to enhance safety measures. They were then extended again to May 2025 to allow the DFT to reflect on further analysis, and they have now been extended again until May 2028 to help fill evidence gaps to inform legislation. That will be eight years of trials with no action.
Why are the trials unending? What are we trying to achieve with that period of time? Ireland had a six-month trial, Germany had a 180-day trial and France and Spain did not even have trials, and those countries were able to implement legislation and improve road safety in a fraction of the time. My question to the Minister is: why can’t we?
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Derbyshire constabulary has seized and crushed more than 1,000 illegal electric scooters, some capable of travelling at 50 mph and being ridden by children. At such a speed, the damage that can be done is catastrophic. Older constituents have told me that they are afraid to go into Derby city centre for fear of being hit, and that is not to mention the house fires that have been caused by e-scooter batteries. Does the hon. Lady agree that the sooner we legislate to tackle illegal scooters and protect the public, the better?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree, and I congratulate Derbyshire police on doing an outstanding job in seizing e-scooters and e-bikes.
Between the start of the trials in 2020 and December 2025, there were 7,591 reported casualties in collisions involving e-scooters. In 2025 alone, there were 1,477 reported collisions and 10 deaths. The time for data collection has long passed. Legislation is now needed to save lives on roads.
The lack of Government action is forcing police forces to deal with this issue on their own. There is no centralised guidance on operational tactics, so the police are adapting seizing powers. Derbyshire police have a “see it, seize it” system, where they are empowering police community support officers under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to seize and remove e-scooters within 24 hours, but the situation is not consistent across the country. Every police force does it differently.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for calling this very timely debate. Does she agree that this is a particular problem where policing borders meet? My constituency is under the West Mercia jurisdiction, but in Cofton Hackett, a village that has an acute problem with e-bikes, the bikes often originate in Birmingham, which is under the jurisdiction of West Midlands police. It feels as though some areas fall between the cracks and that this e-bike problem is increasingly without consequences.
Helen Maguire
I agree. When police forces use different tactics, there is a cross-boundary border issue.
Derbyshire police implemented a huge public awareness campaign with the fire brigade, housing providers, schools and retailers. It is important that we inform the public more about this, because they are incredibly confused about e-scooters that can be bought legally, but cannot be used on our public roads or in parks; only the trial e-scooters can be used legally. As we enter the Christmas season, many parents might be thinking about an e-scooter or e-bike as a gift, so I urge the Government to put safety first and reconsider the policy. Since implementing the scheme in Derbyshire, 30 e-scooters a month—a total of 1,060—have been seized. The strategy is effective, as there has been a 40% reduction in e-scooter crime and an 11% reduction in e-bike crime.
Surrey police recently announced Operation Scramble, in which illegal e-bikes and e-scooters will be seized and destroyed. The Government must support police forces; they are calling for workable legislation, which is why there were so many representatives from police forces around the country at my roundtable the other day.
To be clear, I am not against e-scooters or e-bikes because their benefits are clear. They are affordable transport alternatives; they make difficult routes accessible; they have less impact than cars on the environment; they improve public health, local air quality and cut congestion; and they support the hard workers in the gig economy. But they must be properly regulated and legislated for, and the rules must be enforced to protect all members of the public.
There is currently no practical legislation on the use of e-scooters and e-bikes; no co-ordinated guidance for police forces; no effective regulation on import or sale; no control of the online or grey marketplace, and no public understanding of what is and is not legal. Failure to act is not just about lives; it is about lost revenue to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, further strain and costs on our hospitals and the NHS, increased pressure on police forces, and confusion among retailers, consumers and parents. Will the Minister commit today to ending the ongoing trials, outline the next steps for legislation, and commit to the safety of our children and young people in the UK, so that no parent has to spend this Christmas without their child?
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. There is obviously huge interest in this debate. I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to speak. To start with, I will impose a time limit of two and a half minutes on speeches. I ask Members to keep interventions brief. I call Dame Siobhain McDonagh.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this debate. You can see, Mr Stringer, how big the issue is for constituencies across the country.
In 2017, the London Fire Brigade attended just seven e-bike fires. Last year, the number reached a record 206. That is an e-bike fire somewhere in the capital every other day. Since 2023, six people have lost their lives in e-bike and e-scooter fires in London, five of whom were not themselves charging the vehicle responsible for the fires. They lost their lives because of a danger they had absolutely no control over, and they might not even have known existed. In my constituency alone, 14 homes have been lost to fires. Just last week at my advice surgery, I met Mr and Mrs Gifford, whose home was devastated by an e-bike fire on Lewis Road in Mitcham in October last year. They lived next door to the property where the battery was being charged. Almost a year later, they are still unable to return to their home. Imagine losing your home through no fault of your own—losing everything you own, all your memories and the place where your children grew up—and a year later, you are still unable to return. That is the lasting devastation that these fires can cause.
The reality is that some people caught up in these fires never make it out of their home. At a roundtable that I also held last week, we heard the devastating story of Sofia Duarte. Sofia was just 21 years old when she died on new year’s day in 2023 as a result of spending the night at her boyfriend’s flat in Old Kent Road, where a converted e-bike charging in the communal area caught fire. Everyone else got out; she did not, and she did not see another year. That should not be the consequence for anybody who is not doing anything wrong, but is subject to an illegal and unauthorised battery exploding.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate.
In Stockton West, the plague of balaclava-clad yobs on illegal e-motos is a problem that comes up constantly on doorsteps and in my surgery. Three years ago in Westminster Hall, I named Thornaby as a hotspot and warned that we could not wait for someone else to lose their life. On 31 January this year, two 15-year-olds were riding Sur-Rons in Thornaby when one of them ploughed into a father of seven riding a pushbike. Months later, the father is still in hospital with life-changing injuries, needing round-the-clock care. The boys got driving bans and referral orders, and were ordered to pay just £495 in compensation.
The recent changes to seizure powers are welcome, but they go nowhere near far enough. I tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to give the police greater powers to enter properties to seize these bikes, to destroy illegal bikes rather than sell them on, and to register and control sales. The Government rejected them all. Meanwhile, anyone can buy a machine that is illegal to ride on a public road, or a kit that turns an illegal e-bike into an unregistered motorbike and have it delivered the next day. I ask the Minister: will the Government control the sale of these vehicles and the kits used to modify them? Will they now give the police the power we proposed to seize these bikes wherever they are hidden? My constituents simply want the law to be on the side of the law-abiding majority. It is time for the Government to make sure that it is.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing the debate. I will focus my comments on the cycle hire regulations in Southwark. We should be a success story of more lanes and more users, but—and I have a big butt, which makes me a wobbly cyclist—the number of complaints, increasingly from other cyclists, is colossal and rising. The need to regulate is only too apparent when visiting any transport interchange in Southwark. Last week, dumped bikes blocked the only pedestrian crossing from London Bridge station on to the bridge itself, not in rush hour, but on a Saturday lunch time.
I get so many complaints, including from Stephen about bike dumping at Canada Water; from Sacha about bikes in pedestrian areas and local parks; and from Sanjay about insurance after a recent collision. Then there is Whelan’s, a pub in Rotherhithe with a bike bay outside that overflows regularly with dumped bikes, blocking the way of customers and blocking a bus stop, but most worryingly, blocking the delivery of beer to the pub. A pub without beer cannot stay open very long. It is on a red route, so alternatives are limited. I am working with Lime and others to address this issue, and I raised it directly with the City Hall’s cycling commissioner last week, but a business and jobs are at risk through the failure of Lime and others to regulate themselves.
Regulations are necessary and welcome. I hope the Minister will tell us this morning when the next consultation on secondary legislation will come forward, but I hope he also recognises that some solutions are available now. Southwark council could replicate Ealing and remove bikes at cost to the providers. Constructively, the council could move the bay outside Whelan’s to the verges on the opposite side of Rotherhithe Old Road.
Council inaction is inexcusable, especially under a Green leader who last year filmed a promotional video for Lime inside the council office, breaking council rules. I await the council investigation into that with some interest. Inaction is also inexcusable because the council announced a new deal for discounted bike use three months ago in an arrangement that has delivered no better management of bikes, and not one person has yet had a discounted fare. It is an amateur, premature fanfare of a scheme. Conditions should have been set for clearing bikes with the providers.
Lime claims it has 400 staff to clear bays and more need directing to those sites, but it says Southwark council sends no one to them. Council inaction is even more inexcusable because Lime has a £500 million fund to provide bays that local authorities can bid for. Embarrassingly, Southwark has bid for nothing—that is the summit of its aspiration for our community. It seems the Greens and their Lib Dem sidekicks in Southwark are too busy obsessing over Israel and international affairs to get on with helping people in our community. It is frankly incompetent and I will be pushing further to help everyone affected.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate.
I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective. A senior doctor in the Belfast trust has aptly described the number of children being injured by e-scooters as an “epidemic”. It is an epidemic, not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom. More than 120 children within the Belfast trust area have been treated for injuries sustained in accidents involving e-bikes and e-scooters in the past 24 months. A similar picture is emerging in England, where a study estimates that nearly 500 children have been injured in e-scooter accidents since 2019.
Sadly, those figures do not surprise me. In my Strangford constituency, I regularly see e-scooters practically flying past the window along the footpath in front of my office, with pedestrians jumping aside to avoid being injured in a collision. Across the UK, 59 deaths involving e-scooters have been reported, 10 of which involved people under 18. We cannot wait for another child or older person to be hit and suffer life-altering injuries or worse. We must do everything we can to prevent a 60th death.
I welcome the Minister to his place; it is good to see him back in harness again, so to speak. Pedestrians are not the only ones at risk; riders are vulnerable to serious injury. Research into major trauma cases highlights the potential for devastating head injuries and damage to internal organs, yet reports suggest that less than 6% of e-scooter riders in Northern Ireland wear a helmet; in England that figure is estimated to be below 2%. Again, the threshold for a long-lasting injury—
Jim Shannon
No, I am on a two and a half minute time limit, so it would not be fair to everybody else.
This is a serious issue that demands immediate attention. I commend the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the work it has done and continues to do in raising awareness that it is currently illegal to use e-scooters on public roads and footpaths. The Ards police in my constituency have seized several e-scooters—some 20 that were being driven illegally have been seized so far, to give hon. Members an idea of the problems that we have in our territory. However, it is clear further legislation is needed to address the scale of this issue.
Can the Minister give us an idea of any legislative changes being considered and what engagement there will be with the Assembly and the PSNI? I call on the Minister to take stronger action to regulate e-scooter use and to consider more appropriate age restrictions and a mandatory helmet requirement. E-scooters may seem like a more convenient mode of transport for many, but they are a danger to the general public.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate, and in particular for underlining the potential impact of catastrophic injuries from such illegal vehicles.
I will add a couple of other problems resulting from the lack of regulation in this area. There has been a reduction in sales of legal e-bikes—surely not something that we want—because of the proliferation of illegal ones. Unfortunately, we are also seeing links with exploitation in the gig economy and with criminality. There has been a catastrophic drop in the sales of L1 category motorbikes too.
This problem is symbolic of people’s sense of a lack of control over their local area. It is exactly the kind of thing that the Prime Minister is getting a grip on right now, and it is important that we show leadership. My questions are all about solutions. First, when will the Department for Transport release its research into illegal e-bikes and food delivery? I believe it is due in the spring. Will the Department push for parliamentary time to talk about that?
Secondly, what progress has there been on the national work-related road safety charter? Can we see some details of that? Thirdly, we need more control over the supply chain and sales of illegal e-bikes, e-scooters and conversion kits. We need oversight and enforcement. One mechanism for that would be through the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025—a number of Members have been pushing for that. It has been three months since the consultation on that; when are we going to see some outcomes?
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Anneliese Dodds
I am sorry, but I will not, because I want to be fair to everybody else.
Finally, can we please have a commitment from the Department for Transport to convene other Departments on this issue? I know that the Minister cares passionately about local people having control over their area, as he has shown in every role he has undertaken. With his Department, will he take the initiative to bring together all the Departments concerned about this problem, and will he do so before Christmas and make a big splash about it, so that people hear about it in the media and do not buy their kids these dangerous products and kits for Christmas, leading to the kinds of injuries that we have heard about?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing this important debate to the House. It is worth making it clear that I am a huge fan of e-bikes. I rode my e-cargo bike to the station this morning, and in term time I would have dropped my two boys off at school using the bike. I have covered more than 18,000 km in the last six years.
Our discussion today should focus on illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, but we need to be clear that we support the contribution that e-bikes make to active travel, taking cars off our roads, and reducing emissions, congestion and road danger. I differ slightly from my hon. Friend, however, as I believe that e-scooters are far too dangerous to be considered for regulation and legislation. They do not in any way qualify as active travel. They should be banned or removed from our streets entirely.
I have spoken repeatedly about the need for tougher regulation of illegally modified e-bikes. These vehicles plague the high street in Sutton, and sadly deter many local residents from visiting the shops that my town centre has to offer. Delivery drivers on e-bikes treat the stretch of Sutton high street like a racetrack. They rampage along pavements at speed, with no consideration for pedestrians around them. The nights are getting darker, but many ride without lights, endangering pedestrians and the riders themselves. My constituents should not have to spend their weekly shop looking over their shoulder, worried they might be mown down by a vehicle that should never have been on the road or the pavement in the first place.
The dangers do not end when the bikes stop moving. E-bikes are causing fires across the capital. We saw that recently in Mitcham, where a fire ripped through homes, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned. The increase in illegal e-bike conversions, fires and accidents on our streets is driven by two main causes: the sale of high-powered e-bikes like Sur-Rons, and the multimillion-pound delivery companies that incentivise riders to use faster vehicles but take no responsibility for ensuring that they are legal and being ridden legally.
We Liberal Democrats want delivery platforms to be required to verify that bikes being used by riders are road legal. Regular checks should be made to ensure that illegally modified vehicles are not being used to complete food orders for pay. There must be clear consequences for companies that repeatedly fail to act to protect the public. Corporate giants of the gig economy world cannot continue to hide behind the self-employed status of their riders to seek impunity from responsibility. They already have the technology to track their drivers, identify them and verify that they are using the right accounts. They must be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that vehicles being used to make deliveries are legal.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall.
On 16 May 2025, just before 1 pm, 86-year-old Gloria Stephenson was walking her daughter’s dog using a zebra crossing when she was hit by an 18-year-old riding a Sur-Ron e-bike. Gloria died at the scene. My constituent Julie Francis lost her mother that day. She has a petition for more police funding and has been a vocal campaigner for more action to get these bikes off the road. In September, I brought her to Parliament to meet the Policing Minister. Julie’s ask of us all is simple: “Don’t let my mother’s death be in vain.”
The rise of e-bikes and e-scooters in Darlington is a major problem. It is obvious from the cross-section of representation in the Chamber that we are not alone. The balaclava-wearing men tearing through our town and deliberately intimidating everyone else, on and off the road, are a visible degradation of our collective social contract. They are literally running amuck, Minister, and my constituents and I have had enough. “Ban them” is the most tempered call from residents, and the most appropriate for a parliamentary debate; many have suggested other measures, which I will not go into now. But the truth is that they are banned; it is already illegal to ride these dirt bikes, motocross bikes and e-scooters on our roads. Durham police are doing a great job of seizing and crushing them—I attended a scrapyard recently and crushed 70 of them with the police—but aside from that, they do not have the powers alone to tackle the problem.
One reason why this issue has become so prolific is that it requires a multi-Department approach. Will the Minister review the dirt bike licensing regime, because it is clearly ineffective? In the north-east, we have 34 licensed Sur-Ron bikes; I saw more than that crushed two weeks ago. Will he consider mirroring the gun licensing regulation to enforce stricter requirements for legitimate UK purchases, increasing the penalty for driving dirt bikes without a licence, and banning the sale of e-scooters entirely in our high-street retailers? Will he bring together a cross-Department taskforce to regulate the import of these dangerous kits and, ultimately, get these illegal bikes off our streets?
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this vital debate. Every time I speak to people right across Broxbourne, this issue is at the top of their minds. If I was to ask someone about the regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes, they would say, quite simply, “What regulation?” As far as they are concerned, there is none. We all know about the day-to-day antisocial behaviour linked to e-bikes and e-scooters and are familiar with the horrific stories of their misuse. I have seen it many times: gangs of masked-up hooligans riding in packs, terrorising our high streets with no regard for anyone else’s safety. It makes a mockery of law and order and we need a proper crackdown.
What are the regulations? I checked the Government’s website before the debate—not something anyone who is riding an e-bike antisocially would do. The fastest e-bikes need to be registered, taxed and insured, and riders need a licence and a helmet, but it does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that individuals hiding their identity with a balaclava would not do any of that.
We need a joined-up approach right across Government that includes the Department for Transport. The Transport Minister in the other place said:
“The Government recognise the role that…electric cycles and scooters…can play in supporting economic growth, improving health and reducing emissions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 2026; Vol. 856, c. 1220.]
What a load of nonsense. That is far from the reality faced by people right across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency. The Government need to get a grip and use the full force of the law to stop illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate. I will confine my remarks to e-bikes.
Let me begin by emphasising that legal e-bikes have an important role to play in sustainable transport and active travel, but vehicles that do not meet the definition of an electrically assisted pedal cycle and are used on the highway are illegal road vehicles and should be banned from sale. Earlier this year, I presented a Bill that proposed exactly that.
Illegal e-bikes, whether sold as such or converted using kits, pose serious safety risks. They reach speeds for which their frames and braking systems were never designed. They kill pedestrians and endanger other road users. Their batteries catch fire and cause devastating house fires and death. They facilitate criminal activity such as phone theft and drug dealing and they are a persistent nuisance in parks, on pavements and around stations. Their ready availability online also undermines legitimate markets, depressing the sale of legal, tested EAPCs and low-powered motorcycles. Meanwhile, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau settles millions of pounds in claims every single year for accidents involving illegal bikes, and the cost is borne by law-abiding motorists through higher premiums.
The Government must act with urgency to tackle this problem. They have the means to do so: the Product Regulation and Metrology Act gives Ministers powers to designate products that are unsafe and regulate to remove them from sale. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade about using those powers? Does he agree that the continued availability of illegal e-bikes is undermining confidence in legitimate cycling and risks tarnishing the cycling celebration that is the Tour de France when it comes to Britain—and, more importantly, my constituency—next year?
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire); she is a legend for securing this debate and giving us all the opportunity to speak about this issue, which blights our communities.
One hundred and fifty years ago, the fastest vehicle on Eastbourne seafront was a horse-drawn bathing machine taking people down to the sea. Today, it is an illegal e-bike or e-scooter, jockeyed by a balaclava-wearing rider. The same is true of places such as Terminus Road—our high street—and Kings Drive, where the pavement is ruled no longer by the Eastbourne mobility scooter but by the vehicles we are discussing. Sussex police recorded a 53.7% rise in reports of illegal e-bike and e-scooter use in the year to June, and seized 321 vehicles between January and July.
Many, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), have rightly said that we are fans of active travel and encouraging people to use more environmentally friendly means to get from A to B, but a dangerous minority of riders and vehicles are putting pedestrians at risk and giving responsible users of active travel a bad name. More than that, failed e-bike and e-scooter batteries have been responsible for devastating fires, such as that in Whitley Road in Eastbourne. The fire service has said:
“We have seen people forced into jumping from windows as they can’t get out of their front doors as the bike or scooter which has caught fire is in front of it.”
There are enormous safety risks.
Other jurisdictions are showing the way and leading on the issue. New York City, which banned the sale of uncertified e-bikes, saw deaths from battery fires fall in two years from 18 to just one. In New South Wales, Australia, police now test bikes at the roadside and crush illegal ones on the spot. I hope that the Minister will consider granting our police and law enforcement the same kinds of tools and regulating this sector adequately.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that illegal e-bike battery fires in the Metropolitan police’s own pounds have cost the force half a million pounds? It confiscated 3,000 illegal e-bikes in the last year.
Josh Babarinde
Of course, there are financial costs, but there are costs to human life and livelihood as well. I hope the Minister will recognise that and commit to meeting representatives of Sussex police, which holds the national brief for road crime, to look at how we can best tackle the issue in Sussex and Eastbourne.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
The human impact of the illegal use of e-bikes was powerfully set out by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) at the beginning of the debate. It is certainly something we are aware of in my constituency, where Peggy Maxwell, who is 94, was mown down by a teenager on a Sur-Ron e-bike. Peggy suffered a broken neck, back, clavicle and ribs, and was hospitalised for three months. Many people would not have expected Peggy to come back from those injuries at her age, but she is determined and formidable, and she did. Last month, she attended a public meeting on e-bikes we held in Lochore with her family, who are now also campaigning for new laws on their use.
I add to the calls from right across the Chamber for more action on enforcement, point of sale regulation, and diversion from the illegal use of e-bikes. In Scotland, that requires action from both Westminster and Holyrood. I have been working on the issue with David Barratt, MSP for Cowdenbeath, and I am pleased that he secured a commitment from the Scottish Government that any bikes seized by the police will be destroyed and not sold on. That should be the course of action taken by all police forces. This Government have taken more action to give police more powers to seize e-bikes. It is vital that the Scottish Government take similar action for forces in Scotland.
It is important to consider what action we need to take on point of sale. Many people buying these bikes will be unaware that they cannot be used on public roads. Vendors need to provide information to the people who are buying these bikes, often for their children. We also have to consider further action on regulation and registration, and I support the comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on that. Vendors need to have more responsibilities for this issue placed on them by Government.
Finally, on diversion, we have a great charity in my constituency, Kingdom Off Road Motorcycle Club, which gives people who have previously used e-bikes illegally the chance to use them safely and legally on a purpose-designed track, often on bikes that have been seized by the police. That sounds like a really good approach, and I hope we can see that supported across the country. The enjoyment and convenience of e-bikes and e-scooters for some is now seriously outweighed by the harms caused for many, and it is time for this Government to take further action.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate and for all the campaigning she has been doing on this important issue.
Illegally modified e-bikes and e-scooters have become more and more of a problem in Yeovil. Peter lives on Sherborne Road, which is a very busy road out of Yeovil. He is always very careful when he crosses, and he always sticks to the pavement; but for Peter, pavements have become just as dangerous as roads. Not for the first time, he was left one step away from A&E after someone came crashing by on an e-scooter doing 30 mph.
Sadly, Peter is not alone. The problem is not just one or two troublemakers in Yeovil; this is happening at scale across our communities, and it often comes with other forms of antisocial behaviour. Carol has been telling me how she keeps seeing people on modified e-bikes travelling at speed down Middle Street in the wrong direction, dodging pedestrians. Nicki told me it is unsafe to take her seven-year-old nephew to the park because kids are crashing up and down on e-scooters. Katriana has told me about the near-misses involving dogs, young children and the elderly. Just the other day, I was out canvassing, and three lads shot past me on e-scooters in balaclavas shouting abuse at other residents. It is just a matter of time before someone gets really badly hurt—including the people riding these vehicles, as we have heard today.
It goes without saying that we need our police to carry out focused enforcement interventions. We need intervention from the Government in the form of training and funding. We also need proper education campaigns on this—and by that, I do not just mean giving schools more work to do; we need something on the scale of the THINK! campaign, particularly on social media. In Parliament, we need to push for clearer legislation, because the current legal framework for e-bikes is confusing, outdated and rarely enforced. Most importantly, Government need to crack down properly on the supply chain and unregulated online marketplaces that are flooding our streets with these illegal vehicles.
To get anywhere in Somerset, you pretty much have to drive. That means road tax, insurance and sticking to the rules. People in Yeovil are rightly angry that these people on illegal e-bikes and e-scooters and those who sell them do none of those things, put people at risk and get away with it. That cannot be allowed to go on any more.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate.
From commuters trying to get to Southall station in the morning to my 82-year-old constituent trying to get to Ealing hospital along Boston Road, e-bikes on the pavement are a daily annoyance in Ealing Southall. People think that the council is to blame, but the truth is that the council has almost no powers when it comes to e-bikes and e-scooters. In fact, anyone in Ealing could set up an e-bike company in a morning—I could do it myself, and there is nothing the council could do to stop me. All the council can do is try to agree a voluntary memorandum of understanding with e-bike companies, but that is just a gentlemen’s agreement; it is not the law.
In reality, e-bike companies can do whatever they want. This has led to a wild west situation in London, with a patchwork of companies operating in different boroughs, which is why we have bikes piled up at borough boundaries, and it is almost impossible to hold companies to account for bad parking or massive oversupply of bikes in some areas. Ealing made a voluntary agreement with two companies, Forest and Lime, but a third company, Voi, is refusing to leave the borough, and there is not a lot the council can do about it.
I am delighted that this Labour Government have already taken concrete action, after years of inaction by the previous Government. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, passed before the summer, will finally give councils and mayors the powers to license e-bike and hopefully also e-scooter companies. Although some steps still need to be taken in Parliament to formally pass those powers to the Mayor of London, it will mean we can set London-wide rules for e-bikes, including on mandatory parking spaces, age limits for riders and insurance. We will also be able to fine companies that do not play by these rules.
The previous Government did not have the courage to act, but Labour is doing what it promised: devolving powers to local communities, so that they can make the rules in their areas. All we need now is for the Minister to hop on his e-scooter and pick up the pace a bit, so that we can get these powers transferred to the Mayor of London as soon as possible.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech.
Like all of us present, I find the dangerous misuse of e-bikes and e-scooters is being raised with me more and more. In my constituency, current regulations are not working well and lead to a lot of confusion. One of my constituents wrote to me saying that their friend had been arrested for riding an e-scooter; it turns out they had no idea that privately owned e-scooters are illegal on roads, cycle paths and pavements in the UK. Another constituent wrote to me saying that they had seen e-bikes advertised on the Argos website, and only in the questions and comments did it say they were only for private land use. Locally, Thames Valley police officers are finding and seizing bikes that are able to go 120 mph.
The problem keeps growing. By some estimates, there are more than 1 million e-scooters in use across the country, with no standards for speed, brakes or batteries. High-powered e-bikes and conversion kits are being sold for off-road use and then ridden on roads. Uncertified batteries sold online cause deadly fires. Victims of illegal machines face an insurance gap and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned, rental scooter trials have been extended again and again since 2020. There is some good news: since June, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 has let police seize antisocially ridden e-bikes without a warning, and seizures nearly doubled to about 7,000 last year. Overall, however, legislation is outdated and hard to enforce.
We should do what many other countries have done already. Private e-scooters should be legalised and regulated, with a speed cap, product standards, lights and a minimum age, so that police can concentrate on machines that do not comply. Over-specced e-bikes and conversion kits should be stopped at the point of sale. That means making online marketplaces legally responsible, appropriately funding trading standards and requiring battery certification. Faster or modified bikes could be required to carry registration or plates, and delivery platforms could be required to check that their riders’ bikes are legal. The police also need practical help, including funding for testing equipment and specialist teams, cheaper storage and quick crushing of seized bikes, fixed penalties for lower-level offences and compulsory insurance for faster e-bikes.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate. I am aware of the time pressure, so I will try to be brief.
I strongly support cycling and the legal use of electric bicycles, where permitted. However, I am afraid to say the irresponsible use of e-bikes and e-scooters is a serious problem in my constituency, and residents have raised a range of issues on a range of fronts. First, intimidating behaviour on footpaths and pavements, particularly near and in parks, is causing serious concern in many parts of the town. That includes e-scooters whizzing down narrow streets where the pavements are less than 1 metre wide, e-bike riders riding over the two road bridges across the Thames on the pedestrian footpaths and intimidating residents, the lack of use of bells and the speed at which people are riding the bikes. It also includes high-powered electric motorbikes—I think that is the only way to describe them.
I have seen two absolutely shocking incidents relating to these types of vehicles. In one case, it was a group of black-clad young people with black balaclavas riding around the Reading inner distribution road, a major highway around the town centre, pulling wheelies in front of cars. On another occasion, I saw a similarly dressed group doing dangerous stunts and jumps in a park, close to where families were picnicking with toddlers. That is absolutely irresponsible and utterly unacceptable.
I am pleased to say there is some good news. As the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) mentioned, Thames Valley police is taking a firm line. It has been crushing the bikes, using drones to follow them in parks and using the new legislation introduced by the Government to arrive at people’s houses and confiscate them immediately rather than having to issue a warning, which was previously the case. Our local council has also secured a public space protection order, which gives local council officers more powers to address the bikes. I praise the police and the council for the action they are taking, but I ask the Minister to see what further powers could be used to try to contain this very serious problem.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Within my constituency, the communications I recently held with residents on antisocial behaviour highlighted major concerns about e-bikes and other powered bikes being ridden not just around town, but in abandoned china clay pits, on footpaths and along other rights of way. My constituents rightly raised concerns about safety and the impact of antisocial behaviour, where rules are deliberately ignored by riders, on those shared spaces.
Those concerns should not be dismissed; our constituents are right to expect the law to be enforced effectively, so I welcome the Government’s additional powers to seize and dispose of dangerous vehicles being used unlawfully, and the wider efforts to tackle the sale of unsafe and illegal products. Those measures should help us to ensure that the enforcement agencies can respond much more effectively.
At the same time, however, there is a wider point to contribute to this debate, particularly when it comes to young people. Many young people are drawn to e-bikes because of the freedom, the independence and the sense of community that they offer. That interest in itself is not a problem to be regulated, as strict as we must be in some of the other measures we have described today; it can be channelled into sports, into skills, into training and volunteering opportunities.
I highlight the work of the Cornwall Bicycle Project in Par, which provides those vital skills and the volunteering and community engagement opportunities, engaging people from a wide range of backgrounds, including those who have struggled in mainstream education and are looking for routes into employment and training. The model ensures that the enthusiasm for e-bikes can be channelled in a positive way: it can offer a practical route into learning new skills, it can build confidence and responsibility, and it can create connections within those communities.
Lastly, I recognise the role that Imerys has played more broadly in supporting access to nature, outdoor recreation and sports within the china clay area—but it should not be down to one company to solve this huge issue in our area. Local authorities, police, business, community organisations and education providers need to be supported by our Government in a strategic manner to play their part.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for setting out the case for regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters with great passion and conviction. She spoke very movingly of the loss of her constituent Jacob’s life, and highlighted the enormous geographical range of police forces that are concerned about this issue.
Hon. Members from across the country have also spoken with great thought on some of the key themes of the debate. First and foremost is the human impact of the problem of illegally modified and used e-bikes and e-scooters: not only the deaths and the injuries, but the fear that so many people feel, particularly people with disabilities or who are partially sighted, and the fact that pavements are no longer thought of by everybody as a place of refuge from motor traffic and somewhere that they can rely on to safely complete their journey.
Some hon. Members also highlighted the growing financial impact of the problem in terms of insurance payouts, where users of these vehicles who are not insured mean that everyone else bears the cost through increased premiums. They noted the problem of battery fires, which sometimes lead to loss of life, and rightly stressed the need for greater enforcement and for more support and resources for our police in dealing with the issue.
Part of the problem comes from the complexity of what an e-bike or e-scooter is or is not. A legal e-bike has pedal-assisted electric power up to a speed of 15.5 mph and no more. In some parts of the country there are long-standing trials of e-scooters, but in most places there are not, and that adds to the complexity. According to statistics from the Office for Product Safety and Standards, the vast majority of battery fires arise from conversion kits and unknown brands of e-bike, highlighting the need for much greater product regulation.
In 2025, London’s Metropolitan police seized more than 2,200 illegal e-bikes and e-scooters across London. In the first seven months of 2026 it seized more than 2,500—already exceeding the whole of 2025. In March 2026, a two-day enforcement operation seized 52 illegal e-bikes and mopeds. The London Fire Brigade reports that e-bike fires have doubled between 2022 and 2025, with most fires caused by illegally modified or designed e-bikes and their batteries. Many people see some food delivery couriers using e-bikes, sometimes illegally modified, in a reckless and inconsiderate manner.
However, there is also a great opportunity if we can get e-bikes right. In 2024, the UK sold just 2.1 e-bikes per 1,000 people, compared with 8.5 in France and a staggering 36.1 in Denmark. If we do not buck that trend, we are unlikely to achieve the continuation of cycling into older age that happens in the Netherlands, where e-bike travel accounts for over 50% of cycling distance in the 65 to 75 age bracket. There is an opportunity, as well as a problem that needs to be solved.
As well as the many hon. Members from many parties who have spoken on this issue, the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking conducted an inquiry into this issue last year and produced a very thoughtful and wide-ranging report. At the Liberal Democrat conference in September, which is still only last month—time is a very strange concept in this job—we passed definitive policy on the need to take much tougher action on illegally modified e-bikes. The strength of feeling in this room shows there is a widespread lack of confidence that the current Government are taking the co-ordinated and sustained action we need on this issue.
This is a multifaceted problem that straddles many Government Departments, and we know from many Select Committee reports and the Institute for Government that, alas, we have not always been good at tackling problems that straddle multiple Departments. Hopefully the Minister will give us some assurance that a multi-pronged, multi-departmental approach will be taken on this issue.
Our asks of the Government are as follows: first, we need to tackle the root cause, which is the supply chains. We need to make online retailers police and stop the sale of all non-conforming e-bikes, conversion kits, batteries and chargers, dealing with the problem at its source. We also need to deal with the perverse incentives created by the gig economy. The phenomenon of worker substitution makes avoiding individual identification and accountability too easy, while the pay-per-delivery model used by many of the delivery platforms incentivises reckless and illegal behaviour. Delivery platforms should be undertaking their own speed and e-bike checks. They need to take some responsibility for the issue.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Is the hon. Member aware that University College London published data this week indicating that almost three quarters of delivery riders surveyed are concerned about their own bike battery catching fire, while one in 10 had personally experienced overheating?
Olly Glover
Those statistics highlight the problem. The delivery companies need to take ownership rather than dumping the problem on everybody else, leading to the demonisation of their workforce, and expecting the Government to clear up their mess. They need to take action as well. If they will not, they need to be regulated much more toughly.
The Government also need to get on with legislating to regulate e-scooters clearly and consistently. The current postcode lottery of arrangements is unhelpful for everybody. We also need a Government-backed e-bike safety certification scheme, building on the action taken by the cycling industry to come up with its own kitemark to show that an e-bike is safely manufactured and compliant with legal standards.
Our police need much greater support. They need greater powers, they need more training on how to identify illegal e-bikes, and they need appropriate resources. We should also consider a national swap or amnesty scheme for illegally modified or designed e-bikes and e-scooters so that people can come forward. We heard from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about how seized e-bikes can be used for positive purposes. There are good examples of such amnesty schemes in New York.
The biggest reason why this needs to be tackled is the human impact, in terms of both deaths and injuries and the increase in fear and nervousness when using our streets.
Anna Dixon
I recently spoke to an A&E doctor in my constituency who had witnessed the rise in catastrophic injuries, particularly to children and young people. Does the hon. Member agree that we have to get to the source and ban conversion kits to stop these deadly bikes?
Olly Glover
I agree, and the hon. Lady is right to highlight the impact on our health service. There is also the economic impact on insurance. If this problem is not dealt with, there is a real risk that it will undermine the Government’s commendable aim to increase walking, cycling and wheeling, and all the resulting health and congestion-reduction benefits. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, and I hope to see the tough, multi-departmental action we need.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate. We have all heard from constituents about the problems caused by the illegal use of these vehicles, whether it is people riding e-bikes on the pavement, e-bikes clearly operating in violation of existing rules, private scooters being ridden on the road, or the serious impact of lithium-ion battery fires on public safety.
The concerns we hear from the public about these devices underscore why effective and proportionate regulation is necessary. People need to know that those using these vehicles are following the rules of the road. However, combining the two issues in this debate risks being somewhat redundant, given that, where we are not discussing dockless rental schemes, the regulatory regimes governing the two types of vehicles are very different.
There is a clear set of rules governing the use of e-bikes. The technical limits in the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 and the associated standards set a reasonably robust framework for their use, but as we have heard, there is a need to go further. That raises the fundamental point we need to consider when examining the regulation of these vehicles: are the current regulations being followed? That is why we must address the need for a much stronger approach to the enforcement of existing laws and regulations.
Over the past couple of years, several local and national news organisations have highlighted the increased illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters. For example, data obtained under freedom of information requests revealed that the number of crimes committed on e-bikes in London alone exceeded 10,000 in 2025, but only 221 of them resulted in the perpetrator being caught and charged—a pretty poor rate of 2.2%. To be honest, if we walked out of Parliament now and observed a nearby crossing, it would not take long to spot an e-bike rider flouting the law.
Anna Dixon
I have been out with my local police, and it is clear that they do not have the powers to pursue these very fast, illegal e-bikes to detain people. Gathering evidence is often not possible because of balaclavas. Does the hon. Member recognise that the Government’s action to give the police stronger powers to seize and destroy bikes from garages and lock-ups is a proportionate response to tackling this problem at source and helping the police to do their job?
Greg Smith
I do not think the hon. Lady and I are a million miles apart. Colleagues from all parties have set out serious concerns in this debate. The police having greater powers and enforcement ability is always welcome, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) tried to get much stronger regulation and enforcement powers put into legislation during this Parliament, and the Government resisted. It would be foolish to pretend that all the powers needed are out there. We would not be debating this in Westminster Hall if all was fine and rosy.
Lola McEvoy
Having had 14 years in power to do something about this issue, the Conservative party might be expected to support the next stage of our policing regulations, as set out in the King’s Speech. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be great if the upcoming policing Bill contained provisions on the regulation of off-road bikes?
Greg Smith
It is a well-rehearsed line, but e-bikes and e-scooters were not actually a thing for a large proportion of the previous Government’s 14 years.
Greg Smith
I accept the hon. Lady’s point about off-road bikes and dirt bikes, but the technology of e-bikes and e-scooters did not exist. These products were not even for sale for a large proportion of that time.
Greg Smith
I said I would give way only once more. I fully appreciate that this is a debate—I give way a lot in debates—but I need to make the rest of my comments.
It is almost as if my speech had been pre-written for the first intervention I took: we need to support the police with the resources they need to tackle both the illegal use of these vehicles and their use as enablers of other offences. I appreciate that, last year, the Government introduced legislative changes to make it easier to seize some of these vehicles, but the changes can be effective only if the relevant authorities have the resources to enforce them. Furthermore, I hope the Minister will ask his colleagues to consider policies that enable the police to intervene whenever they witness dangerous behaviour involving e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as ways to impose tougher penalties. Illegal behaviour must be appropriately punished. There must be consequences.
That must be combined with increased police recruitment to ensure that officers are available to tackle this reckless behaviour, including targeted enforcement in locations where crime is most prevalent. However, under this Government we have unfortunately seen a reduction in overall police officer numbers. We should therefore commend the police forces that are using existing regulations to tackle the illegal use of these vehicles and finding innovative ways to discourage illegal behaviour. One recent example is the City of London police’s use of its so-called sin bin, which is designed specifically for cyclists who ride through red lights or across zebra crossings. Those caught are required to watch a safety video, which takes considerably longer than it would to have simply waited for the light to change. Of course, that can apply to any bike, but we regularly see users of e-bike schemes engaging in that kind of behaviour. By removing the perceived benefit of jumping a red light or riding illegally across a crossing, these measures could help to deter such behaviour.
At the same time, many of us have seen the increasing use of private e-scooters alongside the illegal use of e-bikes. Figures released by the Metropolitan police in July show that it had confiscated more e-scooters in the first seven months of the year than it had in the previous whole calendar year. Some people may ask whom this behaviour harms, but the answer is clear. If we cannot enforce the rules we already have in place, we risk endangering the public, particularly disabled people, who rely on our road safety infrastructure to protect them.
That brings us to the increasingly prevalent dockless e-bike and e-scooter rental schemes. Disability charities, particularly those representing people with visual impairment, have highlighted the significant challenges posed by these schemes. Research by the Royal National Institute of Blind People shows that 81% of survey respondents said that bikes or e-scooters left on pavements make their journeys more difficult. I therefore understand the desire to call for appropriate regulation of these businesses. In fact, a number of these organisations have called on local government, and particularly the Mayor of London, to show leadership on the issue and to be clear about what local government wants to achieve from the schemes.
I hope we follow the approach set out by the leadership of Westminster city council. Dockless bikes are here to stay, but poorly parked bikes have become a major headache—indeed, a danger—for pedestrian and businesses. It is worth noting that at a meeting with the major operators in August, Westminster city council agreed to share data that would give the authority a much more accurate picture of the thousands of vehicles operating in the borough. The council also stated that dockless bike operators were considering removing or relocating parking bays that are near taxi ranks and disabled parking bays, to help to keep pavements clear.
Working with the companies in a way that allows them to operate safely and legally is the principal way we should approach the problem.
Greg Smith
I give way to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle).
Neil Coyle
On the point about Westminster council and data, does the hon. Gentleman support the Mayor of London’s request that the new Government regulations require all providers to share information on how many bikes and vehicles they have on the road in our capital, and wherever else they are operated? I obviously have a London interest.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been generous in taking interventions, but he is coming to the end of his time. I presume he will draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Greg Smith
Of course, Mr Stringer.
I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark on data sharing, as led by Westminster city council. If the Mayor of London is doing that, it is something that is straightforward and sensible to be done.
We need real action from the Government. We need the serious problems that Members from all parties have mentioned in the debate to be taken seriously, and that means listening to both sides of the House and ensuring that the sensible suggestions that have been made are actually met.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
In calling the Minister, may I request that he leaves two or three minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to wind up?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate, and the many Members who made contributions.
Although this was billed as a transport debate, a number of other Departments clearly have some influence and interest in the matter, not least the Home Office. A lot of the debate has been about the impact of the reckless and illegal use of e-scooters and e-bikes—ranging from nuisance and antisocial behaviour to downright criminality—in all our constituencies. We heard a number of tragic stories about the serious harm that misuse can cause, including life-changing injuries and, indeed, fatalities, so I want to start by reassuring Members that I and the Government understand the importance of the issues raised.
It is correct to say, as a number of Members did, that e-bikes and e-scooters have a role to play in our communities—they provide another transport option and have the potential to improve individuals’ health and reduce emissions—but, as we have heard clearly today, an inconsistent approach to regulation and sales over years has left loopholes that at best confuse people and at worst leave this area open to criminal abuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said, the illegal activity is undermining the positive story we want to talk about in respect of the use of these vehicles.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Like other Members across this Chamber, I am facing huge problems in my constituency with bike gangs and those who are causing real harm to my community. I thank the Minister and the Government for all the work they have done—more police, more powers, more local work, the banning of balaclavas and careless bike riding, and getting TikTok accounts taken down. That is a win for us all, and we are building safer communities, but can the Minister assure me that it is not the end and that the Government will keep going further to stop the bike gangs and keep my community safe?
Justin Madders
As my hon. Friend will hear in the rest of my speech, we will be going further in a number of areas. I absolutely recognise his concerns.
Justin Madders
This will be the last intervention; we have a lot to fit in.
Jim Shannon
While we all look for legislative change, there has to be something within the system for the purchase of e-bikes to ensure that young people do not injure themselves. The Belfast health trust has had more than 100 people who have been injured, and it is young people driving them. Is it not important to have some sort of regulation and guidance for those people who perhaps do not want to break the law but end up doing so and injuring themselves?
Justin Madders
There is an awful lot we need to be looking at in terms of the retail element, which I will come to shortly.
We have heard contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds); from my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), for Carlisle, for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), for Rushcliffe (James Naish), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Shipley (Anna Dixon); and from the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). This is clearly a nationwide issue that Members throughout the House are particularly interested in. I will not be able to address every single comment, but I will pick out a few that I can address now. We will respond in writing—either me or the relevant Minister—to issues that we are not able to pick up.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has campaigned on this issue for a long time. She mentioned e-bike fires, which I am well aware of as I was the Minister responsible for the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025. I have met Sofia Duarte’s mother and I absolutely agree that it is important that we introduce regulations. I will address that in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark probably shared a little too much information about his body shape, but he asked an important question about the national licensing framework. I can confirm that the consultation on that will begin imminently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned the tragic circumstances of her constituent Gloria. I absolutely hear what her daughter Julie has said, and reassure her that we will act on that. My hon. Friend mentioned a review of the dirt bike licensing regime; I will come back to her on that in writing. She was right, as were my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife and the hon. Member for Witney, along with several others, about the responsibility of retailers. It is not good enough to put in small print that these vehicles are for use only on private land. That is not the action of a responsible retailer. Let me be clear: we expect retailers to clean up their act, and if they are not able to do that, more levers are available for us to deal with that.
It might help if I briefly set out the current legislative framework. The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 set out the parameters for what is legal and what is not. The power of the electric motor on a legal e-bike cannot exceed 250 watts, and the maximum assisted speed cannot exceed 15.5 mph. Anything faster or more powerful is an electric motorbike and should therefore be approved and registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, taxed and insured. In addition, the rider must wear a safety helmet and hold a driving licence. A vehicle that is too fast or too powerful and not properly registered as an electric motorbike is illegal for use on public roads. We absolutely need to restate that.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned concerns that the police do not have enough powers. I think it is fair to say, as a number of Members recognised, that the Government have made it easier for the police to act thanks to measures in the Crime and Policing Act 2026—I am afraid the shadow Minister forgot to mention that his party voted against it on Third Reading. The police can now seize vehicles without first having to issue a warrant.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central said, police forces use a range of different tactics; we are keen to learn from experiences up and down the country. I am pleased to report that there is a lot of cracking down in different forces, tackling the issue from London to Liverpool. Merseyside police’s Operation Gears seized 500 illegal electric motorbikes and e-scooters in 2025. Only last week, the local constabulary in my Ellesmere Port constituency seized around 13 illegal vehicles, supported by one of my local councillors, Katie Kendrick. The issue really matters to people, because we all see it on the streets. If people are wearing balaclavas on bikes, it is criminality hiding in plain sight. It is equivalent to the dodgy vape shop. It is important that we support the police to use the powers they have, and look at whether more powers are needed to deal with the issue.
Of course, that is only one side of the problem. As we have discussed, it is far too easy to get hold of these vehicles, which means we must look at doing more at the point of sale. This is about not just the bikes but the e-bike conversion kits which, as we have heard, have the potential to pose real harm to cyclists and others. E-bike batteries can be dangerous if they are not properly installed, and they must be properly regulated to keep people safe.
As Members will be aware, over the summer the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade consulted on a range of updates to the product safety framework, including clear duties for online marketplaces to take due care to identify, prevent and remove from their sites unsafe products such as unsafe or non-compliant batteries and their use in e-bikes and conversion kits. That consultation has now closed. BIST officials are considering the responses as part of drafting the Government’s response. As the Minister who introduced the enabling legislation, I am keener than most to ensure that we make the best use of it. I remind the shadow Minister yet again that his party voted against that particular set of laws.
Let me turn briefly to e-scooters. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell told us about the tragic death of Jacob Calland, and my sympathies are with his family; I understand that they met my predecessor, and I am keen to continue that dialogue. As Members have pointed out, private e-scooters are illegal for use on public roads. They can be legally used only through the Government’s trials, which have been extended to May 2028. The trial system was implemented back in 2020 but has never been placed on a statutory footing. We are making a firm commitment that we will legislate to define e-scooters in law, which will provide the certainty that we currently do not have. People will know what is legal and what is not, and what can be enforced against.
Justin Madders
The hon. Member will have an opportunity to respond at the end.
It is fair to say that there is no international consensus on the right package of regulations for e-scooters, which is why our trial extension is important. We recognise that there will be trade-offs when regulating e-scooters, which is why we will consult next year on detailed proposals.
I will conclude, because the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will want an opportunity to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East asked whether I will use my convening power in the Department to get action across Government. I am pleased to confirm that I am working with colleagues across the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, and we are setting up a cross-departmental working group to look at this issue, because we consider it an important matter to be tackled across Government. I will shortly meet colleagues across the House who have raised these issues, and I hope to be able to provide regular updates, because this is an important matter to Members and we are determined to tackle it.
Helen Maguire
I thank everyone who has attended this incredibly important debate for their contributions, and I want to highlight a few of them. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) spoke about her constituent Sofia Duarte, who sadly died following a fire; my heart goes out to her and her family.
The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) talked about bringing Departments together. That is critical, because this is a cross-departmental issue and Governments are usually not very good at working across Departments. I hope the Minister takes that on board so that we can find some solutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) talked about impunity for employers in the gig economy. It is vital that we resolve that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) spoke about some interesting measures in New South Wales and New York. It is really important that we look at what is being done abroad and what has been successful in other places.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said that the popularity of e-bikes is depressing the sale of legal motorbikes. That has a consequence for the Treasury, because there is less income as a result, which is incredibly important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) spoke about the blatant ignorance of individuals who are not paying road tax and are flouting the rules. Again, that has an impact on the Treasury.
The hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke about intimidating behaviour, which I am sure many Members across the House have seen. We need stronger powers for the police, as many Members said, so that they can not only enforce on the streets and roads but identify what is legal and what is not. We need there to be point-of-sale responsibility, which is not happening at the moment. We also need a decision about the trials. I welcome the Minister saying that he will bring people together and that there will be legislation at some point, but we need a timeframe; we cannot have this trial going on for another two years.
We need action and we need decisions. We need to end the current confusion about what is legal and what is not, because retailers do not have to provide information about that when people make a purchase. Fundamentally, we need to make our streets and parks safe again for our constituents. I hope the Minister will take away all the contributions been made today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes.
University Hospital of North Tees
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I will call Matt Vickers to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. I have had no notice that such permissions have been given. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of University Hospital of North Tees.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to the debate.
I was born in North Tees hospital. So were tens of thousands of my constituents and many of their children and grandchildren. For nearly 60 years, it has been where Stockton goes when something goes wrong. It is where we are stitched up after an accident, welcome our children into the world and sit beside our parents in their final days. There are very few families in our town whose story does not run through North Tees at some point.
I want to begin by thanking the incredible people who work at North Tees: the doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners and everyone who keeps our hospital going day and night. I have seen for myself their dedication and the challenges they face in a building that makes an already difficult job harder. They deserve decent facilities. Their patients deserve them, too. I have to tell the Minister plainly that the building they work in is running out of time.
When my party was in government, I campaigned for a new diagnostic centre in Stockton. Thousands of residents signed my petition and backed that campaign. Around £25 million was secured, with a further £8.4 million from the community diagnostic fund, to bring scans and tests into the heart of our town. For somebody waiting to find out whether they have cancer, that means answers and that treatment can begin. Alongside that came £3 million for the new mental health hub at Brook House, a new respiratory unit, upgrades to the urgent care centre, and a £4.3 million robotic and emergency maternity theatre, where a woman who needs urgent surgery in labour can now get it next door to the delivery suite. That is what investment can achieve, but we cannot keep bolting 21st-century medicine on to a 1960s frame forever.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, which is not specific to one corner of the mainland; as an example, our South Eastern health and social care trust has to find savings of £50.7 million. Does he acknowledge that the capital and resource crises across our United Kingdom are interconnected and that patient safety should always be paramount? Ensuring the availability of the resources it needs to keep patients safe should be the NHS’s priority at all times.
Matt Vickers
The hon. Member makes a valid point. Investment in technology—I talked about the robotic theatres in our part of the world—means not only that staff have the facilities they deserve to work with, but that more patients can be treated more quickly, more safely and with reduced recovery times. There is a real value in looking after those patients, all too often at the worst times of their lives.
I made the case for a new hospital when my party was in government. I held a similar debate to this one five years ago and backed the trust’s bid for one of the new hospitals. I was devastated when, in 2023, the places in that programme went instead to hospitals built from reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which put them at risk of collapse. I understood why—safety must come first when a roof could fall in—but it pushed North Tees back in the queue, and I have kept pressing Ministers ever since.
North Tees opened in 1968. The trust’s own board papers identified 2031 as the point by which its main buildings would be beyond their useful economic life. That is just five years away, and parts of the estate are already past it. The maintenance backlog stands at £126 million, despite around £100 million being spent on repairs in the past decade, and it is projected to reach £300 million by 2033. Staff are working around leaky roofs, broken ceiling panels and pipes that freeze in winter. This is not a hospital that needs a lick of paint; it is a hospital whose fabric is failing.
On 2 June this year, heavy rain hit Stockton, and the drainage at North Tees could not cope. The trust’s chief executive told me that every one of the hospital theatres for in-patient surgery, bar one, was flooded. More than 400 patients had their surgery cancelled. Repairs have cost £1.5 million, and re-providing the surgery cost a further £1 million. That is £2.5 million gone, not on treating a single extra patient but on catching up after a rainstorm. Think about the person waiting for an operation: they have arranged time off work, their family have made plans to look after them and they have spent weeks preparing themselves, and then they are told to wait again because the theatre is flooded. That was not a freak event; it is what happens when a hospital runs past its design life, and it will happen again unless something changes.
What are local people seeing under this Government? Not a new hospital or a place in the new hospital programme, but job losses. Around 600 posts are to go across our local hospital trusts, with a voluntary redundancy scheme and a vacancy freeze. The trust’s own figures raise further questions. Since 2024, total staffing has fallen from 6,084 to 5,958. Over the same period, the number of managers and senior managers has risen from 91 to 110. That is 2% fewer staff and 21% more managers. Of course, the hospital needs good management, but when vacancies are frozen and a £2.5 million flood bill comes out of the same budget, that increase needs explaining. Every year we wait, the bill gets bigger. A few years ago, a replacement hospital was expected to cost around £380 million. The trust now puts it at between £1 billion and £2 billion.
Before the election, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who was then the shadow Health Secretary, came to North Tees and said that
“there is no doubt we need a new hospital here.”
I agreed with him then and I agree with him now, but when his Government reset the new hospital programme in January last year, not a single hospital on Teesside was in it. When I asked last October what assessment had been made about replacing North Tees, the answer was none, and that there were no plans to invite further schemes into the programme. North Tees is failing in a different way from those RAAC hospitals. Its problem is not one dangerous material; it is a whole building past its life. It is not on the list and there is no list it can join. A hospital whose theatres flood and whose backlog is heading for £300 million should not be left without a route simply because it is failing in the wrong way.
Meanwhile, the Tees Valley Mayor has written 25 times to ask for a meeting about the hospital. The answer given by the right hon. Member for Ilford North was that the mayor could show him the colour of his money. Three Health Secretaries later, there has still not been one meeting. A hospital that is running out of time cannot wait for the Government’s revolving door to stop spinning. The trust is drawing up plans, but a plan with no route to capital is just a very expensive document.
I have five questions for the Minister. First, what has changed since the answer last October? If the new hospital programme is closed, what route is open? Will the Government assess the case for replacement and set out a timetable? Secondly, will she commit to resilience funding to keep the current building safe until then, so that flooded theatres do not become an annual event? Thirdly, will she guarantee that North Tees will keep its offering, its A&E and its core services while the future is decided? Fourthly, will she look at why management numbers have risen by 21% while overall staffing has fallen, and ensure that cuts never come at the expense of frontline care? Fifthly, will she make sure that the Secretary of State finally meets the mayor, along with me and Members from across Teesside, and the trust, before the end of the year? Better still, will she come and visit our hospital and see at first hand the challenges that our incredible workforce is facing?
People across our area, whatever their politics, want the same thing: a hospital that they can rely on when someone they love needs help. I will work with anybody who wants to make that happen. North Tees has seen us born, patched us up and cared for the people that we love at the end. Its staff have kept caring through every challenge put in front of them. The right hon. Member for Ilford North was right: there is no doubt that we need a new hospital. What my constituents want to hear today is not whether, but when, where and how it will be paid for. Our staff deserve it, our patients need it and our community has waited long enough.
The Minister for Social Care and Mental Health (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) on securing this important debate. It is good to hear him rightly put across the strength of feeling that I am sure many people in Stockton and elsewhere nearby have in support of the staff of the hospital and how people feel about it. It is very important to the communities that it serves, and patients and staff rightly deserve facilities that are safe, modern and fit to deliver high-quality care.
I must offer a brief apology to the hon. Member. I am obviously not the Minister directly responsible for this area—we have a clash, unfortunately, which is why I am responding. However, I will make sure that the Minister with direct responsibility hears all of the points that he makes, and I am going to do my best to respond to the questions he has asked.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
This is a Teesside-wide issue, and it is felt by communities across the region. All of us, as MPs representing the Tees Valley, believe that there needs to be a long-term future for this hospital. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is also supporting the trust’s strategic outline case for the future of the hospital. We need to see a future here. However, there are also other hospitals within the trust’s area that are sitting and rotting. I see one in my constituency in East Cleveland. It is controlled by NHS Property Services and there are huge parts of that building that are sitting empty, which could have more services in. I urge the Minister to meet with us collectively to talk about the future for hospitals across the Tees region.
Alison McGovern
As I was just mentioning, I will make sure that the Minister responsible hears my hon. Friend’s point and the discussion we have had in this debate and that they can take forward that strategic discussion about the future. I also hope and anticipate that I will be able to answer the questions from the hon. Member for Stockton West in the contribution that I am going to make. If that is not the case, we will certainly follow up in writing with him and with other Members in Tees as well.
We recognise the need to plan for the hospital’s long-term future for all the reasons that Members have set out and which are understood. That requires three things: more investment in the NHS estate, greater certainty so that investment can be planned over the long term, and greater autonomy for local leaders to decide how it is best used. That is the approach that we have set out in our 10-year capital plan for health and social care.
The challenges at North Tees reflect a much wider problem across the NHS estate. For too long, capital investment was insufficient and short term, with capital budgets repeatedly raided to meet day-to-day pressures. The result is an estate carrying the consequences of years of under-investment, and hon. Members have set out the consequences people are living with. Previous Governments allowed these pressures to build, leaving too many NHS buildings ageing and in poor condition. Patients and staff across the country are living with the consequences.
We cannot undo that legacy overnight, but we can change the way the NHS invests in its buildings—moving away from short-term fixes towards sustained investment and proper long-term planning. First, we are investing more. After years of under-investment, we are providing the largest health capital budget in NHS history, with annual spending rising to £15 billion by the end of this spending review period.
Within that, we are targeting funding where the need is greatest. The estates safety fund, established in 2025-26, will be provided with £6.75 billion over the next nine years to tackle the poorest-quality parts of the NHS estate and to ensure safe environments for patients and staff. That sits alongside around £21 billion in operational capital over the spending review period, empowering local health organisations to invest in their priorities, including their estates. We are also investing around £5 billion over the spending review period to expand and modernise diagnostic, elective, mental health and emergency services, helping to increase capacity, cut waiting times and improve urgent and emergency care performance, as mentioned by Members in the debate already.
Secondly, we are providing greater certainty over that investment. We are providing £65 billion over 10 years for operational capital and estate maintenance, giving the NHS unprecedented long-term certainty to plan and improve its estate. For the first time, providers have multi-year, operational capital allocations alongside longer-term certainty over estate maintenance funding. Instead of having to plan from one year to the next, NHS leaders can look ahead, prioritise investment over several years and develop longer-term plans for their estates and services.
Thirdly, we are giving local leaders greater autonomy about how that investment is used. We are devolving more control to the frontline, streamlining capital approvals, giving local leaders greater freedom to invest according to local need, helping projects to move forward more quickly and delivering better value for money for taxpayers. This matters, because those closest to patients are best placed to understand what their communities need. We are giving them more investment, greater certainty over the resources available and greater freedom to decide how those resources can best support local services, which brings me back to North Tees.
I have heard the case that hon. Members have made about the University Hospital of North Tees becoming part of the new hospital programme. As the hon. Member for Stockton West mentioned, there are currently no plans to invite further schemes to join the programme, as our focus is on delivering the existing schemes set out in the plan for implementation.
However, the new hospital programme is not the only route through which we are investing in the NHS estate. As I have set out, we are providing significant long-term capital investment through the estates safety fund and operational capital programmes to expand and modernise services, alongside the certainty and flexibility I have mentioned. Over the next nine years, more than £1.1 billion is planned through the estates safety fund for the North East and Yorkshire region. Importantly, the fund gives local NHS leaders greater flexibility to prioritise that investment against the most pressing infrastructure risks across the region.
The hon. Member for Stockton West asked some questions on funding and what routes are open. This funding means that the case for further investment at North Tees can be considered through that process, making sure that local priorities drive decision making. The longer-term funding certainty we have provided means that decisions can be made on strategic plans for the estate, rather than short-term pressures alone—although I acknowledge the point that has been made about flooding and so on.
The North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust has already been allocated more than £3.2 million through the estates safety fund for vital repairs at North Tees and Hartlepool hospitals over the next four years. That sits alongside more than £78 million in operational capital for local priorities, including repairs at North Tees. However, I say again that the Ministers responsible and others are aware of this debate and the points that Members have quite rightly raised about the consequences of the current position and what staff are dealing with.
The Government recently announced £1 million to refurbish the emergency department at North Tees over two years as part of our £140 million boost to NHS urgent care. That builds on £2.7 million already invested in the emergency assessment unit to increase capacity and improve patient flow, safety and experience.
We are also investing directly in services across Tees Valley more widely. In 2025, the trust received more than £4 million to expand the Tees Valley community diagnostic centre, which we have discussed, as part of our £343 million expansion of community and crisis mental health services.
New facilities are planned in Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, alongside a dedicated mental health emergency department at Roseberry Park. Together, this sits within £671 million of planned capital investment to support improved NHS performance in secondary and emergency care across the North East and Yorkshire region over the next four years.
Luke Myer
There is not yet much clarity on where some of that funding will go in terms of setting up those mental health services, particularly in Redcar and Cleveland. If we have a hospital with a wing that is sitting empty, it seems to me a no-brainer that that wing could be a site for some of those services, but obviously I would like to have a conversation with the Department to understand whether there are any such plans, and if there are not, whether we can get some confirmation on that.
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for asking me a question that is actually within my direct responsibilities, which does make my life slightly easier. The issue that he raises regarding the suitability of location is very important. It is one that I am considering through our work on the mental health strategy. If he would like to have a discussion with me about it, alongside local leaders, I would be more than happy to agree to that.
In addition, decisions about the future of local services and estates should be shaped by those who understand them best, and I will take this opportunity to say on the record that that includes Members of Parliament. Too often, MPs have not played that role. As MPs, we frequently have a huge amount of local intel about how to make services work best and I encourage all my colleagues in the NHS to work with MPs and to use the local knowledge that they have. However, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust, working with the local NHS, is best placed to assess the needs of its patients, determine the right model of care and plan the infrastructure required to deliver it.
The hon. Member for Stockton West asked me some questions about A&E and management numbers. I have just talked about the importance of the insights that MPs have and I encourage local NHS leaders to listen to what he and other colleagues have said in this debate when they are making decisions. We want to ensure that local leaders have a strong foundation to make decisions, and multi-year funding allows them to look beyond immediate pressures, consider investment across their estate and develop credible plans over a longer period. Given what the hon. Member said in this debate, there are clearly two jobs to be done: first, to try to deal with the problems in front of us at North Tees hospital; and, secondly, to develop a longer-term plan for the future in a credible way. I hope that some of the decisions that we have taken will enable those jobs to be done.
These are significant problems that we are discussing and, as I have already said, I am realistic about our ability to deal overnight with what is a substantial and strategic problem. However, we must use the opportunity to plan for the longer-term future of North Tees hospital to get a clinically led and affordable plan that is supported by a clear business case—not planning one year at a time, but being able to look to the long term with that investment, greater certainty and more autonomy as tools to plan properly for the future of the services and the estate.
Matt Vickers
I made the point earlier that the mayor has written 25 times but we have not managed to get a meeting yet. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to cajole or commit her ministerial colleagues, or even the Secretary of State, to meet local MPs, the mayor and representatives of the trust, in order to have a discussion about where we go next.
Alison McGovern
I meet Members of Parliament, from all parties, regularly. I am always happy to agree to meetings with Members of Parliament, and I am sure that my ministerial colleagues feel likewise. Regarding the mayor, we have obviously created new institutions, such as the mayoral council, so that mayors can make representations directly to Government, and I am sure that the mayor is capable of doing that. I will also make sure that, when I follow up on this debate, the Secretary of State is aware of the question that the hon. Member has asked.
As I finish my remarks, I will return to the hon. Member’s opening comments about the importance of hospital facilities to local communities, wherever they are in the country. I heard what he said about the importance of North Tees hospital to the people that it serves, which just goes to show what a foundational role the NHS plays for all of us in our family life.
I commend the hon. Member for Stockton West for securing this debate today. We have a lot of work to do to get the NHS back to what it should be; we are in a turnaround process. It will be hard, but if we work together collaboratively, with one eye on the immediate term and one eye on the long term, we will get the job done.
Question put and agreed to.
Royal Mail: Performance
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members who have turned out today. In truth, any one of them could introduce this debate: we face the same issues, no matter where we are in the United Kingdom.
I want to start by recognising the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee and its Chair, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). In May, the Committee concluded that the Royal Mail service was unacceptable and that Ofcom’s approach had failed to secure the improvement needed. It has kept up the pressure. Its Chair wrote to Ofcom again just yesterday, and I will draw on that letter. At Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister acknowledged the systemic and continued failings of Royal Mail.
In Lagan Valley, the post does not arrive reliably; it comes in batches. People tell me that they get no mail for two or three weeks, and then a whole month’s-worth arrives at once. A letter sent across Lisburn can take over a week to arrive. People tell me that there is no difference between first and second class any more; it just arrives when it arrives. I know that second-class mail can now be delivered every other day. That is fine, but it is still supposed to arrive within three working days. Waiting weeks is not an alternate-day service.
This is causing real harm. Northern Ireland has by far the worst health waiting lists in the UK. Because of postal delays, my constituents are missing MRI and CT scans. The mother of one of my constituents was taken off an orthopaedic waiting list because she never got the letter. These people are already waiting in pain, and when a letter fails to show up, the system blames them, and every missed appointment lengthens the queue for everybody.
This happens elsewhere, too. A constituent got her jury summons after the deadline passed, and she spent days terrified that she would be fined for something that was not her fault. Driving licences, benefit cheques, bank cards and insurance documents just go missing. People pay extra for special delivery but items still sit for days, marked “in office”. Important legal documents go missing or show up opened.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
The hon. Member is giving a great speech. One of my constituents has not received post for an entire month, despite expecting time-sensitive correspondence relating to the death of her partner, who sadly passed away earlier this year. That is totally unacceptable. Does the hon. Member agree that Ofcom needs to be pushing Royal Mail to speed up improvements to regulated delivery? Our residents have waited long enough.
Sorcha Eastwood
I absolutely do. That is an extremely distressing and poignant example. In Northern Ireland, confidential mail matters. Local groups supporting vulnerable people tell me that they are deeply concerned about letters ending up at the wrong address. A letter in the wrong hands in Northern Ireland can put people in real danger.
Businesses are hurting too. In my constituency of Lagan Valley, we have a fantastic local business called the Pie Shop—it sells pies. It recently had a chance to bid for a contract that would see its products stocked in Harrods and whose commercial value it would be virtually impossible to estimate. But due to the Royal Mail delays, it missed the deadline to participate in the trial and it lost that—a huge blow to that small business. That will be replicated right across the UK.
The real-life impacts of this failing service have been mentioned. A woman recently wrote to me and said that a handwritten card marking the anniversary of her mother’s death took nine days to arrive. For her, that was not minor; it was another blow on a day that was already hard. A sympathy letter, a birthday note or a Christmas card: these are careful, deliberate actions that we make to say, “I care about you. You matter. I love you. You aren’t alone.” When the post fails, that is what goes missing.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I held a similar one earlier this year on 4 February, in which I raised issues regarding Royal Mail, particularly with respect to the WV15 and WV16 postcodes in my constituency, where people are waiting for two, three and sometimes four weeks to receive mail. Does she agree that that situation is completely unacceptable and must change, because my constituents, like many other people, feel that they really do not matter to Royal Mail?
Sorcha Eastwood
Indeed. I thank the hon. Member for his work on this subject to date—it is very much valued and appreciated by all of us in this House—and I think that he has just illustrated the point perfectly.
We have had the discussion and the debate around which items matter in terms of Royal Mail’s service. Parcels still manage to turn up on time and online orders arrive straight away, while letters sit in sorting offices. Everyone can see what Royal Mail is prioritising.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for making such a powerful testimony about the impact of letters being lost or delayed by Royal Mail. I have been flagging up issues in the BH11, BH10 and BH9 postcodes, which are in my constituency, just as many other hon. Members here today have been flagging up issues about the postcodes in their constituencies. What concerns me most is that the Royal Mail responses to the issues we raise are at best generic and at worst deceptive. Does she agree that that is totally unacceptable and that Royal Mail needs to do better?
Sorcha Eastwood
I think the hon. Lady has perfectly anticipated the next paragraph of my speech. She is absolutely right that such responses make an already bad situation even worse. If we knew that our business or organisation was already under fire—for the life of me, I cannot understand why Royal Mail simply has not sought to improve how it responds to complaints.
Indeed, some of my constituents have told me what happens whenever they try to complain. The online complaints form has gone. As already suggested by the hon. Lady, the phoneline is a generic national number and it can take up to an hour to get through. If someone does get through, they are given a complaint number and promised a reply within three days, but weeks later they are still waiting for an answer. They use the email address provided, diligently setting out the issue once more, and eventually get a reply saying that the address is no longer monitored. A complaints system that tells you nobody is listening is not a complaints system.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for making such an excellent speech. Regarding the way that Royal Mail deals with complaints via email and via its website, does she agree that we as Members of the House of Commons seem to be doing a better job of identifying the problems than Royal Mail itself? Thanks to the excellent work of my brilliant team, there is a page on my website where people can plot where they live and the type of problem they have been having, which strikes me as something that Royal Mail ought to be doing itself—perhaps we should encourage it to do so.
Sorcha Eastwood
The hon. Member makes an excellent suggestion, and he is quite right that it should not be on Members of this House to conduct such an extensive and ongoing campaign, almost fielding the complaints, as it were. I thank him for his leadership on that.
Speaking of leadership, I now turn to the leadership of Royal Mail. I want to be fair to Royal Mail—it deserves a right of reply—but I cannot say what its leadership thinks, because its leaders will not meet me. I wonder why.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Following a meeting that I held with other Labour MPs and the head of Ofcom this week, the CEO of Royal Mail has invited a number of us to meet him off-site at 9.30 am on a random Wednesday in a couple of weeks’ time. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be much better for him to recognise that MPs from across the House and representing every single type of constituency have major concerns about Royal Mail, and that he needs to get himself into Parliament to listen to our questions directly, rather than suggesting that we traipse halfway across London to go into a room that he is in charge of on the basis of an agenda that is entirely his, rather than the one that our constituents want to discuss?
Sorcha Eastwood
Hear, hear—I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. In all honesty, I was reluctant today to say that Royal Mail was continuing not to engage with me; I felt that it was gaslighting and I was scared to mention that. It did manage to meet some of my colleagues in Northern Ireland at a local level, which I thought was generous. However, this matter is a reserved matter, it does sit within this House, and I think that right hon. and hon. Members, including Front Benchers, have gone an awfully long way to accommodate Royal Mail when, as the hon. Member has just said, its representatives should be presenting themselves in this House, not the other way around.
I want to turn now to the posties. I declare an interest: my stepdad was a postman many years ago in Sheffield, and he has permanent back problems as a result. I think many people underestimate just how difficult a job that was, at any time. But now? I dread to think about the stress and pressure that those posties are under.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Before joining Parliament in 2019, I had 22 years of service with Royal Mail as an engineer, and I can tell the hon. Lady that working conditions were in decline then. We now hear that more than 400 postal workers are leaving the business every week. That is due to workload and working conditions. A two-tier workforce cannot work for any organisation; the workforce need to be rewarded accordingly. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Sorcha Eastwood
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I really feel that he has hit upon the crux of the matter here. We are being told that Royal Mail has identified issues that it is now trying to rectify through recruitment and so on, but if people already know that the workers holding up this once-great British institution are being treated in the way that they are, that will not be an advertisement for anybody to work for that organisation. That troubles me.
Our postal workers are not the problem. Our posties are doing their absolute best to hold things together but, as has just been highlighted, they are leaving in their droves.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
On the issue of postwomen and postmen, in areas such as mine, the most rural areas of our country, those people are a lifeline. They are often the only people whom older people meet in a day, but a postman in my constituency has been taken to an employment tribunal because he helped to deliver a local parish magazine in the middle of nowhere —just to be a help. Those are sometimes the only people my constituents meet, so as the hon. Lady campaigns on this issue, will she press for recognition of the social role that postwomen and postmen play throughout the country, on behalf of many of our constituents?
Sorcha Eastwood
Absolutely. My constituency is actually still classed as a rural constituency, so I think that the right hon. Member’s point is really well made. We have already discussed the delays in the actual letters arriving, but in this day and age, when so many people are isolated, sending an old-fashioned letter is in itself almost an act of rebellion against such an impersonal society. Indeed, for some people right across the UK, in every constituency, their postie will be their only point of contact. It would be an absolute shame if we lost sight of that in all of this.
Postal workers are seriously worried. Some of my own constituents who work for Royal Mail tell me that management simply are not listening. Experienced staff are gone, and new workers are brought in on worse terms, as we have already heard. Workers have ideas to fix that, but they are being shut out and treated as if they are part of the problem.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The hon. Lady is giving a typically powerful and empathetic speech. Amid the deluge of letters failing to arrive in my constituency, one constituent was waiting 12 days for an important letter. They went to the sorting office and were told that it had not been delivered, along with another pile of mail, because the postie was on leave. That kind of management at the local level, never mind among the leadership of the organisation, shows me that there is not adequate support behind our postal workers. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a reset in the culture, so that there is not this division between postal workers, many of whom have great ideas to improve the quality of service, and management, who seem to be pressing new reforms down on them without a real understanding of the challenges of the role?
Sorcha Eastwood
Absolutely; again, the hon. Member has got to the real nub of the issue. It almost feels as though it is handy and convenient for Royal Mail to pit worker against worker and person against person. By doing so, I think it is seeking to evade its responsibility and role in all of this, and we must not lose sight of that.
Royal Mail is rolling out a new delivery model by Christmas, apparently, which the Communication Workers Union reports is causing huge problems in hundreds of offices right across the country. Is it not better to fix what is broken before making it bigger? Why roll it out right before the busiest time of the year?
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I recently visited a delivery office in Bradford that serves my Shipley constituents, to understand how the new delivery model will work. The management reassured me that it would solve much of the litany of complaints about the late and infrequent deliveries experienced by my constituents, along with those represented by many of the Members present. Does the hon. Lady agree that, if the new delivery model does not lead to more reliable postal services, we need to look at other options, including the renationalisation of Royal Mail?
Sorcha Eastwood
I absolutely agree. I may be pre-empting the conclusion of my remarks, but I think that is something we all now have to consider.
Royal Mail is more than simply a postal service. It is the red pillar box and the wee red van going up and down country lanes to our small family farm. It is more than just a letter.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing us a really important debate. This issue is clearly affecting us all, and Royal Mail is certainly also badly failing constituents in my Kent constituency. I feel the affection for our posties, which she touched on when she spoke about the red post boxes and so on; Royal Mail should be a national treasure, but it is not. My concern is that the situation is getting worse, not better. Royal Mail has been fined £37 million for poor performance in recent years, and there is an Ofcom investigation. Many of us feel that Royal Mail is not fit for purpose and that no change is happening, so does she agree that the Government need to do more by taking enforcement action and putting some more pressure on the leadership?
Sorcha Eastwood
I wholeheartedly agree. Royal Mail says quality is improving, believe it or not. To be fair, recent quarterly figures showed a slight pick-up, but it has not met its annual delivery targets in six years. My constituents do not read quarterly reports; they rely on social media to see whether the postie is coming. It is a completely unacceptable situation. We also hear that stamp prices keep going up. Citizens Advice suggested capping stamp prices if delivery targets are not met. It is a simple rule: if you don’t deliver the service, you can’t raise your prices. Will the Government back that plan?
Who is supposed to fix this issue? Ofcom, as we have heard, has fined Royal Mail more than £37 million in three years. If fines changed behaviour, things would be fixed by now. Even Ofcom says that
“persistent failure…may raise…fundamental questions about the long-term provision of the universal service”.
I agree. We are at that point. As the BIST Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, put it, the current position
“leaves unanswered who will take responsibility for identifying and closing the gaps in postal regulation”.
Ofcom points to the Government, the Government point at Ofcom and the post sits in the delivery office. The BIST Committee gave Royal Mail and Ofcom until 22 November to show real improvement. If they do not, the Secretary of State should consult on changing Ofcom’s powers.
Sorcha Eastwood
That is a real question that we must seriously investigate. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members across the House would attest to wanting further robust mechanisms to challenge many of Ofcom’s other remits successfully. I wonder whether the Minister will commit today to consult on changing Ofcom’s powers.
Finally, I turn to the bigger picture. As we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members in the debate, this issue is about much more than just simply Royal Mail and letters. For the first time in its 500-year history, Royal Mail is owned by an overseas company—the highly profitable EP Group. The Government approved the takeover, but serious questions remain about our sovereignty. Royal Mail is a British institution. It delivers to every address in the UK for the same price, whether to a farm in Northern Ireland, a flat in Cardiff or a college in Scotland. It is as much critical infrastructure as any road or cable. When it was privatised in 2013, we were promised better service and investment. Instead, we have had six years of missed targets. A company unanswerable to its owners will always be tempted to favour its most profitable work. The universal service obligation is meant to guard against that.
Fines have not been enough. Other countries subsidise their postal providers or bring them into public ownership, as Ofcom notes. I go further here than the Committee has, but I believe it is time to review Royal Mail’s ownership and governance, so that the universal service obligation is protected in the public interest.
I ask the House: who do we want to be as a society? Do we want to be a country that can no longer promise that a card will reach a grieving daughter, or a hospital letter will reach a patient? Or do we want to be a country that treats the post as what it has always been—a promise to every address— and protects it?
As I said earlier, this is about more than just letters. What are we as a country, if we can no longer rely upon a service that is nearly as old as time itself? Given current geopolitical instability, it would also be remiss of me not to put on the record the grave concerns that I have about critical national infrastructure being owned overseas, rather than in our own country.
For my final requests, I am asking the Government for four things. First, will the Government consult on changing Ofcom’s powers, if service has not improved by the Committee’s 22 November deadline? Secondly, will the Government consider linking stamp prices to delivery performance, as Citizens Advice has proposed? Thirdly, what guarantees do we have for Christmas deliveries this year? Fourthly, and finally, will the Government review Royal Mail’s ownership model, to protect the universal service for the long term?
The public hold up their end of the bargain: they buy the stamps, post letters in time and wait. The system is letting them down. My constituents want to trust the post again. The Government, Ofcom and Royal Mail all have the power to put that right, and this Christmas is the time to show it.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
With a time limit of three and a half minutes, I call Anneliese Dodds.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I am very grateful, above all, to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate.
This is not the first debate that we have had on this subject, even in this Chamber. Some of us have spoken on this matter many times. In fact, very sadly, it feels like some of the rest of the country is now catching up with some of the issues that we have had in Oxford East over many years. As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned, those issues have been highlighted by the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee. They were also indicated by the meeting that a number of us had recently with Ofcom and the CWU, organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson).
In my area, the root of the challenge relates to recruitment and retention—I very much agree with comments that have been made—and over time there has been increased transparency. After a certain amount of denial that there was a problem, there is now better communication, at least with my regional Royal Mail, and sometimes with national Royal Mail as well.
However, there is a huge challenge. I am concerned to hear that the model that was developed in Oxford for the prioritisation of NHS mail does not seem to be operating everywhere; perhaps the Minister can look into that. That model was devised by Oxford posties to pull out that NHS mail. Again, the approaches to mail prioritisation and rotation that are sadly having to be used in Oxford because of the number of absences, and failures in recruitment and retention, do not seem to be being used everywhere.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The right hon. Lady makes a really important point. Royal Mail recently wrote to me after I complained about the lack of service in Selsey, a coastal area where there seems to be absolutely no mail being delivered. It said that it prioritised medical letters and had a rotation system, yet that is not evidenced on the ground in Selsey. People are being asked to collect their own mail from the sorting office, which is only open for two hours a day. Does she agree that Royal Mail needs to turn its words to MPs into actions, so that our residents can see the changes we are asking for?
Anneliese Dodds
I certainly agree. Many of us have been very frustrated that we often get stock letters back about the problems being experienced, that our constituents have to go to sorting offices and that we are not seeing the change we urgently need. Given the challenges with recruitment and retention, I have been trying to promote vacancies myself as a local MP.
Three things need to happen. First, we need the national management to listen to the local posties and the CWU, because they have ideas about how to deal with this. Secondly, we need to get a grip on the unlevel playing field, especially when it comes to parcels. We all know that the volume of letters is going down, not just in the UK, but right across Europe and other industrialised countries. The parcel trade is therefore really important, but we have a farcical situation where 98% of Royal Mail workers are employees on permanent contracts, yet they do effectively exactly the same job as people who are not employed—people who are under terrible terms and conditions and are treated as if they are self-employed. We all know that is bogus. That needs to be dealt with, because it is leading to an unlevel playing field. Given the Minister’s great experience of working rights legislation, will she ensure that the consultation on bogus self-employment going on at the moment leads to the change that is needed?
Finally, I urge the Minister and the Government to focus on the potential of Royal Mail. We are talking about the challenges and representing our constituents’ concerns now, but we have an amazing network in the UK, from the most northerly to the most southerly point. It proved its worth during covid. We should be doing everything we can to recognise and build on that potential. I ask them to please listen to the CWU’s proposals on that in particular.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this fantastic debate on an important issue, on which she spoke so well. I also thank her for shouting out the work of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, of which I am a member, and of our Chair; let us see what November brings on that question.
The turnover rate of new Royal Mail employees is extremely high, and the work practices are incredibly harsh and getting harsher. We rely so much on our local posties to serve and help us, and it is really depressing to see how they are treated. My local postie, Tony, has just taken redundancy after years and years of work. It is hard not to feel that he was pushed out by being given a new round. It eminently did not suit, and Royal Mail knew that. That is happening in Witney and in other areas up and down the country. It is harsh and cruel. The numbers of people losing their jobs every week are not by accident, but by design.
Our Select Committee’s investigation into Royal Mail’s letter delivery service noted that only 74.9% of first-class mail has been delivered on time so far this year, against a target of 93%. That translates into approximately 126 million first-class letters arriving late over the year. At present, missing targets is cheaper than meeting them. Fines totalled about £37 million over the last three years, while first class reached only 75.7% next-day delivery, against a 93% target. That is a real problem. If Royal Mail just takes the fines, that does not help anybody.
The way to fix that problem is by focusing on two things that the owner values most: stamp price rises and taking cash out of the Royal Mail business. Here are some ideas on how we could achieve that. First, as others have mentioned, there should be no stamp price rises until targets are met. We have to get that link absolutely firm. That hits revenue directly and will make them pay attention. Secondly, Royal Mail’s cash should be ringfenced: no dividends, inter-group loans or management fees to the parent company while targets are missed, as Ofwat can do with water companies. That would stop letters subsidising parcels.
Thirdly, fines should be escalated, linked to turnover and paid into service improvement when we receive them. Fourthly, there should be automatic compensation for customers when mail is late, as there is with delay and repay. Fifthly, there should be no executive bonuses—none—while targets are missed. Sixthly, we need transparency: performance by postcode area, letters and parcels shown separately, and staffing levels published. That is absolutely critical. They hide behind this fug about how they lack the data. We need it at a granular level so that we can see what is going on where. Finally, there should be—
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate. I want first to put on the record my appreciation for Royal Mail staff, particularly those I met on Monday at the delivery office in Rottingdean in my constituency, where I saw how hard they are working to improve the local service.
Of course, we all want Royal Mail to succeed, because it is a universal postal service and something we all rely on. It is a truly national service and a source of good, unionised jobs. We should celebrate that more—frankly, we should do more to encourage other providers in the sector to match those employment standards and expectations. But we also have to ask how we can better support Royal Mail staff to do the job we all need them to do, and how our constituents can be sure that they will receive the service they rely on, because right now problems with Royal Mail is the one issue I get the most emails about—I was going to say letters, but it is actually emails.
I will give two quick examples. One constituent from Woodingdean in my constituency told me that they had no deliveries from 1 to 16 August this year, 29 pieces of mail on 17 August, no deliveries from 18 to 28 August, and 13 items of mail delivered on 29 August. When I raised this directly with Royal Mail locally, I was told:
“there are no current issues with the delivery of mail to your constituent’s address…deliveries are taking place six days a week”.
Frankly, it is hard to know how to relay that to constituents.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
A constituent in West Bridgford in my constituency showed me a letter they had received from TV Times, telling them that because Royal Mail had become so unreliable it was going to use a third party to deliver the magazine separately, to make sure they got it on time. Does that not say everything about the reliability of Royal Mail?
Chris Ward
I am afraid it does. As my hon. Friend’s intervention shows, some constituents are now routinely missing letters—letters informing them of NHS appointments, legal affairs, fines and so on. One even contacted me on Saturday to say that he had only just received his Labour party conference pass, some four weeks late. Members might think that a blessing in disguise and that we should be praising Royal Mail, but he was not too pleased.
We are now in a cycle of despair with Royal Mail, where constituents report unacceptable delays all the time and MPs from across the House come here to raise them. Successive Governments will say how terrible it all is and demand that Ofcom acts and Royal Mail improves, but Ofcom does not have the powers it needs and keeps fining Royal Mail for failure, despite the fact that Royal Mail cannot make a profit anyway. Royal Mail has no chance of hitting its legally mandated targets and no hope of competing on a level playing field, because operators in the same sector simply do not have the same regulatory or employment standards that we ask of Royal Mail.
The result is rising anger on all sides, a loss of faith in our national delivery service and, frankly, a belief that we cannot even get the post to run on time in this country. I know that the Minister cares deeply about the issue and is working hard on it, so I urge her to break that cycle: look at what more we can do in Parliament to level the playing field for Royal Mail, empower the regulator more, and give Royal Mail staff the opportunity they need to improve and modernise the service. If we do that in this Parliament—there is a majority for it and cross-party support—then we can finally get our national postal service back on track and serving our constituents as it should be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for setting the scene on a subject that is incredibly important to us all. As well as both being Northern Ireland MPs, we share a frustration with the Royal Mail.
I cannot do technology—that is just a fact of life, as I am very old-school—but I write letters regularly. Nothing impresses, helps or encourages a constituent as much as a hand-written letter sent to their house in a yellow envelope from the House of Commons. They appreciate that, which is why I do it. The business of the rest of my office is done by email.
Day after day, my office is inundated with phone calls and emails from people who go for weeks without seeing a postal delivery worker. Letters are piling up in sorting depots, with vital documents vanishing into a black hole. The public have completely lost faith in a service on which they have relied for generations.
I want to be entirely clear about where the blame lies. It does not lie with the hard-working, dedicated local postmen and postwomen who are working themselves to the bone. They work long hours and walk miles under immense pressure, bearing the brunt of public anger on the doorsteps. It is not their fault; they are being completely let down by senior management, a failed operating model and a chronic lack of investment.
Since I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I have always visited the Royal Mail depot in Newtownards at Christmas time. Staff retention is incredibly important. I met a guy just before Christmas who had worked for the Royal Mail for 20 years. I asked him how he was getting on, and he said, “Jim, I’m leaving next week.” I asked where he was going, and he was going up the road to Kiltonga, for better wages at Lakeland Dairies. Royal Mail has to address staff retention by ensuring the right pay.
When I speak to local staff in Strangford, they consistently tell me that they believe passionately in their public duty but that they are being asked to fight a losing battle with one hand tied behind their back. Without targeted funding to build or upgrade a dedicated sorting office in our area, our local posties will continue to drown under the backlog. Minister, what discussions have taken place with the owners of Royal Mail about its antiquated sorting centres and technology? What can be done to ensure that the guys who work there are able to see modern, suitable workplaces?
This is not just about missing birthday cards and delayed bank statements; it is about people not getting hospital appointments. My constituents are missing long-awaited cancer screenings, urgent surgical consultations and vital diagnostic scans. If they have been on a waiting list for six months, that could mean they wait for two years—it just does not work.
This is a timely point to discuss what is important. I have engaged with the former Northern Ireland Health Minister to ensure the use of barcoded envelopes for urgent medical mail, which has helped us in Northern Ireland, but it does not go the whole way. Royal Mail cannot keep cutting corners, reducing delivery days and abandoning its universal service obligation while senior executives line their pockets. We need accountability for a service that is currently failing the sick, the vulnerable and the elderly.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this vital debate and her excellent opening speech.
My office has been inundated with complaints from residents, particularly in Glenrothes, about unacceptable delays to Royal Mail deliveries. I therefore put out an appeal for information on social media, and in just a few days around 400 people replied to that one post with their experiences. Even after the revisions to the universal service obligation to reduce the frequency of second-class deliveries, seven in 10 of the people who contacted us said they were waiting a fortnight or more for their mail deliveries. Residents also reported post being delivered in bundles dating back weeks, as the hon. Lady said. That is simply not acceptable.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I have also been running a local survey on this issue, and up to 80% of respondents in South East Cornwall report delays. As a rural and coastal area with a large number of elderly residents, this is a huge cause of concern. As the daughter of a postie, I know at first hand just how hard our frontline workers are working to make sure those elderly residents get what they deserve in a timely manner. What more can we do to make sure this problem is addressed?
Richard Baker
I could not agree more with those important points. They show that, from Cornwall right up to Scotland, the problems are the same and need to be addressed by Royal Mail. I will come to my proposals later in my speech.
We heard from people whose credit had been affected by a missed bill, people who missed jury citations and people who were penalised after car tax reminders never arrived. A number of Members have mentioned issues around health service appointments. Most worrying for me, 100 constituents received late NHS letters. Unacceptably, 45 missed an appointment or received a letter after the date. A constituent waited three years to get on to a consultant’s priority list, but she never received the letter and subsequently lost her place. A primary school-age child missed a vital appointed at Edinburgh sick kids hospital. A teenager was struck off the Victoria hospital’s dermatology department in Kirkcaldy for not turning up, although it was entirely outwith their control. Seventeen people managed to attend an appointment only because of a text or call reminder, as the letter was not received in time. Royal Mail has said to us that it has a priority barcode for NHS letters. I have checked with NHS Fife. It is using the code, and the letters are still not arriving on time, so Royal Mail must address the situation urgently.
It is obvious to all those who are aware of the situation that the new delivery system, which management said was going to make a big difference, is in fact failing, particularly for second-class mail. My constituents have been told at the counter that more lucrative parcels are being prioritised over letters.
It is striking that not a single constituent who has complained or got in contact with us put any blame on our overworked local posties. As many Members said, the situation is putting our postal staff under unacceptable pressure at work. Understaffing and longer routes mean that they are being asked to do the impossible. That drives up absence rates, which only makes the situation worse. According to the CWU, which has done so much work to campaign on this issue, Royal Mail is losing about 400 postal staff a week. I again urge the management to get around the table with the union and end the recruitment and retention crisis. So many of the problems that we face in the service today are caused by the recruitment and retention issues, so we must support our hard-working postal staff.
The situation in Glenrothes has improved marginally of late, but only on a short-term basis, because workers were brought in temporarily from Dundee. That is clearly not a sustainable solution, so a root-and-branch change is required, not quick fixes or plastering over the cracks. I urge Royal Mail to listen to the contributions from across the Chamber today and to the thousands of people across Glenrothes and Mid Fife who rely on this lifeline.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Meur ras, Ms Lewell. It is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech.
The performance of Royal Mail in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, in the south-west of Cornwall, has been simply woeful. Constituents regularly tell me that they have gone weeks without post and, like other hon. Members’ constituents, have received a large backlog all at once.
Sharon from Hayle had waited a year for an operation when she received a call from the hospital asking whether she intended to attend. The appointment letter, together with the swabs required pre surgery, had never arrived. Thankfully, the arrangements were later confirmed by phone and email, but the letter itself was delivered three days after the operation had taken place. Another constituent was sent a letter for a hospital appointment 19 days after it was scheduled. Such delays risk causing vulnerable people to miss essential treatment, and place a burden on our overstretched NHS.
In Cornwall, our remote coastal geography and patchy digital connectivity—to say the least—mean that many of us still rely heavily on the universal postal service, but I worry that the situation will only get worse. In recent weeks, several Royal Mail workers have contacted me with concerns about the new delivery model 26. They report unmanageable workloads, experienced workers leaving, morale at rock bottom and substantial volumes of mail sitting undelivered. Three workers completing four rounds does not sound a credible way to improve reliability and restore public trust in Royal Mail. I echo the points made: the issue is not one of posties; it is one of management. Nor should Royal Mail continue to respond, if at all, to our constituents with template responses or hide behind impossible-to-navigate AI chatbots, while the reality on the ground slips further behind.
I therefore ask the Minister what discussions the Government have had with Royal Mail about DM26, and what action will be taken to ensure my constituents receive a postal service worthy of the word “royal”. If Royal Mail is going to treat this House and elected Members with such arrogance, the Government must take direct, firm and urgent action.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this debate and on making such an excellent speech.
My constituents in Dartford welcome today’s debate. The performance of Royal Mail has been a running sore for many residents in Dartford and the surrounding towns and villages, and the growing delays are having a real-world impact on their lives. This is not about the hard work of staff at the Dartford delivery office. As we all know, Royal Mail has targets for local performance—in our case, it is for 87% of first-class mail to be delivered the next working day—that are palpably not being met. For the DA postcode that covers Dartford, the figure for 2025-26 was well below that at 74.6%. That is by no means the worst performance in the country but still a long way off hitting the target.
Given that we know that the performance of Royal Mail in Dartford, as in most of the country, is well below that expected, I want to share one notable example of the impact. I recently received an email from the manager of the North Kent community diagnostic centre on East Hill, who has seen a significant increase in the number of patients not attending appointments, with many saying they are not receiving their appointment letters, notwithstanding the priority supposedly given to NHS correspondence.
In one weekend earlier this month, almost half of the 90 patients booked in for appointments, with letters sent three weeks in advance, did not arrive. Those are people missing scans and critical tests vital for their journey to treatment and their pathway to better health. That is the real-world impact on people who are unable to receive the urgent treatment they need.
What is the cause? Clearly, the changing structure of the postal and parcel market is causing problems for Royal Mail. Some of that is clearly about Ofcom’s lack of powers or ability to use them. Much of it is about the culture and management of Royal Mail. Whichever combination of those issues it is, we need the Government to address the problem and sort it out on behalf of my constituents.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate on Royal Mail performance. Royal Mail’s reliability has become a big problem nationally, as we can all see. Alongside many parliamentary colleagues, I wrote to the Minister to raise serious concerns about delivery, which has simply not been good enough. I noticed it when I tried to invite my constituents to a local “Tea with your MP” event and half the invitations failed to arrive before the event, which caused much consternation.
I completely understand why people are deeply worried about missing critical, time-sensitive mail, which my casework shows. One constituent, like others, received a letter from the hospital after a vital medical appointment, so she missed it. An elderly resident had her phone cut off by BT because Royal Mail failed to deliver her paper bills. She does not have the internet and relies entirely on the post to stay connected. Others have resorted to getting their own mail from sorting offices, but in Cornwall, where it is hard to get around by public transport, particularly to sorting offices with limited opening hours, that has caused a real issue. The picture nationally is just as concerning. Citizens Advice reported that over Christmas 2025, 16 million people experienced letter delays, a 50% jump on the previous year, and 5.7 million adults missed vital letters about health appointments, benefit decisions and legal notices.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about medical appointments, and I was horrified to hear from a constituent of mine in his 80s who did not have post for a whole month recently. He was waiting for bank cards and medical correspondence, and missed an appointment because of that lack of post. My hon. Friend mentioned rural areas. Does she agree with me that not receiving post makes people a lot more vulnerable?
Jayne Kirkham
Yes, indeed—particularly my elderly residents who simply cannot get around. It will be the same in my hon. Friend’s area.
Like other Members, I have visited my local delivery offices. The staff do an incredible job, but they are under-resourced and there just are not enough of them. Royal Mail continues to fall short under both its original and renegotiated universal service obligation. Even with the lowered targets, performance is well below the standard. I welcome the road map to rebuild the targets, but there are still serious structural concerns about that. We must make sure that these regulatory and service improvements are delivered without delay so we can make sure that our constituents are not disconnected from their communities, missing their hospital appointments, or unable to meet important bills.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the CWU. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. Of course, Ms Lewell, it is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you in the Chair.
If we need an example of disaster and chaos in privatising a public asset, we need look no further than Royal Mail. The water industry is a close challenger, but we would have an even longer debate if we were to discuss the issues in Royal Mail versus the issues in the privatised water industry. We need to recognise that in 2013 Royal Mail was privatised by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. It is important to know that the root cause of the issues is that privatisation, which has been a disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned that one option we should consider is renationalising Royal Mail, and I support that.
In my constituency of Stockport, I conducted an online survey—I do not need to reiterate the points about doing postal surveys, which would probably never get there or come back in time—and 89% of respondents experienced a service disruption or delays to Royal Mail deliveries and were dissatisfied with Royal Mail. I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made, but I have also been to my local delivery office on numerous occasions and the postal men and women do a fantastic job. None of us in this House on a cross-party basis has issues with our postal workers. The issue is with the toxic management, how the business is run and the lack of governance. It could be argued that Royal Mail management is better off paying the fine than actually meeting its obligations to the public. Stamp prices keep going up, but letter deliveries keep getting worse. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) suggested that there should be no further rises in the price of stamps until Royal Mail can demonstrate on a long-term basis that it has consistently improved letter delivery standards.
Just this week a resident reported that a first-class letter took over 10 days to arrive and they received birthday cards a week late. Another constituent, from Ainsdale Grove in Reddish in my constituency, contacted me to say that their entire street received large batches of delayed post, with some letters dating back to 25 September. That is completely unacceptable. As I said, I am a proud member of the CWU, but I want to see Royal Mail management working with the CWU. There have been reports that almost 400 postal workers are leaving their jobs at Royal Mail—there must be an extremely toxic culture for that number of people to be leaving. I could say a lot more, but time is limited.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate. Like many colleagues from across the House, I have received a litany of complaints from constituents. I visited my local delivery office back in the summer with a massive dossier of those complaints. That was just at the beginning of the roll-out of the new delivery model known as DM26, which the management there reassured me would solve all my constituents’ postal delays. Unfortunately, I continue to receive testimonies from constituents about the impact of late deliveries. I will share a couple of the most impactful ones.
One constituent’s elderly parents live in Cottingley. The father is 82 and the mother has dementia at 79. They do not use a computer. They have missed three NHS appointments and incurred additional charges on mobile phones, and when their children tried to raise a complaint online, they found it very difficult. The second area is Crossflatts. A constituent there has had three hospital appointment letters delivered after the appointment date, and as we have heard from other Members, birthday cards have gone missing too.
None of us blames the posties. They do a fantastic job, but we need to make sure that they are working in an environment that supports their health and wellbeing. We can see that there is low morale and there are high rates of sickness absence, which I hope the Minister will address in her remarks. We must also not level down. There is a real problem with the wider gig economy, and I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) in asking how the Minister will address bogus self-employment in the wider parcel delivery market so that Royal Mail and its workers have a chance.
I urge the Minister to really focus her remarks on the fact that Royal Mail is a failing company. It is in financial distress. We have a regulatory model with Ofcom that is clearly not working. The financial penalties are not working. Ofcom is almost at the limit of its powers to force Royal Mail management to get its act together and address these problems. We have changed the universal service obligation once. We have introduced this new delivery model, or at least Royal Mail is introducing this new delivery model. If we get to April next year and there is still a failure to meet that USO, will the Minister look at radical options, including the nationalisation of Royal Mail?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a privilege and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on her incredible speech and on securing this debate. We have heard during the debate from all four corners of the United Kingdom; this is a significant challenge for constituents up and down the country.
As we get towards Christmas, I am sure that all Members have a visit to the sorting centre in their diary. It always feels a little poignant to me, because one of my heroes, David Penhaligon from Cornwall, died on the way to a sorting centre in 1986 while discharging his duties as a community MP. I have been offered a visit to the Torquay centre twice, and on the second occasion I said, “No, I would like to go to Paignton.” Strangely enough, I discovered that the Paignton office was somewhat crowded and unruly. Despite the chaos, the posties were doing incredible work attempting to get the post out to people, but it feels as if there is a bit of gamesmanship in what Royal Mail wants Members to see—or not see. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) visited a sorting centre, and posties advised him that the undelivered post was hidden at the back of the office. There are some sharp practices occurring, which I am well aware of.
Nikki in my constituency tells me she got an enhanced parking fine because the notice was three weeks late. She then—eventually—received post from an enforcement organisation chasing her up for the unpaid fine. That is utterly shameful, and it echoes what we have heard from around the Chamber about delays in finance-related letters, whether statements or card deliveries, and people being unable to complete transactions that they desperately need to complete.
Perhaps the most poignant issue is missed appointments—I will not rehearse the points that have been made, but I am aware of a number of examples in my constituency—which impact not only people’s health, but the hospitals; we know about the challenges in our health service. We are seeing the Royal Mail, in effect, vandalising the service by failing to deliver post in a timely manner, which is utterly shocking.
Turning to the most vulnerable, colleagues have talked about people in remote areas, and I am shocked but no longer surprised when I go around former council estates by the number of older folk who do not have access to the internet and do not have a smartphone. The reality of the way they communicate is post, and they have to use a very poor postal system. Those individuals simply cannot be accessed digitally, so they desperately need the post. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are looking to hold Royal Mail to account, because this is far from being the posties’ fault.
Colleagues from different sides of the political spectrum have talked about surveys that they have undertaken. Like them, I have heard from dozens of people about the challenges, the most worrying of which was big batches of post arriving at once. When I have raised concerns with Royal Mail, I have received, in effect, bureaucratic drivel. I say diplomatically to the Minister that I was disappointed by the lack of backbone in the letter that we received. I hope we will hear better today.
I am still waiting to hear from Ofcom, but I am looking forward to working with it and the Communication Workers Union to hold people to account. Liberal Democrats believe the Government must maximise the powers of Ofcom, give it teeth and encouraging it to use them, to make sure we have a firm hand on the tiller so that we can navigate the stormy waters facing our posties—and make sure that this is sorted by Christmas.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. She is clearly delivering for her constituents in a way that Royal Mail is not.
Royal Mail is clearly failing in its universal service obligation, and it is clear from comments across the House that there is universality in those failings. From my own casework, I came into this debate well aware of the widespread failures affecting our postal services and knowing that action is long overdue. After hearing the compelling story shared by Members from across the House, I believe it is undeniable that we cannot wait any longer, and that answers are well overdue.
It is only 65 days until Christmas. It is not quite time to put the tree up, but for service providers and logistics teams, it is right around the corner, and mailbags will surge. We all know that Christmas is one of the most demanding times of the year for the postal services, especially for our hard-working postmen and women. I too want to express my thanks to them. I do not think any of us are frustrated with our hard-working posties. There are failings with management. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) pointed out, all year round, posties are a lifeline for some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and sometimes they are the only person they will see or have social contact with.
Anna Dixon
In rural areas, posties are often already doing extremely long routes. Does the shadow Minister recognise that the new delivery model is breaking up some of the continuity that postal workers have with their communities and making some rural rounds less manageable for them?
Bradley Thomas
The hon. Member is correct. The current model is not working as it should, which is having social implications and, clearly, adversely affecting the service even further. It is crucial that that is addressed.
As we get close to the Christmas period, the busiest time of the year—as shoppers complete their final online orders and families send gifts and cards to loved ones, friends and family—the country needs confidence that postal services will deliver. If they can deliver, that is one worry ticked off the list at a busy time of year, but in recent years, many of us and our constituents have found that there is a certain elusiveness to the post all year round. My constituents have the recurring experience of receiving no post for two weeks, followed by a large bundle of outdated letters, with hospital appointments missed—we have heard many stories on that theme today—DVLA reminders overdue, credit cards reported lost in the mail, and even legal issues rumbling on because court summons and other documents are not received in time.
Jim Shannon
On the point about health-related letters, when I met the former Health Minister in Northern Ireland, he gave us an undertaking about franked envelopes as a way forward. If Royal Mail did its job correctly, it would receive the franked letters and expedite them through the system. That seems to be working in my constituency, because, by and large, the postal workers do that very effectively. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Royal Mail and others responsible need to focus as a priority on delivering letters that are obviously medical letters, because they are franked, on time?
Bradley Thomas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is in the same spirit as a comment by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who mentioned an example of NHS letters being prioritised. There is a pressing need for Royal Mail to look at best practice from all parts of the country and ensure that it is part of its standard methods of operation, so that it delivers for its customers and our constituents.
We know that a malfunctioning postal service has a profound domino effect on many important aspects of residents’ lives. In March, it was announced that Royal Mail will deliver 219 million letters late this year, despite the seventh stamp price rise in four years. That statistic will come as no surprise to the Members here today—it has been cited by many and it solidifies their constituents’ lived experiences—but predictability should not be mistaken for acceptability. Our constituents should not have to tolerate this escalating issue, so I ask the Minister to outline today a tangible plan to deliver a swift solution, rather than continuing to pass the buck to Ofcom. I am aware of Ofcom’s role as the regulator, but the Government cannot expect this nationwide problem to fall exclusively on Ofcom’s shoulders. I suspect that the Minister has received that message loud and clear from Members across the House today.
What action are the Government taking to materially address the service problem? Do they believe that Ofcom is still fit for purpose with regard to regulating postal services? Those are difficult questions to answer, but my constituents—all our constituents—want answers to them. The Minister has made it clear that frank discussions are being held with the CEO of Royal Mail, and Royal Mail has emphasised that its “Quality of Service Improvement Plan” sets out—allegedly—a clear path towards meeting Ofcom’s new delivery targets.
We saw how important this issue is when it was raised at Prime Minister’s questions today. But what good are more discussions and promises if they are never fulfilled or fail to improve the service? Does the Minister believe that the operational issues with Royal Mail are being addressed quickly enough? What discussions have taken place concerning not only the implementation of the improvement plan, but the success achieved so far?
Royal Mail is a key piece of British identity, with more than 500 years of history. It has endured challenges and played a key role in some of our nation’s most difficult times. It is a service to appreciate, but such recognition is warranted only when an acceptable standard of service is provided. The purpose of this debate is to highlight the unacceptable service being supplied by Royal Mail and to fast-track finding a solution. Will the Minister share the immediate steps that she will take to ensure that Royal Mail’s service is corrected and customer confidence restored?
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
Good afternoon, Ms Lewell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this debate about the performance of Royal Mail. She clearly outlined the issues in her constituency. She has heard directly from constituents about the inadequate service, and I thank her for bringing that to the Chamber, as I thank other colleagues for doing the same. This is not the first debate on Royal Mail in the House, but it is my first debate as the Minister responsible, and it is a pleasure to respond to it. I take this part of my brief extremely seriously, and I hear the challenges we are working through loud and clear.
Royal Mail should be a cornerstone of our national infrastructure, serving every address in the UK under its universal service obligation. As we have heard, people and businesses continue to rely on its services every single day, and posties are such valued members of the communities they serve. Royal Mail is an independent business, and the Government are not involved in its day-to-day operations or resolving specific service issues, but patience with its performance is wearing thin. Colleagues will have heard that loud and clear from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon. Customers have every right to expect better.
Royal Mail must do more to restore confidence in its service. That is why I was frank in my meeting with the chief executive of Royal Mail last month, and will continue to be so for as long as necessary. We are clear that the service has been unacceptable for too long and that the pace of improvement must increase quickly. Although letter volumes have fallen from 20 billion items per year in the mid-2000s to 6.5 billion in 2025, the number of addresses served by the universal postal service has continued to grow, and we should reflect on that.
Catherine Fookes
I want to raise the issue of the prioritisation of parcels. As the Minister says, the volume of letters may have gone down, but the overall volume of items to deliver has not. She will be as worried as me that the number of people working in Royal Mail has reduced significantly, and many people are leaving because of low morale. What can she do to make Ofcom do more in this situation—for example, spot checks? Fines are obviously not working.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those important points. I will shortly turn to the work we are doing with Ofcom and the engagement I have had with it so far.
Postal services remain absolutely essential, delivering everything from medical letters to financial information and birthday and greeting cards from loved ones—as well as, soon, Christmas cards. At the same time, the rapid increase from e-commerce over recent years has transformed the postal sector. Parcel volumes for 2025-26 reached 1.44 billion—a 7% increase from ’24-25. I am conscious that, with Christmas coming up soon, Royal Mail will be entering its busiest period of the year, as we have heard from colleagues. It is vital that it delivers a reliable service for its customers.
Royal Mail is an independent business, so responsibility for managing delivery operations, workforce deployment and local performance rests with its management, and it is best placed to investigate localised problems. However, I am all too aware that customers across the country continue to be let down by Royal Mail’s poor service. Many hon. Members receive correspondence from constituents highlighting their concerns and frustrations about Royal Mail’s performance, and colleagues have raised them today, as I have, too.
Steve Darling
I am sure that many Members present will have already raised local issues with Royal Mail and got back what feels very much like a stock letter, as I did. What advice would the Minister give to Members about how to hold it to account for such an appalling service?
Kate Dearden
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his intervention. I will very shortly turn in more detail to my engagement with Royal Mail, and the expectations that I have put to it for how it should engage with us in this House with appropriate detail and information.
The consequences of delays can be especially significant when correspondence is important and time-sensitive, such as correspondence regarding hospital appointments, bills, legal documents, benefit correspondence or letters containing driving licences. I share the frustrations and concerns of hon. Members and their constituents. That is exactly why Royal Mail must do more to deliver a reliable service.
Before I reflect on my engagements with the chief executive and my correspondence with hon. Members in this Chamber and outside, I will turn to Ofcom. As the independent regulator for postal services, Ofcom is responsible for setting and enforcing Royal Mail’s service standards. I met Ofcom yesterday to share the feedback I received from hon. Members across the House ahead of this debate—I will also reflect on today’s contributions—and to discuss the wider postal sector. Ofcom has fined Royal Mail £37 million over three years for not meeting quality-of-service targets. Ofcom assured me and the Government that it continues to monitor Royal Mail service data closely and will take further regulatory action, where needed, to hold the company to account.
Ofcom is also investigating Royal Mail’s performance against quality-of-service targets in the last financial year. I know that several hon. Members, some of them in the Chamber, met Ofcom on Wednesday 14 October to raise their frustrations about the continued poor service from Royal Mail. Ofcom has shared the key themes from that discussion with me and my officials. I thank colleagues for taking the time last week. I have no doubt that Ofcom will have heard and understood the strength of feeling about the service that our constituents have experienced.
I will turn briefly to costs, particularly the cost of stamps, which lots of colleagues have mentioned. Last week, Ofcom launched a consultation on extending the current second-class letter price cap until 2028. Of course, every pound counts when people are still struggling with the cost of living crisis, yet they are not getting a reliable postal service. I hope that will be a key consideration, but I recognise that it is for Royal Mail, as an independent business, to set the price of stamps. Ofcom and I discussed that yesterday.
The regulator sponsorship charter, which the Government published in July, reaffirms our role in setting regulators’ strategic direction and holding them to account. We will continue to work closely with Ofcom on its approach to regulation and the outcomes it delivers for customers. We would pragmatically consider any future requests for additional powers where they are needed to support improved outcomes for customers and our constituents. We will actively hold Ofcom and other regulators to account, as appropriate.
Anna Dixon
In addition to meeting Ofcom, as the Minister mentioned, we also met the leadership of the CWU. It is clear that postal workers are coming forward with ideas about how the business could be reformed. I hope the Minister will assure us that she is urging Royal Mail’s leadership to sit down with the CWU to consider some of the more radical, long-term options for reforming our Royal Mail.
Kate Dearden
I will provide an update on our next steps, and our engagement with the unions and Royal Mail, very shortly. All hon. Members present agree that Royal Mail needs to step up and improve its performance. Colleagues reflected on the improvement plan published by Royal Mail to address the primary cause of service issues. It has committed to invest £500 million to increase its frontline resourcing and the availability of working hours for part-time employees. I reflect on the point about suitable sorting offices, using modern technology. We have secured legally binding commitments from the new owners for sufficient investment to ensure that the USO can be delivered.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I appreciate it; each of us in the Chamber does. One massive issue in my constituency of Strangford is staff retention. There comes a certain age, as the years creep up, when the weather goes against you. Some of those who joined early and have done maybe 20 or 30 years come to a stage where they can no longer do it. One of the major reasons why they are not able to do it, apart from the weather factor, is that they are able to get a better wage up the road. To retain staff, wages need to reflect rising inflation and the fact that staff have to travel to work. What discussions has the Minister had with the chief executive to ensure that wages improve, which will naturally help to retain staff?
Kate Dearden
Before I address the hon. Gentleman’s point, and reflecting on his remarks about visiting his local sorting offices and what he is hearing from posties themselves, I put on record that Royal Mail has informed me that it has invested more than £470 million since 2021 in automation and in delivery and infrastructure updates. Of course, when it comes to pay and conditions, we work closely with the trade unions represented in Royal Mail, and we will consider the wider support we can provide to create a sustainable future for Royal Mail. Supporting our posties is absolutely essential.
I also take this opportunity to reflect on my recent meeting with the chief executive of Royal Mail, at which I specifically raised the issue of engagement with colleagues. I urged Royal Mail to be much more proactive with MPs, and much more detailed in its assessments of what is happening at constituency level, and to take seriously every complaint raised directly with it by colleagues, whether the complaint is about performance, service, staffing levels, sickness or absences. It is important that Members across the House have relevant information to hand. When Members, myself included, receive numerous complaints from constituents, it is important that they have the appropriate and relevant information to make that assessment. I reassure Members that I always reiterate that point when I meet Royal Mail.
Charlie Maynard
If possible, I would love to hear the Minister’s thoughts about the points I raised: linking targets to stamp price increases, escalating fines, transparency, and ringfencing Royal Mail’s cash.
Kate Dearden
Hopefully, the hon. Member has reflected on my remarks about my engagement with Ofcom, particularly on its recent consultation on stamps, the cost of living crisis, service and targets. I have heard his remarks and will take them forward in my conversations, particularly around Royal Mail’s service, which has to improve, and improve very quickly, as the Prime Minister reiterated today. I thank the hon. Member for putting his reflections on the record.
On USO reform, Royal Mail is currently implementing a new delivery model, as we all know and have discussed today. That new delivery model was approved by the CWU and its membership, and it is being implemented across the network. Colleagues have reflected on different feedback from their constituents, posties and local management.
Royal Mail’s performance against its quality-of-service targets has been improving, so it is important that any final issues between the company and its workforce in rolling out the new approach are resolved urgently. Today, I reaffirm the commitment given by the Secretary of State yesterday that we are meeting the CWU and Royal Mail the week after next to press for progress. We will update colleagues on that meeting.
I also want to reflect on what colleagues have said about our important, absolutely essential postal workers, who are a central part of every city, town and village we represent. Indeed, they are integral to their communities’ future success. Posties work tirelessly every single day for constituents and customers, and Royal Mail must ensure that they remain at the heart of a business that delivers in line with all our expectations.
I put on record my appreciation for our postal workers and posties across the country. My grandad was a very proud postie. He loved his community and he loved his job, because it is about much more than delivering letters and parcels. Posties are part of the communities they serve. They know their rounds and their customers. Often, they are one of the familiar faces that people see every day; sometimes, they are the only familiar face that people see. I therefore take the time to express my appreciation.
It is in everyone’s interest to get round the table to resolve the issues we have discussed today, including the need for an improvement in the quality of service—we must make sure that happens quickly. Indeed, that is my commitment to all colleagues in Westminster Hall today.
Before I conclude, I will talk about parcels and the need to address the imbalances in the postal sector, which is an important part of the next steps, and update colleagues on the work we are doing in the Department in this space. We are improving the working conditions, standards and rights of workers across the economy, including in the delivery sector, which is really important to me.
Last week, we published a consultation on proposals for targeted reforms of the employment status framework for employment rights. We recognise that self-employment arrangements can provide flexibility for some people, but we are also aware of the concern that the current employment status framework can leave vulnerable workers without core and basic employment protections and rights. Our consultation hopes to address those issues, particularly around bogus self-employment, which colleagues have reflected on today, taking into account the impact on key sectors of the economy, including the postal services industry.
Yesterday, colleagues and I attended an interesting roundtable on work and employment in UK parcel delivery, held with the University of Sheffield Management School, where we talked about exactly these issues. Its research is important and will feed directly into our work in this space. Across the sector, Ofcom has reacted to growing concern about delivery performance by reminding operators of their obligations, and it has engaged with all major parcel companies to ensure their compliance with the regulatory framework.
Although this debate focuses on the performance of Royal Mail, it is important to recognise that reliable delivery matters across the postal and parcel delivery market. That is particularly the case for our vulnerable constituents, as service failures can have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable consumers, including disabled people who might often struggle to leave their homes. Ofcom has introduced targeted protections that require operators to have appropriate policies in place for the fair treatment of disabled customers, alongside strengthened guidance on complaints handling. Lots of colleagues mentioned that today, and I will continue to press Ofcom and Royal Mail where I need to.
The way we communicate might be changing, but post remains an essential service for people and businesses across the United Kingdom. The Government believe that the performance of Royal Mail has been unacceptable: I have made that clear, as has the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State also made it clear in his response, published yesterday, to the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee’s report. We will continue to press Royal Mail and its management to improve the quality of its service. Customers rightly expect and deserve a reliable postal service, and colleagues from all parties expect their constituents to have it, too. Royal Mail absolutely must deliver it, and deliver it soon.
Again, I pay tribute to and thank our incredible posties across the country who work tirelessly to deliver for our constituents and support their communities. Royal Mail is a national institution that is a key part of our identity, and we all want it to succeed. We are passionate about the universal postal service on which we all rely. I hope colleagues hear my passion about ensuring that we get people round the table so that we can deliver a better service for our constituents, through the wider postal sector and Royal Mail. I thank colleagues for their reflections and contributions, and I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for securing this debate.
Sorcha Eastwood
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to this really good debate. We have fleshed out some of the core issues, and colleagues across the Chamber have made helpful suggestions on the price of stamps, the link to targets, the payment of executive bonuses when targets continue to be missed and the fact that we need to give serious consideration to whether Royal Mail should have been privatised at all.
This issue is absolutely not the fault of posties, and I thank them for their service. It is incumbent on us all to listen to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.
Housing Costs: Government Support
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I will call Andrew George to move the motion, and the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, the Member in charge will not have an opportunity to wind up.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for housing costs.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of Government support for housing costs—in other words, local housing allowance and the way that it is part of universal credit and the calculations made therein. The hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) has let me and the Minister know that he would like to make a short speech, and I understand that others wish to make interventions.
This is not the first time that I have raised this issue. I was looking back at the records, and I even had a debate in this Chamber on a related matter on 9 November 2010—if anyone wishes to check the records. I will start on a sombre note and give a couple of examples from my constituency of recent casework where I have met constituents who have had difficulties with their benefits. One constituent has a history of undiagnosed neurodiversity and mental health problems and struggles to hold down regular employment, although he is quite capable. He has been rejected for personal independence payment and receives approximately £900 a month in universal credit, but must pay what is pretty much the average for his private rent in the constituency, which is £850 a month. That leaves him with £50 to live on for the whole month—to cover all his bills, feed himself, travel and do everything else. That makes the point about the difficulties and the poverty trap in which people find themselves.
A mother and three children have been benefit-capped, despite the mother paying almost £1,200 a month in rent out of the approximately £1,500 a month she receives in universal credit. She is in debt to her utility providers and cannot afford to work because of the high cost of childcare. Those are just two examples of what it means to families to have to live on the current rates of local housing allowance.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that there needs to be much better understanding of housing affordability in places such as Cornwall? The issue is that where the benefits system does not recognise the cost of housing, those people who most desperately need support are most disadvantaged, compared with those in areas where housing affordability is much greater.
Andrew George
Indeed. I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for those remarks. Certainly, the Minister will be aware, because he understands these matters very well, that in places of particularly high housing costs—places such as Cornwall, but not just Cornwall—where scarcity of private rented accommodation makes it difficult for local families to find anything affordable, the gap between local housing allowance and the actual rent levels is particularly stark.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend so much for securing this debate. I have the example of Annette, who is in her 70s and cares for her son. She has been forced to move twice when landlords have sold up, and she fears that she cannot afford the next rise. My hon. Friend talks about the costs. Citizens Advice locally highlights the fact that the frozen local housing allowance is now 20% to 25% lower than local rents, and record levels of people are at risk of homelessness. Does he agree that that reiterates the case? The Government must look at unfreezing local housing allowance and linking it to local rent?
Andrew George
My hon. Friend anticipates what I shall go on to say. One of my main messages concerns the impact of the 2024 housing allowance freeze; the Government will not be surprised by that—I gave the Minister advance notice of my questions. The allowance is supposed to be set at the 30th percentile—in other words, 30% of properties available on the market should be below the housing allowance. However, certainly in places like Cornwall, we are talking about it being the minus-30th percentile, effectively, because in areas like mine the local housing allowance is 30% below the lowest-cost available rental property in the marketplace. The 30% is relevant, but sadly not in the way that is required.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for his important speech. In my constituency, only 2.3% of rental homes are affordable with local housing allowance—a far cry from the 30% that it is meant to be. Of course, that means that many more families, including families with children, are forced into rent arrears, poverty and homelessness. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, introducing rent controls would reduce the cost of unfreezing local housing allowance by more than £1 billion by 2030. Does the hon. Member therefore agree that the Chancellor should introduce an emergency brake on rents as well as unfreeze local housing allowance at the Budget to address the gross distortion, inequality and unfairness in the housing market?
Andrew George
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I will come to the extremely difficult decisions that any Government need to make about how this policy adds up with the available resource. Certainly, if one wants to avoid driving private landlords out of the market altogether, one has to form an understanding of how the market works. I entirely agree with the principle of what the hon. Lady is saying, and I will come to how we can how we can pay for these things. That is a very difficult question, which Opposition politicians generally avoid, instead asking for more money, while not necessarily explaining where they will get it from.
My primary message is that current Government policy is not working. It is driving the poorest into debt, food banks, homelessness and, in many cases, sadly, destitution. I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I sent to him in advance. If the Government know that a person’s private rental is bound to be at least x, why in my area of Kernow West, when the Valuation Office Agency assesses these factors, is the benefit level set at x minus 30% to 40%? That leaves people in the kind of poverty I described in the two cases I mentioned earlier. Have the Government reviewed the adequacy of the present methodology for LHA calculations, and are Ministers confident that the present arrangements do not risk tipping families and individuals in areas of high-priced private rental accommodation into rent arrears and potential destitution?
I understand that the Valuation Office Agency collects the rental data from landlords to determine the LHA, but how accurate and up to date is that data? Is the VOA using historical cases, where people have been living in accommodation for a very long time, and where the data would not reflect the price of that accommodation were it to come back on to the market? The Government need to answer many questions about this issue. I know the Minister is sympathetic.
One example was raised with me by Citizens Advice Cornwall. A family in Penzance consisting of either a couple or a single parent with two children of different sexes, one of whom is 10, meaning the children need separate bedrooms, would technically require a three-bedroomed house. Local housing allowance states that they can have a maximum of £812.76 per month. According to Rightmove last night, the lowest price for a privately rented three-bedroomed house in the Penzance area, a few miles away in Marazion, is £1,800, making a gap of £987.24 per month for that family. I could go through a large number of cases, but I do not have time now.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to make an important but related point. Emergency and temporary accommodation in Cornwall is also extremely expensive because of the seasonal nature of things, and particularly because of the holiday let industry. That adds to the burden on councils and tenants.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the hon. Lady from the next neighbouring constituency for raising that issue.
I was going to make the point that although there were over 1,700 Airbnbs available in my constituency last night—and that is just Airbnbs, not all holiday lets—there were zero private rental properties available within the LHA rates when we checked on how the market is operating. I will come on to how we will pay for any kind of increase, but the reason why I compare those properties with holiday lets is that for the last 10, 12 or 13 years, we have been paying out multibillions to second home owners through small business rate relief and other tax loopholes that are available to people with second properties. Local people do not get any small business rate relief. The people with second properties who do not let them to local people, and flip from paying council tax to business rates, are able to apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing at all. In Cornwall alone, that has cost over half a billion pounds in the last decade.
If the Government want to invest in desperately needed homes for local people, they may well incentivise private landlords by providing tax concessions to those who provide decent homes with security and an agreed, negotiated rent cap to bring it within the scope of what is affordable. That would be a far better way of spending the Government’s resources.
I urge the Minister to look carefully at the issues I have raised. I urge him to look at ending the freeze of local housing allowance rates, to restore and maintain the link between local housing allowance and the 30th percentile of the local market, to commit to an annual LHA uprating, to introduce measures to mitigate the impact of the benefit cap, and to continue wider housing reforms, such as, as the Government want to, delivering more social housing. I hope he will consider those matters, but now I want to give time for others to speak.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important debate and on an excellent speech, as always.
I want to briefly encourage the Minister to speak to colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about reconsidering the merits of a potential cap on rental increases. I know that the Government are determined to do everything they can to give the British public breathing space on the cost of living. For almost all of us, the cost of our home is by far and away the largest item on our monthly bill. Private renters spend an average of 36% of their income on rent, and although I fully support the drive for a new generation of council housing, it is clear that that will not substantially bring down costs for the nearly 5 million private renters in England in this Parliament.
The housing crisis is a crisis, and it demands immediate action. Research by the Autonomy Institute has shown that, as an emergency short-term measure while we build the genuinely affordable homes we need, holding rents at 2027 levels would save renters more than £14 billion over the next four years. That would substantially reduce the burden on public spending to support those who need housing allowance in private rental as well. I hope the Minister will take that suggestion to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government colleagues.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this timely debate just the week before the Budget.
Stable, affordable, good-quality housing is fundamental to individual wellbeing, economic stability and public health. That is why the Government have set out, as Members know, the ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes. We are supporting that with a record £39 billion investment in social and affordable homes. That is the programme that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) referred to. We are also supporting that with our £16 billion national housing bank.
Securing an adequate number of decent affordable homes is our priority. People have wanted to do that for a long time. We are making sure that the investment is going in to deliver those homes. It is true that delivery will not happen overnight, but delivery is going to happen. We inherited a very serious housing crisis, and we acted quickly in response. Policies in place are having an impact already. There are over 400,000 new homes in England since the start of this Parliament, more than a quarter of the target. New build starts in the year to June were up 15% on last year.
We are driving forward big reforms of the planning system. In August, we announced a new planning policy framework with clearer rules-based policies to unlock more homes where they are needed. We are investing in construction skills. My Department spent nearly £38 billion last year supporting renters with housing costs via universal credit and housing benefit. That is an increase of around £3.5 billion over the last decade. No other OECD country spends a greater proportion of its GDP on housing support than we do.
I recognise the picture that hon. Members have set out of the impact of local housing allowance in their local areas. Rental inflation across the country varies according to specific challenges in each area. The local housing allowance determines the maximum financial support for renters in the private rented sector. Households in similar circumstances living in the same area are entitled to the same maximum rent allowance, regardless of the rent that they are required to pay.
Local housing allowance was never intended to cover all rents in all areas. The rates for that are set annually by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Future decisions will be based on the Government’s priorities, and those are the priorities that the Chancellor will have in mind as he makes his announcements in the Budget next week.
The Government provide additional discretionary housing support to local authorities to help tenants to meet shortfalls in their rent costs. In England, that is through the crisis and resilience fund housing payment. I wonder whether, in some of the cases that the hon. Member for St Ives referred to, his constituents would find it worth their while to contact the local council to see whether they could benefit from a discretionary housing payment. The crisis and resilience fund includes support for preventive wraparound help, as well as assistance for people facing a financial crisis. I know that local authorities are increasingly looking at what they can do with those resources to protect people in the kinds of situations that the hon. Member for St Ives describes.
Local housing allowance rates are set within broad rental market areas determined by rent officers in the valuation office across England. There are 192 broad rental market areas across Great Britain. As the hon. Member for St Ives said, Kernow West is the one that includes St Ives. A BRMA is an area within which a person could reasonably be expected to live, having regard to facilities and services for the purposes of health, education, recreation, banking and shopping, taking account of the needs of travel to and from those services by both public and private transport.
Across each BRMA, rent officers gather a representative sample of private rental data of all property types and sizes from a range of sources, including both new and existing tenancies. They survey rents across the full year to capture current market conditions. That includes collecting a representative sample from all the local authority areas within a BRMA, including any larger urban centres and more sparsely populated rural areas in that BRMA.
Perhaps the hon. Member for St Ives might find it useful to have a conversation with the Valuation Office Agency, because he raised perfectly understandable concerns about whether the data it uses is out of date. The process is designed to ensure that that is not the case and that up-to-date data is provided. Of course, it was only just over two years ago that the local housing allowance was uprated to the 30th percentile of the levels of rents in each BRMA.
Andrew George
A moment ago, the Minister said that it is not intended that the LHA should cover all rents in all areas, and he encourages me to talk to the local valuation office about its methodology in setting the LHA for my area of Kernow West. I will happily do that, but looking at the marketplace last night, there was not a single property anywhere close to reaching the LHA level. Is it not the Minister who should be undertaking a review of whether the valuation office is up to the task of understanding how the market is working, rather than leaving it to local Members of Parliament?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman reproves me in a very appropriate way. My point is that I think the LHA methodology, which he queried, is sound. When local housing allowance rates are increased, they are implemented in April, based on the latest private lettings data for the 12-month period up to the end of September the preceding year. I do not think there is a problem with the way the LHA rates are calculated—in 2024, all the LHAs were uprated to the 30th percentile of rates in each BMRA—but there have been significant rent rises, even in the two and a bit years since the level was last reset. That, I think, is the phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman is drawing the House’s attention. There has been a rapid rise in rents in that period, and that will need to be taken into account in deciding what should happen to the LHA for next year.
Tackling homelessness is a very high priority for the Government, as the Prime Minister underlined when he took office. The LHA supports those on low incomes with their rents in the private sector, but the causes of homelessness are complex, and the LHA is only one measure to tackle it. We have significant funding targeted more specifically at those who are homeless and those at risk of being homeless, as those in the kind of situation that the hon. Member for St Ives described sometimes are. Sustained cross-Government action to tackle the causes of homelessness is being taken forward through the national plan to end homelessness. We will provide more than £4 billion in funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services from 2026-27 to 2028-29.
Councils have £2.7 billion through the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, which they can use to support people at risk of and experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping, including funding for delivery of support on domestic abuse safe accommodation. That all means that councils can do more to prevent homelessness, reduce reliance on the expensive temporary accommodation that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) drew attention to and target resources where they are needed.
Andrew George
The Minister mentioned earlier that we will await the Chancellor’s announcements in the Budget next week. It sounds as if the Minister himself is awaiting those announcements. I wonder to what extent he is putting pressure on the Chancellor to address these issues and ensure sufficient budget for his Department to address this issue. I am sure the Prime Minister sincerely wants to reduce and entirely remove homelessness from our streets, and I applaud him for that, but I am afraid that the way that the system is working will only add to the problem.
Sir Stephen Timms
I think we are all waiting to hear what the Chancellor says next week. I can certainly assure the hon. Member that my colleagues in MHCLG and the Treasury are continually talking about these issues and the right approach. Last time the uprating to the 30th percentile happened—April 2024—the cost over the full spending review period was, if I remember rightly, some £7 billion. If we are looking at effective measures to tackle homelessness, the approaches and specific funding that I have just described to address the problem and the risk of homelessness are the effective ways to do that. Those are the kind of factors that the Chancellor will certainly be bearing in mind as he reaches his decisions for next week.
To further drive the shift from crisis response to prevention, we are setting a national target to increase the proportion of people supported by council homelessness services to stay in their homes or helped to find alternative accommodation. Our new duty to collaborate will require public services to work together to identify people at risk of homelessness and to consider what action they can take within their existing responsibilities to help prevent that.
The Government’s key priority in all this is to secure an adequate number of decent affordable homes. We have announced the new 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme—the biggest boost to housing grant funding in recent memory. The aim is to maximise supply, with a target to deliver at least 60% of the homes under the programme as social rent. Initial funding allocations via the programme have been confirmed across England, excluding London; 33 providers will receive £9.5 billion to invest in new social and affordable housing and deliver 73,000 homes. Nearly two thirds of the homes built by strategic partners through the programme will be for social rent, and for the first time ever, three councils—Cambridge city council, Eastleigh borough council and Newcastle city council—have been awarded strategic partnership status with Homes England. Councils are increasingly stepping up to meet our bold ambitions.
More than £16 billion in funding for outside of London is still yet to be allocated. In allocating that, the Government intend to prioritise social rent homes, particularly council homes, to achieve the Prime Minister’s ambition for the biggest council house building programme since the post-war boom ended in the early 1980s. Directing funding into that programme and others along those lines is the way to deal properly and permanently with the severe housing crisis that we face right across the country, which the hon. Member for St Ives and others have spoken very powerfully about in this debate.
The new national housing bank was launched on 1 April, backed by up to £16 billion in financial capacity. We envisage that bank leveraging in billions of pounds of private investment to accelerate house building across the country. It is taking quite a pioneering approach to its role, and its status as a publicly owned subsidiary of Homes England, designated as a public financial institution, gives it a lot of autonomy in working out how to do this job most effectively. My colleagues in MHCLG have launched the national housing delivery fund, which includes £5 billion of grant funding to support housing delivery and address viability challenges, including through the remediation of brownfield sites and provision of unlocking infrastructure.
Let me say in the final seconds that my colleagues in MHCLG have taken the view that rent controls would do more harm than good.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Community Policing: Government Support
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for community policing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a trustee of Chichester Festival Theatre, which I will be talking about in my contribution.
Today’s debate could not be timelier for my Chichester constituents. Last week, a cast member in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, which was on at Chichester Festival Theatre, was followed through the city by a group in balaclavas, riding bikes, shouting abuse and harassing them. Police subsequently arrested a 16-year-old male for a homophobic hate crime. Earlier this week, the prominent comedian and actor Munya Chawawa spoke out about the experiences of the whole cast he had been performing with at CFT, including the racist, homophobic and xenophobic abuse that they had encountered during their six-week stay in my city. It was heartbreaking to hear his and others’ accounts. The hate that they experienced in no way represents the majority view, and is not the Chichester that I know and love.
The fact that that happened in a city that I am constantly told has very low levels of crime should be a cause of concern for all. I have no doubt that the pipeline of hatred fed into our algorithms and screens is feeding this beast. Antisocial behaviour more generally is a growing theme in my work as the Member of Parliament for Chichester.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. My area also supposedly has a low level of crime, but residents in Tring talk about antisocial behaviour, residents in Harpenden have taken up private security, and Anna from Berkhamsted says she has not seen a police officer for years. My hon. Friend mentioned that online crime and community policing go hand in hand. Does she agree that one way of tackling this is by looking at it holistically and having a proper online crime agency, funded by big tech, so that we can then properly fund and resource community policing?
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend pre-empts one of the things that I will call for later in my speech.
Antisocial behaviour is happening in all corners of the country. In Chichester, I am seeing it in the balaclava-clad young men riding e-bikes at terrifying speeds along pedestrian streets or pavements, the people feeling intimidated and threatened when they are out in the evening, the growing use of catapults to harm wildlife or the shoplifting epidemic that plagues our local businesses. It is seen across my constituency, whether in the city centre, the town of Selsey, Westhampnett or the Witterings. Charity venues have told me about young men forcing entry and threatening their volunteers or elderly members of the public who have gone along to watch a film. Another constituent told me that the local bowls club is struggling to retain members after some were hit with ball bearings that were being shot at pigeons.
Today’s debate is on community policing. Much of that antisocial behaviour is driven by a lack of visible policing in areas like mine.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for calling this important debate. In my constituency, we have a serious problem with antisocial motorbike noise from modified exhausts. Does she agree that we should have more public spaces protection orders to help the police enforce against antisocial behaviour, and funding for trials of acoustic cameras to try to stop this?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. I agree that we need more access to things like PSPOs, but there is an acute challenge in actually policing the PSPOs that we manage to get in place. That was a suggestion that we had to cull the wildlife crime that we were seeing locally, but the police rightly said that a PSPO is effective only if there are police to manage it.
This is not the fault of local police officers—they are diligent, well trained and dedicated to keeping our communities safe, but they are also asked to achieve the impossible. The Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee makes all the right noises about ensuring that policing is local, but in coastal and rural areas such as mine, it is near impossible to have a meaningful presence in the huge areas they are asked to cover. Selsey has nearly 11,000 residents, and the number nearly doubles in the summer months thanks to tourism, but the area does not magically get any additional policing during that time.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is painting a vivid picture of her constituents’ experience. I associate myself with her comments about the cast of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. No one should be subjected to racist or homophobic abuse anywhere in the country.
On the point about Selsey, Bournemouth West gets more than 10 million visitors in the summer, while Dorset police is one of the lowest funded forces in the area. We get no additional resources, and the funding formula does not adequately take into account the seasonal pressures or the rurality of the rest of the county. Does the hon. Member agree that that needs to change?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight that the funding formula does not reflect the seasonal pressures I see in my coastal constituency.
To describe Selsey to those who have never been there—I look forward to welcoming colleagues in the summer—there is one road in and one road out. Selsey means “seal island”, and it is a very isolated community. There is one police constable and two PCSOs to cover not only Selsey but Sidlesham, Hunston, North Mundham and some harbour villages. On a summer’s day, it would take an officer at least an hour to travel from one end of the patch they are meant to cover to the other, yet they are meant to have an acute understanding of the area and its problems.
I went out last summer with a PC who had responsibility for Selsey. Local residents turned and stared at us as though they had never seen a police officer walking the streets of Selsey. When I asked the PC the last time he had done a walkabout, he had to admit that he had never done one before because of the administrative pressures in managing his workload.
At the other end of my constituency, towards the South Downs national park, farmers are creating WhatsApp chats to support each other in monitoring illegal activity on their land, whether that is equipment and tool theft or hare coursing, because of their isolation and the lack of provision in the Sussex police rural crime team. Why are we in this position? For starters, it is because police forces were recklessly hollowed out, and the number of PCSOs was decimated, by the previous Government.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making some good points, but does she agree that the cut to police services’ budgets started in 2010 when her party was in government with the Conservatives? We saw a 25% cut across the country, which is what decimated neighbourhood policing in all our constituencies.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I appreciate the hon. Member’s remarks. She is right that this is not a new issue; it has been going on for many years. We are now seeing the effect in every constituency.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an impassioned speech. On the point about cuts to community policing under Conservative and coalition Governments, they are having a direct effect on my constituents. Jane, who lives in Ecclesfield, recently told me of a terrifying experience when multiple electric bikes sped past her on the pavement as she was crossing the road. She told me they were going as fast as cars, with speed limiters disabled. She said that if she had set foot on the pavement a second earlier, she would have been injured or potentially lost her life. Does the hon. Lady agree it is vital to roll out the 13,000 neighbourhood officers by the end of this Parliament, which the Government are working towards, to ensure that the dangerous use of e-bikes is properly tackled, including in my constituency?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for getting on the record how important it is to have visible community policing. That needs to happen as quickly as possible so that the example she gave of her constituent and the fear she must have felt in that moment are addressed or alleviated by knowing that there is a police officer they can contact who understands the local area.
I also recognise that crimes are becoming more complicated. Evidence can come in many forms, with the rise of things such as Ring doorbells, CCTV and the use of WhatsApp chats being part of an evidence base. Models for dealing with the administrative burden differ from police force to police force.
We also have a real challenge with reporting. My local police force makes operational day-to-day decisions entirely predicated on the reporting data, yet I have called a number of times to speak to the police about an incident that is being widely discussed online only to be told that they have no such record of any incident ever occurring. I recognise the frustration that constituents voice to me that if they report, nothing happens anyway—but police forces are now so reliant on data that I cannot impress enough on people how important it is to report crime or antisocial behaviour when they witness it so that the police have an accurate record of where the hotspots are.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The traditional bobbies on the beat were about more than just policing crime; they were about reassuring communities. The fact that the statistics show a reduction in crime does not necessarily mean that people feel safe. Does the hon. Member agree?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would also reflect that when I was growing up as a teenager, I knew the name of my local police officer. That certainly deterred me from hanging around at the duck pond late at night, because I knew that if he spotted me, my mum would probably hear about it. That kind of community policing, and the understanding of where the issues are, where people are congregating and where the problems are occurring is so important for police officers. I will come on to that later.
Those are vital points of visibility, but they also provide people with a direct route to access support and to report crimes, especially for those who do not want to navigate complex online forms. A constituent recently told me that they called to report a crime and were told that it was over an hour’s waiting time to speak to somebody and to please go online. They were then asked to provide the exact postcode of where they had seen the incident. They could not move forward because they could not provide the postcode and they just gave up reporting it.
Something else that exacerbates the situation in my constituency is poor decision making at a local level, as in the case of the closure of Chichester custody centre. That contributes to staffing pressures because it keeps police officers off the streets and away from the communities they serve. Since its closure in 2018, officers making an arrest have had to undertake a round trip to Worthing, and in some cases, when that custody centre is full, all the way to Crawley. A recent freedom of information request revealed that just last year there were 1,100 such trips. Even without the traffic on the A27, each journey would take police officers away from Chichester for hours at a time. It is a monumental waste of time and effort, particularly when there is a purpose-built, workable facility in Chichester.
I know the police and crime commissioner would like me to stop talking about that, but I will not, because to me it would be a win-win if it put more police back on the streets. It would increase the time that officers spend out on our streets and provide the credible deterrent that we need. That is why I ask the Minister to outline in her response today the Government’s view on mothballed infrastructure, such as our custody centre, which could be brought back into use to improve community policing.
Beyond that, we need a clear commitment from the Government today to a return to what community policing actually means. When the Government made their health hubs announcement, about a health hub in every community, the definition used was somewhere with a population of 50,000. If something like that were to be used in policing, it would be no comfort to communities such as those in Selsey that I spoke of earlier, or in the Witterings or Pagham, who already see resources spread too thinly. Will the Minister please define “neighbourhood” and how that is adjusted for my rural and coastal communities?
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that when fully warranted neighbourhood police officers are put into civilian jobs to relieve pressure in places such as call centres, they are doing jobs that civilians should do? I support many of the Government’s priorities on policing, but if the police—whose job is to go on the beat—are pulled into different priorities, whatever they may be, that core policing is not available.
Jess Brown-Fuller
It is right to say that no police officer signed up to be a frontline service person and spend all their time at a desk; they signed up because they wanted to make a real, tangible difference in their communities. We do not need them to be glued to their desks doing burdensome paperwork, because that is not what they were trained for. We can free up officers’ time by, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned, establishing an online crime agency, for example. That would relieve local officers of the burden of complex and time-consuming work around highly sophisticated online crime.
Finally, I want to turn to the wider issue of resourcing, which I am sure many Members will discuss. It has been raised with me through various channels, including by the police and crime commissioner in Sussex. We know how we got here, but decisions made by this Government have contributed to the problem. The consolidation of funding pots has left my residents short-changed, for example. The funding model fails to take proper account of the genuinely rural nature of my constituency, which leaves our residents worse off in funding terms than the national average.
The Government have announced new policies aimed at addressing some of the issues we have discussed, but have not provided the resources needed to implement them. The newly introduced respect orders are an example: breaching them constitutes a criminal offence, which will once again draw on police resource. That requires additional funding to support it, but it is yet to be seen. The issues facing community policing are not primarily about a lack of powers. Any police officer will say that the most powerful tool in their armoury is not the one given to them through the law, but the ability to build relationships, understand the uniqueness of the community they serve and have a presence that serves in itself as a deterrent.
Deirdre Costigan
Many police officers I have spoken to have made exactly the point that they do not have enough powers to deal with antisocial behaviour in particular, and also shoplifting. The hon. Member was good enough earlier to take responsibility for her party’s role in cutting police numbers across the country. Will she similarly take responsibility for the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which the Lib Dems brought in with the Conservatives? It got rid of antisocial behaviour orders and the power the police had to take action against antisocial behaviour, and it brought in the £200 threshold for shoplifters, which meant that people could get away with nicking stuff left, right and centre.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I am not confident that the hon. Member’s constituents would appreciate her using her time in this place to talk about things that happened 15 years ago, when Labour has the power of government and the opportunity to do all the things she rightly raises. There are things that need to change, and she now has the opportunity, the keys in her hand and the power to make those changes for her constituents. The police tell me that the issue is about a lack of resource and always being asked to do more with less. I therefore hope that the Minister will grab the bull by the horns and get on top of community policing. We want real community policing for the better.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I am setting a time limit of three minutes for speeches.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) in the usual way on securing this debate. I hope that she will not mind if I focus on the challenges around community policing in suburban areas of the greatest city in the world: London.
I specifically ask the Minister to encourage councils in the suburbs of London to use their powers—the so-called section 92 powers—to directly fund police officers for the local community. A number of London councils are already doing so, and I struggle to understand why Harrow council, which serves my constituents some of the time well and some of the time not quite so well, is not funding police officers similarly. Barking and Dagenham funds four police officers; Greenwich two; Hammersmith and Fulham three; Havering almost three; Islington two; Southwark three; Tower Hamlets 26; Westminster nine. Why does Harrow council not also fund police officers in a very direct way?
I welcome the Government’s commitment to an extra 13,000 additional neighbourhood police. In my constituency, we are fortunate to have seen extra police in Wealdstone and effective neighbourhood police teams across the borough, who have helped to drive down shoplifting—although there is still more work to do on that—and tackle one or two of the key gang crime hotspots in my constituency. I welcome, too, the Met’s successful crackdown on mobile phone theft.
There is still, however, a lot more to do in helping our constituents to feel safe and secure in the key shopping districts serving my constituency. Many councils have their own enforcement officers, but those officers, such as the ones employed by Kingdom in Harrow, have no powers of arrest. They cannot issue criminal charges or on-the-spot fines. They do not have the same powers and are not seen to be as effective as police officers. I hope that the Minister will encourage local authorities such as Harrow to go the extra mile and use the significant uplift in funding from this Government to place some police officers directly in our communities. In the longer term, I would like to see some investment in Harrow’s police station—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for setting the scene incredibly well. There is no issue more critical to the peace, stability and everyday safety of our citizens in Northern Ireland than the strength and integrity of our community policing. I have always been a believer in community policing. I supported it when I first became a councillor in 1985 and as an MLA, and I support it now as an MP.
True policing is not done from behind the high walls of a fortified station or from the windows of armoured vehicles. It is done on the streets and on the doorsteps through the painstaking, day-by-day work of building trust with local communities. When community policing thrives, our neighbourhoods thrive. When that foundation is stripped away, the consequences for society are severe. Sometimes, political decisions are taken that affect community policing, which has been an issue in Northern Ireland. I will not go into detail, as it would not be appropriate for this debate, but it has an effect upon community policing.
I think of our superb local commander, Superintendent Johnston McDowell. For years, Superintendent McDowell and his team have been at pains to engage with the community, showing visible leadership and keeping our streets safe. They have done incredible work in managing complex local tensions and taking drugs off our streets with absolute professionalism. They are at the forefront of community policing. They are the people who work with the community. Superintendent McDowell has achieved those successes despite facing a crippling multimillion-pound black hole in the budget.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland needs funding and resources to put boots on the ground, maintain its fleet and preserve neighbourhood teams. More than a cheque book, however, the PSNI needs a Government who understand the fragility of policing by consent. I know that the Minister often goes to Northern Ireland and has direct contact with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister. Some of the lessons we have learned in Northern Ireland would be helpful to the rest of the country, because our police manage complex issues every day.
I finish with this, because I am conscious that others wish to speak. When the rule of law is compromised by political intervention, local community police officers pay the price on the doorstep. The Government must recognise the damage that political interference causes to community relations, fully back the independence of local policing, and finally deliver the fair and sustainable funding that our police service needs to keep every single community safe. Community policing? I am behind it all the way.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate. I begin by acknowledging the Nottinghamshire police officer who was shot and injured on Sunday while on duty in Nottingham city centre, close to my constituency. My thoughts are with the officer and his family, friends and colleagues, and I wish him a speedy recovery. It is a sobering reminder of the courage that our police officers show every day, and the risks they face while working to keep our communities safe.
In Broxtowe, our local police service has an insufficient number of officers to tackle the crime and antisocial behaviour that is significantly impacting our communities. Even when officers are available, they do not always have the equipment, resources or operational capacity required to intervene safely and effectively. Across Broxtowe, in particular, in Eastwood, Stapleford and Beeston, residents are consistently raising concerns about antisocial behaviour, dangerous illegally modified e-bikes and drug-related crimes.
Nottinghamshire police do a fantastic job in responding to those issues, but can only operate within the staffing and resources available to them. Teams are stretched so thin that they cannot maintain a visible presence in our communities, which is what the public reasonably expect. Police visibility is a deterrent for those who carry out criminal activity, and the lack of a police presence damages public trust. Every community deserves an effective and visible police presence so that residents can feel confident that their concerns are acted on. Will the Minister give an update on the commitment to recruit 13,000 additional neighbourhood police officers and how far we have progressed? In Broxtowe, we need a sustained police force to tackle the rising crime and antisocial behaviour affecting my constituency now.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
There is now a reduced time limit of two minutes.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate. Community policing is not simply about responding to crime after it happens; it is about prevention, reassurance and building trust. It is also about having officers and police community support officers who know their communities, understand local concerns and are recognised by residents, shopkeepers, schools and local organisations. When community policing works well, it prevents crime before it takes hold and helps people feel safe in the places where they live, work and shop.
The challenge facing communities across West Yorkshire is significant. Recent crime statistics show that Dewsbury continues to experience crime rates above both West Yorkshire and national averages. As of April this year, the crime rate in Dewsbury was 30% higher than Yorkshire and the Humber and 53% higher than England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with an overall crime rate reported at 125 crimes per 1,000 residents and with violent sexual offences, antisocial behaviour and public order offences being the top crimes. Batley faces similar issues. As of April this year, crime rates in Batley were 4.2% higher than Yorkshire and the Humber and 23% higher than England and Wales, with an overall figure of 114 crimes per 1,000 residents. That is why Government support for neighbourhood policing is so important.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Nearly 70% of police forces have more police officers now than they did in 2010, whereas in my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, within the West Midlands area, we have 450 fewer police officers and 500 fewer PCSOs. Does the hon. Member agree that there ought to be some parity of numbers across all police forces?
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree that the resources for law enforcement and tackling crime should be equally distributed across our nation; no constituency should be faced with a shortfall compared with others.
Community policing is one of our most effective tools to reduce crime, improve trust and strengthen community cohesion. It is particularly important in diverse towns such as Dewsbury and Batley, where relationships between local people and the police must be built on familiarity, understanding and mutual respect.
My message today is clear: Government support for community policing must be at the level required to continue to reduce crime in every constituency across our country. By investing in visible neighbourhood policing, we can make our town centres safer, support local businesses, reduce crime, tackle antisocial behaviour and restore public confidence.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I want to spend my time talking about those individuals who make up our police force. Community policing is one of the foundations of effective policing in this country. It is about far more than preventing crime; it is about building trust, strengthening relationships and ensuring that every resident feels safe, supported and connected to those who serve.
Community policing works because it is rooted in local knowledge, and I should know—my dad was once a policeman. However, for too long that connection has been weakened. We need to restore the vital link between police forces and local people, ensuring that officers are visible and present in their neighbourhoods. We need to see police desks on our high streets, so that residents can report crime.
The coalition Government woefully underfunded the police, but Hampshire police has seen an extension to its funding that has meant we have increased our police tally to 114 officers from the 99 that we had. That investment has provided my constituency with named officers for all communities, and I have personally met all of our neighbourhood police. I have been on the beat, and I have worked with them in the community, hand in hand. PCs Smith, Joyce, Middleton, Wetherill, Treend and Goldfinch are the very best of what Portsmouth has, and I want to put on record my sincere thanks for the work they do every day to keep my city safe.
Yesterday, I was delighted to meet the Hampshire Police Federation in Parliament. The pressures that come with the job—the long hours, the difficult incidents and the emotional toll that policing can take—are some of the main things that we need to talk about. Suicide is a huge health issue in the police. We are rightly shocked and appalled when an officer is killed in the line of duty, but many more take their own lives and that is not treated with the same importance. We must ensure that mental health support is available, accessible and embedded throughout a police officer’s career.
Another thing I would like to draw attention to, which has seen a rise in my city, is the doxxing of police officers. It is not okay, and we need to stamp it out.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I remind Members that I need to call the Front Benchers at 5.10 pm; if Members are kind to one another, they may all get in.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this debate today. A fridge dumped in a field, a car taking a bend too fast or an unauthorised development on a local farm—all cause harm, but together they wear down residents’ sense of safety and community.
Those may seem like small countryside crimes, but they are often evidence of organised networks operating across our country. We know that organised groups dump waste where no one is watching, such as in rural Hampshire’s quiet fields, and that same isolation leaves villages vulnerable to illegal developments. In September, one was set up near South Warnborough, and although I visited the site and have been working with the council and the police ever since, it is clear that both organisations lack the enforcement powers to stop dumping, here or anywhere else.
Police are facing severe resource pressures, and that results in particular damage from hare coursing. Hare coursing means chasing and killing hares for entertainment and betting, and that betting is linked to international crime networks. Farmers are left with torn-up land and violent threats, and officers often cannot reach the fields in time. Hare coursers often use stolen vehicles and drive recklessly down country lanes. Dangerous driving is a serious problem across North East Hampshire. Tragically, eight people have died on roads in my constituency this year so far—more than double the national average.
This heartbreaking situation cannot continue. Unfortunately, Hampshire county council always responds to my letters to say, “This location is of low priority for investigation,” despite the fact that residents, councillors and I have raised the same issues again and again. The solution is clear: we need funds for road safety improvements, councils that will implement them and enough policing resource to prosecute dangerous drivers.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. For me, community policing is about whether people feel safe in their neighbourhoods, high streets or town centres. It is about public confidence that, when concerns are raised, there will be a visible police presence that knows the community and responds effectively. That is why long-term, consistent funding matters. Trust takes years to build and minutes to lose. Officers and PCSOs need the stability to develop relationships within communities and become familiar faces.
Community policing is also vital in supporting local businesses. Of course, this debate takes place just ahead of USDAW’s Respect for Shopworkers Week, and we all know that retail workers increasingly face abuse, threats and violence simply for doing their jobs. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 is crucial to ensure that the police have the powers they need to tackle low-level offending, and now we must ensure that the powers are matched by the resources and policing presence to enforce them.
I will conclude with the story of an incredible police constable, Jake Hart, who was chasing suspects down the road in Rhyl, when a young boy offered him his bicycle to complete the pursuit. That is not quite the high-tech crime-fighting equipment usually discussed here, but it is a wonderful example of community spirit. More importantly, it showed a young person who trusted the police enough to want to help. It is so important for that trust to be kept—it is invaluable, and it is worth investing in.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Minister knows what I am going to say. Two years ago, I was here warning about the systematic underfunding of Cleveland police, and I have done so continually over the last couple of years. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the time he made last week to discuss these matters, I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time on many occasions to discuss them, and I am grateful for the mutual aid that we have seen in our region since the tragic deaths of PC Tom Clough and PC Matthew Blades this summer.
The fact is that Cleveland police is one of the most overstretched forces in the country. Since 2010, it has been the hardest hit force in England in terms of cuts to police numbers, and Cleveland has one of the highest recorded crime rates in England and Wales. The chief constable, Victoria Fuller, has estimated that the force needs another 500 officers just to get to the national average. However, as Lauren Somerville, chair of the Police Federation in Cleveland, said when I met her earlier this week, Cleveland is a good force and its officers are proud of their work.
The new police performance system gave the force in Cleveland its highest rating of level 1 and the force in Cleveland has also been recognised as one of the most improved forces in England and Wales. The problem is not the hard-working, brave officers of Cleveland police; the fundamental problem is the police funding formula, which does not adequately reflect the scale of crime, deprivation and demand in Cleveland. I urge the Government to overhaul that formula at pace and to inject an emergency in-year funding increase so that we can tackle the challenges we have in our region.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate.
I am the proud daughter of a police officer, and one of the things my dad always instilled in me was the importance of community policing: people knowing who their local neighbourhood officer is, building a relationship with them, and seeing them out and about in their local streets. My constituents also share that view.
I am really pleased that as a result of the actions that this Labour Government have taken, there are now more neighbourhood police officers in my community and they are making a big difference. I say a big thank you in particular to Inspector Betsy Palmer, PC Joe Meritt, Sergeant Andy Murray and PCSO Fraser Sinclair, who I met recently and who do a brilliant job, day in, day out, to keep our communities safe. However, they told me that one thing they spend far too much of their time on is tackling the scourge of illegal bikes.
I am fed up, and my constituents are fed up with having to pull children out of the way in a park when a bike or a Sur-Ron zooms past them at 30mph, or having to slam on the brakes while driving down the street because someone in a balaclava is doing a wheelie in front of them It is simply not good enough. I was very grateful to the Minister for her recent correspondence with me on this issue and I am grateful to the Government for giving the police additional powers to seize and destroy those bikes, but we need to do more.
I ask the Minister—if she would not mind—to think again and to tell me today both how we can do more to regulate the sale of those bikes and close the loopholes that mean those Sur-Rons can be ridden by people gleefully around the streets of my constituency, and how we can support our local police to tackle this problem.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Community policing is fundamental to public confidence in our police service. When people know their local officers and PCSOs, see them on their streets and can raise concerns directly with them, communities feel safer and more confident that crime and antisocial behaviour will be tackled.
First, I thank the officers—and, importantly, the staff, who do not often enough get the recognition they deserve—in the Crewe local policing unit. I thank all the warranted officers, PCSOs and staff in the LPU for the work they do to keep our communities safe.
We have seen a welcome increase of four additional neighbourhood officers in the Crewe LPU, working across my constituency, which will go a long way to tackling some of the problems that we have. However, significant challenges remain; many of them have already been covered in this debate, including endemic antisocial behaviour, which too often is treated as low-level offending, but needs to be taken on and taken out at the roots.
In the brief time that I have left to speak, I also acknowledge the important work being undertaken by Cheshire police in relation to the investigation concerning allegations against members of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, and I just ask that consideration be given to urgent, unexpected and complex investigations that police sometimes have to respond to, and to the extra burden that those place on police forces. I welcome the fact that I have a meeting with the Minister next week to discuss that issue, but, if she could say something about it when she responds to the debate, that would also be really welcome.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown- Fuller) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to my excellent policemen and women, who do a fantastic job in keeping us safe.
We Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing, and the visible, trusted police presence that it provides for our constituents. During the previous Conservative Government’s programme of cuts, local community policing across our country was torn apart. We have heard from some Government Members who may need educating on the concept of a coalition in which the junior partner makes up 15% of the MPs, and so does not have total control over every Government policy. Since Labour came into government, more than 1,000 officers have been cut from our streets. I am sure that the hike in national insurance contributions has not helped that at all. My force, Devon and Cornwall, has faced a 50% cut to its recruitment budget.
The politicisation of the police service through the introduction of police and crime commissioners has done untold further damage to that trust. I was glad when, in November last year, the Government embraced a long-running Lib Dem campaign by announcing the scrapping of PCCs entirely. That will save the British taxpayer an estimated £100 million a year, £20 million of which can be funnelled into neighbourhood policing.
For rural areas such as my North Cornwall constituency, neighbourhood and community policing focus heavily on tackling the scourge of rural crime. I have prioritised the fight against rural crime on behalf of my constituents by introducing the Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill and consistently pushing the Government to develop a full strategy to address it countrywide. For many countryside communities up and down the country, thefts of farm machinery, tools and livestock can be devastating. At a time when family farms are being hammered by rising costs, a botched sustainable farming incentive payment system, a rise in inheritance tax, bluetongue outbreaks and a severe drought, the loss of just one all-terrain vehicle or expensive piece of farm machinery can set them back tens of thousands of pounds. Sadly, many of my farming constituents have told me that they have altogether lost confidence that such crimes will be dealt with seriously, so they no longer report them.
It is clear that many forces still lack specialists to deal specifically with these types of rural crimes. The Home Office is planning £365,000 of funding for the entire country’s rural crime units, which works out at around £8,500 pounds on average per police force. From my own work on the Home Affairs Committee, I have had the opportunity to quiz officials on police visibility in communities, and specifically on the effectiveness of reopening front desks. I was told by one police official from Buckinghamshire that the reopening of a police station in a town there saw a 19% overall reduction in crime, not just because people reported crimes more, but because it gave the local community a more visible police presence. I have been requesting that Launceston, in my constituency, has its police station’s front desk reopened, but Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime commissioner has refused time and again to do so. That refusal is especially disappointing when the cost is around £100,000 and the cost of suspended Devon and Cornwall police officers is currently around £1.3 million a year.
We have clear opportunity to bring back this policing visibility and confidence, yet the requests of the community are being ignored. One way to ensure that frontline officers are left to focus on the communities they serve is to prevent them from being pulled away for other types of crime that fester online. Our Liberal Democrat proposal is to establish an online crime agency, funded by £250 million per year—a levy on the big tech and AI firms that too often enable this online crime to take place. Our local officers would be freed up and sent back out to our towns and high streets, where they belong, combating thefts, shoplifting and the other types of local crime that hon. Members have mentioned.
Will the Minister commit to ensuring that every community across Britain has a police counter by using spaces such as libraries, shopping centres and town halls and reopening front desks where feasible, and to establishing an online crime agency so that deepfakes, revenge porn and other online crimes are tackled by specialists? Will she also ensure that the proposed police reorganisation does not further reduce community policing, and build on the NPCC rural and wildlife crime strategy, to tackle the scourge of rural crime?
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. I pay tribute to the officers, PCSOs, special constables and police staff who serve our communities, including the teams at Cleveland police and Durham constabulary who serve the people of Stockton West.
Cleveland has the highest crime rate of any police force area in England and Wales and the highest homicide rate in the country, yet in the year to March, Cleveland police lost 17 officers. Our police and crime commissioner called out a £2.4 million shortfall and rightly pointed out that funding is based on population, not crime. If the Government’s commitment to community policing is to mean anything, it must mean having more officers, not fewer, in areas where crime is highest. The Minister will point to the neighbourhood policing guarantee, but moving police officers between roles is not the same as having more of them.
In March 2024, the previous Conservative Government left police numbers at the highest level on record.
Connor Naismith
I anticipated that the shadow Minister might want to have a knockabout on numbers. Does he not acknowledge that the previous Conservative Government were replacing the 20,000 police officers that they had cut, and that the police uplift programme created perverse incentives that meant that many of those replacement officers ended up behind desks? That is not where we want them to be, is it?
Matt Vickers
We could have a very long debate on that: we could talk about the economic damage done by and the public finance carnage under the previous Labour Government; we could talk about the tough choices that had to be made in 2010; and eventually, we would arrive at 2024, when there were 147,746 full-time equivalent police officers on the streets. His constituents and mine would have liked to see that number continue to go upwards, but it did not, did it? Today, there are nearly 1,900 fewer officers.
This year, the Government scrapped overall headcount targets, making funding conditional on neighbourhood numbers alone. If neighbourhood teams grow while the workforce shrinks, those officers have to come from somewhere, and too often, that is from response teams. Those are the officers who come when a resident—the woman whose ex-partner is hammering on the door or the family woken by someone breaking in—rings 999. Neighbourhood policing matters, but it cannot come at the expense of the officers who turn up in someone’s hour of need. That is why the Conservative party would recruit 10,000 extra officers, deploy hotspot patrolling in the 2,000 highest-crime neighbourhoods and roll out immediate justice, so that those who wreck a public space are seen to put it right.
The problem is getting worse. The crime survey for England and Wales shows that last year, 40.9% of people experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour, which represents a statistically significant increase. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a pillar of the Government’s guarantee, but, by their own measure, things are moving in the wrong direction. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government publish force-by-force figures for how many new neighbourhood police officers were moved from response roles? Secondly, will the changes mean that residents will wait longer for help when they ring 999?
Thirdly, on Cleveland, I welcome the Minister’s engagement with the leadership of our force, but warm words in meetings will not reassure my constituents, so will she explain why the force tackling the highest crime rate in the country has 17 fewer officers than it did a year ago? Will she commit to ensuring that by the end of this Parliament, Cleveland police will have more police officers than it does today? My constituents are not asking about 2024 or 2010. They are asking about the year ahead, and they deserve a straight answer. Our constituents judge policing by whether they see an officer on their street, whether their call is answered and whether the person who wrecked their neighbourhood faces consequences. By that test, there is much more to do. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing what is a very important debate on a very important topic.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) said, community policing is about whether people feel safe. It is our first duty as parliamentarians to make sure that our constituents feel, and are, safe. Community policing is the frontline of that work, so I appreciate the opportunity to debate this topic.
I, too, express my sorrow at the homophobic, racist and xenophobic abuse described by the hon. Member for Chichester. Obviously, we are all very sorry for that and hope that justice will be done in those cases. I also join many Members who have thanked the police and police staff, who are often forgotten. We should talk about them more often. I want to add my thanks to all the police officers and staff who I have met and worked with.
We had some really good contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) asked whether the local council should pay for policing. The council in Harrow should do exactly what my hon. Friend tells them to do. That would be a very good starting point, and I definitely always recommend that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about Northern Ireland, and as he knows I met the Chief Constable a couple of weeks ago. I was pleased to talk to him and he is obviously doing a very good job in very difficult circumstances.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), I say that I spoke to the deputy chief constable following the incident in Nottingham and the awful shooting of a police officer. I will keep in touch with them about what has happened and how that officer, as well how his team, are doing. They were all very affected by what has happened and I know that has been deeply worrying for people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) talked about doxxing of police, which we talked about earlier in the week and which is very worrying. We are very keen to hear from the Fed, or others, about what more we can do as the Government to help in that space.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) was right to talk about the things that he did. The Fed rep that he spoke to has done some really good work to make that case. He is right that, on lots of measures, the force is judged as being really good. I know the frustration and we have talked about it before. We are working on the funding imbalance that follows from that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) talked about e-bikes. They are a scourge. As she says, we have passed a law that means that the police have more powers to seize, which is good, but I am having conversations with hon. Members about what more we can do in that space. It is becoming very problematic. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) today, who has been campaigning on that issue quite a lot, and we were talking about some of the struggles and some of the potential solutions.
Amanda Martin
There was a Westminster Hall debate this morning on e-scooters and e-bikes, and there were over 20 contributions from constituency MPs. The Minister is right to say that it is everywhere across the country.
Sarah Jones
Yes, it is a problem everywhere.
This week I have been to Hemel Hempstead, Southall and Newcastle-under-Lyme in a bit of an antisocial behaviour tour in advance of our respect orders coming into force on Monday. Everybody in those three areas, and everybody I speak to, is concerned. There are things that the Department for Transport needs to do and there are things that the Home Office needs to do. I am in the space of looking at what we can do from a policing point of view. I was interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough that their public spaces protection order has rules about the wearing of balaclavas as well. That is another debate that crosses into the e-bike one, as well as into other areas. That is an interesting innovation that they have introduced.
Jess Brown-Fuller
In my community in Selsey, which I spoke of earlier, Amazon was recommending cut-price balaclavas recently, which I think speaks to the problem. The Minister mentioned the seizing of e-bikes. It is brilliant that the police now have the power to seize; what they do not have is the power to catch the people on the e-bikes, especially the souped-up ones. A spray is being trialled that the police could use from a far distance, and it creates almost a fingerprint on an e-bike that is being used for antisocial behaviour. It is not being used in Sussex, but I know it is being used in police forces around Sussex. Would the Minister look at whether that is working well for those police forces and then encourage its roll-out in other areas?
Sarah Jones
We talked about this briefly in a meeting I was in earlier. We discussed what more we can do and the new technologies that can help us to follow some of these bikes and some of the individuals who are stealing them or using them in an illegal way. I am very interested in that. As the hon. Member said, there are already things being done in some parts of the country.
One big reason for our reform programme is that we have this frustration: if something is being done in some parts of the country, why is it not being done in others? We need more consistency, so that we have good practice everywhere. I want to point out the reforms we have introduced already as a Government. Some £2 billion extra has gone into policing, including to cover the cost of the national insurance rise, which was raised.
Ayoub Khan
Our police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, does tremendous community engagement work. However, he cannot do much reassurance because we have a £41 million funding gap and 1,000 fewer officers than in 2010. Can the Minister tell us what extra police will be given to West Midlands, and can the Government bridge that gap?
Sarah Jones
I reassure the hon. Member that, over the last two years, West Midlands police has had millions more in funding than it had the year before. This Government have given West Midlands police more money year on year since we came to power.
As every Member will know, I hope, we are prioritising a number of areas. The first is serious crime and knife crime. We have seen massive improvements in the area of knife crime, particularly knife murders, since we came to power. We are prioritising neighbourhood policing, and we have 4,000-odd extra neighbourhood police in our communities, which is beginning to make a difference. We have passed the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which among other things will introduce respect orders on Monday. That is a new power for police to use to go after persistent offenders in antisocial behaviour.
We are calling time on those people. In some circumstances, we know who they are, and we all know from our constituents the trouble that we have with them. When I was in Hemel Hempstead today, the police force had a list of 30 people who they are going to put in to the courts to get a respect order on, and they are hoping to go to court on Monday—on the first day that these orders are introduced. It is a powerful tool for the police to use, which I want to see used widely.
Deirdre Costigan
I thank the Minister for coming to Ealing Southall yesterday as part of the roll-out of respect orders. Does she agree that they will mean the police will be able to actually arrest people, rather than just move them on from one end of the town to the other?
Sarah Jones
I do. I very much enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency.
I am aware of the short time I have left. I wanted to touch on all kinds of things—seasonality and rurality are two things that we are looking at in the review of the funding formula. In the reform of policing, we will set up a national police service for things such as organised and online crime, so that we will have a place where these things are done and the local police can focus on what they need to do.
New tech will mean less bureaucracy and more time out on our streets. We are working at pace to make sure we deliver the reforms that people want and expect, but I will come back to the starting point, which is that there is nothing more important than good community policing. It makes people feel safe, it makes people safe and it prevents crime, and this Government are committed to increasing, not diminishing, that resource.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank Members for contributing to this really important debate. I want to put on the record that we have a local community warden who is employed by Chichester district council. His name is Jimmy Upton. He used to be a police officer; he spent many years being a community police officer. When he retired, he decided that he could still make a fundamental difference to his community, and now he is a community warden doing exactly the thing that he actually went into policing to do: supporting communities. They really are the best of us, and I am very grateful to all of those who work in our police forces to keep us safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for community policing.