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

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[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—

Life Sciences: Beagles

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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.

Asylum Accommodation

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Government are proposing to spend over £1 million refurbishing the Cameron barracks in Inverness to house asylum seekers. Will he promise that there will be a similar amount of money to refurbish other barracks that are currently occupied by our soldiers?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness will know that the UK Government, with this Labour Party now as the prime mover, have invested a considerable amount of resource in improving accommodation for troops across the country, including the biggest-ever engagement in improving accommodation for service men and women in their communities. That is one thing we are trying to do. We are, at the moment, looking at Cameron barracks as one of the options. We are undertaking due diligence, and no final decisions have been taken. In the event of any decision being taken, we will make sure that the accommodation is up to a decent standard, which I think is only fair to those who are using it.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The Minister referred in a debate last week to a Bill currently before the House with micromobility provisions. It would be interesting to know whether the consultation has already taken place before that aspect of the Bill. I am sure that it is in his notes, but I cannot for the life of me remember what Bill it was. Also, the amount of funding from the Home Office that the department has announced is an operational matter. It is very welcome, but how will he ensure that each individual force such as the Met will use that money and implement enforcement?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are operational issues. We put the money into Operation Topaz for all police forces to examine them, and ultimately it is for the forces to determine. The City of London Police has determined who is a problem in the City of London. There is a strong argument for parts of the country to face further enforcement measures because self-evidently there are problems. There will be public consultation before any new regulations come into force. It is a Department for Transport matter, so I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to reflect on that with regard to when the consultation is. I will get back to her as a matter of course.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 344 seeks to require reporting annually on cycling offences. We already publish annual statistics on those killed and seriously injured—in fact, a number of noble Lords and Ladies have quoted those in the debate today. Therefore, I suggest that this is already covered.

Amendment 346, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to make it an offence to tamper with an e-bike. I accept that some people may well tamper with or modify their e-bikes to increase their speed, but as I already mentioned, this is already an offence under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Should the police issue a fixed penalty notice, this would result in a £300 fine and six penalty points, and should the case go to court, it could result in an unlimited fine and driving disqualification.

I have tried to cover a number of points; I apologise for not referring individually to every point made by every noble Lord. The broad thrust is that there is a problem—we recognise that. There should be enforcement—we are trying to address that. There is a new measure in the Bill, Clause 106, to increase the level of penalty for causing death and serious injury by dangerous cycling. We recognise that and I welcome the support of the House. A range of discussion points and measures have been brought forward today around lifting, increasing or changing the penalties accordingly. We may well revisit those on Report, but the Government are right in recognising the problem, putting some money into enforcement and making dangerous cycling and causing death by cycling further offences with serious consequences.

I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw and not to press his amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord replied on the definition.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect, I am very happy to look at that. Essentially, there is a Home Office aspect to this clause, which is death and serious injury by dangerous cycling, but the issues the noble Baroness raised about insurance and the definition are for the Department for Transport. I will take those issues away and make sure that my noble friend Lord Hendy examines them, but it is not for me to look at issues that I have not thought through because they are Department for Transport issues. We have thought through this Bill and the clause before us, and it is about death and serious injury by dangerous cycling, not the two issues that the noble Baroness raised.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the Minister for responding. There will be another opportunity in the other Bill to do this. I tried to table an amendment on insurance, but we were told it was out of scope. However, it is a corollary of creating the offences, and we welcome the creation of the offences.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. There are two issues arising out of that. The first is that I personally, as Minister, will have a responsibility for holding to account the budget and timescale of the inquiry. In the past, some inquiries have said, “We’re going to do it in three years”, but then it has taken longer—maybe five years or six—and recommendations have not come out. My first job as the Minister is to ensure that we hold now to the three-year timetable and to the budget and that we liaise with the chair on those matters. What the chair says and does is for the chair to determine, in my view—for example, if the chair wishes, as I will do anyway, to meet regularly to review those other matters that I have just mentioned. If the chair wishes to draw attention to anything in particular then I am sure that will be done, but I do not want to restrict the chair or commit her to doing things that it is for the chair to determine. Self-evidently, however, if there are emerging issues that the chair wishes to report to Ministers then it will be for Ministers to report those to both Houses of Parliament in due course, for the reasons that my noble friend has mentioned.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for taking questions on the Statement today. I have looked at the provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and welcome the provisions that deal with the out-of-area taxi provisions, as do many taxi operators themselves. However, those provisions seem to leave the question open as to how the perpetrators of these crimes were deemed to be fit and proper persons to operate private hire vehicles, allowing them to groom with such devastating consequences the victims of these grooming gangs. How is the Minister assured, under the provisions in the devolution and empowerment Bill, that this will not happen again in future?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The provisions in the English devolution Bill are Department for Transport provisions led by my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, based on recommendations that have been made to the Government by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. We believe—and, ultimately, this will be for my noble friend Lord Hendy to hold to account—that those changes in the regulations will ensure that there is greater control over the allocation and control of licences. Ultimately, it is for him to agree those recommendations, with the House’s support, and deliver on them. It has been identified as a gap, and we have tried to close it. Further lessons may come out of the inquiry led by my noble friend Lady Longfield with the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, supporting her, which may look at further issues to do with the points that the noble Baroness has mentioned, but I hope the Government’s swift action on taxi licensing is welcome.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this is the first in a number of groups of government amendments. I apologise for the large number of amendments before the Committee today. Their core aim is to apply various additional provisions in the Bill to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. They reflect the outcome of further engagement with the Scottish Government and relevant Northern Ireland departments since the Bill’s introduction, which is why we have tabled so many amendments today. That has happened since February.

In each case, we are bringing forward these amendments at the request of the devolved Governments. The amendments unavoidably cover a significant number of pages of the Marshalled List, but I assure noble Lords that, importantly, in general they do not import new policy into the Bill. The amendments all relate to the offensive weapons provisions in Part 2, Chapter 2 of the Bill. These will contribute to our safer streets mission to halve knife crime in a decade. I am pleased to report that, even now, in the latest crime survey, figures for the year to the end of June show a 5% reduction in knife-enabled offences. This is to be welcomed, but of course there is much more to do.

Clause 28 amends Sections 141 and 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. It increases the maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons from six months to two years imprisonment. This includes the offence of manufacturing, selling, hiring, offering for hire, lending or possessing in private any prohibited offensive weapon as detailed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Also covered here is the offence of selling a knife or bladed article to anyone under the age of 18.

Amendments 57 to 70 to Clause 28 simply extend the increase of the maximum penalty for those offences to Scotland, at the request of the Scottish Government. Existing legislation in England and Wales provides that anyone over 18 years of age found guilty of any of these offences will face a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. We believe that the maximum penalty does not reflect the seriousness of these offences and should be increased in line with the current offence of unlawful marketing of knives, which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. This will align the maximum penalties for the offences in relation to the sale of knives.

In Clauses 31 and 32 we are introducing a stricter two-step age-verification check for the sale and delivery of knives bought online. These provisions will require at the point of sale specific checks of a photographic identity document and a current photograph of the buyer, as well as photographic identity checks at the point of delivery, be it a residential address or a collection point. In addition, we are providing for a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife to someone other than the buyer if the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company, so that knives cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours. These are both welcome measures.

Amendments 71, 72 and 74 confirm that, under Section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where a passport or driving licence is used as proof of age for a remote sale of a knife, it is required to be a copy of a physical version. We are, however, adding provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations—subject to affirmative procedure, so that this House and the Commons have the opportunity to debate them further—so that alternative means of age verification such as digital ID, including digital passports and digital driving licences, can be used. These amendments are required to ensure that the appropriate digital proofs can be used as evidence of identity in place of a physical document, and that the necessary safeguards can be attached to their use.

It is clear that many consumers already expect to be able to use digital forms of ID, rather than just the physical version, to prove to a seller they are aged 18 or over in order to purchase knives or crossbows. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 lays the foundation for trusted digital verification services that are already widely used across the economy. Digital versions of government-issued documents such as driving licences and veteran cards will become available soon. For both consumers who buy and businesses that sell knives or crossbows, it is also important to provide consistency with the existing position across different sectors where digital age verification is used or soon will be—for example, in the purchase of other age-restricted products such as alcohol and tobacco, or for gambling.

The other amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 extend the provisions made by these clauses for England and Wales to Scotland, and the additional clause makes provision for Northern Ireland. This is at the request of both devolved Governments.

I apologise for the length of the discussion on the amendments in this group. The amendments to Clauses 33 and 34 relate to the Crossbows Act 1987, which requires that crossbows, or parts of a crossbow, can only be sold or let on hire to someone aged 18 or over. Clauses 33 and 34 introduce the same stricter two-step age-verification checks for the sale and letting on hire of crossbows, or parts of crossbows bought or let on hire online, that have been introduced for the sale and delivery of knives bought online.

Government Amendments 124 to 189 extend the provisions in Clauses 33 to 35 to Scotland—again, at the request of the Scottish Government—and Amendments 190 to 192 insert new clauses that amend the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order to ensure that stricter age-verification checks for the sale, letting on hire and delivery of crossbows also apply to Northern Ireland. It is important that there is a cross-UK approach on these significant issues.

Finally, Clause 36 provides for the mandatory reporting of the bulk sale of knives. Clause 36 defines reportable sales as the purchase of six knives in a single transaction in England and Wales, or when made over two or more occasions in a 30-day period. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person, or up to two or more persons where these are to be delivered to the same residential address. As noble Lords probably know, there are exemptions for business sales and for sales of cutlery knives without a sharp point, safety razor blades, and pocketknives with a cutting edge that does not exceed 3 inches.

There will also be exemptions for qualifying sets of knives, such as kitchen knife blocks. These will be sets of at least three knives that are each of a different size or shape, no matter how many knives the set contains—we are all very familiar with that type of kitchen equipment. The purchase of multiple sets of knives, or the purchase of a single set alongside individual knives where these combinations lead to a total purchase of at least six knives, will also be reportable.

That is what is currently in the Bill. Amendments 193 to 209 extend these provisions to Scotland, and similar provisions are also being introduced for Northern Ireland, so, again, there is consistency across the whole of the United Kingdom. There are various consequential and drafting amendments at the back of the Bill relating to the power to make consequential amendments. But, in essence, the policy positions in the Bill, through these Government amendments, are being replicated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to ask on a point of information and declare an interest: I chair the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. In the list of identifications for proof of age purposes, I did not hear the noble Lord say that the PASS card was acceptable. It is a Home Office-approved document and is widely used. Maybe he said it and I missed it—we were going at quite a pace—but could he confirm that the physical proof of age card is still acceptable for these purposes?

We are expecting the mandatory conditions for digital proof of age to be published before Christmas, possibly. Is the noble Lord able to confirm that the Government are still on track to publish these changes so that sales of alcohol and other proof of age purposes can be done by a digital proof of age card as well as by a physical card?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for what he said. I am slightly baffled. There is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I find the Minister’s assurance that the analogue form of identity will continue—and digital ID in this instance, whatever is prescribed by the Secretary of State, is an alternative form of identification—wholly convincing, but if we must come back on Report and debate this at length, so be it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the noble Lord respond on the mandatory conditions on the digital proof-of-age pass, which he confirmed would be published before December?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a date at the moment, but I will reflect on that with colleagues and return to her, because there are a number of other departmental interests as well.

Police: Records

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. The whole principle of policing is that it represents and is accountable to the local community. If I may say so to the noble Lord, it is still absolutely vital that we get best value out of the police resources that are put in. It is a valuable course of action to follow to find mechanisms to ensure that police forces can co-operate, where they want to, on getting a better deal for the taxpayer on some major procurement or on efficiencies generally. When the police White Paper is published relatively shortly, it will offer a number of pointers for where that co-operation can potentially be encouraged.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the rural task force was first set up by North Yorkshire Police and has been quite a success in preventing urban criminals coming into rural areas. Do the Government plan to roll out rural task forces in other parts of the country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

A lot of those decisions are for locally elected police and crime commissioners or, in some cases, mayors, who have responsibility via their deputy mayors for policing. We are concerned to ensure that we look at a number of areas to do with rural policing. The Government are focused on a number of aspects here including equipment theft, sheep worrying and shoplifting in smaller towns. We are trying to encourage police forces to buy in to some of our general pushes. All police forces have had additional police officers this year to meet some of their targets, particularly on shop theft and anti-social behaviour.

UK-France Migration: Co-operation

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Lord for his questions. I reassure him that the taxpayer is at the forefront of this Government’s thinking about the costs of this illegal migration and the criminal gangs that drive it. It is for those very reasons that we are taking action, not just to secure our borders but also to secure taxpayers’ resource. That is why, this time last year when we inherited the positions we proudly hold now, we were paying roughly £8 million a day in hotel fees: because the then Government were not processing asylum seekers and were not taking the actions we have taken in the last year to have a deterrent effect, in our view, against the criminal gangs. We have managed to reduce those hotel costs to around £6 million a day, saving the taxpayer £2 million a day so far, and we intend to drive it down further.

So I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that border control, dealing with asylum and dealing with the impact of people being returned have a cost to the taxpayer. That is why, as I said—without repeating the figures—we are upping returns, upping processing and making sure that we are taking foreign national prisoners out. We are doing that to reduce the illegal pressure on the United Kingdom’s borders.

The noble Lord asked a very fair question about consultation with local authorities. It is the Government’s intent that we consult with local authorities and, if possible, with elected representatives outside those local authorities—Members of Parliament and others—to ensure that they have an understanding of where that dispersal accommodation goes. If he wants to supply any examples of where that is not working, I will certainly look at them with my ministerial colleagues. It is important that we get that right so that there is consent.

On the international agreements the noble Lord mentioned, as I said, it is the Government’s intention to support our international agreements. Any change from that will be done on an international co-operation basis. We keep everything under review. As the noble Lord knows, in the immigration White Paper we have said we want to redefine Article 8 and how that is interpreted by the judges. We will keep things under review, but this Government will not move from our international obligations. Also, it is not a foreign court; it was established with UK support after the Second World War.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on reaching an agreement with Germany. My understanding is that the German law has to change before Germany can prosecute smuggling gangs operating on German soil. How confident is the noble Lord that the agreement to change German law will be reached this year?

The noble Lord mentioned the importance of the EU agreement. The EU normally operates by reaching an agreement among the 27. We have reached an agreement with France and now Germany, but surely, he would wish to reach an agreement with the whole EU to make sure that the smuggling gangs can be tackled at source: Greece and Italy, where most of the people are entering the EU.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is extremely important that we reach out to our European partners—they are still partners, although we are not members of the community—to ensure that we tackle this issue across the board. That means the flow through the Mediterranean into Italy and Greece in particular, the flow from eastern Europe into Poland, and the flow from France across the channel, accordingly. As I have said, the Calais group operates with Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, looking at the particular pressures there.

On the agreement with Germany announced today, I say again that Germany remains an independent nation, so it is responsible for its law change. But we have an agreement in the treaty that says that the German Government are

“introducing a clarification in German legislation concerning the facilitation of irregular migration to the UK (to be brought to Cabinet with a view to be adopted by Parliament as soon as possible, within 2025)”.

The Germans are responsible for the Germans, but in the treaty we have signed today, they indicate that they are hoping to make that change and—as any UK Government would—going back to their parliament and securing parliamentary support by the end of 2025. But it is entirely right that we deal with this issue on a cross-Europe basis because it is a cross-Europe challenge.

Electric Cycles: Illegal Use on Roads

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. There is a corporate responsibility for people who are employed to deliver. If a vehicle, as in a delivery car or van, was undertaking persistent behaviour of an antisocial nature, I am sure the company would take action, and companies should be looking to do the same with cycles and e-bikes. I hope my noble friend will accept that the measures before the House shortly are an initial, very strong signal on criminal action on potential death and injury from cycling and on the seizure of bikes by the police. At the moment, the seizure of bikes can be undertaken by the police, but they have to give a warning. Under the legislation before us now, no warning will be given: a bike will be seized if the police officer wishes to seize it. We will take action and dispose of that bike or crush it within short order.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it is currently illegal to use a bicycle or an e-bike on a pavement. It is putting vulnerable people, such as people in wheelchairs and young children in prams, at risk. I welcome the provisions that the Minister is including in the Crime and Policing Bill, and I think it encompasses a lot of the provisions in my Private Member’s Bill. If the police are not enforcing the current law, what possible hope do we have that they will enforce any future law?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the work that the noble Baroness has done on this matter. The Private Members’ Bills that she has brought forward have been very instrumental in raising this issue. It is self-evidently an issue: in the course of the day, none of us will drive or walk around and not see somebody committing an offence that should be taken to court and dealt with. The police have many calls on their time, and they have to be there to see the potential offence and catch the individual at that time. I am very hopeful that the 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers that this Government are putting in place will be able to help support that enforcement and that action. I remind the noble Baroness that those are 13,000 officers that were not there over the previous 14 years.

E-scooters

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of enforcement measures against the illegal use and operation of e-scooters.

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

Tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for this Government and a key part of our safer streets mission and plan for change. The Government have announced proposals to give the police greater powers to clamp down on e-scooters and other vehicles involved in anti-social behaviour, with officers no longer being required to issue a warning before seizing vehicles. These powers will be included in the forthcoming crime and policing Bill.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I want to address the current illegal use of privately owned e-scooters in public places. The current rules are simply not working. The Minister addressed the fact that crime is being perpetrated by owners of illegally operated e-scooters. Will he look favourably on the provision in my Private Member’s Bill, where I ask the Government to consider legalising the use of privately owned electric scooters in public places to regulate their safe use and introduce compulsory insurance? Currently, these cannot be insured as they are illegal in public places. The cost to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau—and therefore all of us who pay for our motor insurance—is going up. Some 35% of the claims paid out by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau are against pedestrians between the ages of seven and 80. The numbers of deaths and casualties are increasing. What are the Government doing to address this increasing problem of illegally operated e-scooters?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My colleagues in the Department for Transport have already made it illegal to use e-scooters in public places. There are 17 current pilots to examine how e-scooters can be used, and they are being evaluated currently. The police and others can issue fixed penalty notices. The noble Baroness’s Bill has been discussed previously, and there are several ideas in there which are worthy of consideration. However, the Government’s first priority in the crime and policing Bill is to make sure that where those bikes are now being used illegally, they can be seized without any warning by the police. If this House and the House of Commons pass that legislation before the end of this year, those bikes will be seized by police.

Illegal Migrants

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the numbers of illegal migrants entering Britain since early July, and what steps they are taking to end the illegal movement of migrants across the Channel.

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

Small boat arrivals since 5 July are currently 6% below what they were this time last year, and are the lowest for this period since 2021. We are determined to end the dangerous and unnecessary crossings by smashing criminal gangs that profit from them. We have launched the border security command with up to £75 million in new investment to build capability, taking that fight to criminals in Europe and beyond.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I welcome the noble Lord to his position. On one day this week more than 970 migrants crossed the channel. Up to 745,000 illegal migrants are currently in the UK. One in 100 of the population—more than in any other European country—is a migrant in this country. Against that background, and with an alleged £6 billion overspend on asylum seekers, is it the Government’s policy to continue to house migrants in hotels for another three years?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her welcome. She will know that it is in everybody’s interests to ensure both that we reduce crossings, which is why we have the border command in place, and that if people are here illegally and are caught they face the consequences; that is a prime government responsibility. As for asylum support, hotel accommodation is down 14% over this year. One of this Government’s objectives is to ensure that we reduce hotel accommodation, because it is an expensive way of housing people and a difficult way of tackling this problem. Maybe the noble Baroness would like to ask some former Ministers from her party why the figure went up in the first place to that level of asylum accommodation.

Fuel Prices

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Miss McIntosh]

I entirely take that point, and it is why one proposal that I will come on to is the rural rebate discount. I have no doubt in my mind that the fault for where we are lies very firmly at the door of the outgoing Government, and in particular of their Chancellor. In his 2009 Budget, he announced tax increases on roads, fuel, alcohol and tobacco, and set out fuel duty to increase by 2p per litre in September of that year, and then by 1p per litre above indexation each April for the next four years. The decision to increase duty rates in real terms was projected to raise £3.6 billion over the next three years from 2009-10 to 2011-12.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady tell us whether she voted for the recent VAT rise?

[Miss McIntosh]

I will come on to that in a moment, but it would be nice to hear from the shadow Minister whether he feels any pain or anguish, or any need to apologise for where we are, particularly as many hon. Members from all parts of the House have today said that we are where we are. We need an all-party approach to get out of this, and since we know for a fact, from reading Lord Mandelson’s book, that the Labour party, had it remained in government, would have been committed to increasing VAT, we will not take lectures from Labour Members today.

Motoring organisations and some road hauliers have set out their difficulties with a fuel duty stabiliser, and perhaps the Minister in her response will tell us what stage we are at concerning the assessment reached by the Office for Budget Responsibility about how the stabiliser will work in practice. Were a stabiliser to be introduced, is she convinced that the reduction would be passed on to the motorist? If the reduction remained with the oil companies, there would be no advantage in introducing a stabiliser.

Turning to the rebate for remote rural areas, I realise the difficulties in persuading the European Union of such a necessity, but having practised the art, both as a European Community lawyer—now a European Union lawyer—and during 10 years in the European Parliament, I am more well-versed than most in how to persuade the European Union and our fellow member states, many of whose citizens live in equally remote areas. People in rural areas should be entitled to a discount on the rate of duty.

With fuel duties, the principle would obviously have distribution effects, given the greater reliance in rural areas on both private and public transport. We can have a debate and an argument about how the reduction in duty can best be administered, and I realise that a differential duty would require special dispensation, but the UK, in looking to apply a derogation for a lower rate of duty for petrol sold in one area—Scotland, for example—fails to recognise areas such as Northern Ireland, where there is a land border with an area selling fuel at a lower rate of duty. Also, remote areas that are particularly rural and do not have large centres of population, where people do not have schools closer than 13 or 15 miles and have to travel some distance to do a weekly shop, will be particularly penalised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate, which has drawn a great deal of interest. The fact that some 20 Members from all parts of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England—contributed to it shows how important the issue is across the whole of the UK. I confess that for a moment I felt like the 24th Regiment of Foot at Rorke’s Drift—I felt that I was surrounded by thousands of Government Members—but I was pleased that at some point the focus of the debate shifted to the Minister rather than the Opposition.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman has been joined by a reinforcement on his side. Does he think there is any reason for this issue registering so little in the interests of members of his party that no one else has turned up to participate in the debate?

[Mr Hanson]

I have hon. Friends who represent rural areas. I myself represent a rural constituency. In 2000, the well-known fuel dispute commenced in my constituency because of concerns over fuel prices—we have an interest in the matter.

My first point in response to what the hon. Lady said is that the previous Labour Government did try to address the issue. She will know that striking the right balance between taxation, the environment and affordability of car transport is critical, and that is why Labour, when in government, postponed fuel duty rises when the cost of petrol was high. In October 2008, we postponed the 2p per litre rise to help alleviate the pressures that we recognised were there.

When the fuel dispute took place in my constituency, petrol was around £1.06 to £1.07 per litre. In my constituency, it is now around £1.28 per litre—slightly less than has been mentioned today but a big difference—and, as Members have said, that impacts on businesses, schools, commuters and a range of issues generally. My first thought was, if that is the case, what have the coalition Government, who have had the opportunity to tackle the issue, done since last May? In an intervention, I explained to the hon. Lady that she voted for VAT increases which, according to the House of Commons Library, have added around 2.6p per litre to the price of petrol. Those are important issues. I do not want to focus on the negative, but we cannot get away from the fact that the price of petrol is higher now than it was when Labour left office, and it is higher because of the VAT increases for which she voted.

[Miss McIntosh]

Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that it was his Government’s policy, had they continued in government after the election, to introduce VAT increases which would have had a negative impact?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

There is a range of issues. We would have had to see what we would have done. We had a range of plans to tackle the deficit, but, in my view, VAT is a regressive tax.

[Miss McIntosh]

That is a yes.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Lady might want to, but she cannot hide from the fact that her vote—and the votes of all hon. Members who have spoken today from the Government Benches—has added to the increase in the price of fuel since May last year. That is an uncomfortable fact for them, but that is what they have done. Again, I do not want to focus on the negative, because we have had some positive discussions. However, when attacked, I tend to fight back. Unfortunately, that point was made, so I have to reply on the record.

We have had a number of suggestions, all worthy of consideration. I will look at each in turn. The hon. Lady discussed the issue of the fuel duty stabiliser. The issue was raised during the election, and the hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) also touched upon it today. The fuel duty stabiliser involves some problems, so an explanation from the Minister as to where the Government are on their election pledge from last May would be worth while. The Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility said recently that the idea of a fuel duty stabiliser is unworkable. I share that view, on behalf of the official Opposition.

In principle, the concept is simple: as oil prices go up, fuel duty will go down; and as oil prices drop, fuel duty goes up. The motorist, therefore, pays more or less the same for fuel and the Exchequer gets more or less the same in revenue. However, in reality, the suggestion is far from simple. On 14 September, the Office for Budget Responsibility published an assessment of the effect of oil price fluctuations on public finances, with the aim of informing the debate. The report found that a temporary rise in oil prices would have a negligible effect on UK public finances, while a permanent rise would create a loss. The Government would find introducing a fair fuel duty stabiliser difficult because, as the head of the OBR, Robert Chote, suggested a couple of weeks ago,

“a fair fuel stabiliser would be likely to make the public finances less stable rather than more stable”.

A 1% reduction in petrol duty would cost the Exchequer around £130 million. The fuel duty stabiliser, depending how it was operated, could cost between £3 billion and £5 billion of public expenditure. The stabiliser was a manifesto commitment, which the Conservative Government wish to carry out, but they need to explain how they will do so and how they will compensate for the loss to the public purse of such a sum. My rural constituents, as well as my urban constituents, will have to find that money from somewhere else, whether in public service cuts or extra taxation. The then Liberal Democrat spokesman, now the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, said in opposition that he believed a fuel duty stabiliser would be “unbelievably complicated and unpredictable”, which the OBR has confirmed. We need an explanation of where we are. Is the fuel duty stabiliser still a live option? Do the Government intend to keep their manifesto commitments? What would the cost to the public purse be of the potential loss of income from the stabiliser? Since the election, all we have seen is a rise in VAT to 20%, which has increased petrol prices, not decreased them.

The hon. Members for High Peak, for South East Cornwall, for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) suggested that we look at the idea of a rural derogation, which the Liberal Democrats proposed in their manifesto. The idea seems to have been adopted by the coalition. However, the pilot at the moment is simply for the Northern Isles and for the Isles of Scilly. We have also had representations today for the “island of Ulster”, as the hon. Member for North Antrim called it, as well as from Cornwall and mid-Wales—a very rural area, I know, as pointed out by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Montgomeryshire—and from the hon. Members for High Peak, for Thirsk and Malton and for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). Such areas should be included in such an issue.

How would the Government define a rural area, given the issues raised? Half of my constituency is extremely rural and half extremely urban. Throughout the Chamber, we have had discussion about where the border falls. The difficulties are real. First, why have the areas chosen for the pilot been selected? I could make a strong case for parts of Northern Ireland, where I served as a Minister, parts of mid-Wales, which I know very well, or parts of North Yorkshire.