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

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.

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.

My Lords, I must begin by saying that the order seems to be a bit of a relic of history. The Government have outlined how they believe it aims to modernise alcohol sales by allowing digital identification for the purposes of age verification at the point of sale. On several occasions, I have had an argument with the Minister about what we on this side view as the folly of digital ID cards. We disagree on the merits of their policy but, given that he has so vociferously defended the introduction of digital ID and given that the new Prime Minister has scrapped the policy, where does the Minister stand now? More importantly for this debate, what precisely is this order now standing on? The entire proposal behind it depends on functioning digital identification, yet the new Government have abandoned their own digital ID proposals, which, incidentally, I am delighted about. Parliament is being asked to approve secondary legislation built on an assumption of infrastructure that the Government themselves have just walked away from. This all begs the question: how will this now work? How will retailers use digital verification if there is no digital identification system being produced by the Government? It would be particularly useful if the Minister could answer that. I press the Minister on two further points. First, if a supermarket chain moves towards a QR code verification as its default, what protection exists for those, often older customers, who are unable or unwilling to use a smartphone? The impact assessment speaks confidently of time savings at self-checkouts but says little about those left behind by that convenience. Secondly, the Government have told the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that they expect uptake to reach 100% within seven years. Will physical identification still be accepted at that point or is this order, in fact, the first step towards its effective retirement? I should welcome clarity from the Minister on how it is meant to function, from a Government who have, by their own choice, abandoned the very digital identity framework on which this order depends.

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—

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.

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.