Crime and Policing Bill

Committee (7th Day)

Amendment 346C

346C: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause— “Dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling: review(1) Within one year of the day on which section 106 comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a review assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences in section 106.(2) The review under subsection (1) must recommend any changes to the law which may be necessary.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to probe how the law could be changed to ensure that companies who contract the services of delivery cyclists bear some responsibility for the conduct of these cyclists on the road.

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 346C, I welcome the other amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends, Lord Blencathra and Lord McColl of Dulwich.

Amendment 346C is a modest and reasonable amendment, which would do exactly what it says on the tin. It would require the Home Secretary to institute

“a review assessing the effectiveness with which operators of bicycle courier services ensure that their employees and contractors conduct themselves on the roads in such a way as to avoid committing the offences in section 106”.

The review, which must be published within a year of that section coming into force, would recommend any changes to the law which the review determines may be necessary. The rationale for this amendment is similarly simple: it seeks to probe how the law could be changed to ensure that companies which contract for the services of delivery cyclists bear some responsibility for the conduct of those cyclists on the road.

Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I approach this issue from the perspective of a severely disabled person, whose condition makes me extremely vulnerable to the impact—and I use the term advisedly to mean the actual physical impact—of being hit by an individual riding one of these e-bikes in, to use the legislative terminology, a “dangerous, careless or inconsiderate” way. To put it bluntly, the impact would be catastrophic; I would not expect to survive. So I completely agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who said on day six of Committee that you take your life in your hands when you cross some roads in central London. I do so, quite literally, every day, on my way to and from your Lordships’ House.

Now I entirely appreciate that whether I live or die is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. It would be a shame if I were killed, but the earth would continue to turn. I know that. Equally, I know that I am just one person. I think of all those people with visual impairments, for example, who literally risk life and limb just stepping outside their front door. So the review should consider the impact on them as well, and not just in terms of their independence, mental health and well-being, all of which will of course bring associated costs for the NHS and social care services, but of their employment prospects. For why would anyone want to risk going to work, given they could end up in hospital before they have even got to the office as a result of being hit by a courier cyclist on an e-bike while they were walking along the pavement or trying to board a bus from one of those so-called floating bus stops?

My Lords, my Amendment 416K supports a targeted, enforceable measure that holds delivery platforms to account where their operational model and oversight failures contribute to dangerous cycling on our streets. This is not about blame for individual riders alone; it is about closing a regulatory gap so that companies that profit from rapid, app-driven deliveries also carry responsibility for foreseeable harms linked to their business models and practices.

If noble Lords want a bit more excitement in their lives than the excitement of participating in this debate then I invite them to accompany me, when we rise tonight, to walk along Millbank, Horseferry Road and Marsham Street, past the Home Office. The excitement will come from them dodging out of the way of dozens of Deliveroo couriers belting along the pavements delivering to the thousands of flats in this area.

Even more excitement may come when I manage to confront one of these riders and we have an exchange of views, but not usually a meeting of minds. When I see them belting along the pavement, I drive straight for them. My chair is heavier than theirs, so they are the ones who are forced to dodge out of the way. When I manage to stop one on those massive, fat tyre, illegal bikes and speak to them, I can say with all honesty that every single one I have seen is a recent arrival to this country. Half do not speak English and do not know the law on riding killer bikes on the pavement. The other half do know and tell me to go away sexually, that they will do what they like, and who will stop them.

If I had said that a month ago, I might have been accused of racist comments, but on 4 December this year, the Home Office issued a press release to say that, in targeted action, it and the police had arrested 171 food delivery couriers for criminal activity, and 60 of them were illegal migrants facing deportation. The Home Office press release said:

Why must the food delivery companies change? Independent research shows that gig economy delivery riders face higher collision risks and are under greater time pressures and incentives to ride unsafely than riders directly employed by restaurants. A major study by University College London found that gig riders were more likely to be reported for speeding, to run red lights, to be distracted by their app notifications and to be involved in collisions resulting in vehicle damage or injury. The European Transport Safety Council and other road safety bodies have echoed those findings and warned that payment structures and app design can create foreseeable incentives for risky riding.

Transport authorities and local government bodies have repeatedly raised alarms about illegally modified e-bikes, unsafe batteries, and the fire and collision risks they pose. Transport for London and London boroughs have called for stronger regulation of conversion kits and uncertified lithium-ion batteries; they have urged national action to improve product safety and data collection on e-bike incidents.

National reporting and safety reviews have similarly warned that the modified e-bikes used by couriers can reach speeds far beyond legal limits and present both collision and fire hazards. But it is not just modified e-bikes: the ones I see every night are massive fat tyre bikes, which are officially for hill-climbing and off-road use but are the main Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats bikes I meet.

I did a Google search to buy one of those bikes and up came hundreds and hundreds of pages. Let me cite two examples. The first company is called Hidoes—not “hideous”; well, it is the same thing, really. It says that its B6 electric bike has a 48-volt, 15.6-amp-hour battery, a 1,200-watt motor, 20-inch diameter and four-inch fat tyres, and a weight of 50.7 kilograms. Its recommended top speed is 25 kilometres per hour but it can unlock to 50 kilometres per hour.

The second one is the Tesway X9 all-wheel drive, 4,000-watt dual-motor electric mountain bike. It has a 48-volt, 30-amp-hour Samsung battery, with a weight of 48 kilograms and a speed of 64 kilometres per hour. The advert says that it is suitable for “off-road and commuting”. Talk about putting up two fingers to the law. Commuting? How has a 48-kilogram bike, capable of speeds of 64 kilometres per hour, been advertised as suitable for commuting? Of course, the sellers will say that the commuting they envisage is probably a sheep farmer going from his house to check on the sheep up on Blencathra, the mountain.

My proposed new clause is proportionate, necessary and narrowly focused. It would empower the police to issue fines to delivery companies where a rider, delivering on their behalf, is convicted of causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling. Of course, Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat will say that they are not the employer and have no control over what bikes these private individuals use—but that will not wash. They have vicarious liability for the so-called independent riders they use to deliver their food. They can and should vet the drivers and regularly check that they are riding road-legal bikes. They do not do so at the moment because there is no financial penalty—and I am afraid they will not listen to nice Mr Norris from the Home Office.

My proposed new clause is not a punitive measure for its own sake. It is a lever to change corporate behaviour where evidence shows that platform design, pay-by-drop models, weak onboarding and poor vehicle checks create foreseeable risks that companies can and should mitigate. The combination of legal precedent on vicarious liability and the empirical and enforcement evidence I have cited shows that companies can be held to account where their systems materially contribute to harm.

Where has the Minister got to with his consultation on police powers for disposing of seized vehicles that have been used anti-socially? In his reply to a Written Question I tabled on 19 September, he said that:

“The consultation closed on 8 July”

and that conclusions would be published shortly. You cannot get more anti-social than using large, illegal bikes on our roads and pavements and injuring pedestrians. In my amendment I have given the Minister some ideas to work up.

Before I conclude, I will give a bit of extraneous advice to noble Lords on all sides: never order food supplied by these food aggregators, since there is a 40% chance you will be ripped off. I was on the board of the Food Standards Agency until recently, and the public and noble Lords may think they are getting food cooked in a nice named restaurant with a good rating for taste, quality and hygiene, but up to 40% of that food is now cooked in virtual kitchens, multi-cook warehouses or some grubby, cheap joints under the arches, where the same cooks are mass-producing kebabs, pizzas, tikka masala, curries, burgers and what have you. That is just helpful advice so that noble Lords can avoid food poisoning, but that is for another day.