Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026
(2 days, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Barker. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 30 June, makes an important change to the alcohol licensing framework in England and Wales. It will allow licensed premises and club premises with a certificate to accept digital proof of age for the sale and supply of alcohol where that proof is provided through a digital verification service that is independently assessed against the UK digital verification services trust framework and listed on the statutory DVS register, and where the relevant licensing conditions are met.
The measure offers those fortunate enough still to be asked for ID—whether they regard that as flattering or frustrating—an additional way to prove their age. Where a licensed premises or club premises with a certificate chooses to accept it, a person will be able to use properly verified digital proof of age, rather than relying on a passport, driving licence or other physical documents.
The mandatory licensing conditions currently require physical proof-of-age documents that bear a photograph, a date of birth and either a holographic mark or an ultraviolet feature. This remains a valid and important route for age verification. The draft order does not remove physical ID, does not require anyone to use digital proof of age and does not require a licensed premises or club premises to accept digital proof of age. It simply gives consumers and premises another option.
There are clear, practical benefits. Many people do not want to routinely carry valuable documents, such as a passport or driving licence, on a night out, or they might forget to bring them. It is reported that 57% of 18 to 25-year-olds have experienced forgetting their ID on a night out. There is also an important privacy and personal safety benefit: a driving licence may reveal a person’s full address when the only question that needs to be answered is whether they are old enough to obtain alcohol. Digital proof of age can confirm that threshold without unnecessary personal information being shared, which is particularly relevant for individuals who may feel uncomfortable disclosing their address in busy night-time settings.
The Government consulted on this issue between January and March 2024, and 72% of respondents supported the use of digital verification in the sale and supply of alcohol. The approach taken in the draft order reflects that support, while ensuring that providers meet Government-approved standards and that safeguards remain in place.
The Licensing Act 2003 is built around four licensing objectives, including the protection of children from harm. That objective remains central to this reform. Digital proof of age will be permitted only where it is provided by a digital verification service that is independently assessed against the UK digital verification services trust framework and listed on the statutory register. This is not about simply showing a picture on a phone.
I also want to be clear about what the draft order does not do. It is not a national digital identity scheme. It does not create an identity card, make digital ID compulsory, give the Government visibility of alcohol purchases or permit the use of facial age-estimation technology for the sale and supply of alcohol. This is a targeted and proportionate reform that sits alongside wider work across Government on future age-assurance methods for other age-restricted products, while preserving physical ID, supporting licensed premises and club premises and giving consumers greater choice.
The current rules were drafted before secure digital verification was available. The draft order updates the framework to reflect modern consumer behaviour and technological change, while preserving the safeguards at the heart of the 2003 Act. For those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing the debate.
I do not think that anybody on the Committee objects in principle to making it easier for someone to prove that they are over 18 without having to carry a passport or similar around with them. There are obvious conveniences for consumers, and potentially for businesses, but I would like the Minister to provide some reassurance about where the measure sits within the Government’s wider approach to digital verification.
The order before us appears relatively narrow. It allows licensed premises to rely on a registered digital verification service when checking somebody’s age. We are told that its use will be voluntary, that businesses will not have to accept digital identification and, importantly, that customers will still be able to use physical identification. I welcome that assurance, but I would like the Minister to put it beyond any doubt that there is no intention for digital identification to become, in practice or in law, the only reasonable means by which somebody can prove their age when purchasing alcohol.
As technology changes, it is right that the means by which the Government regulate should expand to incorporate and utilise that technology. This should not be about digitally excluding people, but about increasing people’s options and choices and allowing people to do business more easily. As has been acknowledged, the work on this matter is based heavily on efforts begun under the Conservative Government, which were consulted on in 2024. Critically, that work was about ensuring that people have additional methods of proving their age, rather than requiring them to adopt a digital identity.
As I see it, allowing shops, for example, to utilise existing verification schemes and then validate them with something like a QR code appears to be a sensible step for the Government to take. More and more people leave the house with only a phone in their pocket, making it all the more likely that their physical ID has been left at home. Giving them another means of proving their age is therefore a practical and sensible development.
Although I have noted the likely benefits stemming from the measure, I would like to see clarity on a point made in the other place last week about whether cards bearing the PASS—proof of age standards scheme—hologram will continue to be recognised as the preferred form of physical proof of age. Can the Minister confirm that, in making these changes, there will be no change to the recognition of PASS hologram cards before the office for digital identities and attributes has provided its supporting analysis, and PASS and others have had a proper opportunity to respond?
In addition, I understand that retailers in the wine and spirit trade have raised a technical concern about the meaning of the words “deliver identification”. Put simply, when somebody proves their age digitally, what information does the retailer actually need to receive? Is it sufficient for the digital verification provider to confirm that the customer meets the relevant age requirement, or must further identifying information be provided? I hope the Minister can confirm that that will be made absolutely clear to retailers in the updated guidance. Those may be small and more technical elements, but given retailers’ responsibility to ensure that they serve people of the appropriate age, it is critical that we get the regulations right to support businesses and make compliance easier, not more difficult.
I would like to return briefly to the question of choice. The Government’s modelling assumes that the uptake of digital verification for this purpose will reach 100% after seven years. If that remains the assumption, can the Minister confirm that those who choose to use physical forms of identification will nevertheless continue to be able to do so? There will be people who do not have a smartphone, people who cannot readily use digital verification services and people who simply do not want to use digital identification. We would not want any of those individuals to be excluded. The benefit of the measure should be that it adds another option, not that the new option gradually becomes the only practical option.
Overall, I recognise why the measure has been brought forward and the practical benefits that stem from it. In doing so, I hope that the Government ensure that the conditions they impose allow the system to operate effectively, give businesses the certainty they need and preserve genuine choice for the public. Digital technology can make proving our age more convenient. It should not make having a digital identity a prerequisite for participating in everyday life.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
The Liberal Democrats are supportive of the order. Individuals should be able to have the option to verify their age digitally, but we want to make it clear that doing so must not replace the use of physical ID. The option must always be retained, thereby giving young people the freedom to choose.
It is important that the protections are robust and contain adequate safeguards to prevent misuse and ensure that digital identities are genuine. Will the Minister therefore set out whether she is satisfied that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that the system will be enforced in the prescribed manner? Furthermore, what discussions has she had with the sector about the implementation of the system? How will the change be communicated to the public? What future measures will the Government consider to ensure that age is verified effectively under the 2003 Act when alcohol sales take place remotely? What steps are they taking to monitor compliance and accountability, and where necessary to take enforcement action against companies certified under the DVS trust framework?
I thank the Minister for clarifying that the order is not about going down the route of compulsory digital IDs. I reiterate that the Liberal Democrats are clear that a mandatory digital ID system would cross a red line. It would risk eroding long-held civil liberties. Digital tools should be about giving individuals more control over their personal data, not giving the Government more control over our lives. Our concern remains that a mandatory digital ID system could deepen digital exclusion and disproportionately affect society’s most marginalised: older people, people living in poverty, and disabled people, who often have limited access to digital devices or low digital literacy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Jo White
I am grateful for both Members’ contributions.
This legislation supports the objectives of strengthening age-verification safeguards and preventing under-age alcohol sales. It will allow licensed premises and club premises to use secure digital methods to verify age, thereby giving consumers greater choice and reducing the need for people to carry and present important physical documents, or to disclose unnecessary personal information, unless they choose to do so.
It is reported that 57% of 18 to 25-year-olds have experienced forgetting their ID on a night out. It is also important to note that not everyone holds a passport or driving licence. Digital proof of age can be created using a wider range of evidence while still meeting the required standards, which may make trusted proof of age accessible to a broader range of people.
The changes in the order are completely separate from the proposals for a national digital ID system, which are no longer being taken forward. Last year, the Government passed and commenced the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, establishing a legislative structure for the provision of trusted digital verification services and providing the statutory gateway for their use. Millions of people in Britain already use services that fall within that legal framework. The regulatory changes before us build on the existing regime.
The purpose of this legislation is to remove an existing legal barrier that prevents secure digital proof of age from being used when people purchase alcohol. Physical proof-of-age documents will continue to be accepted. The legislation will not make digital proof of age mandatory. The Government are taking an enabling approach; the legislation provides an additional option rather than replacing existing forms of proof of age. Retailers remain free to decide which age-verification methods they accept, and consumers remain free to use physical proof-of-age documents.
A digital PASS card could be used to buy alcohol if the amended mandatory licensing conditions—including that the digital proof of age based on information in the PASS card has been delivered by a certified and registered digital verification service provider—are met. The Government endorse all digital PASS cards to be used for age checks for the sale and supply of alcohol where the criteria set out in this legislation, and any relevant local licensing conditions, are met.
The legislation includes safeguards for digital proofs of age—including technological verification that the proof of age is genuine and confirmation that it relates to the person presenting it—that do not apply to physical documents. Digital proof of age cannot be accepted based on visual inspection alone. Digital proofs of age for alcohol purchases must be provided by digital verification services that have been certified against the UK digital verification services trust framework and appear on the gov.uk register of certified services. This ensures that the services can be trusted to prove correctly and securely that the person is 18, or over such older age as is set out in the age-verification policy.
I again thank the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Stratford-on-Avon for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed, and I hope my remarks have reassured Members that the Government have considered the issues carefully. This legislation will modernise the licensing regime, providing greater choice and convenience for consumers and support to businesses, while maintaining the safeguards necessary to protect children and promote public safety. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026
(2 days, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England is a priority for this Government. Nine years on from the Grenfell tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Helping residents to feel safe in their homes and to move on from this issue is crucial work.
The Government are committing £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money to the costs of remediation, and the building safety levy is an essential part of the remediation funding package, which will protect leaseholders from costs and ensure that taxpayers are not further burdened. We estimate that the levy needs to raise £3.4 billion, likely over 10 years or more. The revenue target may be adjusted in accordance with the number of buildings requiring remediation and the costs of works. The levy regulations were made in November 2025 and will come into force on 1 October 2026. These draft amending regulations will clarify how the levy will work and are intended to come into force on 1 October.
The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floorspace in England. It is important to note that developers have known about the levy since February 2021 and about its rates since March 2025, providing a significant lead-in period to plan for and incorporate the costs into their projects. The levy has been designed to ensure that the tax base remains wide enough to fund essential remediation, while protecting housing supply. The impact on the viability of new development has been kept as low as possible with rates that vary by local authority, indexed to local average house prices. There is also a 50% discount for brownfield sites. Social and affordable housing is exempt, as are small sites with fewer than 10 units. The levy will start being charged on new applications from 1 October 2026. We have been working closely with local authorities, private sector-registered building control approvers, and IT providers to support implementation ahead of commencement.
I turn now to explaining the changes that the draft regulations will make. The Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025 allow for development on previously developed land—often referred to as brownfield land—to benefit from a 50% discount levy rate. That recognises the higher cost of building on that type of land and protects the viability of development on brownfield sites. My officials received feedback that the definition of previously developed land was not clear. In particular, stakeholders noted that it was not clear that car parks and other areas of hardstanding that would appear as previously developed could qualify for the discount.
Our intention has always been to support the development of sites with those features, so the draft regulations amend the definition to make it clear where areas of hardstanding can qualify. That will better reflect the original policy intention and will, I hope, make it easier for local authorities and developers to understand which sites qualify for the discount, reducing costly and time-consuming disputes.
The draft regulations and updated guidance provide more information about how the changes will work, and the instrument also makes a small number of minor technical amendments and corrections. The regulations do not change the fundamental design of the levy but provide clarification on previously developed land and make a small number of technical amendments to support implementation. We will keep the rates and processes under review, and will report on them at least every three years. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister—I am pleased to be able to call her that—whom I congratulate on her appointment to the role. I warmly welcome her to her place and appreciate her remarks on the regulations.
The Opposition stand alongside the Government—and, I am sure, with Members from across the House—in saying that building safety and remediation are critical tasks. We cannot be a world-leading economy or global power and still have citizens who live in—or, worse still, are trapped in—homes that have been rendered unsafe. People’s homes are the very places that they should feel safest. I therefore agree with the Minister on the need to make buildings safe, and I recognise that the building safety levy is intended to play a part in doing that.
When assessing the regulations, we must consider the juncture at which we find ourselves. I was pleased to support plans for the Grenfell Tower Memorial earlier this year, and I welcomed the constructive tone adopted by Members from across the House and the value of the wider discussions about remediation and building safety during that debate. As the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), highlighted in that debate, Government figures show that work to remove and replace unsafe aluminium composite material cladding—the type used for Grenfell Tower—has been completed for 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings with such cladding, and remediation work at most of the remaining sites is progressing.
That is good news, as is the fact that Committee members are here to discuss and debate how to complete that task. As I said, I recognise the role that the building safety levy is intended to play in that mission, which needs to be completed, despite the extensive progress made under the previous Conservative Government and under Labour Administrations since 2024. None the less, the Opposition have concerns about the levy and, more germanely, about the specifics of the regulations.
Perhaps the most pertinent is the deep concern that I and many colleagues share about the potential impact of the levy on the building of more homes. As we have debated back and forth many times before, this country is currently in the midst of a significant housing shortage. The Government’s own impact assessment raised concerns about the viability of sites, as this additional cost is added to pre-existing development costs. The Minister is right to say that developers have known about the change for some time, but that will not mitigate the impact of the cost when it arrives. That is especially the case in areas where residential land value is lower, as the impact assessment highlights. The Government have previously stated that that is why:
“Levy rates have been set such that rates are lower in areas where house prices are lower and viability is more stretched.”
I do not believe that the levy in isolation will cause house building to grind to a halt, but I am deeply concerned that, when costs in many parts of the country are already too high, yet another cost to development takes us another step closer to a critical—perhaps even fatal—moment for house building. We must remember that the housing industry is already paying, among other things, a 4% surcharge on corporation tax, worth £2 billion; a voluntary self-remediation pledge, worth more than £4.1 billion; and reimbursements to Government funds, worth more than £700 million. Those totals, alongside other measures, are worth almost £7 billion—more than double the value of the funds expected to be raised by the levy.
The Home Builders Federation examined the proposals and found that developers are staring at a potential average additional cost of £2,320 per unit when building new homes. In London, the increase amounts to more than £3,00. As the HBF stresses, that is on top of the myriad other average additional costs, including £10,220 per unit for the future homes standard, £2,000 per unit for the proposed changes to landfill tax rates, £5,700 per unit for biodiversity net gain, £7,700 per unit for building regulation costs, £2,055 per unit in taxes and £37,000 per unit for materials and labour. Inflation on relevant building materials has exceeded 40% since 2020, and labour costs rocketed after the employer national insurance hike was introduced.
We in this place have a duty to ensure that everyone can live in a safe and decent home, and remediation is a critical aspect of that. If these costs continue to layer and swell, however, we will eventually bury the affordability of new homes beneath the unaffordability of the costs that come with building them. That is not just a fear for the future, but one that I worry has already joined us in the present in some parts of the country—not least here in London, where new housing starts over the past two years are at negligible levels, despite record levels of housing demand. The Minister, who is like me, a Greater London MP, knows that to be the case. I acknowledge that safety, affordability and viability are a difficult triumvirate to harmonise, but the Government are on track to miss their target by up to 400,000 homes across the lifetime of this Parliament, so it is clear that something must be done differently.
Finally, I turn briefly to an issue that I believe cuts to the heart of future viable housebuilding in the UK: brownfield development, which the Minister touched on. I welcome the fact that the draft regulations recognise the importance of getting more homes built on previously developed land, especially as that has not always been recognised by Labour Members. The Opposition acknowledge that a 50% reduction in the levy for brownfield sites is a positive step on paper. However, the definition of brownfield land under the national planning policy framework means that 75% of it must be previously developed, while these draft regulations now clarify the treatment of fixed-surface type infrastructure and unlawful operations, and exclude from the definition wholly underground buildings and underground parts of buildings, That leaves me concerned that we will see fewer buildings falling under the scope of brownfield land, and therefore fewer buildings benefiting from the rate reduction. I look forward to the Minister’s clarifications on that point and on my concerns about the potential impact on house building.
As I have said throughout these discussions, it is vital that all sides of the House work together towards a constructive, viable and affordable system of house building and remediation. That is essential for a safer future and safer homes, for the ownership and security of personal welfare, and for a fairer system in a modern society in which we never leave a single one of our constituents living in a home they know is not safe and secure.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and welcome her to her place.
I rise to restate the Liberal Democrat commitment that no leaseholder who has found themselves subject to cladding remediation costs for which they were not responsible should shoulder those costs without access to remediation. We support these amendments to improve the 2025 regulations, but there is a bigger question about other buildings.
High-risk buildings need to be addressed first, as the shadow Minister said, but there are none the less residents in buildings under 11 metres tall and in buildings whose standard does not meet PAS 9980:2022, which means that they continue to live in buildings with flammable cladding. Although that cladding would last an hour, so it is safer for them to escape, it is not a standard recognised by insurers, who expect buildings to be built to building regulations. Thousands of leaseholders are potentially in that position, and many of them cannot get insurance—except at very high cost—and cannot sell their properties.
I invite the Minister to comment on how the funding towards the building safety regime can be widened beyond the levy, and to confirm that the Government will bring forward proposals in their remediation Bill to tackle the cladding manufacturers, which have been largely responsible for the crisis since it began.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Opposition for their positive contributions to this debate. In that spirit, we need to continue to work across parties to address this important issue.
The shadow Minister asked about viability, a key issue that continues to come up. As he mentioned, we both serve as London MPs and see the impact across London and right across the country. It is important to recognise that the levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply while also balancing the revenue required to make homes safe. The measures include variable rates to local authority levies and a 50% discount on developments on previously developed land, reflecting the additional costs of building on those sites.
As I highlighted in my opening remarks, affordable housing is exempt from the levy, which should help to bring forward new housing supply. On average, the levy charge represents 1.1% of house prices on non-previously developed land, and 0.55% on previously developed land. It is therefore expected to have only a very small negative impact on supply. As I also mentioned, the levy was announced in 2021, so the sector has known about it for some time. We appreciate that many issues outside the sector and outside the Government’s control, whether locally, nationally or internationally, are having a big impact on developers, but it is important that they continue to price this work into the deals that they are doing.
Gareth Bacon
I think the Minister misspoke. She said that the regulations had been designed to minimise housing supply. I am not sure that that is what she meant.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting that. I should have said that the levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply impact.
The shadow Minister asked whether the levy could have an impact on our ambitious target—rightly so—of reaching 1.5 million new homes. We continue to work closely with the housing market to look at supply. We are committed to working with the industry to ensure that homes continue to be built at pace. This issue comes up in my inbox, as it does for many hon. Members—it is not isolated to London. It is important that we build good-quality homes.
The shadow Minister also highlighted the impact that the measures could have on innocent homeowners, who should not be burdened with the cost. I thank him for agreeing that the cost should not be placed on them. It is right that developers and house builders be responsible for it, in order to protect innocent homeowners.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, highlighted an issue on which many of us have campaigned for many years: ensuring that innocent leaseholders and homeowners are not responsible for paying the levy. Many of them struggle with housing costs and the cost of living crisis on a day-to-day basis. It is important that developers have a way to fund the levy with no additional cost to the taxpayer.
The Lib Dem spokesperson asked about properties that fall out of scope. We will continue to identify those properties and work with the sector to highlight other ways of supporting them, in order to ensure, again, that costs are fairly shared across the market.
Gideon Amos
On a point of further clarification, I hope that the Minister agrees that one reason for broadening the scope of funding for the safety regime so that it includes cladding manufacturers is that in constituencies such as mine in Somerset, there are no high-rise buildings at all—indeed, most of Somerset has no high-rise buildings—but all the developers in Somerset will none the less pay for remediation in the big cities. None of us begrudges the importance of paying for that remediation, but I hope that that example illustrates the importance of widening the funding of the regime so that cladding manufacturers are required to contribute.
Florence Eshalomi
As I mentioned, we will keep under review the process and, importantly, the rates, and we will report back to the House every three years on those key areas.
The building safety levy is essential to fund the remediation of historic building safety issues without further burdening residents and leaseholders. The draft amending regulations before the Committee are designed to support this work and make the levy work more efficiently, in accordance with our initial intention to support redevelopment of brownfield sites. They are intended to correct drafting and improve clarity and consistency of process for developers and local authorities, rather than alter the underlying policy design of the levy.
The Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes in this Parliament to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and unlock growth. That mission must work in parallel with our commitment to remedy the building safety failures of the past. We expect the development industry to contribute to our work making buildings safe for those who live in them. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026
(2 days, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 6 July, make three targeted amendments. They improve information-sharing powers in the Digital Economy Act 2017 to support people living in fuel poverty.
First, the amendments enable specified public authorities to share information with energy suppliers for the purpose of identifying and supporting people living in fuel poverty who are experiencing energy debt. Secondly, the amendments, laid by the then Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on 6 July, specify that Department under the existing fuel poverty objective, enabling the Government Department responsible for data policy to support work assisting people living in fuel poverty, including the national data library kickstarter project. Following the machinery of government changes announced in July, that responsibility is transferring to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Any technical changes needed to reflect the transfer will be made separately and will not affect how these measures operate. A third technical measure clarifies that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero can rely on the fuel poverty objective, in accordance with the transfer of relevant functions to it in 2023.
Taken together, these practical and proportionate amendments will help to ensure that support reaches the right households at the right time. The information needed to identify households in difficulty is often held by different organisations. Properly governed data sharing can bring that information together, allowing public authorities and energy suppliers to identify need more accurately and target assistance more effectively.
The first amendment fills a specific gap in the existing framework. The current fuel poverty power supports households that cannot afford to keep their homes adequately warm, but it does not expressly cover households with outstanding energy debt. The change will help to ensure that households facing both fuel poverty and energy debt can be identified and supported, rather than falling through the gaps in existing arrangements. Although the two groups frequently overlap, fuel poverty and energy debt are not identical. The amendment therefore enables information sharing for the specific purpose of identifying and supporting households that are fuel-poor and that experience energy arrears.
The statutory instrument will provide the necessary legislation to enable the Government to support a future energy debt relief scheme. The precise design of any scheme remains under development by the Government and Ofgem, and the draft regulations do not themselves establish or fund such a scheme. They provide the legal data-sharing basis that would allow an appropriately designed scheme to operate effectively. If such a scheme proceeds, it is estimated to reduce the administrative burdens involved in identifying eligible households and providing further support to families in need. The proposal that the regulations would deliver received strong support in the consultation, with 98% of respondents supporting the proposed information-sharing arrangements.
The second amendment specifies the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology as a public authority that may share information with certain other public authorities for the existing fuel poverty objective, which will enable it to support fuel poverty initiatives such as the national data library kickstarter project. It will test ways to identify households in need by securely linking information such as earnings, benefits and energy use. That responsibility will transfer to DCMS when the machinery of government changes take place through the usual process. It will mean that, in effect, DCMS will have that function, which is more efficient than withdrawing the process and starting it again.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify how many people are within scope of benefiting from the regulation and what the total cost will be, in terms of the savings they will get?
Stephanie Peacock
I know that the right hon. Gentleman was a little bit late in arriving, but I did say that the scheme is the responsibility of the relevant Department. These regulations provide the legal framework for the data sharing.
I now turn to the third amendment, which concerns the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Its predecessor Department—the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—was able to share information with certain other public bodies under the fuel poverty objective, and the relevant functions were transferred to DESNZ in 2023, but the relevant secondary legislation was not consequentially amended at that time. This amendment corrects that omission in the interests of certainty.
Those measures sit alongside the Government’s broader action to tackle affordability. We have cut VAT on electricity bills, expanded the warm home discount to around 6 million households, and are delivering the warm homes plan and fuel poverty strategy to reduce bills, improve energy efficiency and help to lift up to 1 million households out of fuel poverty by 2030. These regulations help to ensure that support is targeted more effectively and reaches those who need it most.
I recognise that Members will rightly expect assurances about privacy, proportionality and the potential for scope creep. These regulations do not create a general data-sharing power. Information may be shared only by specified bodies, for specified purposes and within the existing statutory framework. All sharing remains subject to the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, restrictions on reuse and onward disclosure. Bodies sharing data should have regard to the statutory code of practice, including recording information-sharing agreements on a public register. Those safeguards are integral to the operation of these powers. Responsible data use and public trust must go together.
The regulations will help public authorities to identify households experiencing fuel poverty or energy debt and ensure that support can reach them more efficiently. They make limited, targeted changes to existing powers, while retaining strong privacy and transparency safeguards. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Desmond. This statutory instrument extends an existing power in the Digital Economy Act 2017 that enables data sharing between public authorities and energy suppliers. The changes will enable the reduction or cancellation of customers’ debt to their energy supplier in certain circumstances.
The regulations will specifically permit the sharing of information to support the delivery of a debt relief scheme, amend the list of fuel poverty measures to enable specified persons to disclose information to energy suppliers for the reduction or cancellation of customers’ debt, and amend the 2018 regulations to add the Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—that last one might need updating—to the list of specified persons that may share information. I hope that Ministers will make sure that this Committee is not a waste of time, and that we will not find ourselves here again soon, making another regulation to add other Departments to that list.
Members will know that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have long criticised the Government’s broader energy policy. We are clear that consumer debt is rising because impossible net zero targets, such as achieving full clean power by 2030, have driven up energy bills across the country. We reiterate our calls for the Government to take a serious approach that tackles the root cause of high energy prices, rather than raising taxes to pay for temporary solutions.
The Government should therefore adopt our cheap power plan to scrap the carbon tax on electricity generation from gas, as well as removing VAT on domestic energy bills, maximising extraction of our oil and gas resources in the North sea, and committing to reliable, secure power generation from gas and nuclear. Although the regulations have noble intentions, they do nothing to address the underlying problems and costs for consumers. They simply paper over the cracks of a Labour Government already failing to deliver on the promises they made to the public.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument. The principle here is inherently good. The Government already hold the information needed to identify households in difficulty, and letting that information reach the people who can act on it, with proper safeguards, is exactly what the Digital Economy Act was meant to enable. We have seen in open banking what happens when consumers’ interests are put at the heart of responsible data sharing. There is real potential to apply the same thinking more widely, such as with property data. I hope the Minister sees the regulations as a template rather than a one-off.
Households across the country, including in Harpenden, Berkhamsted and Tring, are still carrying debt, much of which was built up during the energy crisis through no fault of their own. That debt is a drag on everything else in their lives. That is only set to worsen as the energy price cap rises. If the debt relief scheme—although not part of these regulations—can support those in need, it should happen as quickly as possible. We must also tackle the root causes of energy prices. We should look at Lib Dem policies on, for example, the link between electricity and gas prices to make sure that cost is tackled.
I have a few questions for the Minister. I am pleased to hear about privacy and protection of the data being at the heart of this, but I would love to hear more about holding suppliers to account to ensure that they are using the data for the purposes, and being protected accordingly. She addressed the question about the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but I would also like to ask what mechanisms there are to share what is learnt and about what is working with other Departments running fuel poverty and vulnerability schemes. We should be looking at the possibility of using smart data to deliver to our communities.
Steve Barclay
I speak to my brief exchange earlier with the Minister. As the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, said, the draft regulations are fairly benign and very welcome to help people who are struggling with their bills. Fundamentally, however, when changing the law, it behoves us to understand who is within the scope of that change and what adverse impacts there might be as a result.
A cohort of people will be just about managing to pay their bills, yet there will be a cost to this measure, welcomed though it has largely been by the Committee in the speeches so far. What is unclear to me, however, is the cost. For this measure to substantively help people with their energy debt in a meaningful way, one assumes a significant cost as a result of being able to share the data in order to write off those bills. Therefore, for the Minister to make the claim that it is helping—as she did—one assumes that she will know what the cost is of the change to the law that she has brought to the Committee.
Given that, it also behoves us to understand who will pick up the cost of the measure. I was therefore surprised that in the Minister’s remarks, she did not touch on that cohort just above the other one—some people who can pay the addition to their energy bills without any difficulty whatever. We all represent constituents—indeed, the Government frequently talk about the pressure of the cost of living on them—who are just struggling. Indeed, they are those who, to coin a phrase, need some breathing space. They are just about affording their bills, but they will not be covered by the protections in the draft regulations; quite the reverse—they will be the ones who bear the cost.
One assumes that the Minister has not brought in a change in the law without being clear about what the cost of that change is or what the impact might be on some of those struggling to pay their bills. In her wind-up, will she clarify those two figures? What is the cost of the amount of debt that is going to be written off, and how many people are potentially within scope of being pushed into that cohort because their bills will go up? We did not have those figures, but I hope she now has the inspiration from the Box to answer those points.
Stephanie Peacock
It is a pleasure to conclude this debate. I am grateful to Members for their contributions and for the broad consensus that households facing fuel poverty and energy debt should receive support quickly, fairly and effectively.
At its heart, this draft statutory instrument makes three targeted changes. First, it enables information sharing to support households experiencing energy debt. Secondly, it enables the Department responsible for data policy to participate in information sharing under the fuel poverty objective, including through work associated with the national data library. Thirdly, it provides certainty for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, following the machinery of government changes in 2023. Taken together, the three measures will help to ensure that support reaches the households that need it most.
I will pick up briefly on a few different points. On the name of the Department, we will not be coming back here. That is the whole reason why we have not withdrawn this and done it all again: this is the most efficient way of doing it—[Interruption.] I will give way if the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire wishes to intervene.
Steve Barclay
When I was reading the draft regulations, I was confused, because I thought they mentioned a Department that had been scrapped. It seems odd to bring in a change in the law for a Department that the Government have already scrapped.
Stephanie Peacock
The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House and understands how changes to the machinery of government work. We could withdraw it and bring everyone back in a few months’ time, but the most efficient way to do it is to proceed with the Department as it is; the powers will come to DCMS later. I am sure he is aware of that from his time in government. That is also the answer to the question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted for her point. It is absolutely right that we should take learnings from this. Indeed, towards the end of my speech, I spoke about some of the protections and some of the detail.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked me some questions about who is in scope and who will benefit from the scheme. Again, had he been listening to my contribution, he would have heard—I will repeat my comments—that the precise design of any scheme remains in development by the Government and Ofgem. The draft regulations do not themselves establish or fund such a scheme; they provide the legal data-sharing basis to allow an appropriate design scheme to operate effectively.
As much as all the points are incredibly important—data poverty, fuel poverty and debt poverty, which I see in my own constituency—we are not in Committee to debate them; we are here to debate data sharing. That is what we have done, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.