What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Angus MacIntyre is not a career politician. He is bringing 40 years of real-life experience to the role of Shadow Armed Forces Minister. Reform UK will rebuild our armed forces and end the prosecution of our veterans.
Angus MacIntyre is Reform UK’s Shadow Armed Forces Minister. Angus stood down as a commissioned Wing Commander in the Royal Air Force last week to reverse the damage successive Tory and Labour governments have inflicted on our Armed Forces. In Reform UK's first 100 days Angus will end the unjust prosecutions of our veterans. If he fails. He will resign.
As usual, the hon. Member is making an excellent, well-informed speech. Does he agree that it is rather sad that, given the absence of any support in the Budget, people in our constituencies are looking to the mid-term elections in America to lead to peace in the middle east and a reduction in prices?
I will call Paul Davies to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and from the Minister, which I know has been negotiated in advance of this debate. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
I thank the hon. Member for securing this incredibly time-sensitive and critical debate, and for the points that he has made so far. Does he agree that it was incredibly disappointing for the people in our constituencies who rely on heating oil who were looking to the Budget to provide them with solutions that not a single penny was allocated to support them? Furthermore, does he agree that the UK Government should take lessons from the Scottish Government, who have implemented the emergency heating oil support fund, which so far has helped more than 7,000 people?
I congratulate the Member across the Moray Firth from me, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), on securing this debate. In Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, 44% of homes are off the gas grid, and over 60% rely directly on oil central heating—more than triple the Scottish national average and nearly six times the UK average. Across Scotland as a whole, 142,000 households depend on heating oil to keep warm, yet while grid-connected homes have an energy price cap, which in itself is going to see a huge increase, off-grid households have no such protection. Heating oil is an unregulated market, leaving consumers massively exposed to price volatility. When prices reached 123p per litre, an average household using 2,000 litres faced an annual bill of nearly £2,600—more than £869 higher than the main energy price cap, and that does not include electricity on top. A pensioner in Findhorn wrote to me after paying £1,205 for just 1,000 litres of kerosene, describing it as simply unsustainable. Pensioners with severe medical conditions report orders exceeding £900 per tank, forcing them to choose between heating their homes and buying basic essentials. Powers over energy market regulation and consumer protection remain with Westminster, yet Ministers refuse to institute price caps or regulate minimum delivery thresholds. That underscores a fundamental truth: Scotland is an energy-rich nation, yet under Westminster control, forgotten homes are left out in the cold.
No, I will finish. With independence, Scotland would take full control over energy market regulation, price caps and consumer protection, preventing such a crisis from happening in the first place.
2. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2026 on Wales.
The autumn Budget will deliver real-terms cuts to Welsh public services, because it fails to “compensate for higher inflation.” Those are not my words, but those of Cardiff University, which says that Wales now faces “difficult choices”, including cuts to local authorities such as mine on Ynys Môn. Can the Secretary of State explain why this UK Labour Government are imposing cuts on Welsh public services?
The Prime Minister promised to end 40 years of Thatcherite ideology, but last week’s Budget was a whimper, not a reset. A poll since the Budget found that 60% of voters believe that it merely tinkers around the edges, and in Wales we can see why—real-terms cuts loom for public services, we see a shrinking capital budget and there is no meaningful movement on rail funding. Does the Secretary of State understand why so many people in Wales feel that the Budget falls so far short of the promises talked up by his Government?
The Secretary of State did not mention the £14 billion that has been promised, or the £300 million for Leeds railway station. There are threats of cuts everywhere. The BBC has announced £9 million of cuts at BBC Cymru Wales, including 58 job losses. Twenty hours of programming, as well as radio shows such as “Dros Ginio” and “Ar y Marc”, will be axed, and Welsh production companies are raising the alarm about the impact of fewer commissions. We have had to fight hard for Welsh-language broadcasting. What is the Secretary of State doing, as Wales’s supposed man in the Cabinet, to protect jobs and safeguard our national media?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. First, let me say to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) that we have all been there, but we use a runner bean stick rather than an upturned broom. The cost of heating oil is a major issue for my constituents in Caerfyrddin, and I welcome the Government’s decision to include off-grid households in the £100 energy support payment, which has been implemented by the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government. Unfortunately, most rural homes are not in bands A to D. In Wales, heating oil prices have risen by 103% since January, increasing the annual cost from £605 to £1,620. Rural communities are bearing the brunt of those increases. I ask the Government for more support with those costs. Will they consider reducing VAT on domestic heating oil to provide direct and immediate relief to households, as others have asked? In the long term, we need to ensure that schemes that support the transition away from oil heating are properly funded, as the majority of rural homes are pre 1910 and cladding is not an effective option. I am proud that Caerfyrddin ranks 16th in the UK for heat pump uptake, demonstrating that households are willing to make the transition when support is available. The MCS Foundation has warned that if installations continue at their current rate, next year’s budget could be exhausted within six months, and with the off-grid boiler upgrade scheme grants due to fall from £9,000 to £7,500 in the next financial year, it is vital that households are made aware that applications must be submitted before 31 March to secure a full grant. Too often, rural communities are an afterthought in energy policy. The reality is that families who have no access to the gas grid are paying the highest prices to stay warm this winter. Rural communities, including those in Wales, need action now.
One would hope that any Union would be a Union of equals, in which equal partners listen to each other with mutual respect. May I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to check his facts, as he has asked Plaid Members to check theirs? Can he confirm that the UK Government have listened to the Welsh Government on the Cynnal child payment pilot? Will he ensure that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not count this payment as income, so that families do not lose out on the other benefit support that they need?
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—my dear friend—for securing this important debate. In North East Fife, about 14.6% of households are off the gas grid. It is not as remote as my hon. Friend’s, but it is a rural constituency. I want to share the experience of one of my constituents that illustrates the reality facing many households today. My constituent uses an electric heater in her daughter’s bedroom rather than turning on the boiler in order to preserve her remaining oil supply for hot water. Her energy costs mean that she has less money to spend on her overall costs, and she is now building up a credit card debt that she is trying to service. She told me: “I can’t take my daughter to visit her grandparents because I have to ration fuel for school runs and food shopping. I make excuses because I’m too embarrassed to admit I can’t afford the 80-mile round trip.” No family should be forced to make choices like those. I have met with Ministers to discuss the impact not only of heating oil prices but of the rising costs of liquefied petroleum gas and red diesel. That is creating additional pressures for rural households, farmers and local businesses. I agree with other Members that while immediate support is essential, we need to focus on long-term solutions. The answer to helping people to cope with high-energy costs cannot simply be to mitigate those costs; we need to do things permanently. That is one of the reasons why my Scottish Lib Dem colleagues in Holyrood, and indeed colleagues in Westminster, continue to advocate for an emergency home upgrade programme. I have to say, however, that constituents’ experiences with schemes such as energy company obligation 4 are really damaging and have eroded consumer confidence in making the move to more zero carbon, zero emission and better heating. Older homes need to be heated to be maintained. It is a real challenge for people. We need to reduce that reliance in the longer term because, as we have heard, families across North East Fife and other rural constituencies absolutely deserve better.
I mentioned the ECO4 scheme. I accept the Minister’s statistics on suitability for heat pumps, but one of the key challenges is that we have few fully qualified tradespeople capable of carrying out this work. That is why my constituents have been left with completely substandard work when they have tried to implement changes.
The Liberal Democrats absolutely support this motion, but it is my democratic duty to highlight some things that I would love the Government to consider as we make this extension. Let us look locally, nationally and internationally. In July, Hertfordshire county council raised its cyber-security risk to the maximum score on its register, 25 out of 25. That is exactly the kind of risk that this Bill should manage, yet the Bill excludes local authorities, even though they hold social care records on some of the most vulnerable people. Less than a fortnight ago, 32 Government services went offline while Departments patched critical flaws in widely used web software. That shows just how vulnerable the heart of our nation’s digital infrastructure and security is. On Sunday night, hackers attacked dozens of supermarket refrigerators and freezers in seven European countries, raising their temperatures to 50°C and spoiling millions of euros-worth of produce. That is the food we all rely on every single day, and the National Cyber Security Centre has warned: “The UK’s cyber resilience is not yet where it should be.” Our framework must not fall behind those of our closest neighbours. We should deepen co-operation with European Union agencies and member states. In a digital world, isolation only increases risk. Those examples lay bare the crucial importance of the Bill and the devastating cost to businesses, consumers and our national security if we fail to get it right. The Bill cannot simply react to yesterday’s threats; we must ensure that our critical national infrastructure is prepared for the future, which means addressing over-reliance on high-risk foreign technology, and tackling the rapidly escalating threat of cyber-attacks powered by artificial intelligence, and on the internet of things, which is embedded in so much of what we use. Digital sovereignty underpins everything else. We can no longer ignore the risks of over-reliance on American and Chinese technology, or rely on hostile, unpredictable states for our critical infrastructure. More than half of central Government organisations now run most of their systems on the cloud, and that all sits with just two companies, both American. The Government are the UK’s largest buyer of technology, but they almost never buy British. Since 2023, Palantir has won more than £420 million in public contracts across the national health service, the Met, the financial regulator, a city council and the Ministry of Defence. The latter’s £240 million contract was awarded without competition. Palantir is also an approved supplier on six public sector buying frameworks with a combined value of more than £9.7 billion—a route into Whitehall, the NHS, the police and our local councils.
I thank my hon. Friend for that. There is so much that highlights that this is the wrong approach from our Government, and that we need to look not only at our suppliers, but at the importance of backing British technology. We believe that a digital sovereign strategy would change things. We need to back British innovation, reduce our dependencies and make our critical systems more secure. We need to look at each level of the tech stack and have a strategy that is right for the UK. I put that proposal to this House in June through new clause 13, which received cross-party support, but the Government and the Conservatives voted it down. Sovereignty is not about doing this alone; it is about working globally while backing British. It is about becoming and staying world leaders in technology. It is about securing high-quality digital infrastructure that embeds us in global supply chains and makes the most of our incredible talent and skills. That would give us international leverage, not isolation. The Government say that sovereignty is covered by Departments across Whitehall, and last week’s Budget put another £60 million in the sovereign AI fund, but a venture fund and a patchwork of departmental reports are not a strategy. The new powers on high-risk vendors in clause 44 allow the Government to react once a risky supplier is already in our system, but a strategy needs to be proactive. It needs to build British capability so that we never get to that point. Even industry is calling for a strategy, so I urge the Government to bring forward their own amendments on digital sovereignty. Secondly, amendment 107, which passed in the Lords—a Cross-Bench amendment that Liberal Democrat peers supported—requires a review within a year of Royal Assent, and every year after that, of whether the regime is working, which sectors it covers, the supply chains, the regulators and the AI Security Institute. Given the fast pace of change in cyber-security, we urge the Government to support the amendment and to look at expanding the scope to local government, which holds our electoral rolls and our social records, and to retail, because a country that cannot feed itself is not resilient. We welcome the Government’s commitment in the other place to reviewing whether all critical national infrastructure sectors should be covered by this legislation and the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018. This week’s NCSC review warns that AI-powered malware is highly likely to be used in ransomware attacks on our critical infrastructure by 2028, yet there is still no clarity on who oversees AI in our cyber-defences: a single regulator, the AI Security Institute, or another body that is exactly right for the task. Our constituents and businesses need that clarity, because where there is trust in the regulatory environment, there is investment. People need to trust the technology; that is both pro-business and pro-society. The Government need a plan for who does what, and they need it sooner rather than later. As Europe calls for a leaders’ summit on AI, I call again on the Government to convene a global AI summit, and to look towards an international AI safety agency, headquartered in the UK and modelled on the International Atomic Energy Agency, with a global treaty on pausing the development of super-intelligent AI. Finally, none of this works unless those who are expected to deliver it can work. Small and medium-sized enterprises make up 99.8% of UK businesses and are often the most vulnerable link in the cyber-supply chains. This week’s discount on Cyber Essentials certification is welcome—the Liberal Democrats called for that—but it is time-limited; it ends in March, and the certificate must be renewed every year. Even the NCSC calls it only a starting point. SMEs need real support from a cyber-security support service when they are hit, to give them clear guidance. On Second Reading, I compared this Bill to a house with stronger fences and a better alarm, but with its back door left wide open. The past few days alone have shown us why closing that door matters. I urge the Government to consider our amendments, for the communities and councils who rely on critical infrastructure, for the businesses integrated into every supply chain, and for every family who expect the services that they rely on to be there when they need them. We support the carry-over motion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate. When I led a debate on heating oil in April, constituents were being asked to find extraordinary sums just to keep warm. Seven months on, that problem remains. More than 10,000 homes in North Norfolk rely entirely on heating oil. One constituent’s delivery has risen from £800 to £1,400, and others have seen the price jump from 55p to £1.34 a litre in just two months. Households have to find all that money at once; they cannot just put 20 quid’s worth in the tank and hope it gets them through the week. We know that these extraordinary price rises are a direct consequence of Donald Trump’s disastrous war in Iran, cheered on by Reform and the Conservatives, and ordinary households in North Norfolk are left paying the price. That is why I will not stop calling for a heating oil price cap. I welcome the Government’s response to the CMA investigation and their commitment to stronger regulation, but regulation alone will not protect people from the next price shock. Gas and electricity customers have a cap, but my constituents do not, simply because they live beyond the gas grid. The Government have ruled it out, but I ask the Minister to please reconsider that. In the meantime, there is something that the Treasury could do now. One constituent’s bill has more than doubled, and VAT is still added on top. For months, I have called for VAT to be removed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said. That would be about 50 quid back in my constituent’s pocket. It would not solve everything, but it would ease the pressure on households facing a huge up-front bill, so I again ask whether the Minister will take that to the Chancellor. People in North Norfolk accept that rural life brings challenges, but they should not have to accept being punished financially for it. I hope the Minister recognises that today.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing this debate. Incidentally, he may find the Transport Committee’s recent inquiry into street works of interest; the Committee considered the issue in depth and made a number of recommendations to the Government, which I ask the Minister to refer to in his remarks. Despite being a Norfolk MP, I am very pleased to represent the Liberal Democrats in this important debate. I feel perhaps uniquely qualified, thanks to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), who advised thick tyres and a robust vehicle for Suffolk’s roads; I have indulged myself in an agricultural vehicle to get around Norfolk for the same reason. I am only too pleased to speak about the challenges we share with our neighbours south of the border. I have been shocked by the evidence of the deteriorating state of Suffolk’s roads, which, unbelievably, are even worse than Norfolk’s. According to the BBC, pothole reports rose by nearly 5,000 in a single year and, as I think the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) noted, earlier this year Suffolk was rated red in the Government’s road maintenance ratings. For locals, that is just not good enough, and I think they know whom to thank for it. I will be gracious in responding to the request from the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich that I be gentle—he has at least turned up to propose this debate—but the Reform administration at the council, and his colleagues who preceded it, have presided over this abject failure in recent months and years. Drivers already facing soaring prices at the petrol pump thanks to the war in Iran—which Reform and, I gently say, the Conservatives were cheerleading—now face the cost of repairing cars damaged by potholes on local roads too. [Valerie Vaz in the Chair] What is even tougher for Suffolk residents is that it does not have to be this way. Colleagues in this room might all be dashing for the same train back to East Anglia this evening, but I gently encourage them to look across the border to Liberal Democrat-led Cambridgeshire county council, which is fixing four times as many potholes as Suffolk. That is a prime example of how communities that elect Lib Dem local champions get better services, better roads and a better council. My worry is that, instead of learning from Cambridgeshire, Suffolk might learn from the Reform administration in Norfolk, whose management of the highways budget is frankly laughable. Reform swanned in and abolished the ring-fenced £11,000 fund that each member had for highways projects in their division. From my time as a county councillor—I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I know the impact that that funding had in local communities. It was not just about fixing potholes: we supported village gates for Melton Constable, a bus shelter and lay-by in Saxthorpe, speed awareness message, or SAM2, cameras for the A148, which has led to a project to cut the speed limit on that dangerous road, and much more. That local members’ fund was instrumental in improving road quality in Norfolk, and it should be preserved and extended in Suffolk. The Reform administration claimed that robbing the ringfenced funding from Norfolk was needed to fund general highways maintenance and repairs, but in recent days we have seen its budget consultation, which proposes cutting a further £500,000 from highways maintenance and reducing the verge cutting on some rural roads to only once a year. That is disastrous mismanagement of our county’s roads, and the Reform administration, propped up by Restore Britain, ought to be ashamed of itself. I share that tale as a word of warning to colleagues in Suffolk; on this occasion, they should ensure that they do not listen to their friends in the north in Norfolk. It is unclear whether there is much friendship left between the administrations. Rather than focusing on fixing the state of Suffolk’s roads, the Reform administrations in our two counties have been locked in a battle about when to hold elections for the future mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk. That is highly pertinent to road safety, given the powers that will be bestowed on the office. Our endlessly delayed devolution deal faces yet more hold-ups, because Reform administrations are fighting one another, and residents are paying the price. They are watching on as the people’s front of Reform and the Reform people’s front stand off, shouting, “Splitters!” across the border at each other while the potholes grow, the road markings wear away and the services paid for by residents’ council tax are simply not delivered to the standard that they expect. Poorly maintained roads are a misery for motorists. In rural communities, where there is no choice other than greater car use, they will see this issue impact on them even harder. It causes issues for public transport delivery, as poor-quality roads make it harder for bus operators to run reliable services to the rural villages that need them the most. This is not just a clichéd moan; this is one of the ways in which Government failure wears people down in rural areas and makes them feel that they are being given a worse deal than people in cities. I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, as I know that colleagues from Suffolk are keen to hear how the Government intend to address the challenges that they face. Let me end with a message of solidarity from their friends and football rivals over the northern border. We are suffering with a Reform council too, and the best cure that I can see is to elect a Liberal Democrat council instead.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate and on his tireless work on behalf of the off-grid households in his constituency. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today. The issue is not just a highlands problem, or even a Somerset problem. It is a problem for all rural households across the UK. Around 1.4 million homes are off the gas grid, and many of them have no choice but to heat their homes with oil. The war in Iran and Donald Trump’s reckless trade wars have sent shock after shock through global energy markets. This week, at the mid-term elections, the American people rejected the politics of division and voted for hope. They also rejected a President whose answer to every energy question is, “Drill, baby, drill”, and who pulled America out of the Paris climate agreement. But a weakened President is not a more predictable one and rural households here are still desperately exposed. Since the war in Iran began, the price of heating oil has risen by around 80%, and yet not one of the 1.4 million households is protected by Ofgem’s energy price cap. The result is a two-tier energy system: one set of rules for homes on the gas grid and another for rural Britain. Behind the figures are real families facing a very difficult winter. A household on mains gas pays as it goes, protected by a price cap with a regulator to turn to. A household on heating oil has none of that. They have to pay in bulk, often many hundreds of pounds in a single bill just as winter sets in, so families are forced to make impossible choices. They heat one room and close off the rest. They go to bed early just to keep warm, or they put off ordering and run the risk of their tank running dry. Too often rural Britain is an afterthought when policy is made, and heating oil is yet another example of that. Phil and Jenny, who live in North Barrow, paid 77p a litre in February. They are now paying nearly double that and cannot afford to heat their home this winter. The Government have announced three measures on energy costs. Not one of them properly reaches a home like theirs. The first is removing unfair standing charges; that is the right thing to do, but it does nothing about the cost of heating oil. The second is removing tariffs on kerosene. Again, that is welcome, but the UK trade policy observatory at the University of Sussex has found that 83% of kerosene imports already come into Britain tariff-free. So, I ask the Minister: will she publish the Department’s own estimate of how much this tariff cut will save a rural household? The third measure is the £100 rebate that was announced last week. Any help is welcome, but will rural households actually get it? Oil-heated homes tend to be bigger, older and harder to heat, and many fall outside the scope of the rebate altogether. How many households that are reliant on heating oil does the Minister expect will receive the rebate? This is a two-tier system, so will the Minister commit that every future energy support scheme is properly rural-proofed, with a published assessment of how many off-grid homes it will reach? My constituent Jill is a pensioner who lives in Horsington. She is the legal guardian of her grand-daughter and, apart from child benefit, she receives absolutely no help at all. She wrote to me recently to tell me that she cannot afford to fill her oil tank, so her grand-daughter will be coming home from school to a cold house. Following pressure from the Liberal Democrats, and from many other hon. and right hon. Members present, £53 million of support was made available in March. However, that equates to about £35 per home, so that support was really limited, and delivery through local councils has created a postcode lottery for rural households. Will the Minister publish details about how much of that £53 million has been spent and by which councils? Will any unspent money be topped up and reallocated before the coldest months arrive? Heating oil is only one part of a wider cost of living crisis in the countryside. The rural premium means that rural households spend 10% to 20% more on everyday essentials. With few buses and longer journeys in rural areas, a car is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. Rural households already face a fuel poverty gap of £987 compared with households in towns and cities. Many rural communities have found their own way to fight back, through oil clubs and consortia. Across the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency, oil-buying clubs are a lifeline for rural communities. By clubbing together and placing one combined order, they secure customers a better price and a more reliable service, and in addition fewer tankers need to travel along our rural lanes. However, that only works if suppliers honour the price they quote. When the war in Iran began, some suppliers refused to honour quoted prices or to quote a price at all, so oil clubs were forced to suspend trading just when households needed them most. The Competition and Markets Authority found that around 1,700 customers had orders cancelled, and many were forced to reorder at higher prices or simply go without. I welcome the Government’s decision to accept the CMA’s recommendations: a code of conduct now and a new regulatory regime to follow. However, will the Minister set out a clear timescale, so that rural families and oil clubs are protected this winter, not next winter? I believe the CMA got one thing badly wrong: its decision not to recommend a price cap. It argued that a cap could reduce competition, but in too many rural areas there is very little competition to protect. On the Isle of Wight, for example, households have just one supplier. Where there is no competition, a price cap does not damage the market; it protects the consumer. Will the Minister commit to zero-rating VAT on heating oil for three months and to a price cap mechanism that protects off-grid homes this winter? Emergency support must get families through this winter, but without urgent action on how rural homes are heated, we will be debating this same crisis every winter, and rural families will keep paying the price. As long as our rural homes depend on imported oil, they will be at the mercy of global events, whether that is the war in the middle east or the decisions of a volatile President, which can drive up the price of filling an oil tank in Somerset overnight. Energy security is national security, which means speeding up the transition to renewable energy—the cheapest and cleanest new power, which is generated right here in Britain. For rural households, it means an affordable way of getting off heating oil, but by July, the warm homes local grant had upgraded just 5,470 homes—0.1% of its target. Yet last week’s Budget cut £1 billion from warm homes plan grants. The Liberal Democrats would instead deliver a 10-year emergency home upgrades programme, starting with free insulation for low-income households. Will the Minister ensure that the new home energy model properly reflects older, off-grid rural homes, so that they are not wrongly assessed and shut out of support? In an unstable world, rural households face a cost of living crisis, and they cannot be treated as second tier again this winter. I have three asks of the Minister. First, will she publish the figures on what the tariff cut will really save rural households? Secondly, will she zero-rate VAT on heating oil for three months and introduce a price cap mechanism for off-grid homes this winter? Thirdly, will she reverse the cuts to the warm homes plan and give rural households an affordable route off heating oil? Rural Britain has been an afterthought for far too long this winter. The Government have a choice: stand with rural households or leave them out in the cold.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The challenge is compounded by the nature of the housing stock in rural constituencies. Friends of the Earth says that in my constituency, 12% of people are living in fuel poverty and 62% of homes have an energy performance certificate rating of D or lower. Does he agree that part of the solution is making our homes more sustainable in terms of energy?
Yes, I am very much here, Madam Deputy Speaker. Goodness me! How am I to follow that? I wonder how many other people have managed to get “sugar daddies” into Hansard. Congratulations to the shadow Secretary of State on that. Nothing has changed with this legislation, as of yet, so our grave concerns remain. Of course, we hope that the deliberations of our noble Lords will lead to some improvements, and we look forward to seeing those at a later date. My only question to the Minister is: why has it taken so long to deliver this Bill? He is quite right to say that the opportunity for scrutiny is important, and that is welcome, but by my analysis, there have been some unexplained gaps, including one and a half months between Second Reading and Committee, and a four-month gap between the Committee concluding and Report. There was also a two-month gap in the Lords between Second Reading and Committee. I very much hope that the Secretary of State did not procure HS2 or East West Rail to project-manage this Bill, but perhaps the Minister will tell us he is considering introducing some form of parliamentary delay-repay scheme.
Q12. In September, the First Secretary rightly said that “local leaders will have the power and resources they need to invest in the things that matter most to their communities.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 174.]I agree with her; yet this Labour Government are about to slash more than £100 million of funding from Richmond council over the next four years. That is almost 60% of the council’s budget. My vulnerable constituents will suffer the most as a result of those devastating cuts. Will she agree to meet me, the leader of the council and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), so that we can find a sustainable way forward?
I congratulate my southern neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing time for today’s debate. Orkney and Shetland have the highest levels of fuel poverty of any community in the country. I have heard colleagues complain about having a number of homes with no access to the gas grid. I share their pain, but we have absolutely no homes connected to the mains gas grid. That is something of a bitter irony because, for the past 40 to 50 years, the gas that has heated homes in the rest of the United Kingdom has for the most part landed in either Shetland or Orkney, only to be shipped south. When we heard the Chancellor last week in the Budget abolish standing charges for gas but not electricity customers, that felt like another kick in the teeth. Given the shortness of time, I have a few asks of the Minister today. When will we see the extension of the abolition of standing charges for electricity as well as gas? Those not relying on heating oil, rely largely on electric storage heating. When will we see meaningful regulation of the heating oil market? At the very least, that regulation should include a reduction in minimum orders and introduction of a price cap, which would allow some certainty in budgeting for those who rely on heating oil. Finally, as we move towards reliance on renewable energy, when will we see a meaningful package for community benefit and assistance with bills, so that those who live in the shadow of pylons and turbines are given access to the cheaper electricity they desperately need?
The hon. Gentleman cited the figure from Refuge that referrals to its tech abuse team have increased by 62%. He said that we are at a crossroads, but it seems to me that we are already past that. To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) said, this is an exact reflection of what happened with the social media ban: the Government are going to come along too late. We need to emphasise that smart glasses are an aggravating factor in humiliation and abuse, and we need more wraparound regulations to tackle this problem right now.
I support the idea of a VAT freeze. Hundreds of my constituents rely on heating oil. A pensioner couple in my constituency ordered oil at 60p a litre in February; the order dragged on and was cancelled, then they were told that they could reorder at 124p per litre—more than double the price. Although a VAT freeze would not roll that back, it would go a long way towards helping those people out.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a travesty that Palantir is not on the strategic suppliers list maintained by the Cabinet Office?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this crucial debate. As we have heard, smart glasses can pose a very real threat to the safety and personal privacy of women and girls in particular. Smart glasses, combined with the ease of communication and anonymity provided by social media, have offered a new avenue for gender-based harassment. Recordings of women and girls taken without their knowledge or consent can be livestreamed or uploaded and distributed online with far too much ease. The initial harm of an in-person encounter is then compounded by social media algorithms. Quick to follow are abusive online commentary, online stalking and other technology-facilitated harassment. All that translates to real-world harm. Reporting in the past week by London Centric illustrates how perpetrators are getting away with it. The publication found that, if these so-called content creators film themselves approaching a different woman every day and post the videos on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok, they can receive millions of views, earn money from them and face no legal consequences. The police are aware, but they are simply working within the law—in this case, law that was written in the last century. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires repeated harassment of an individual to reach the threshold for prosecution. However, harassing behaviour of the sort committed by those who are non-consensually filming women, such as those with smart glasses, is allowed as long as the women are only filmed once. To be frank, the current law makes this area the wild west when it comes to privacy and online abuse. It does not matter that the same harassing behaviour is replicated against potentially dozens of women. All that currently matters in law is that it is not done repeatedly to the same woman. As such, this disgusting behaviour is not only legal but profitable—it is monetised misogyny, plain and simple. Those who claim, as the men filming these videos do, that it is “just a bit of fun”, need only read about the impact a few seconds of non-consensual filming has on the women who are victims of it. In one case, London Centric reported on a woman who, after being filmed without her consent by a “content creator”, described how other men have since entered her workplace, where she was recorded, to ask her whether she knows that she is “TikTok famous”. Other women have moved away from London altogether after being non-consensually filmed.
The hon. Member makes an important point, and I agree, but we have to go after those who promote and normalise this behaviour—by which I mean the online platforms. They are essentially broadcasters. Reaching a mass audience, for example through television, used to mean having to have a broadcasting licence and being held to a high standard; but the online platforms get away with promoting disgusting, misogynistic content over and over again. People see it, so it becomes normalised.
It seems that across the House we entirely agree on this matter.
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention, which proves what a difficult and complex subject this is. Everybody has a role to play, not just the victims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, it is important that we do not leave this matter just to the victims, but to manufacturers, broadcasters and social media platforms, as well as the so-called content creators—I struggle with that phrase, because they pose as content creators, but they make a lot of money out of this. That is one of the disgusting things; it is monetising misogyny, as I have said. Everyone has a role to play, and we must focus on that. As we have seen, legislation is falling woefully behind advances in technology such as smart glasses and changes in behaviour on social media. When we legislate, we need foresight about what might come later, not just what is happening now and what happened in the past. We need to write legislation in that way. I urge the Minister to review the effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, to ensure that the harassment loophole that I described is closed. I am sure she does not doubt that these examples are indicative of harassing behaviour, not least because social media feeds often show the same video to the same user over and over again. Every woman and girl, regardless of who they are or where they live, has the fundamental right to live free from fear, harassment and violence—but, to ensure that that is a reality, not just a slogan or aspiration, we have to act decisively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the issue. We can take simple steps right now to mitigate this misuse. We must begin by enforcing hardware-level standards to ensure that smart glasses are tamper proof, as other hon. Members have said. We must ban modifications that disable or remove the recording indicator, as well as those that might cover it up—a bit of electrical tape might do the job, as others have suggested, and that should not be okay either. We must also expand the scope of sexual harm prevention orders to prohibit completely the purchase or use of smart glasses by sex offenders, where appropriate, including as a condition of release. The problems with emerging technologies do not exist in isolation. They are amplified by and rely on social media. I implore the Government to take stronger action to hold to account the social media giants—the companies that do not just facilitate, but promote this content. Stories such as those detailed in London Centric would not exist if not for the impunity with which these companies currently operate. Profit must never be placed above the safety and dignity of our citizens. We should have ensured that Ofcom had the powers and legal backing to enforce accountability years ago. It must be equipped to prevent smart glasses-enabled abuse online, with tangible consequences for the companies that fail to comply. The Liberal Democrats have also called on the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online, and build a digital world where women and girls can live safely and without fear. As we have heard, it is important that we acknowledge that developments in technology can still be harnessed for the better. Smart glasses act as genuinely life-changing technologies for blind and partially sighted people. As we have heard, by providing hands-free access to information, object recognition and descriptions of surroundings, they can dramatically increase an individual’s personal independence. However, that is all the more reason for action. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported that users are becoming increasingly hesitant to wear smart glasses for fear of a backlash and of others becoming angry or suspicious towards them. Preventing smart glasses from being used for predatory and covert filming will not only protect women and girls from abuse but help to protect legitimate users from suspicion so that those who benefit from this technology can use it with confidence. I hope the Minister will take very seriously today’s cross-party calls for much stronger action to tighten the law to prevent the monetised online harassment of women and girls, to give Ofcom real teeth to regulate social media companies and ultimately to provide a stronger legal framework for smart glasses, so that those who genuinely benefit from them are not subject to suspicion or threats.
The Minister is making some important points; I am pleased to hear that the Government are listening. I gently say to her that posting an image or some video footage online of a woman who has been recorded without her knowledge often does not meet the threshold of stalking or harassment in itself, yet the effect on the woman can be absolutely awful. That is what the police are grappling with at the moment—they do not feel that they can prosecute. Even when the victim asks the platforms to take the footage down, the platforms do not do anything about it. What more can the Government do to tackle those specific points?
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. I feel that this is how debates should work in this place—it is really good to have this back and forth, and lots of Members are making really good contributions. The Minister has talked a couple of times about intimate images. I want to make the point that these are not all intimate images, but it is nevertheless really distressing when they are shared across social media. I am worried about that focus on intimacy, because it is not always about intimacy in the way that we might understand it.
On Saturday night, five teenagers in my constituency were stabbed while at a party. I would like to offer my thanks to the emergency services for their prompt response, and I extend my best wishes to the families, the victims and their friends. What reassurance can the First Secretary give my constituents that the Government are taking the issue of violent crime seriously and treating it as a public health emergency?
I also point Members to my declaration in the register. Major sporting events bring significant economic and social benefits, from hospitality and tourism to grassroots participation and improved facilities. I am very proud that next summer, the Utilita Bowl in Eastleigh will host its first men’s Ashes test, which is expected to generate millions a day for the local economy. However, those benefits depend on fans being treated fairly, and that starts with ticket pricing. The Bill makes it a criminal offence to tout tickets for an event covered by the framework, in the relevant area during a specified period. Fans have waited too long for touting to be tackled and the unlimited fines send the right signal. However, while the Bill criminalises unauthorised resale, even at or below face value, it sets no price limit on authorised resale, leaving fans exposed. That is why I welcome new clauses 1 and 3. New clause 1 would stop tickets being resold above their original cost and cap resale platform fees, while new clause 3 would cap transaction fees at 10% and ban surge pricing. This means the most a fan could ever be charged for a ticket they can no longer use is the price they paid. The Government have committed to capping resale prices on the same basis as new clause 1, but have promised only a draft Bill: the new clauses would protect fans sooner. Too many fans are now priced out of watching the sport they love, not just in stadiums but at home. Amendment 1 would make free-to-air coverage a condition for any event covered by this Bill. As many of us remember, in 2022, 17.4 million people watched the Lionesses win the Euros on BBC One. In the season that followed, the FA estimated there was a 140% increase in girls under 16 playing football, including in my constituency, with 2.3 million more women and girls playing the game than the year before. I will not lean on the old line that girls cannot be what they cannot see and I would not claim that free-to-air coverage is the only reason for that growth, but it is part of the story. As I mentioned, next year’s fourth Ashes Test will be played in Eastleigh, but no home Ashes series has been shown live on free-to-air television since 2005. Where public money is given to an event, fans who cannot get a ticket should not then be shut out by the cost of a subscription as well. The Bill will create restricted advertising zones around events, where unauthorised advertising will become a criminal offence. However, that protects commercial rights, not the content of what is advertised, leaving the door open for gambling companies to remain official sponsors. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger protections, and new clause 4 would deliver them by prohibiting gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at every event covered by the Bill. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that hundreds of street traders will be affected by trading restrictions, but the Bill includes no statutory duty to consult them before a restricted trading zone is created. In my constituency, West End has a compact high street close to the Utilita Bowl. Depending on how a zone is drawn, it could cover much of the village’s commercial centre. Can the Minister explain what those restrictions would mean in practice for businesses like those in West End? New clause 6 would require consultation with those representing affected businesses, but would not guarantee that the traders themselves or councils are given a say over how a zone is drawn. I ask the Minister to consider requiring a brief impact assessment for nearby small businesses, with local authorities given a statutory right to comment before a zone is confirmed. If the Bill is to work for sport, it must work for local businesses and fans too.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of heating oil prices on rural areas. I thank all the many Members who have come along to this important debate on addressing the growing impact of rising heating oil prices on rural households. I am very grateful for the opportunity to lead the debate. This issue is causing real anxiety the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and particularly in my far-north constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. For many people in the highlands of Scotland, using heating oil is not a choice, but the only practical way to heat their homes—especially during the winter months, when it is a lot colder than in other parts of the UK—because homes are scattered across a vast geography and the main gas grid is not really accessible; there are not many access points in my constituency. Lots of households that rely on heating oil do not benefit from the same protections as those connected to the main gas grid and electricity networks—that point has been made several times in this place. The regulatory safeguards do not really cover those people, and they are very much hit by sudden price increases. My office tells me that across the UK, about 1.5 million homes, a substantial proportion of which are in rural communities, rely on heating oil. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted that rural households typically spend 10% to 20% more on everyday essentials than their urban counterparts. They are also susceptible to higher levels of fuel poverty, because they often live in older, detached properties that are more difficult to insulate, meaning that they have poor energy efficiency. As Members will be aware, the conflict in Iran has caused severe disruption to global energy markets.
The hon. Member makes a characteristically interesting point, in which there may be some truth. The price increases because of the war in Iran have led to some households having their bills doubled or even trebled. Age UK has given me some stats, and here are a couple of examples. One 80-year-old man with serious health problems saw the cost of filling his heating oil tank double from £400 in January to £800 in March. Imagine that.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Let me give one more example: a couple in their 70s, for whom the increase has been equally alarming. Their bill rose from £300 to £700, despite one of them having suffered a stroke and needing to be kept warm, for obvious health reasons. These are not abstract stats, but real people—vulnerable people who are trying to manage their household budgets, pay the bills and keep their houses warm. I have talked several times in this place about elderly and vulnerable people having to make the invidious decision either to freeze or to switch on the heating and worry about running into debt.
The point is extremely well made. Being a cheeky chap from the north of Scotland, I thought it would be wise to write to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget to make the case for targeted support for heating oil customers. I am a little disappointed that the measures that were announced did not go quite as far as I had suggested, but—
The hon. Member makes a good point. She may be cornering me into agreeing with something that the Scottish Government have done, which does not necessarily go with the grain of my psyche. Let me put it this way: the United Kingdom Government will be hearing from me again in yet another of my letters.
