E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Ms Minns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will give way once more.

[Ms Minns]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the loophole for off-road bikes, which is exploited in the use of illegal e-bikes, has existed since the Road Traffic Act 1988 and could have been closed in the past 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.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Luke Taylor]

rose—

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[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.

[Greg Smith]

rose—

[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?