Select committee: Transport Committee

Recommendation 6

Third Report: E-scooters: pavement nuisance or transport innovation? Published 2 Oct 2020 Paragraph 42 Addressed to Department for Transport
Recommendation (the committee's words)
We recommend that the Department continues to maintain close oversight of the locations of the rental trials and ensures that, when approving bids for new schemes, there is a good geographical spread around the UK and a balance in E-scooters: pavement nuisance or transport innovation? 39 population density. The Department should actively reach out to local authorities in less populated areas if it receives a lack of bids for schemes in such areas.

From: Transport Committee, Third Report: E-scooters: pavement nuisance or transport innovation? (HC 255), paragraph 42, 2 October 2020

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 14 December 2020 (deadline 2 December 2020).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government welcomes the report and says evidence from the time-limited trials, running until autumn 2021, will inform decisions on whether to proceed with any legislative changes, and if so on what basis.

  • On the regulatory framework and driving licences, the government "partly agrees", saying it will understand impacts first and "will consider all the evidence from trials before making any specific decisions" on licence requirements, should e-scooters be legalised.
  • On pavement riding, it agrees and says it "is considering a range of options to monitor its extent"; if legalised, "pavement use would remain prohibited".
  • On environmental impact, it "partly agrees", noting that setting local sustainability objectives "was not a condition set by the Government", but agrees that environmental impacts be monitored.
  • It agrees to publish the central evaluation framework for the rental trials, saying that "Once finalised it will be made publicly available".

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error