E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Rural Bus Services

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I will call Sarah Dyke to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered bus services in rural areas.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain.

Bus services in rural areas provide a crucial lifeline to many of my constituents. They link communities to hospitals, shops, high street services, and leisure and social activities. They take students to school and college, and they take adults to work. But there has been a worrying trend of decline over the past decade. Research from Channel 4 found that bus provision has decreased by 28% across England since 2011. There has been action from the previous Government, such as investing £3.5 billion into services since the pandemic and introducing the £2 fare cap, but that has been insufficient to arrest the decline.

The loss of services is especially prevalent in rural areas, and it detrimentally impacts those who live there. Rural bus service users travel an average of 47% further compared with their urban counterparts. They travel for longer, and their routes are funded less per head than those in urban areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I just wanted to say—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I ask the Member to stand?

[Dr Opher]

Sorry. We have experienced a lot of problems with cross-border rural buses in our area. The hon. Lady mentioned local authorities. If there are two local authorities, it creates enormous problems. In Wotton-under-Edge, we have just lost the 84/85 bus service because we cannot get agreement from all the different local authorities to fund it. That is putting a severe strain on rural populations. I would ask for that to be considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member needs to sit down. This issue is clearly of much concern in many constituencies across the country. It could be appropriate for a group of Members to get together and submit an application for a 60 or 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall, which would give Members the opportunity to make their cases and the Minister enough time to respond to their concerns. I am not formally requiring that of anybody, but I suggest that it might be a useful mechanism.

Question put and agreed to.

Driving Licences and Dangerous Drivers

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered driving licences and dangerous drivers.

I am grateful to the Minister for her time today, given the sensitivity of the issues that we will be discussing. While the debate could have been called on behalf of any of the estimated 1,390 families who so very sadly lost a loved one to a road death in the last year, it is because of a grieving family in my constituency that I am here. Given their case is subject to an ongoing investigation, I recognise the rules of the House and the importance of ensuring that under the rule of law, judgment can be cast fairly.

I am sorry that I cannot lay out my constituent’s case in full. My understanding is that someone has been charged and it is important that the case is not jeopardised, but I can assure the family and the Minister that I will return to this issue once I can speak more freely. What I can say is that in December last year, my young constituent was tragically killed in a car crash, leaving behind her devastated family. It is important to note that the circumstances of the case raise concerns about drivers being able to continue to drive unless and until they are found guilty of driving-related offences. Although I am here on behalf of my constituent and her family, I hope that the Minister will consider the wider principle that affects any family who loses a loved one to dangerous driving.

As it stands, there is no law to stop any dangerous driver continuing to jump in their car after a tragic accident unless and until they not only are charged but are found guilty. I make it clear to the Minister that, of course, I recognise and wholeheartedly support the justice system upon which our rule of law is built: crimes must be investigated in full and presented before a jury to cast an impartial verdict. My call is not for guilt to be presumed before innocence—it is right that the tragic death of my constituent be investigated in full and all the evidence presented—but we must recognise that waiting for a trial in such a case can take years. It is wrong to allow somebody to continue to take to the road while they face an accusation of and investigation for death by dangerous driving. For the protection of others, for their own safety and for the peace of mind of the bereaved family, the person accused of killing their loved one by dangerous driving should not be back behind the wheel.

I cannot begin to imagine the anguish, grief and despair that a family has to face when they receive that dreaded knock on the door. It is a message that no family should ever have to hear. The pain is unimaginable, but it must be made even worse by the knowledge that nothing prevents the accused dangerous driver from driving while an investigation is still under way. We cannot bring loved ones back, but we can change the law to ensure that, while under bail conditions, nobody accused of death by dangerous driving is back on the road until the investigation is complete. It is really that simple.

Although I am unable to go into the details of my constituent’s case, I will tell the Minister about an investigation that has been completed. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) that her constituent, Carol King, tragically lost her partner, Richard Jordan, in a dangerous driving accident on 4 August 2019. Carol and Richard’s daughter was 19 months old when he died. Eleven days after burying her partner, Carol found out that she was pregnant, and she went on to have their second daughter in March 2020. The defendant was sentenced to six years and eight months’ imprisonment, and was also banned from driving for three years following his release. That person, who had previous convictions for driving offences and is responsible for the pain of a mourning family, will be back on our roads in a matter of years.

As it stands, the current laws and framework do not allow for the immediate removal of a driving licence from a person who is arrested or charged in connection with an offence of being over the legal limit for drink or drug-driving. Why can the police revoke a driving licence from members of the public when they fail an eye test or—as in my sister’s case—when they have an epileptic fit, but they do not have the power to remove a driving licence from someone who is driving when over the alcohol limit or under the influence of drugs?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I support what she is trying to achieve, and I know that the Minister will respond positively. Does the hon. Lady agree that the change in the law that she wants for the UK mainland would be beneficial for all the regional Administrations? It would provide consistency in police enforcement and in the laws of the land.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The change should apply across the countries of the United Kingdom.

Carol and her grieving family will be listening carefully to the Minister’s answer. In preparing for the debate, I was interested to see that similar calls were made in this very Chamber in January, in a debate about police powers to suspend driving licences. It was heartbreaking to read that debate, and I truly commend those families who have had their lives turned upside down but who have channelled their grief into the fight for justice and into achieving change for others. It is clear from that debate in January that that includes the McConnachie family.

On 24 February 2019, Tom McConnachie was killed in a hit and run by a drink-driver, who left Tom fatally injured on the road. He then drove to Okehampton and set fire to the vehicle. The offender was able to continue driving for 11 months before being disqualified, as only a court can disqualify a driver. Tom’s family are calling for police officers to be able to provide a suspension notice from the moment the offender is caught drink, drug or dangerous driving until they appear in court. It would then be for the judge to determine whether a ban continues or whether the offender can drive again.

As it stands, the police can impose bail conditions for particular purposes, one of which is to ensure that no further offence is committed while on bail. I understand that a driving ban as a condition of police bail may be deemed appropriate for some cases. However, the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) in January’s debate made clear that we simply do not know in how many instances a licence has been suspended while someone is awaiting trial, and whether police forces are making use of those powers or even regularly considering them.

Looking further back to November and yet another debate, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) promised that the Government were considering a review of road traffic offences and penalties, yet six months later we are still waiting for the review to get under way. A review could clarify or amend the definition of dangerous and careless driving. It could close the exceptional hardship loophole whereby drivers routinely avoid driving bans by pleading that it would cause them exceptional hardship—a plea that Cycling UK argues happens so frequently that it makes a mockery of the term “exceptional”. A review could also provide a chance to strengthen the penalties for hit-and-run offences where the driver leaves a victim for dead. Will we be back in this Chamber speaking on behalf of another grieving family in a few months’ time?

I wish to briefly raise the concerns of another of my constituents, a class 3 mobility scooter user who fears that he could fall victim to dangerous or even non-dangerous driving on our roads. According to the highway code, he is allowed to use his mobility scooter only on the main road and not in cycle lanes. Understandably, he finds this unsafe and daunting, and the drivers of the vehicles that pull up behind him are equally frustrated as to why he is leaving the adjacent cycle lane empty while riding at his maximum speed of 8 mph. Does the Minister agree that that is an incredibly easy thing for us to resolve?

I conclude by turning our attention back to the grieving family in my constituency, who are watching today’s debate at home. They did not want to be here today. The pain is still too raw for them. That may never change. Their ask is simple: that the anguish they are facing is not burdened on any other family, and that their dreaded knock on the door can be a chance for change, for the law to be amended so that anybody accused of death by dangerous driving is immediately taken off our roads. I hope the Minister will agree that that does not sound like too much to ask.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, in what is a very difficult debate—we need to be honest about that—but one that does need to be had. While the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) has set out the reasons why she is unable to discuss the specifics of this ongoing and utterly tragic case, she can be assured that I have taken the time to study the details and circumstances of Lillie Clack’s death. I have also studied the hon. Member’s parliamentary interventions and I commend her for the diligence and determination that she has shown for her constituents—Lillie’s family—and I offer my most sincere condolences as well.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for opening the debate about immediately suspending the driving licences of anyone who causes death while driving. Let me reassure hon. Members that the Government take road safety extremely seriously. It is at the heart of the Department for Transport’s agenda. Any death or serious injury is unacceptable. The Roads Minister, Baroness Vere of Norbiton, has met many families of victims of similar incidents, and she and I are aware of the devastating effects that such incidents cause to the families and friends involved.

I understand the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Lillie Clack and I extend my sympathies to her family and friends. I also recognise the concerns that, in some cases, the police should be able to suspend the driving licence of an offender who is charged with causing death by dangerous driving. However, while we must do all we can to improve the safety of our roads, we must not make rash decisions that could ultimately make things worse or create other unforeseen effects in any kind of rush to resolve perceived problems with the law and how it operates.

Turning to the call for the suspension of driving licences and the current law, as set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police can already impose bail conditions to ensure that no further offence is committed while on bail, and a driving ban as a condition of police bail may be appropriate in some cases. Decisions on when to use those powers are operational matters for the police, who have to balance the rights of defendants not yet convicted and the potential benefits to public safety from reducing the risk of further offences. It is worth noting that the criminal courts also have the power to impose an interim disqualification in certain cases.

The Government are committed to tackling drivers under the influence of alcohol and drugs and ensuring that all such drivers are caught and punished. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement, along with the highly respected and effective Think! campaigns, which reinforce the social unacceptability of drink and drug driving and remind people of the serious consequences.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden asked me to comment on recent Government measures. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 includes provisions to increase the maximum penalties for causing death by dangerous driving and for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs to life imprisonment. The Act also introduces a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. The Act received Royal Assent on 28 April and the provisions will come into force on 28 June.

On minimum disqualification periods, we have changed the law to increase the maximum period of imprisonment and the minimum driver disqualification period for those who commit the most serious road traffic offences, which will ensure that those who commit the most serious road traffic offences are kept off our roads for longer. The increases will come into force at the end of June 2022, and will apply to the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.

I want to be clear that the Government are not dismissing the concerns that have been raised today and, indeed, by other Members in previous debates. We are aware of the traumatic effects of such incidents, however rare, and we are prepared to act if we are satisfied that we should, in the light of responses to the forthcoming call for evidence on road traffic offences. We remain open-minded that more can be done in this area, but, without further work, we cannot assume that the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is the only one, let alone the right one.

I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that this is a complex area, and that any change to the law should fit within the current driving offence framework. Officials from my Department have been exploring options that could be pursued in this area and will consider the points raised in this debate, as well as the information that comes as a response to the call for evidence.

With regard to any potential law changes for road traffic offences, we will need to consider the interests of victims and wider society and balance those against the rights of suspects. To explore those issues in full, the Department will conduct a call for evidence on parts of the Road Traffic Act 1988. While details of the exact scope are still being worked up, I can reassure hon. Members and the general public that the points raised in this debate on the suspension of driving licences will be considered.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

When the timetable is drawn up for that consultation, will the Minister or her colleagues make Members aware so that they can make contributions? It seems to me that, where someone dies in a road traffic accident and the driver is found to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it would be entirely reasonable to have a blanket law that applies to everybody to withdraw the driver’s licence, and that that would not be making judgments about the eventual decision in court.

[Trudy Harrison]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. Most importantly, I can confirm that I will let her know about the timescales, the call for evidence and the conclusion date. I will also endeavour to keep her updated as we make progress. We can all agree that any death or serious incident is unacceptable, and it is my Department’s aim to reduce such incidents as far as we possibly can. I believe that the call for evidence will seek to do just that, while balancing the interests of the suspect, the victim and society, for whom this is completely unacceptable.

Question put and agreed to.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I add my voice in expressing outrage at the utterly appalling treatment of staff by P&O Ferries. Its methods may be more brutal, more direct and more organised, but there is a reason the company thought it could get away with them: it is simply doing what some of the most high-profile and respected businesses in our country have been doing for years. Sainsbury’s, Asda, B&Q, Marks & Spencer and even companies that bear our country’s name and flag, British Airways and British Gas, offer 90 days’ consultation and someone’s contract—however long they have worked for the company, however loyal they have been, however much they have done their job to the best of their ability—counts for nothing.

I only entered the debate on this issue when my constituent Joseph came to see me, six years ago now, to show me a consultation document from B&Q. He was a man with two children, who earned £16,000 a year working for the company and was being consulted on losing £2,500—his bonuses, his break money, his forklift truck allowance—because B&Q could not afford to pay him £16,000 a year. I would like to see anybody in this Chamber live on £16,000 a year in London.

Sainsbury’s is a company regarded as among the most respectable. I hold one share in Sainsbury’s and I went to its annual general meeting in 2018 to talk about the 8,000 members of long-term staff who were going to lose up to £3,000 a year. Hon. Members should not be mistaken: P&O will not be the last, although it may be the least successful. There are thousands of people destined to have their terms and conditions changed unless we change the law.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made the point about the recession. If those members of staff lose the little money they currently receive and are under greater pressure to pay their gas and electricity bills, food bills and travel costs to work, we will see disquiet and trouble in our country of a size that we have never seen before.

We know the problem exists, we know the loophole exists, and we know that other companies that have difficult times over the coming months and years in our economy will look to do the same thing. The Government must decide whether they will close those loopholes and stand up for those workers, or whether they are prepared to see levels of discontent in our country that we have not seen in 50 years.

Covid-19: Aviation

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is right to say that the success of the aviation industry has a direct impact on some of the wider aviation manufacturing technology being developed in this country, and it has a particular effect in my constituency too. We will continue to work across government to understand the full impact this has in the wider supply chain and to provide mitigation as far as we are able.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

On Asda, Marks & Spencer, B&Q, John Lewis and Sainsbury’s, the Minister and I have been here before, when employers have been choosing to reduce terms and conditions for their long-standing staff simply with 90 days’ notice. BA, however, is the employer that bears our country’s name and holds our country’s flag; is this what we want for Britain in post-coronavirus times? We will not fight our way out of a depression by reducing people’s pay.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady is right to say that we have had conversations in this vein many times before. As I said in my opener, I regret the job announcements that the organisations have made. We also need to accept that we are in unprecedented times, and we are working hard with the sector—with all stakeholders, including unions, industry representatives and companies —to fully understand what that will mean for the future and what we need to do to provide mitigation. I have set out my position a number of times today and I will continue to work to try to limit those job losses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let me say very clearly and unequivocally that what took place last Sunday was unacceptable. On behalf of the Government, I apologise for it and the company has already done so. We have made our views known to the company in the strongest possible terms. It was unacceptable and lessons have to be learned. The company is putting in place arrangements to make sure people receive appropriate financial compensation. It must not happen again.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

T5. Last Friday, I arranged a site meeting between Network Rail and the YMCA for south London to talk about an abandoned strip of land owned by Network Rail on Rialto road in Mitcham, close to Eastfields station, in the hope that they can together provide some great prefab housing for young people. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can encourage Network Rail to use all its scraps of land to the benefit of everyone?

[Joseph Johnson]

I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this issue. It is really important that we make the most of all such opportunities for Network Rail to put scraps of land to good use, whether for housing, strips of walkway, or other pedestrian or cycling purposes. I am happy to meet her to discuss that.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Almost a century ago, the campaign to get a train station at Mitcham Eastfields began. The first questions in Parliament about a new station for Mitcham are believed to have been recorded by Hansard in the early 1930s. I myself was part of the campaign for a quarter of a century, so the House can imagine my delight in 2008 when the first train arrived from London Victoria at Mitcham Eastfields station at eight minutes past four on Monday 2 June. The station connects Mitcham with central London in just 19 minutes, and since it opened nine years ago, the growth of the area has been remarkable, with residents now able to commute to work in central London. Mitcham Eastfields has been a huge boost for local housing, and has enabled more students and teachers to access St Mark’s Academy and other local schools. The opening of the station is one of my proudest achievements as the Member of Parliament for Mitcham and Morden.

Unfortunately, Southern rail operates the services that run through Mitcham Eastfields, as well as the other stations in my constituency, including St Helier and Mitcham Junction. My constituents comprise many of the 300,000 passengers who use Southern rail every single day, paying extortionate ticket prices for an appalling service. When Mitcham station was opened, all the tools were there for the growth of Mitcham and ease of transport for my constituents. Because of Southern rail, the reality is the worst rail disruption since 1994. A phone call yesterday from my constituent, Mark, summed it all up. In his words,

“the drivers are often missing, the trains often break down, and I don’t think there is a single day that the train is on time. And that’s not down to striking staff.”

My constituent, Arexa, was put on disciplinary measures and subsequently lost her job in retail because of the unacceptable regularity of Southern delays. Her story is not unique. Only last month my constituent, William, left his dream job, as the company where he worked could not continue to tolerate his lateness. In fact, my constituent, Collis, uses the phrase, “daily REG”—random excuse generator—for the explanation that Southern give for their appalling service. It is not the service that he and his wife deserve, as they pay over £3,000 a year.

In the last week, services in my constituency have been slashed by even more than was publicised, and the current revised timetable has dropped direct off-peak services from London Victoria. Similarly, the proposed new timetable from May 2018 sees a reduction in rush-hour trains, and there is a gap of nearly 30 minutes between the off-peak trains. It is so frustrating to see the intermediate services fly through Mitcham Eastfields without stopping, helping the Surrey shires at the expense of suburban Mitcham.

It is clear that Southern rail is not working and shows little sign of improvement. The services should be transferred to the Mayor of London. Transport for London clearly has the experience and proven track record of running world-class public transport in the capital. In fact, the Gibb report suggests that parts of Southern would be better operated by Transport for London, and I wonder whether that is the reason why the whole of appendix 9 has been redacted from the report.

This issue is beyond politics, and it is affecting the quality of life of thousands of people—people who get up early, go to work, pay their taxes and, on top of that, pay hideously high fares. All they ask in return is for the trains to run on time.