Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

I want to ask the Minister about the conversations and contact he is having with various organisations that are no doubt continuing to lobby him for more protection for their workers—we will come back to that some other time; the Minister has agreed to meet me and I am looking forward to that. These firms which employ people to deliver on these bikes need to comply with the law. They should make sure that this happens, if nobody else does.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Many of the amendments seem to be shaped by individuals’ bugbears that they experience a lot on the streets of London. This group of amendments looks to increase penalties for dangerous cycling and raises other issues regarding cycling and scootering which cause danger to others. I welcome some of the amendments; they have raised interesting points.

The Bill sees cycling offences updated and brought in line with driving offences. I will give some context to the debate today. It should be remembered that, according to figures released by the Department for Transport in September, in 2024, 82 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, while 3,822 were reported to be seriously injured and 10,645 slightly injured. Going further, in the latest DfT accredited official statistics, published on 25 September, its pedestrian fact sheet shows that nine pedestrians were killed and 738 seriously injured by one pedal cycle. Let us compare this to the 1,047 pedestrians killed by one car, and the 19,241 seriously injured. Clearly, any death or serious injury on our roads is one too many, but it is important that, as we debate this legislation, we understand the full picture.

We on these Benches support a proportionate and evidence-based approach to updating the law, where any changes do not discourage people from cycling, which we believe is an important mode of sustainable transport. However, as we have heard in this debate, we have seen a rise in fast food deliveries by e-bikes and e-scooters, and in micromobility sharing schemes. They have become like an explosion across our cities. Time is literally money for all of these riders—those delivering food are being paid per minute to use these bikes or scooters. Therefore, riders take risks. They break the Highway Code, moving at high speeds across pavements and roads, as we have heard, putting themselves and others at risk. We want to see an end to this danger on our roads.

I am intrigued by the discussion on the e-scooter trials, which have gone on a long time. Let us be clear: they were extended five times by the previous Government. They started in 2020 and have now been extended to May 2028. It is clear that this has been going on under two different parties in government.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, look to tackle the issue of dangerous cycling through the disqualification of a person from cycling. While at first glance this may appeal, in reality it would pose significant challenges with regard to enforcement, as cyclists, as we have heard, do not require licences. It is very unlikely that a person disqualified from cycling who decides to ignore that disqualification would be caught and convicted.

Logically, the only potential way to address this would be to introduce a licensing system for cyclists, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, proposes in Amendment 346A, where he has set out his thinking in detail. However, that is likely to be complicated, costly and disproportionate. In contrast, the noble Lord’s other amendments—seeking to add 12 points to a person’s driving licence for dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling that causes serious injury or death—seem more sensible and a reasonable way forward, which would give a greater range of options for the judge in such cases. We agree that this would be far more manageable than trying to bring in a national licensing scheme for all cyclists and cycles. Given that 84% of people aged 18 years or over who cycle hold a driving licence, according to the latest Cycling UK report, this could be an effective penalty.

Amendment 337F, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, looks to define a “cycle” as including a pedal cycle, an e-bike and an electric scooter. Given the rise in different types of micromobility, we believe that this is a reasonable amendment to try to cover all types of cycles that can cause injury, as they may otherwise fall through a loophole.

Amendment 346B, from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeking to clarify the definition of e-bikes and motorbikes, looks reasonable—certainly on an initial reading—but we would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. Are there any practical reasons that could make this difficult? We have sympathy with its aims, but we look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

The other amendments in this group are clearly looking to tighten up further the law on dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling. Some, such as Amendment 341, from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, look to change the penalties for causing death by dangerous cycling. We do not believe that these amendments are needed and we do not support them. However, it is important that road traffic law is enforced with equal vigour for cyclists and all road users, to secure everyone’s safety. One of the challenges not covered in the Bill or in our discussions today—it is the elephant in the room—is the limited number of road traffic police officers across the country and the clear need to invest in this part of the police workforce.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the many important points that have been raised by noble Lords today, to see how we can ensure that our streets are safer for all road users.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this important group of amendments.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I believe that the data provides an important context to this area. In 2023, there were four pedestrian fatalities and 185 serious injuries where a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist. Over the past decade, the average number of pedestrians killed annually by a cyclist has been three per year. On the roads more widely, in 2023, there were 87 pedal cyclist fatalities in Great Britain, with almost 4,000 people seriously injured and a further 10,000 classed as slightly injured. The most recent data from 2024 shows that fatalities from pedal cycles fell to 82 but serious injuries remained significant, even as overall pedal cycle traffic increased.

Moreover, as the Government recognise, the current maximum penalties for dangerous or careless cycling—a fine of up to £2,500 for dangerous cycling or £1,000 for careless cycling—are plainly inadequate to reflect the severity of incidents that result in serious injury or death. I therefore welcome that the Bill introduces the new offences of causing death by dangerous cycling, punishable with up to life imprisonment, and of causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, punishable with up to 5 years’ imprisonment. Those are severe sentences, but rightly so. In my view, they are reasonable and proportionate measures.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh spoke to her Amendment 341, which would remove the life sentence from the causing-death offence and replace it with 14 years’ imprisonment. With all due respect to her, I believe that, on this occasion, the Government have got the maximum penalty right. The penalties for the new cycling offences exactly mirror the penalties for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Causing death by dangerous cycling is just as serious as causing death by dangerous driving. As such, it is entirely appropriate for the punishments to be the same. However, we must do more.

While cyclists are required to abide by the Highway Code and other relevant traffic legislation, we know that far too many do not. We have heard many descriptions from across your Lordships’ House this evening of the conduct of cyclists in London and elsewhere. One only has to walk down Whitehall and over Lambeth Bridge to witness the appalling conduct of a number of cyclists. We heard from my noble friend Lady McIntosh about her own experience, from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

All too often, cyclists jump red lights, and they fail to stop at pedestrian crossings. While we rightly take injuries and death caused by cycling very seriously, the far greater problem is the general nuisance caused by cyclists who do not abide by the rules of the road. We currently hold drivers to a far higher standard than we do cyclists, and, quite frankly, enforcement needs to catch up.

This is even truer with regard to electric cycles. My Amendment 346 would create a new offence of altering the maximum speed and the rate of acceleration of an electric bike. Currently, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to, an electrically assisted pedal cycle is defined by 2015 regulations as being a bike with a maximum speed of 15.5 miles per hour and having an electric motor not exceeding 250 watts of continuously rated power output. Any bike with a maximum speed above that should be classed as a motorbike for the purposes of road traffic policing. In this regard, I agree entirely with Amendments 337F and 346B tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, respectively. The Bill as drafted focuses on cycles but does not explicitly include electrically assisted pedal bikes—e-bikes—or e-scooters. That legal ambiguity could quickly be exploited. Amendment 337F seeks to ensure that there is no loophole. Amendment 346B in the name of noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeks to make absolutely clear that where an electric bike is capable of exceeding 15.5 miles per hour, it should be treated as a moped or motorbike for policing purposes.

These amendments complement the new offence that I am proposing through my amendment. By placing penalties and sanctions on those who might try to modify their electric bikes to increase the speed above the limit, we give the police the necessary enforcement powers to prevent anti-social and reckless cycling that places pedestrians in harm’s way. Many modern e-bikes are heavy, fast and capable of inflicting severe harm, especially if ridden irresponsibly on pavements or in pedestrian zones. To treat such vehicles as equivalent to push bikes would be to ignore both the mechanics and the risks.

On Amendment 337E, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Pavements are designated for pedestrians. Cyclists riding on pavements or in pedestrian-only areas pose a clear danger to the most vulnerable. By making it explicit that cycling on a pavement or in another pedestrian-only area counts as

“cycling without due care and attention”,

the amendment eliminates the ambiguity that currently hampers consistent enforcement. It is another aspect of a cyclist’s behaviour that should not occur but is all too often the norm. It reflects a simple principle of equity. Where a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle on the road, the driver of such a vehicle may be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving. A pedestrian hit by a cyclist on the pavement deserves to be treated with no less seriousness.

I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, relating to putting penalty points on driving licences for serious offences. That recognises the true severity of such offences. Misconduct on a bike should impact the standing of those with driving licences, especially where the behaviour demonstrates a disregard for road and pedestrian safety. On all these amendments, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to have a short debate—not so much on Clause 106, which I welcome and congratulate the Government on bringing forward, but rather more on what is not in Clause 106. I am delighted to have my Private Member’s Bill still before the House, so it may yet be adopted before the end of the parliamentary Session. I know that my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith took some parts of it and ran with it in a previous Bill—I think it was criminal justice—now an Act.

There are two aspects omitted which concern me, and which we touched on. I will not go into great length, but I just want to float them before the Minister and the Committee this evening. One is the question of insurance. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau was first established in 1946 to compensate victims of accidents involving uninsured hit and run drivers under agreements with the Department for Transport. It aims to reduce the level and impact of uninsured driving in the UK, which is something we all commend and support.

Since 2019, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau responsibilities have also included compensating victims for Road Traffic Act liabilities arising from the use of a motor vehicle in an act of terrorism, whether or not the vehicle is insured. So, obviously, the funding to the MIB is quite considerable. The levy is set at £530 million for this year and it handles something like 25,000 claims every year.

What is really missing here is the insurance link. The department has brought forward, rightly, in Clause 106 offences which have been missing. Two of them, as I mentioned earlier, are the first two clauses of my Private Member’s Bill—so far so good. But then it goes rapidly downhill. If you are going to create these offences and these liabilities where someone cycling a pedal bike or an e-bike or driving an e-scooter causes death or injury by dangerous cycling and other forms of cycling—death by careless or inconsiderate cycling as well as dangerous cycling—the corollary must surely be that insurance cover must legally follow. That is what is missing from the Bill at the moment.

I have tried to plug that gap, and I think another noble Lord earlier also mentioned that they had tried to come forward with provisions in that regard. Obviously, the department is in the best position to do this. The Minister is doing a great job on the Bill and is listening to all sides of the Committee very carefully and considerably. That is greatly appreciated.

Before the Bill leaves Committee—I would like to bring this back on Report—I would like to leave it to the Minister’s good offices to plug that gap. The corollary of creating these motor offences is that there must be some form of compensation for the victims concerned. I do not see why I, as a motorist—unfortunately, I do not cycle any more; it is a question of balance, not a lack of good will—should have to pick up the compensation claims for those who have been injured in this way.

I touched earlier on the second point I want to raise, but I have now remembered the relevant Bill. Micromobility is also being dealt with in a small part of—I hope I have not forgotten it again. There are so many Bills coming through: you wait for one and 27 come along at once. It is the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—not the most obvious place to have a chapter on micromobility.

This is the second request I have of the Minister this evening and, if he is not prepared to, I stand prepared to do it. There was an earlier amendment that did not go as far as the clause in my Private Member’s Bill. I would like to help the Minister. I know that, were we in the other place together, as we were once, he might find this a cynical approach, but I genuinely would like to help the Minister.

The definition that I propose is that which I have set out in my Private Member’s Bill, and I am grateful to the clerks for helping me draft it. I know your Lordships will all want to go away to read it, so I should say that it is the Road Traffic Offences (Cycling) Bill. I am prepared to answer any questions on it, at any stage.

I propose the following definition:

“a pedal cycle … an electrically assisted pedal cycle … a mechanically propelled personal transporter, including … an electric scooter, …. a self-balancing personal transporter (including a self-balancing scooter, self-balancing board or electric unicycle), and … any other mechanically propelled personal transporter provided for by the Secretary of State in regulations made under this section”.

The clause concludes by saying that, for the purposes of this subsection,

“mechanically propelled personal transporters are to be defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section”.

I am very grateful to the clerks for coming up with that form of words.

The point I am trying to make is that we have two departments involved here: the Home Office for the purpose of the Bill before us this evening, and the Department for Transport in a Bill which is not its Bill but the English devolution Bill. I hope the Minister will agree that, for both Bills, we need a definition of these pedal bicycles or other such, and micromobility vehicles. I hope that he might come forward with a form of words in this regard and bring the two departments together, so that we are all on the same page for the purposes of this Bill and the English devolution Bill.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this clause stand part notice seeks to remove the clause that creates the new offences of dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. I now understand why: it is to raise the issue of insurance and the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill, which was raised and discussed in an earlier group today.

If we look at the figures from Cycling UK, we see that the proportion of cycling trips has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Some 41% of those aged five or above have access to or own a bike. We are looking at around 22% of people over five cycling more than once or twice a month, so it is a really important mode of transport. It is important for people to be able to get around, but we need to make sure that people who cycle are able to do so safely through good infrastructure and that they are considerate, obey the Highway Code and cycle in a safe and considerate way.

As I raised earlier, given that in the period 2020-2024, nine pedestrians were killed and 738 were seriously injured in incidents involving a pedal cycle, it is important that the law is up to date and provides the necessary penalties for such actions. Therefore, on these Benches we do not support the removal of the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, to make a counterargument, I absolutely understand my noble friend’s concerns, but the fact of the matter is that if the police want to stop someone, they can.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments looks at illegal vehicles on our streets, enforcement and guidance. Amendment 345 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks guidance on enforcement in respect of illegal vehicles. However, having looked into this, my understanding is that a range of powers exists to enable the police to deal with these offences. The College of Policing already produces authorised professional practice on roads policing that sets out the existing powers and their operational application in detail. We therefore do not think the amendment is needed.

Amendments 350 and 356G, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on drink-driving, are very important. The first, as we heard, seeks to reduce the drink-driving limit so that it is in line with most other countries. The second is about alcohol ignition interlocks, which are in use in many jurisdictions.

As we have heard, drink-driving remains a major but preventable cause of death and serious injury on our streets. Reducing the drink-drive limit is one step in trying to tackle that, but it would need to go hand in hand with a publicity and enforcement campaign for maximum effect. When I was younger and learning to drive, it was absolutely drummed into us that we never went out and drank and drove. One person would be the designated driver, or we would use public transport or a taxi, or we would persuade someone’s parents to come and pick us up. This message needs to be amplified—as well as for drug-driving, which I have raised in this Chamber before, and which seems to be a growing trend. This needs to come as a package.

Alcolocks, which we have discussed, are an important development in trying to reduce drink-driving and people reoffending. It is a simple breathalyser linked to your ignition, which means that, if you are over the limit, you simply cannot start your vehicle. There was a drop-in, only a couple of weeks ago, in Portcullis House in which this was all demonstrated to us, and I thought it was a fantastic invention. As we have heard, it is already used in many EU countries, New Zealand, Australia and the United States. Given that around 260 people are killed in drink-driving collisions every year, and that drink-driving accounts for around 16% of all UK road deaths, this is an important yet simple development that has been shown to work successfully and to reduce repeat offending internationally. Why would we not want to bring it in here? We fully support this amendment and hope that the Government will respond positively. I note that a Minister from the other place also came to the drop-in, so I hope that the Government might be moving in that area.

On the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that, without suspicion, having random breath tests is not proportionate. Therefore, we on these Benches do not support it.

Amendment 416C, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, highlights a potential loophole, which he outlined; it is interesting to consider given that technology has moved forward. Amendment 416B, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, makes a strong point about uninsured vehicles. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to these and the other issues raised in this group.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group consider a highly important issue that requires the utmost consideration, so I thank noble Lords who have contributed thus far.

We support the idea behind my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 345 that guidance, and a pilot based on that guidance, is a viable approach to stemming the proliferation of illegal vehicles and criminal offences by the drivers of those vehicles on our roads. A measure such as this is all the more urgent following the report published this week by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Transport Safety, which laid bare the scale of criminality plaguing our roads. As many as one in 15 vehicles may carry modified and ghost number plates to evade ANPR detection. These modified vehicles, guilty of a crime in and of themselves, are then being used to bypass surveillance and undertake activities such as black market trading, drug dealing and organised crime.

Over 34,000 suppliers are registered with the DVLA to produce UK number plates, many of which are private and unregulated. A consultation and pilot should be the bare minimum. The APPG report has issued recommendations, but a more general consultation would be able to cover different types of road crime. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have acknowledged this report and are considering wider measures to deal with illegal vehicles and criminal activity on our roads?

I take much the same approach to Amendment 416B, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, and Amendment 416C, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington. Both measures aim to reduce crime on our roads by increasing police powers. I am not sure whether there is a power already under Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for police to take possession of uninsured vehicles on the road; I stand to be corrected on that.

I support the principle behind the two amendments, particularly Amendment 416C, which closes an obvious gap in the law that has emerged as technology has developed. That said, simply increasing the powers of our police is meaningless if there is not the manpower to use those powers. New powers are welcome, but they should come with effective enforcement.

I am not opposed to the principle behind Amendment 350, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Both Houses, when legislating on matters concerning public safety, as the amendment does, should err on the side of safety. It is the same reason why we are not opposed in principle to the Government’s announcement of their intention to reduce the drink-driving limit per 100 millilitres of breath.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Shinkwin, Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl on speaking to their amendments so eloquently. They take the debate one step further than the general debate that we had about dangerous and careless cycling, particularly on pavements—the main perpetrators of which are in fact delivery riders, as a number of us recorded in that debate.

What is particularly helpful about these three amendments is that they refer to the duties and responsibilities of the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has spoken about this on a number of occasions and we applaud the work of the City of London in pulling these perpetrators off the street, whether they are cyclists, e-cyclists or e-scooter riders, where they have broken the law. What is particularly appealing in my noble friend Lord McColl’s amendment is that he refers in particular to criminal activity. We know that e-scooters are heavily used in the theft of goods and telephones and the supply of illegal drugs. I almost posted a photograph of an e-bike that was mounting the pavement not far from here in Strutton Ground. I thought I would place it on Facebook. I am rather pleased that I did not, because he went on to do a drugs drop on Strutton Ground. There were schoolchildren and families there. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin’s amendment also highlights how it is particularly the disabled, the less able and the elderly, but also young people with families and those using wheelchairs, who are put at great risk. That has been highlighted by this group of amendments.

I shall put two questions to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for when he sums up. What actions is the Home Office taking in this regard, outside the City of London and the one-off operations we have heard of, where 70 bicycles were taken off the street in one day? My husband is convinced that, every time one of these operations takes place, the word goes round the delivery drivers and they tell each other not to go out that day because enforcement is out, and therefore they evade that enforcement. What are the Government going to do to improve enforcement by the Home Office? We have moved one step further from the debate on Monday. This is a debate not just about transport and cycling but about people using e-bikes, pedal bikes and e-scooters for illegal and criminal activities.

I have a second question for the noble Lord, Lord Katz. My noble friend Lord Blencathra asked what happens to bikes that have been seized, but I have a wider question. What is the power to seize and confiscate pedal bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters? Do we as private citizens have the power to conduct a private arrest where we see an illegal activity taking place? Are we putting ourselves at undue risk in that regard? I hope that we will get a full response to these questions. Perhaps the Government might come forward with their own amendments because, where this is leading to criminal activities, as we have established it is, it is nonsensical to let it continue to its current extent. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group from the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl, are trying to probe the issue of who is responsible for dangerous cycling by cyclists working for delivery companies. While I support their aims, I do not associate myself with all the points they have raised and, indeed, the language that they have used. However, this is a real issue and one that many of us have looked at over recent years as we have seen this rise of delivery companies, whether it is for your shopping, takeaways or virtually anything you want from the click on your device.

This does not cover just pedal cyclists; it applies equally to those who provide deliveries on motorcycles and e-scooters. In the past, I worked on this at London City Hall to see whether we could work with, for example, the food delivery companies that we have heard so much about today, to see whether we could provide additional training for their cyclists and motor- cyclists, perhaps looking at some sort of charter mark to show that they had higher standards to deliver goods around the city, ensuring that we have professional riders providing this service on our streets.

However, the challenge is that most riders and scooters, as has been mentioned, are not employees of these companies, whose legal advice is that they do not want to go anywhere near that, because then they may be responsible for their cyclists’ or motorcyclists’ behaviour. In fact, you may find that some of these riders are working at the same time for a number of these companies, so it becomes even more complex to work out and identify which company would be responsible. However, the amendments raise an important safety point and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this area about any ways forward to try to address this growing concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, we have heard some jolly clever speeches. It seems to me that the general point of this group of amendments, and indeed the previous one, is to bring this matter of great public concern to the attention of the Government during this debate. We are not now, this afternoon, looking for statutory perfection; we are looking for the Government to pay attention, and every one of us, be it my noble friend Lord Goschen walking here, or my noble friend Lord Hailsham riding at a reasonable speed from King’s Cross to this place, has our own experiences and anecdotal stories to inform the House and this debate.

I really do not think we need to get stuck in the weeds; we just need to get the Government to be a little braver. Yes, they should read out the departmental notes they have in front of them, but they should also realise that this is a matter of real and pressing public concern. The use of e-cycles by drug dealers and others, who wear the stolen uniforms of respectable companies to deliver drugs here, there and everywhere, with no lights on their bikes, wearing balaclavas and dark clothing, at night, placing themselves and other road users in danger, is a matter of deep concern. That is what we need to get across to the Government, and I hope they will take the general point on board, even if they disapprove of the niceties of the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Blencathra.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as we discussed earlier, we have seen a huge rise in fast food and other deliveries by e-bikes and e-scooters across our cities, and of course internationally too. The whole model for these deliveries is based on time— carrying out as many deliveries as possible in as short a time as possible. This constant pressure can lead to riders taking risks that endanger not only themselves but other road users and pedestrians. These risks include installing bigger batteries.

This group of amendments is timely and of the moment, given the rise in these bikes and scooters. However, kits are increasingly being bought online that are used to adapt regular cycles into e-cycles. These are causing not only serious safety issues on our streets but fire safety issues, as we have already heard. Therefore, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, look to tackle both the fire and road safety issues associated with non-compliant lithium-ion batteries. It does feel like there is a loophole in the law whereby unsafe batteries are being sold in the UK and are having a devastating effect. These are important issues, and I hope we hear some clear progress in this area from the Government.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, as was mentioned earlier in Committee when speaking to Amendment 346, we take the issue of bike alterations very seriously. My noble friend Lord Blencathra raises a similar issue with these amendments, and, in placing the onus on suppliers, a two-pronged approach to tackling the issue is welcome.

We know that many of the most dangerous e-bikes on our roads are not the result of amateur tinkering alone. They are enabled by a market that supplies batteries far in excess of the 250-watt limit set out in law, or batteries that fail to meet even the most basic safety standards for lithium-ion technology. These batteries transform what should be a pedal-assisted cycle into something much closer to an unregistered electric motorcycle, which is often capable of significant speed and acceleration, and frequently used in dense urban areas, on pavements and in shared spaces.

There is also a wider public safety dimension. Unsafe lithium-ion batteries are not merely a road safety issue; they are a growing fire risk in homes, flats and shared accommodation. The London Fire Brigade and other services have repeatedly warned about fires caused by substandard e-bike batteries, often supplied online with little oversight and no meaningful accountability. This amendment would reinforce the message that safety standards are not optional, and that those who profit from ignoring them may—indeed, should—face consequences.