Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026 was laid before the House on 30 June. This instrument makes a focused amendment to the mandatory licensing conditions for alcohol sale and supply in England and Wales. It will allow licensed premises and club premises with a certificate to accept digital proof of age through a digital verification service that has been independently assessed against the UK’s DVS trust framework and is listed on the statutory DVS register, provided the order’s safeguards and any relevant local licensing conditions are met. In doing so, it removes a legal barrier created by conditions drafted when secure digital verification was not available while leaving the wider licensing regime unchanged.

Currently, anyone asked to prove their age when buying alcohol must produce a physical document bearing a photograph and date of birth with either a holographic mark or an ultraviolet feature, such as a passport or driving licence. I assure the Committee that physical documents remain valid: the order does not require individuals to use digital proof of age or businesses to accept it; it simply provides an additional voluntary route where equivalent safeguards are in place.

The Committee will recognise that people increasingly expect to provide and prove information securely and digitally. As many do not routinely carry valuable documents such as passports or driving licences, providing a trusted digital alternative may also reduce the inconvenience and cost caused when those documents are lost and damaged, particularly on evenings out. They can, of course, easily be lost.

Digital proof of age also supplies and supports data minimisation. A driving licence may reveal an address, when the only relevant question is whether the person meets the age threshold. A digital check can answer that question without disclosing unnecessary personal information.

I hope that noble Lords recognise that modernisation must not compromise licensing objectives. Licensing is there to prevent crime and disorder and public nuisance, promote public safety and protect children and young people from harm. Robust and reliable age verification therefore remains central to this reform.

The digital proof of age may be accepted only through a digital verification service that has been independently assessed against the UK DVS trust framework and is listed on the statutory DVS register. The framework covers security, privacy, inclusion, fraud management and governance, and the register itself provides a clear basis on which consumers and businesses can identify services that meet recognised standards rather than having to judge the reliability of different products for themselves.

I again assure the Committee that a screenshot or image on a phone will not be enough; a registered digital verification service must confirm that the individual meets the threshold in the premises’ age verification policy and that the identity information relates to the individual presenting it. That validation must take place through secure technological means. These requirements reduce the risk of copied, altered or borrowed evidence and give businesses confidence that the digital proof of age is genuine.

It may also benefit the Committee to know that the Government consulted between January and March 2024. Indeed, this Government were not even in office then. Respondents included licensing authorities, policing, trading standards, the alcohol and hospitality sectors, technology providers, delivery partners and the public. We had a very strong 72% response in support of digital proof of age for alcohol sales with strong support for requiring providers to meet government-approved standards. The final approach reflects that support, while responding to the need for dependable safeguards in the regulated environment.

The statutory instrument balances innovation and choice with safety. Licensing and certificate holders remain responsible for preventing under-age sales, the supply of alcohol following the age-verification process and meeting their wider obligations under the Licensing Act. Offences relating to under-age sale and supply are unchanged, and the consequences for businesses that fail to comply also remain the same. Digital verification services are, in essence, an additional tool for responsible age checking, not a substitute for staff training, judgment or oversight.

I also assure the Committee that the order is not a national digital identity scheme or identity card. It does not make digital identity compulsory or give the Government visibility of alcohol purchases. It only permits registered digital verification services to be used for digital age checks as an additional option to physical proof-of-age documents.

In summary, the type of reform that I have outlined, which began under a previous Government, is designed to reflect modern technology and provide consumers and businesses with greater choice while preserving physical identification and the safeguards supporting responsible alcohol sales. I think that they are sensible and important aims, and I commend the order to the Committee.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this SI and for continuing the work that the previous Government started. I declare my interests in that I was chair of the Select Committee that reviewed the Licensing Act 2003 and I currently chair the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. I also thank the Minister for meeting me yesterday; it was extremely helpful and I am grateful to have had that opportunity.

I welcome the regulations before us this afternoon, both personally and as chair of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. It is particularly appropriate, for the reasons that the Minister has set out, that physical cards will exist alongside the digital dPass. As a community interest company, PASS places the interests of young people at the heart of everything we do. We are mindful of the fact that, during Covid, there were not many options or opportunities open to young people to access cinemas, bars, restaurants or indeed any aspects of the night-time economy in general. We therefore welcome the regulations and wish to see them implemented but, as was the case with the Licensing Act 2003, the key to proper implementation will be how Section 182 guidance is drafted. In that regard, I will write giving fuller detail, but I would like to raise a number of issues this afternoon.

A particular concern is the potential weakening of PASS’s established recognition in the Section 182 guidance. I seek an assurance from the Minister and the department that cards bearing the PASS hologram will continue to be named as the preferred physical proof of age method. The Minister set out the reasons why the physical PASS card and others of that nature have been so successful. Many people use them: older people often do not drive or have passports and younger people are not necessarily old enough to have passed their driving test, so there will continue to be a market in that regard. I further ask the Minister that no change affecting recognition of the PASS hologram will be made before OfDIA has provided its supporting analysis and PASS and others have had a proper opportunity to respond.

I am delighted to say that PASS has reviewed its standards and will amend them from October this year to ensure that any PASS card capable of being used as evidence to create a digital proof of age is issued to the medium level of confidence required by the new secondary legislation before us, although I would emphasise that existing compliant cards should continue to be accepted when presented directly as physical proof of age. The revised guidance should also give appropriate recognition to dPass-enabled services once certification and registration are complete. The additional operational matters identified through subsequent review should be addressed in the statutory guidance or, if necessary, confirmed by the Government before Parliament.

There are other technical issues on which I have said I would write to the Minister, but I shall raise two now. I think I am right that Parliament was not consulted on the statutory guidance under Section 182, so I think it is appropriate that we make the point now before that guidance is drafted and adopted. There are two brief points of clarification on which I will write and give further detail. The first is to confirm that no manual visual inspection is required, so that the regulations are to be understood as requiring secure technological validation, not a member of staff simply looking at a phone screen. I can go into more detail when I write to the Minister.

The second is to clarify what the DVSP, to which the Minister referred, must deliver to the responsible person. The draft regulations require the relevant DVSP to

“deliver identification to the responsible person that reaches at least a medium level of confidence”.

It would be very helpful if that classification could be further clarified. We would welcome confirmation in the upcoming updated mandatory licensing conditions guidance and the Secretary of State’s Section 182 guidance that the meaning of the words “deliver identification” includes the delivery of a verified age result or age attribute. There are a number of other specifications that are very technical. I would like to write to the Minister on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, one has to love the noble Lord. The opposition spokesman starts talking about the potential challenges in this policy, but I remind him that the consultation took place between January and March 2024, when the Government of which he was a supporter was in office. So, by all means, have a little kick-about on this point but, ultimately, the Government are trying to make a provision that makes it easier for consumers, easier for businesses, and does not do what he has alleged that we are trying to do—stop the use of physical means of identity.

I was clear in my opening comments about the existing use of physical identification. If someone wants to go out on a Saturday night with their passport in their pocket, they can do so. If it meets the criteria that we have set under the scheme that is already in operation, they can do so. Nobody is going to stop them doing that.

We would hope, self-evidently, that people might think that carrying a passport on a Saturday night might not be a good idea, as it could be lost, because it is a physical document that has great value in terms of political capital and in terms of cost of replacement. So a digital scheme could be used. Again, the noble Lord challenges me and says, “Well, isn’t it terrible that the Government have abandoned their digital ID scheme?” The changes operational here are completely separate to the proposals for a national digital ID scheme. Again, I emphasise to the noble Lord that there is no compunction on this. There is an ability to have both, if businesses and consumers wish to do so. That is based on a consultation, I remind the Committee, that was commenced not under this Government but under the previous one.

Yes, the Government have changed our view on national digital ID. That is what happens in government occasionally: Governments look at policy, determine them and decide whether to continue or not. The noble Lord will know that the job of Ministers in this House is sometimes to defend government policy as determined by a range of Governments at the time. If Ministers reflect on representations made by, among others, Opposition Members, that is reasonable. I just say to him that there is a way forward and I think it is that which is in this order today.

I welcome and thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her support and acknowledgement of the contribution of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme over a number of years. She raised a number of valid points and I will try to answer them. I absolutely recognise the need for clear guidance available to businesses and consumers to support the use of digital proof of age for the supply and sale of alcohol. Updating the statutory guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act is an important part of that, as it guides licensing authorities on the discharges of their functions.

I can say to the noble Baroness that no immediate change will be made to Section 182 guidance in relation to physical ID and that we will not change anything more before further engagement with PASS. I cannot guarantee that there will not be changes in due course, but it is important that she knows that there will be engagement with PASS. We will certainly examine the points that she has made today and those we discussed outside the Committee yesterday. We have already taken into account and made some changes following suggestions from PASS, and I should be happy for the noble Baroness to write to me, as she suggested, with further suggestions that we will consider in due course.

With regard to businesses, I say to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that businesses will incur costs only if they freely choose to adopt digital proof of age. There is no requirement to do so. Training is important but, again, that is a voluntary measure for businesses to examine in relation to the potential introduction of this legislation. The legislation supports the objectives of strengthening age-verification safeguards and preventing underage alcohol sales. It allows premises secure digital methods to verify age.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, it might be something that people take up, and it might reach 100% within a certain period of time. If it does so, as I have given the Committee the assurance today, it will do so because individuals going out who want to give their proof of age find it a more useful, succinct way of doing so on a digital basis via the verification scheme than carrying a driving licence, birth certificate or passport. I think it is a positive thing. It is reported that 57% of 18 to 25 year-olds have experienced forgetting their ID on a night out. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, will know that people very rarely forget their phones on a night out, and the digital ID that will be there will be available, more secure and, I think, valuable. It will not be mandatory. The Government are taking an enabling approach ensuring that we have an additional option rather than replacing existing forms of proof of age. Ultimately, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, it will be for retailers to maintain their responsibility to ensure that proof of age is present. It is their responsibility to do so, but they remain free to decide which age-verification methods they accept, and consumers remain free to use physical material should they so wish. I will respond to the noble Baroness’s letter in due course.

I hope I have helped the noble Lord. I understand that he is opposed to digital ID. That is a legitimate point of view. We know where we are on that. That is not progressing. This is not linked to that. With that assurance, I hope I can—

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for responding on the point about of Section 182 guidance not, at this stage, being amended for physical sales—that is greatly appreciated from the PASS point of view—but he did not address the issue that retailers in the wine and spirit trade have raised, and I am sure that convenience stores would have similar issues. When will the Section 182 guidance be amended for digital proof of age at the point of sale? We want to make it go smoothly and make sure that there are no altercations and no threats to staff at the point of sale.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate that. I cannot give the date when this will be implemented. The points the noble Baroness made around training and the need to prepare are valid. We do not have a commencement date yet. My understanding is that this order will go to the House of Commons on Monday next week. Ministers, including the direct Minister responsible, who is in the department, and not me in this case, will take a decision on that. The factors that she has mentioned are important, and I will ensure that no immediate change will be made to Section 182 guidance without further engagement with PASS. We have the ability to implement this order in an ordered way, and I will reflect on what the noble Baroness said, and if I am able to give further information post the letter, I will do so.

Violence Against Retail Workers

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Violence against shop workers is properly prioritised. In fact, recorded shop theft fell by 1% in the year to December, the number of charges for shop theft rose by 21% over the previous year and a British Retail Consortium report has shown that violence and abuse fell from 2,000 incidents a day to 1,600. As somebody who has sat in a shop front and worked in a shop, I know that such abuse is not acceptable. I know the threats that people face. We have invested £5 million into Operation Opal, which is a specialist policing unit, so we do take this issue seriously. When we bring the measures forward, they will be a further deterrent to those who choose to attack shop workers and undertake shop theft. I welcome my noble friend’s support.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, convenience stores recorded 5.8 million incidents in 2025 alone. The total cost of that was £354 million, with an average cost of over £7,000 per store. Not only is there the human cost on shop workers but the economic cost to convenience stores and larger stores. The Government must do more. What does the Minister intend to do?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have done two things that the previous Government did not do. We have introduced an offence of assault on a shop worker and lifted the £200 threshold under which the police did not have to report and act on shop theft. I remind the noble Baroness that, as a shadow Minister in the other place in 2014, I opposed the £200 limit and have since had the pleasure of lifting it as a Minister. We take this matter seriously. Shop theft is a cost to us all. It is a cost to the workers who face those threats, to the businesses—particularly small ones—and to all of us as purchasers of goods. We must drive it down. That is what the figures show that we are trying to do; it is not an easy task to drive it down still further, but we have to take further action.

European Entry and Exit System

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that, were we still a member of the European Union, this issue would not be a problem. She knows how I voted in the referendum and she knows that this is a consequence of that referendum and decision. Having said that, we are where we are. The European Union is responsible for its management of the schemes. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, we are in constant contact. She asked for an emergency summit; we are holding a summit continuously. We are in constant contact with the authorities and we hope to ensure that the transfer of passengers through the three juxtaposed ports is smooth and efficient.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I have a general question for the noble Lord. I thank him for what he is doing to try to smooth things for passengers from here across Europe. Is it right that a British passenger has to check in for each new country in the EU that they visit, whereas European passengers coming here from the EU check in just once? Is that something that he could alleviate in the discussions he is having with our European partners?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The operation of the EES is a matter for the European Community and its member states. There are different approaches, but my understanding now is that the European Union is trying to get a consistent approach from European countries across the board. It is not for us as a third-party state to have that intervention with European partners, but we can raise issues and we are doing so. We are looking at how we can off-set the concerns that are raised and are trying to ensure smooth transfer, particularly in the three ports that we have—Eurostar, Eurotunnel and the Port of Dover.

Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are in discussion with the Pakistan Government at all times. I hope that the noble Lord and the House understand that we keep all options under review and will take whatever action is required to ensure that we deal with this issue. I am not in a position today to answer the points that he has mentioned, but can reaffirm that we keep all options under review.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it appears that the said gentleman, Shabir Ahmed, has ripped up his Pakistan passport and claims to be without a state at the moment. That is an issue that has not yet been addressed. The issue of the law, the Immigration Act 1971, could simply be addressed in the Government’s legislation before both Houses. Is that not an option?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am going to sound like a broken record: we keep all options under review. If the noble Baroness will listen to what I have said, we keep all options under review and will take whatever action is required. I cannot further update the House at this moment, except to say that point.

Drugging and Sexual Assault of Women

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point and I pay tribute to the bravery of the women who have come forward on this issue. It takes an awful lot to do so, particularly when sometimes they have not been aware of the fact that they have been subject to criminal activity. I assure all women in the United Kingdom that, if they now bring these matters forward, the police, the prosecuting authorities and the Home Office take these matters seriously and will pursue the perpetrators of these offences. They can do so in confidence and with the assurance that we will take these matters forward.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord share my concern that one of the main perpetrators in the Rochdale grooming gangs has been eligible for early release and is not immediately set for deportation? What message is that giving to those very real victims who suffered huge deprivation in the grooming gang scandal that this man is going to be able to walk free?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The individual concerned committed horrendous crimes. I give the noble Baroness an assurance, and I hope she can understand what I say, that the nature of the offending in this case means that we take this matter very seriously and we are exploring all options now to ensure that we can examine how we respond to that particular case.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has a very strong point. It is horrific that the law has historically treated children, including victims of grooming, as capable of being child prostitutes when they were and are sexually exploited children. We have already legislated to introduce a disregard scheme for those who were cautioned or convicted of on-street prostitution offences as children, and we have also invested £100 million to tackle child sexual abuse. The independent Criminal Cases Review Commission recently referred its first grooming gang case to the courts. That is an important step, and obviously we will keep all these matters under review.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, many of those convicted under the provisions of the grooming gangs were actually taxi drivers, and yet they are a category of people who have to pass all sorts of checks before they are able to pick up—particularly vulnerable young women. How did they escape those checks and how were they allowed to perpetrate these crimes over such a long period?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an important point. I do not know the answer to why that was the case specifically, but it is an important point that people who are providing licensed taxi services are sufficiently vetted and have that level of scrutiny to ensure that they are appropriate people to undertake those roles. We have established, as the noble Baroness knows, the grooming gang inquiry under our noble friend Lady Longfield. That is currently working its way through its work and objectives, and I have no doubt that the type of issue that the noble Baroness has raised will be examined as part of that inquiry.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, will speak briefly to the statutory instrument. These draft regulations must ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively and they make technical amendments relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. It is only correct to have strong scrutiny where the welfare of animals is concerned. I for one hope that the Government are fully committed to meeting those targets set for 2030 to emphasise the fact that this must and should include progress reporting, set with clear time scales of action leading towards supporting a transition away from animal use in science and absolutely to maintain our current standard, as well as to be in line with the post-EU governance. Any procedural changes must require primary legislation.

These technical changes around transparency and oversight are in line with maintaining UK standards and benchmarks, following the removal of the EU references. Assurances are required, though, on how they will operate in practice, whether the amendments fully preserve the existing protections and reporting requirements and how the key provisions will be updated over time. Above all, every effort must be made to prevent the unnecessary suffering of animals and, again, to acknowledge that further steps are required to reduce the use of animals in research.

Lastly, I ask the Minister: what mechanism will replace EU-level comparators and oversight? Will the provision translate into improved public accountability and transparency? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the department on bringing forward these regulations, which I believe reach the right balance. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has great expertise in the field of science, has set out, there will be certain circumstances in which we will have to continue, for a short time into the foreseeable future, with these scientific regulations.

I would like to ask some questions, if I may. Are the regulations going to impose an additional burden on the Home Office? Does the Minister feel that he and the department have the resources to deal with that?

At some point in this parliamentary Session, we will receive and consider the Brexit reset Bill. I assume, rightly or wrongly, that these regulations will not have a further review as part of the reset because we have now incorporated them into retained EU law. My understanding—perhaps this is wrong—is that, if there were to be any changes to the regulations over and above what we are discussing and adopting today, that might require primary legislation. It would be helpful to know what the vehicle for that legislation would be. Would it be the Brexit reset Bill, or can we be assured that there will be no further changes?

There is a link between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Is the Minister confident that his department can take all the decisions they need to take? Where is the decision-making going to fall? Will it be entirely within his department, collaborating with DSIT, or are they going to have to work in collaboration? Who will actually make the final decisions?

Lastly, I understand that the target is that there will be a 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates in such experiments by 2030. Is that still the case? Are we on course to achieve that?

I put on record that I think that we have reached the right balance here on what can be perceived as a very vexatious issue. I congratulate the department and the Home Office on bringing these regulations forward.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of this instrument and other Members of this Committee for their enlightening speeches. I welcome the return of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, after a limited period away.

As we consider these regulations, it is important that the framework for scientific procedures on animals continues to minimise avoidable suffering and reflect current best practice. We support the technical purpose of these regulations, consolidating assimilated law into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They provide a clearer domestic legislative framework following our exit from the European Union. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for making further inquiries on the detail of the reset Bill and the context in which this will operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I certainly can but, again, my understanding is that the instrument before us today covers all necessary requirements. We have brought forward all the changes needed to ensure that UK domestic legislation is correct without ties to EU law and that the 23 June deadline is, effectively, met by these regulations. I will reflect on that. I cannot give details of the Brexit Bill. It has not been published yet so it is not appropriate to do so. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said and, if there is further information to add, I will write to him. If any noble Lord wishes to have that correspondence, can they please contact my office?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I understand the predicament that the Minister is in. Do we know when the Brexit reset Bill might be published?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As ever, we probably do know but are not able to tell. That is a convention of this House because it is important. We have not published the Bill. We have to publish the Bill and, at some point, we will. With that—

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, I am not saying that the issue of cyclists endangering pedestrians is a simple matter to resolve—it is not—but at the moment the Government do not have an effective response to the problem. I believe my amendments are at least a contribution that could start to make a difference to something that worries many people who do not see anyone taking enough action.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 341 and 342 in my name but I support all the amendments in this group, which are on the same theme. Earlier today I met with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which takes this issue very seriously indeed and has made the point that privately owned e-scooters are illegal to use on public roads and spaces in the UK. They are classified as motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and therefore require insurance, registration and a driving licence, none of which is available for private e-scooters. That is why it is so important that we legislate for this area of the law.

The most recent figures show that fatalities and injuries caused by e-scooters and e-bikes increase year on year. Where there is no insurance for these vehicles, those of us with motor insurance all contribute to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau from which claims are made. While I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for inserting two clauses from my Private Member’s Bill—it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that; it shows that sometimes we Back-Bench legislators can achieve things—two outstanding clauses remain in my Bill.

A number of us have tried to insert insurance into the Bill to help this situation and have been told that it is not part of this Bill, so I am trying to do it in another Bill. In the context of that other Bill, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, I will just say in passing that there is a real issue here, because there is no definition of micromobility vehicles. It is incredibly important, for the purposes of motor insurance and of this Bill in creating criminal offences, that we are using the same definition in law. It is not acceptable to rely on one road traffic Act from 1988 for one definition and a later road traffic Act for another definition. When the Road Traffic Act 1988 came into effect, e-scooters did not exist. I am waiting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, whether there is a definition that we can put forward in the context of that Bill.

The purpose of Amendments 341 and 342 is to fill the gap. At the moment, we do not know the extent to which e-scooters and e-bikes are being tampered with. It may be that a rented scooter could be perfectly law-abiding, but, although we have had endless pilot schemes, we have not had their results. Meanwhile, illegal e-scooters are being used for purposes for which they are not fit. That is why I urge the Government today to accept Amendment 341, which calls for a review to understand the way in which e-scooters are being potentially misused.

Equally, in Amendment 342, it is incredibly important that we have an annual report on cycling offences. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who has done a great deal of work on this and managed to achieve a level of enforcement, by going out in the City of London—and I pay tribute to the work that the City of London Police do in this regard. There are other police forces doing work in other parts of the country, but I find it staggering that the Metropolitan Police do not have a target of impounding or chasing illegal users in this way.

I am going to come forward with a proposal in a different Bill, possibly my own Private Member’s Bill in the next parliamentary Session. The police may not have the ability to do this, but if an e-scooter or souped-up e-bike is parked, or berthed, and it is clearly illegal, traffic wardens should be trained to slap a fine on them or even confiscate them and take them away, to make sure that these illegal vehicles are taken off the road.

What worries me at the moment is that the Government do not know what they are dealing with. Separate departments are dealing with this issue—for example, the Department for Transport is encouraging people to use e-bikes and e-scooters to get to work, without considering that that has an impact as the level of casualties goes up. According to government data, in 2024 there were 1,339 casualties involving e-scooters; 32% of the injuries were serious and there were six fatalities. The statistics have got worse every year since recording began. We can clearly show that fatalities, injuries and casualties are increasing every year. It could happen to one of us, being knocked down on a pavement or crossing the road, as my noble friend Lord Lucas referred to.

It is unacceptable that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau is left to pick up the pieces when it comes to insurance. If someone has been incapacitated through such injury, a claim can run to millions of pounds to make sure that that individual has the required care for the rest of their life.

The time is right to grab this issue, take it very seriously and plug the two remaining gaps that I have identified with Amendments 341 and 342, along with the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 344 on tackling the growing danger posed by food delivery couriers. There are moments in public policy when the evidence becomes so overwhelming, and so consistent across press reporting, academic research and lived experience, that Parliament has a duty to act. The dangers created by high-speed food delivery couriers, many riding illegally modified e-bikes, operating under intense delivery pressure, and too often treating pavements and pedestrian zones as racetracks, now fall squarely into that category.

The Department for Transport tells us that it will do a big consultation on this issue, lasting many months, if not years, but across the country the public can see what is happening. They see it on their high streets, in their neighbourhoods and, increasingly, in their hospitals. One of many published reports state that

“illegal or modified high speed e bikes + gig pay incentives = higher risk behaviours and more collisions, producing rising public complaints and a measurable clinical burden on hospitals”.

That is not rhetoric; it is the lived experience of communities across the whole United Kingdom.

The BBC’s reporting from Lincoln described the city centre as a Wild West, with delivery cyclists riding on pavements and through pedestrianised areas, leaving residents unsafe. Trauma surgeons have warned of a massive burden on orthopaedic services from e-bike injuries, with more severe fractures and complex operations becoming routine. Academic research from UCL confirms that gig economy riders—those working for the very companies that my amendment addresses—are more likely to speed, run red lights and use their phones while riding, and are more likely to be involved in collisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, so aptly put it, cycling is one of the issues that your Lordships’ House likes to debate at length. It is an important issue and I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Blencathra, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Davies, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pidgeon. Some of them, though not all of them, were a very interesting supporting cast at a meeting in which I very much played junior partner to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. I also thank them for that. There, we had a helpful discussion about some of the wider issues about the way that we frame some of the vehicles we have been talking about this afternoon.

We can all agree on the need for all cyclists, as with motorists, to obey the rules of the road so that our roads and pavements are safe for all users. As the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, put it, we can all say—at least, I hope we would—that we are pro-cycling but anti-lawbreaking. The issue is whether the proposals in these various amendments are workable, proportionate and do not have the unintended effect of deterring cycling and other forms of micromobility.

I will address the amendments in turn. Amendments 318 to 325 and Amendment 333, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would allow for persons to be disqualified from cycling upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 121. As we made clear in Committee, our fundamental concern is that such a disqualification could not be adequately enforced without some form of licensing for cyclists. Licensing for cyclists would be both costly and complex, and would mean the majority of law-abiding cyclists would face additional costs and barriers to cycling. It is a disproportionate response, given that these new offences are to deal with those rare cases in which cyclists have caused the death or serious injury of another road user.

I do not accept that the cycling disqualification would be an effective deterrent without effective enforcement. Moreover, it would place an unreasonable burden on the police or, alternatively, raise unreasonable expectations if your Lordship’s House were to give the courts the power to impose a disqualification without an accompanying effective enforcement mechanism. It may well be the case that the only way the police could identify whether such a disqualification was in force would be if the person was found to have breached it after being involved in a subsequent incident. This would entirely defeat the purpose of the disqualification and would not have prevented another incident. It would, in fact, likely be discovered only after another incident has occurred.

I turn to Amendments 326 to 332 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, starting with the amendments that would enable a person to receive up to 12 points on a driving licence upon conviction of any offences in Clause 121. Reaching 12 points on a driving licence would result in a person being disqualified from driving a motor vehicle. Section 163 of the Sentencing Act 2020 provides a general power for the criminal courts to impose a driving disqualification on an offender convicted of any offence. In addition, Section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2026 provides courts with the power to impose a driving prohibition requirement as part of a community sentence or suspended sentence. I hope these go some way to meeting the noble Lord’s objectives.

Amendment 343, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would create a registration scheme for the purpose of enforcing the new offences in Clause 121. Although I accept that a registration scheme for cycles would make enforcement of offences easier, the absence of a registration system does not, of course, make enforcement impossible. As the noble Lord will know, the police would be expected to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry open to them. As he said in his own contribution, there are some forces that are very effective at this, in particular the City of London Police, which he has direct experience of.

As with the example of licensing for cyclists that I referred to earlier, we cannot escape the likely significant cost and complexity of introducing a registration scheme for cyclists. Around 1.5 million new cycles are sold every year. No data is collected on this, but some estimates say that over 20 million cycles are in existence. It would therefore be a gargantuan task to introduce such a registration scheme, or indeed a licensing scheme. It would, for example, require all existing cycle owners, potentially including children, as well as those making new purchases to submit their information to some form of central database, and for some form of registration plate to be produced and affixed to each individual bike. Even if that were deemed proportionate, it is not realistic to suggest that detailed regulations could be delivered on this within six months of Royal Assent, as the noble Lord’s amendment proposes.

Amendment 341, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the misuse of e-scooters, including their impact on safety and an assessment of the appropriateness of the legislation within 12 months of Royal Assent. At this point, as others have, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness has done previously in this area. The safety of all road users is, of course, an utmost priority, and no one should feel unsafe on our streets. It is essential that new transport technology works for everyone. That is why we must crack down on those using e-scooters irresponsibly and in an anti-social way.

However, I do not believe that, after more than five years of running e-scooter trials, the Government should tackle that issue by undertaking yet a further review. I remind noble Lords that private e-scooters remain illegal to use on public roads, cycle lanes and pavements. Rental e-scooters can be used only as part of the Government’s national rental e-scooter trials. Last year, we announced an extension to the rental trials until May 2028, to ensure we have the best possible evidence base to inform any future legislation. We have collected some evidence, but it is still relatively new technology and there remain things we need to learn. We will use this additional time from extending the review to supplement our evidence and draw on further experience.

As I mentioned in Committee, the Department for Transport has already announced that the Government will pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, we want to pursue a joined-up approach. We will pursue legislative reform for micromobility vehicles, which will include e-scooters, when parliamentary time allows. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, tempted me to go down a path of speculating what might be in a forthcoming King’s Speech, which is several rungs above my pay grade. I am afraid I cannot do that but, as I said, this is something we wish to pursue when parliamentary time allows.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I find it a little concerning that he does not agree to a review but the Government have now extended their own review for another four years. We had a very useful meeting with him and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. We are approaching Report on the English devolution Bill. When are we going to get a definition of micromobility vehicles?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I again thank the noble Baroness for the meeting, which I found useful. On the definition of micromobility, I will take that back and write to her on where it will come during the passage of the English devolution Bill, because I am not sufficiently across the details now. I will get back to her on that. I can confirm that, as was mentioned in the noble Baroness’s amendment, the Department for Transport will consult on any new regulations before they come into force, so that all interested parties will have a chance to shape any new regime on micromobility.

Amendment 342, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the number of people charged with dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, as provided for in Clause 121. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concerns about the extent to which the police act on cycling offences—indeed, those concerns were expressed by many noble Lords today—but I reiterate that the offences in the Bill are the most serious in nature, including where a cyclist’s actions have resulted in the death or serious injury of a person. In such cases, we should expect the police to pursue them to the fullest extent possible.

I highlight to the noble Baroness that the Government already publish a range of statistics on criminal offences, notably the quarterly and annual reports on criminal justice system statistics, alongside annual statistics setting out information on those killed and seriously injured on our roads. That provides breakdowns by road user as well as some of the contributory factors such as speeding, the presence of drink or drugs, and non-seat-belt use. As this information is already available in the public domain, we are not persuaded on the merit of producing such a report for cycle offences.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am so sorry. I have just received from the Library the figures to which the Minister referred. There is not a separate category for e-scooters, which I find quite scary. There is a global category of “motorcyclists”. Does that embrace e-scooters or not?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will have to go back to check the definitions. We spent some time in our meeting discussing these categories and definitions. As I understand it, that category does include e-scooters, but I want to go back to confirm that for the noble Baroness. As I said, these statistics are produced regularly. That does not mean that any future work on micromobility cannot allow for greater granularity in those statistics, if they are collected in a way that would permit that.

Finally, Amendment 344, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would allow for food delivery companies to receive an unlimited fine should their riders be convicted of any offence under Clause 121 and where those companies do not have sufficient procedures to prevent those offences occurring. Amendment 344A would require the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of any such procedures within one year of Clause 121 coming into force. Although I absolutely recognise the very real concerns that we heard both in Committee and today about the rogue behaviours of food delivery riders, we need hard, documented evidence to understand this in detail. I understand the straw poll point that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, made, but, with the greatest respect, I am not sure how it would hold up in terms of statistical reliability.

Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument was laid on 12 January 2026. I acknowledge that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has provided a helpful review of these regulations and not drawn any special attention of this House and the other place to the instrument. I acknowledge that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reported this instrument as of interest to Members.

This instrument delivers one of the Government’s industrial strategy commitments to increase electricity price support to energy-intensive industries—or EIIs—through uplifting the level of relief offered by one of the measures in the British industry supercharger. EIIs include foundational manufacturing sectors, such as steel, chemicals, cement, glass, electrical components and gigafactories. These sectors are critical to the UK’s long-term economic security and for the delivery of the modern industrial strategy.

The British industry supercharger was introduced in 2024 to reduce the electricity price gap between Great Britain and comparable industrial countries in western Europe, such as France, Germany and the Netherlands. The supercharger comprises three measures: the EII exemption scheme, which offers a 100% exemption from contracts for difference, feed-in tariff and renewables obligation electricity policy levies; the capacity market exemption, which offers a 100% exemption from the costs of funding the electricity capacity market; and the network charging compensation scheme, which provides 60% compensation for the EIIs’ electricity network costs.

Despite the success of these measures in delivering critical relief to industry, the Government recognised in our industrial strategy that there remains an electricity price gap between Great Britain and comparable industrial economies in Europe. This places British EIIs at a competitive disadvantage, while increasing the risk of carbon leakage and the offshoring of vital manufacturing jobs and investment.

That is why we committed in the industrial strategy to increase the level of relief offered by the network charging compensation scheme from 60% to 90%. This will reduce electricity bills for the currently supported EIIs by a further £7 to £10 per megawatt-hour, bringing the total reduction offered by the British industry supercharger to between £65 to £87 per megawatt-hour. This uplift will ensure that the network charging compensation scheme will deliver up to £420 million of electricity price support per annum.

These regulations aim to further close the electricity price gap and ensure that foundational manufacturing is able to thrive and grow in Britain. They will help to ensure that the 550 companies that currently benefit from the supercharger will continue to retain well-paid jobs, investment and crucial supply chains across Britain’s manufacturing heartlands.

These regulations will amend the 2024 electricity support payments and levy regulations to make provision for increasing the level of relief offered through the network charging compensation scheme.

In conclusion, the regulations will help to reduce electricity costs for the most energy-intensive and trade-intensive industries, while helping to retain critical manufacturing investment and jobs in Britain. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to put a couple of questions on these regulations. Having represented a high energy user, a York brick company, for a number of years in the other place, I am well aware of the disproportionate energy costs for high energy-use industry. There is a theme here and it is put very well on page 8 of the impact assessment attached to the regulations, where at paragraph 6 it states:

“Electricity network costs paid by GB based EIIs are higher than in many other EU countries largely due to the discounts offered in some jurisdictions to EIIs that meet certain eligibility criteria regarding electricity consumption and off-peak grid utilisation”.


That explains the background neatly. Does the Minister agree that we have per se, across the board, higher energy costs in this country for both energy users and domestic users? What then concerns me is that it seems to be smoke and mirrors. If I have understood the purport and thrust of the regulations as best I can, the Government’s intention is to pass on to domestic consumers and non-domestic customers the differential between what the original costs would have been and now the reduction proposals under the EIIs and the supercharger scheme.

I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which looked at this briefly. It states in paragraph 2 of the 49th report:

“The Impact Assessment estimates that some 320 EII businesses will save a total of £131 million per year because of the uplift to 90%, while average household electricity bills are expected to rise by not more than £1.50 per year.”


I pause there because that is £1.50 a year extra to what we are already paying. I understand that, at Prime Minister’s Questions today, the Prime Minister applauded the fact that the energy pricing cap will be reduced on average by £17, which all of us in the Committee would welcome. But NESTA, a government body set up to look at energy use, states, if you key in the question, “what is the cost per household of green energy projects?”:

“These levies make up 16% of the final price of electricity and 5.5% of the final price of gas. For a typical household, they add about £140 to the annual electricity bill and £50 to the gas bill”.


I know that all this started under a previous Government, but that does not make the situation any happier. It might be that those of us in this Room feel that we have broad shoulders and can carry this, but that is a staggering cost, especially when then adding another £1.50 to that. I also realise that 82% of the revenue raised from domestic levies comes from electricity bills and only 18% from gas bills, despite households consuming around three times as much gas each year, presumably, as electricity. My point is that this is an unacceptable additional cost.

Life Sciences: Beagles

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness looks at the strategy, she will see that we have put £75 million of new money into that strategy to accelerate the phasing out of the use of animals. As I said in answer to my noble friend Lord McCabe, we have a target of a 30% reduction by the end of this Parliament in the areas that my noble friend has raised. We want to see alternative use as a matter of course, but it has to be done in a way that, as the noble Lord mentioned, protects medical science at the same time as reducing dramatically the use of animals.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his report, concluded that the most humane way to protect the fox population was through regulated and legal hunting. The Government went on to ban hunting and are now poised to ban trail hunting. Have the Government made an estimate of what will happen to the foxhounds that are currently engaged in trail hunting, which goes to the heart of the countryside, bringing countryfolk together in the depths of winter? What is the future for these foxhounds if trail hunting is banned?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a long way from animal testing but I will give the noble Baroness a straight answer on it anyway. I personally voted to ban fox hunting on every occasion in the House of Commons when I was a Member of Parliament. I personally support the Government’s intention to stop trail hunting. Those are matters of management and political decision. That is what the Government will do, and I hope the noble Baroness will continue to raise those issues. We will look at the consequences, but ultimately it is the right thing to do.