Westminster Hall

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 4 November 2026

[Pete Wishart in the Chair]

Violence against Women and Girls: Smart Glasses

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered smart glasses and violence against women and girls.

A few months ago I was delighted, with the support of many women in the urban design industry and the Minister for Housing and Planning, to get women and girls mentioned in the national planning policy framework. Across the UK, 86% of women and girls aged 18 to 24 have experienced harassment in public spaces, and it seemed crazy to me that they were not going to be at the forefront of how we design those spaces and places.

Having won that victory just before the summer, I was horrified to see stories about AI glasses appearing all over the press. Adverts for smart glasses appeared across London. Online, celebrities sold them as a device to “stay in the moment” and enjoy “effortless connection”. A key selling point was that the glasses could be used to film discreetly. To me, that did not look like a fantastic new innovation; it looked like a device for filming women and girls without their knowledge in the very spaces we have been campaigning to make them feel welcome in. Planning policy had finally accepted that women’s safety matters in the spaces we build, but at the same moment technology was eroding women’s privacy and safety in those same spaces.

Sales of smart glasses are now soaring, and already my fears about their use are being realised. Women are reporting waking up after nights out to find that videos of them, filmed without their knowledge or consent by men wearing smart glasses, have gone viral online. The only indication anyone has that they are being filmed is a small LED in the corner of the glasses, but that is quickly disappearing, with “ghost Meta” shops offering to remove the light entirely so that no one in a public space knows they are being filmed. To me these devices not only have the potential to erode safety and privacy in public spaces, but raise really important questions about consent.

A few weeks ago, I met the campaign group Stop Smart Glasses. One of its campaigners is a secondary school teacher, and he told me that as part of his job he stands in front of teenagers and teaches them that consent must be sought proactively—that yes means yes and no means no. But increasingly those same children go home, pick up their phones and scroll on social media, where they see videos of girls who were filmed without even being asked or knowing. He pointed out the irony that if one of his female students is filmed by AI glasses in public, the onus is on her to approach the man doing the filming and ask him to stop. What are we teaching young people—that consent is something we learn in the classroom and abandon on the street?

Covert filming is not new, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has done excellent work on tackling the problem in nightclubs and other public spaces, but smart glasses make it easier, and harder to detect and challenge. In Australia, one solution has been to ban the use of smart glasses in certain areas, such as swimming pools, but I feel that sends a message to women that they are safe only in certain places. Surely, we do not want that to become the case.

Waking up to a video of yourself online undermines perceptions of safety, but it is also a breach of privacy and raises real data protection concerns. According to Meta’s smart glasses terms of use, content captured by the glasses can be used to train Meta AI. The burden of consent allowing Meta to do that is placed on the person wearing the glasses. That means that if someone is filmed without their knowledge or permission, Meta can still use that content to train its AI, because the wearer has given de facto consent. I do not see how that squares with data protection law. GDPR says that companies need a proper reason to use our personal data, and an individual walking past someone wearing smart glasses in the street has not agreed to anything. Small discreet cameras make secret filming easier, and women and girls will be disproportionately impacted by that. More broadly, in the age of wearable tech, all of us, male or female, are losing a bit of our privacy every time we step outside. Despite that, I have heard nothing from the Government about how smart glasses should be regulated.

When I raise this topic in public, one main argument comes back as a justification for smart glasses: they provide huge benefits for people with accessibility requirements, including blind and partially sighted people. I completely understand that point of view. I met the Royal National Institute of Blind People a few weeks ago to hear from it directly. It was very clear that although technology can offer huge benefits to its community, it does not want to become a fig leaf for Meta to justify poor practice and surveillance technology, and that its members have the same concerns about the technology as everyone else. Furthermore, Meta glasses have not been made with blind people in mind. If they had, they would be vastly better at accommodating the range of needs that those with disabilities might have.

These glasses pose a threat to everyone’s safety and privacy in public spaces. Meta and other developers are breaching everyone’s right to privacy, while failing to be transparent about what they are doing with the data they have collected. As in so many other areas of life, this modern technology will undoubtedly have a heightened impact on violence against women and girls.

On Monday, I sat in this room for a debate on the social media ban, and it struck me how long all Governments of whatever flavour have put off acting on social media, even though the evidence of harm has been there for years. I do not want smart glasses to go the same way, where we only regulate once it is too late. We are only 50 days from Christmas, and we can expect these glasses to be sold everywhere in numbers. How can we put the genie back in the bottle once they are being worn everywhere? We have called for them to be banned on the parliamentary estate, but frankly, everyone deserves the same privacy that we should enjoy in this place.

I look forward to the debate, and I am thankful to everyone who has attended. I hope to hear from Members across the House who are concerned about the use of smart glasses and from the Minister, to understand what the Government intend to do about this potentially dangerous new technology.

14:40

[Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this debate and for her remarks, which summarised the concerns and challenges around this important topic very clearly.

This debate comes at an important time. We live in a time of rapid technological advancement, which is exciting but also must be safeguarded. We have seen how these developments can threaten the safety of our women and girls with deepfake videos, stalking and monitoring devices, and wearable tech such as smart glasses. The hands-free technology of smart glasses promises crucial assistance to visually impaired people across the country, but the promise must be backed up with the right precautions and protections. We should not restrict law-abiding citizens from using this technology where it causes no harm to others. Our responsibility is to ensure that the innovations do not outpace the very protections that keep our women and girls safe in public spaces.

Unlike smartphones, which are clear and visible when in use, camera-enabled smart glasses allow covert recording to take place at eye level, completely disguised as regular human eye-to-eye contact. For many women who are already navigating public spaces with extra vigilance, that creates real unease. Ministers have rightly set out that recording individuals without consent in order to cause alarm or distress or for sexual gratification falls under existing criminal offences such as harassment and voyeurism. The legal position is clear: anyone who misuses this technology to intimidate or harass women must feel the full force of the law.

The real issue, however, is enforcement. Proving intent when someone is covertly filmed on a bus or a high street is incredibly difficult, and once that footage hits the internet, the damage to a victim’s privacy and dignity is already done. Expecting victims to rely on post-hoc takedown requests under GDPR or the Online Safety Act 2023 places the burden entirely on the wrong shoulders.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Member join me in praising the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland through initiatives such as Project Vigilant, which targets technologies that are used to abuse women and girls, and calling for greater research to support our police across the UK in identifying covert recording technologies, as that remains an operational hurdle?

[Shivani Raja]

The hon. Gentleman is right: we must view this issue in the context of the wider challenges of violence against women and girls.

The Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls, which I wholeheartedly welcome, but warm words must be backed by actions. It was concerning that the Government missed their own deadline to publish their VAWG strategy on three separate occasions. Women and survivors deserve better than delayed timelines. Now that it has been published, the Government must ensure the law is strongly enforced so that perpetrators are caught and punished.

Technology should enrich our lives, not serve as a tool for covert harassment. I urge the Minister to work with manufacturers on basic safety-by-design standards such as mandatory untamperable recording lights on smart frames, and to ensure that our police forces have the digital tools needed to keep the women and girls in our communities safe and sound.

09:39

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this timely and important debate on a subject that she has been campaigning hard on.

Smart glasses are a new technology that, despite their benefits for accessibility, provide yet another way for people to secretly film, promote and broadcast violence against women and girls. We have not even got a grip on the violence that is already being filmed and shared using mobile phones.

Every woman and girl, wherever she lives and whatever her circumstances, has a right to feel safe. She should not have to worry that someone is secretly recording her, following her or waiting for an opportunity to capture a moment of violence and turn it into entertainment for other people. More than 10% of women in England have experienced online violence, and among women aged 16 to 24 the figure rises to 25%. Digital abuse follows women into schools, workplaces, homes and communities.

I will once again share the story of Isabella, a 15-year-old girl from my constituency. In May 2025, she was lured to a local cemetery in Lyme Regis, where a group of young people were already waiting for her. The attack was premeditated. Someone had a phone ready and began recording before Isabella even arrived.

Isabella knew the person who attacked her. Her head was smashed against a concrete step, and she was stamped on repeatedly and kicked in the face. While that happened, nobody stepped in to help her. Rather, they stood by, filmed, laughed and asked for the video to be sent to them. That video was circulated across schools in Beaminster, Bridport and Lyme Regis. Children who were not there—some who did not know Isabella—watched her brutal attack on their phones. The violence was shared, forwarded, replayed and discussed. Her humiliation was repeated in classrooms, corridors and group chats.

The attacker received anger management classes and a six-month restraining order, but the person who filmed the attack was not punished at all. Someone had planned to record a young girl being brutally assaulted. They were ready when she arrived. They chose to film, not help, and they helped to turn the attack into something that could be watched again and again.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is outlining an appalling incident. Does he agree that we need to do what we can to get a societal change so that the friends, associates and families of those who carry out such activity, whether using smart glasses or mobile phones, understand that it is totally appalling and unacceptable and that they will be made to feel like the pariahs that they are in society?

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. There is a societal conversation to be had about this behaviour, but there is also a question about regulation and whether the law is appropriate.

In December 2025, ongoing bullying forced Isabella to leave Beaminster school in the middle of year 10. She had only recently started her GCSE courses. She moved schools, but the same subject options were not available, so she had to change courses and catch up on four months’ work. Isabella still experiences flashbacks and anxiety in loud and crowded places. Her mother said to me:

“I have to live with knowing that the video will be forever available on social media.”

Isabella was filmed on a mobile phone. She was not attacked by someone wearing smart glasses, but her experience shows the world we already live in and the consequences of allowing technology to amplify violence and humiliation. If we cannot properly protect victims now, how can we possibly be confident that we will protect them when filming becomes even more discreet? Smart glasses risk creating yet another avenue for covert filming, whether that is secretly recording women in public, filming sexual harassment or capturing assault. The victim may not even know that they have been recorded until the footage appears online.

The Youth Endowment Fund’s 2025 “Children, Violence and Vulnerability” survey found that 70% of children had encountered violent content on social media, up from 55% in 2022. More than four in five have seen online conversations about harming specific groups. Among children involved in perpetrating serious real-world violence, 84% had engaged in online discussions about harming particular groups. Twenty-five per cent of children said that violent content had been promoted to them by social media platforms, and just 6% had actively searched for it.

Social media platforms’ algorithms are pushing real-world violence, much of it against women and girls, towards children. We know that these companies have the technology and the ability to remove content quicky: when copyrighted music appears in videos, it can be flagged and removed almost immediately because there is money at stake. The question is, why is the same urgency not being applied to violence against women and girls?

When a video shows a girl being brutally attacked or a woman secretly filmed, the protections too often fail the people who need them the most. We need a specific criminal offence covering the premeditated filming and distribution of violent attacks where the intent is to humiliate, distress or psychologically harm the victim. The law must recognise that the person holding the camera or wearing the smart glasses can be responsible for deliberately extending the abuse, even if they never physically touched the victim. Social media platforms must be properly regulated, so that they are forced to act immediately when violent footage involving women, girls and children is reported. The platforms must take action against accounts that deliberately distribute it. I hope the Government will act before it becomes too late.

09:45

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this important debate.

I declare my interest as a practising optometrist. For my whole working life a pair of glasses has been my livelihood, and it has been nothing but an object of trust and good, allowing people to see and changing their lives. It is one of the most trustworthy pieces of clothing we could have. No one has ever been deceived by a pair of glasses, except perhaps when Clark Kent prevented us knowing he was Superman. My son likes to wear glasses with no lenses, so he can look very intelligent posting on social media with books in coffee shops. It is a matter of debate how convincing that is, but generally glasses are a product for good.

I am not a technophobe. I have seen in my practice, and that of colleagues, what this technology can do, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members. It can be used for good. More than 2 million people in this country live with sight loss and 250 more begin to lose their sight every day. For a blind or partially sighted person walking down the street to be able to ask their glasses what is front of them and hear that, for example, a van is unloading scaffolding, is genuinely life changing. I will not argue that we should take that away—I suspect nobody here would—but we cannot ignore what is happening.

It has been reported that more than 7 million pairs of one brand alone were sold last year in this country. We have all witnessed men using these glasses covertly on our streets, posting the footage online and then demanding money to take it down. There are reports of women being filmed during sex without knowledge or consent. As the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) mentioned, a small LED is supposed to warn of recording, but it is easy to miss. I sell these glasses and know it is not always possible to see the lights.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am not familiar with the glasses the hon. Member is discussing, but it strikes me, as a lay person, that it would not be difficult to cover a small LED on a pair of glasses. Does he agree?

[Shockat Adam]

I absolutely agree. We must ensure that they are tamper-proof. Somebody will always create something to supersede technology, which I will come to. A woman cannot move away from a camera if she cannot see it.

I also want to consider what these glasses could do in school changing rooms. We know children can be cruel. It could be devastating to record a child—girl or boy—in their insecure period, upload the footage and threaten them with blackmail.

Harm does not stop at the wearer. It was reported earlier this year that workers paid to label footage for AI training were viewing intimate recordings captured by these devices, including people using the toilet. The people in the footage had not consented and were not aware that it was being used for training purposes.

The National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection told us last month that at least one in five flagged online VAWG crimes are image-based abuse, with almost 75% of the victims being female. Every digital form of this abuse is rising, yet when we ask how many arrests have been made for covert filming, the answer is that the information is not held centrally, so we are legislating in the dark. I would like a response from the Minister on that point.

This abuse is not restricted to cameras, because hearing technology is now arriving in spectacle frames. Hearing glasses with directional microphones are already in our practices, and the patients starting to lose their hearing are often the same patients who are fitted with varifocal glasses. Again, I welcome that because live captions, conversation boosting and real-time translations are incredible. I tried the technology and even though I was in a noisy room, it did not just help me hear the conversation I was having—I was able to hear somebody else’s conversation on the other side of the table. If we take all that into account, we have facial recognition, which manufacturers are reportedly exploring, and a device that can know who we are, where we are and what we say without us even knowing it is there. The wearer knows they are using the device; people around them do not.

What is the law doing about that? Filming in public is generally lawful and data protection laws do not apply to individuals acting in a personal capacity, but the Information Commissioner has said that doxxing is largely outside their remit, wearables are not regulated in any particular category and the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy does not mention smart glasses. As Doughty Street Chambers put it,

“English law was not written with this technology in mind”.

The industry already knows what is good. At this year’s 100% Optical, EssilorLuxottica, which makes the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, told practitioners that devices should show people nearby that they are in use, that encryption is

“not nice to have, but an absolute must”,

and that only necessary data should be collected.

[Anna Sabine]

While I welcome the suggestion that nearby users should be notified if the devices are in use, the point still stands around consent. It should not be on me as an individual to have to challenge people using them; they should have to seek my consent before they start filming me.

[Shockat Adam]

I agree wholeheartedly with that. We cannot leave this issue to good will; it belongs in the law. I do not believe in a blanket ban, as it would punish the disabled people who benefit most. The RNIB is right that blind and partially sighted wearers already fear hostility from people who cannot tell they have sight loss. However, no ban should not mean no action.

I ask the Minister to consider the following: putting a statutory duty on manufacturers to provide a clear, tamper-proof recording indicator and making it an offence to turn that off or sell products designed to defeat it. Secondly, we need to close the gap in the criminal law so that covert sexualised filming and posting it for whatever reason is clearly an offence, and bring the intimate image provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 fully into force without delay. Thirdly, we must give survivors a fast and affordable route to redress, as the Women and Equalities Committee recommended. Fourthly, we must protect accessibility for those who need to use the technology for assistive purposes, as they should not be penalised. Fifthly, if we are not already, we need to collect national data on covert filming offences and include smart glasses and other sensing wearables in the violence against women and girls action plan. My profession has a part to play, too.

We are told that the harms of social media were unforeseeable; these harms are not. They are right in front of us—quite literally at our eye level. Let us act on this issue before it is too late.

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Shannon—you have up to half an hour.

09:53

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Half an hour; I was hoping it might be 28 minutes. I am not going to speak for 28 minutes; I will try to keep my contribution as succinct and focused as possible.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart and I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for setting the scene incredibly well. This subject has to be discussed and highlighted, and the debate has given us the opportunity to do that.

This matter strikes at the very heart of the safety, dignity and privacy of our citizens, and most notably the protection of women and girls in our communities. We stand at a crossroads where technological innovation is outpacing our moral and legal safeguards. If we do not act, the consequences will continue to be felt by the most vulnerable on our streets. Other Members have made that point incredibly clear and I thank them for that.

Let us look first at the scale of what we are dealing with. We are not talking about a niche gadget or a far-off futuristic concept as some may think. The figures are stark. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of these smart glasses have already been sold right here in the United Kingdom. They are flooding the market, and they are sitting on the faces of everyday passers-by—people we do not know. Although many people wear them innocently, we cannot blind ourselves to the reality that these devices are a powerful tool of surveillance, masquerading as ordinary eyewear.

As we rightly focus our efforts on eradicating violence against women and girls, we must recognise how this technology changes the very nature of harassment, stalking and intimidation. That is not just my observation; the UK’s leading domestic abuse charities are also sounding the alarm, and they are clear in what they say. Refuge has given the example of perpetrators weaponising these gadgets to covertly track and film survivors—the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) clearly illustrated that—which has contributed to a horrifying 62% spike in tech-facilitated abuse. Furthermore, Women’s Aid has forcefully stated that pairing these glasses with AI facial recognition threatens the very safety of all women and girls and hands a digital toolkit to stalkers who want to identify and track strangers in real time without their knowledge.

For a woman walking down the street, the fear of being targeted is already a daily reality, but now the horror of upskirting is being magnified by technology that is completely hands-free and virtually invisible. A person could commit an act of visual violation without ever holding a phone, leaving the victim entirely unaware that her privacy, her dignity and her body have been captured and digitised.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

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.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The threat is already here. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset has taken the opportunity to ask the Minister for legislative change in today’s debate, which is something I am also hoping for. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I welcome her to her role. She has been in Westminster Hall for two days running—it is becoming a habit, but it is a good habit to have.

Even more sickening are the reports from communities across our regions—tales of perverts sitting on benches at children’s play parks or walking dogs casually outside school gates. Under the guise of just going for a walk and looking around, wearing what appears to be standardised prescription lenses, these individuals can be recording very young girls and women. School safeguarding leaders have already issued urgent alerts to teachers and parents, because these sleek, modern frames make it near impossible to detect when a child is being filmed. The tiny indicator lights on these devices make a mockery of consent. They are easily covered up, as the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, with a bit of tape or a sticker. How are mothers, teachers or young girls supposed to feel safe when any stranger standing near a playground could be covertly documenting them and what they are doing? This is not just a nuisance anymore; it is a direct threat to public safety and an engine for child exploitation.

Let me clear: I am not a man who stands against progress. Innovation, when properly challenged, can be a force for immense good, and we have to recognise that. We see that in our invaluable national health service. Our dedicated district nurses, who travel the length and breadth of our communities to provide care to the vulnerable, are piloting these glasses for a good purpose. For them, the ability to stream real-time footage to a specialist consultant while treating a patient in their home is a magnificent breakthrough. That is one of the good things that modern technology can do. It saves lives, saves time and improves care.

But the fact that a tool can be used for good does not mean it should be given free rein in society—that is what this debate is about. The contrast is clear: those who use these glasses in the NHS, such as our district nurses, should be able to do so, under a strict, regulated licensing framework. Their devices must be fully auditable, restricted to secure clinical networks and bound by the highest standards of professional conduct and patient consent. We cannot allow the positive uses of technology to blind us to its profound capacity for abuse. Innovation cannot come at the cost of the safety of our daughters, wives and mothers. We need robust regulations and clear boundaries, and we must ensure that the law firmly protects women and girls from those who would use these devices to prey on them.

10:00

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

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.

[John Slinger]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling speech. Does she agree that, in addition to the need perhaps to change the legislation and for greater enforcement, there is a huge amount of work to be done around education? I am afraid that education needs to be done for men and, sadly, boys. The statistics are clear: 91% of people prosecuted for sexual offences are men aged 18-plus. Does she think, as I do, that we need to be in schools and in the spaces where men and boys are talking, to explain to them just how disgusting this behaviour is and that it will have consequences?

[Marie Goldman]

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.

[John Slinger]

The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I reassure her that I completely agree that we need much tighter regulation of the social media companies. Frankly, the tech bros have had it too easy and too good for too long. We ought to find a way of holding them responsible and liable in law for some of the harms that their products cause, rather than merely suggesting that the users of their products are liable. Does she agree that we need to explore some of those concepts?

[Marie Goldman]

It seems that across the House we entirely agree on this matter.

[Shockat Adam]

In addition to the platforms, the manufacturers have a responsibility here. Does the hon. Member agree that manufacturing must come with greater responsibilities?

[Marie Goldman]

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.

10:10

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this very important debate, and I thank hon. Members from across the House for their very thoughtful contributions. Counterpoint Research estimates that global sales of AI glasses rose by 263% in the first half of 2026, and the market is predicted to reach $44 billion by 2032—like other hon. Members, I expect the stockings this Christmas to be filled with AI glasses. It is essential that we examine how to keep women and girls safe as this market expands.

Technological innovations are too often accompanied by consequences that harm people, including women and girls. As a catalyst, technology can take the worst behaviour that already exists in our society and accelerate it, whether it is the pervasive use of early cameras, which resulted in the exploitation of women and young girls in a way that we look back on in horror, or the explosion of the internet and smartphones, which created a new range of problems that I know the Minister and others are trying to combat, day in, day out.

There are, of course, design issues with these smart glasses—we have heard about some of those today—but that does not mean that the technology itself was designed to cause harm. Rather, the problems arise from how it is used and exploited by those with the worst motivations in our society. That is why it is important to recognise that smart glasses are part of that wider pattern and present acute problems that impact women and girls. There have been numerous stories, some of which we have heard today, that illustrate the need to ensure that these glasses are not being used to harass women and girls in our country.

[John Slinger]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on digital product safety is worth considering? In a white paper that he published in July, he makes the point very effectively that, just as we require physical products to be regulated so that they are safe for users—for example, lift shafts have to be safe—we should insist, through a process that he sets out in his White Paper, that digital products are safe and that the manufacturers of those products must ensure that they are safe. I think this issue would come within that scope.

[Blake Stephenson]

I have to say that I am not familiar with the work the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will undertake to look into it. Perhaps he could send me a copy of it—I will be glad to read it. His broader point that safety should be built into the design is important. The Government would be wise to consider that, and I have no doubt that they are doing so.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) brought up an incredibly important issue in his intervention, and when the Minister comes to speak, she might address that methodology for bringing regulation. We are focusing, as we should, on why people are taking advantage of smart glasses and using them illegally and criminally, but in my speech I mentioned the health workers who, when they go to visit people in their houses, use smart glasses for the purpose of their job. If we want to regulate them, should we not ensure that people who use them for the right purposes are able to do so?

[Blake Stephenson]

I think the hon. Member is saying that in anything that they do, the Government need to strike the right balance, because there are perfectly legitimate uses for these glasses that are useful to society, but of course there are harms. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) also talked about some of the cultural issues and problems and the education that is needed, particularly for young boys. I hope that the Government will be looking to strike the right balance.

Covert filming and online harassment of women are real harms that deserve a serious response. It is particularly concerning that people have used these glasses to record young women without their knowledge, and then used that footage for their own benefit, including commercial benefit. That is an absolutely despicable violation, and it should not be tolerated. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) referred to it as “monetised misogyny”, and I agree with her entirely, so there is cross-party agreement on this issue.

Refuge has reported that referrals to its specialist technology-facilitated abuse and economic empowerment team rose by more than 62% in 2025. The Science and Technology Committee has launched a call for evidence on technology-facilitated abuse. I hope that the Committee will use this important opportunity to help us all understand the prevalence of abuse in our society.

It is important to recognise that this issue is complicated by UK laws on filming. As hon. Members will be aware, it is not inherently unlawful to take photos or videos of people in public without their permission, but it can, of course, cross over into criminality. That is why the Home Office worryingly released a poster warning illegal immigrants about the legality of recording people without their permission. The fact that such a poster needed to be produced by Government in the first place is difficult for many to comprehend. The criticism it received from the National Union of Journalists illustrates the challenge of balancing protecting existing rights with stopping the unscrupulous use of technology.

That makes it all the more necessary to examine the issue and work closely with companies to ensure that new technology does not increase the prevalence of crimes against women and girls. In 2019, Parliament considered the disgusting practice of upskirting and passed the Voyeurism (Offences) Act, which created targeted offences related to upskirting. That provides a useful example of Parliament addressing a particular harmful act without outlawing everyday cameras.

If changes to legislation are necessary, they must be based on evidence, and we must ensure that we create the best policies we can. I would therefore appreciate the Minister setting out what evidence the Government are gathering on the prevalence of covert filming with smart glasses, its harms and the effectiveness of existing safeguards. We must be able to recognise the public’s concern when they see people using these glasses, while also distinguishing between their wrongful use and their use for genuinely important reasons, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said.

I understand that the Norwegian Government recently announced their intention to restrict the use of these devices in specific locations. To the point of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, women and girls should be safe everywhere, but it is important that any action here supports clear policies for genuinely sensitive environments, such as changing rooms, schools and clinical settings. There are existing laws that cover some of those matters, but we must be explicit about how we keep people safe in those environments. If we do not, we undermine those who seek to use this technology to truly improve people’s lives.

One example, as we heard already this morning, comes from the Royal National Institute of Blind People. It has recognised concerns, as reflected on by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, but has also commented on how some blind and partially sighted people use smart glasses to benefit from enhanced access to information. Paul Arnold, the chief executive of the Information Commissioner’s Office, spoke about his experience using these glasses as a severely visually impaired person. The combination of AI and audio feedback has helped him to better understand his surroundings, access information and navigate the world with greater confidence.

This technology may also help those suffering from other serious health conditions. CrossSense, which makes AI smart glasses, recently beat 174 other inventions from around the world to win the prestigious £1 million Longitude prize on dementia. Furthermore, it is easy to see the uses for journalists working in the public interest, or the potential long-term benefits if the police could use the technology in a similar way to body-worn cameras or use facial recognition technology, an effective tool for identifying and catching criminals who commit violence against women and girls. I do not seek to downplay the risks posed by these devices with those examples, but rather to encourage the Government to consider those beneficial uses before introducing any blanket bans.

I recognise that the Minister’s Department is committed to the violence against women and girls action plan and to working across Government to encourage safety by design in smart and connected technology, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Rugby. There are concerns about delivery, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) raised concerns about missed deadlines in the development of the plan. As Dame Nicole Jacobs told the Home Affairs Committee last week,

“I do not believe that, to date, this strategy has been implemented in a way that shows that it is at the top of the priority list, in terms of resource and all those things.”

Can the Minister set out what measurable progress has been made on that commitment? Presumably, it involved the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—a Department that no longer exists given recent changes at the top.

To conclude, all too often we have seen new technology used in a manner that puts women and girls at risk. I hope that we can find proportionate, sensitive and sensible policies that enable the continued use of that technology, while ensuring that we can prevent it from being used to facilitate the abuse and exploitation that we have seen throughout our society.

10:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this important debate and to all Members for their powerful contributions. There is a lot that we can agree on.

It is fair to say that today’s discussion reflects a truth about the age in which we live: that, sadly, the rapid development of technology has presented new ways to exploit and abuse women and girls. While today’s discussion mainly centred on smart glasses, I recognise that many of the issues raised go much further than any single device. They speak to a broader challenge to ensure that innovation develops alongside the safety and protection of everyone, including women and girls.

Our response must be unwavering on that, and under this Government it is. Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone’s business, and that includes tech companies taking their responsibility to keep people safe seriously. Where they fail to do so, we will act. An example of that is our recent announcement on device-level controls legislation. The cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy addresses online and tech-facilitated abuse head on, setting out clear action to tackle it. That is a 10-year strategy, and with the one-year anniversary coming up, important measurables should be assessed and reviewed.

As mentioned, we know that when used responsibly, new technologies like smart glasses can be hugely beneficial. For example, smart glasses have been a game changer for those who are visually impaired, helping them navigate the world around them. However, we expect all tech companies to be designing and deploying products responsibly, with privacy and safety considerations built in from the start. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked an important question about whether those glasses were designed just with blind people in mind. I think the honest answer is probably not.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), said that companies have made it too easy for perpetrators, and I agree. Companies must consider the risks of their products being misused by those determined to abuse women and girls, and mitigate those risks through design. Safety by design of smart and connected technology means that we can better protect victims and survivors and stop perpetrators misusing technology.

On the question of a complete ban or restrictions of smart glasses, the benefits of smart glasses must be weighed against the harms that they can cause. The Government are already looking into options to restrict smart glasses in certain settings and restricting the sale to certain users. That work is happening at pace. Some settings have clear restrictions on taking images or videos, such as courts and tribunals, which is why the use of smart glasses in those settings is already prohibited. Other settings, such as healthcare and education, have existing safeguarding or professional policies that are relevant to smart glasses and any kind of digital recording. Both NHS England and the Department for Education are currently looking into wearable technology in certain settings as well.

The Government also recognise the concerns raised about the use of smart glasses on the parliamentary estate. These concerns are serious and I share them. Appropriate next steps are currently being considered, notwithstanding the decisions that a parliamentary Commission and Speakers of both Houses can make on the matter.

Everyone, including women and girls, has the right to feel safe going about their daily life without worrying that images or videos of them are being made and then potentially shared online without their knowledge. The Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which was brought into force earlier this year, makes it illegal for someone to harass someone else based on their sex or presumed sex, and perpetrators are already being held to account as a result. This could include taking images or videos without a person’s consent, and it can be a one-off offence.

Equally, stalking protection orders can be used to tackle stalking that is facilitated by technology, including devices such as smart glasses. That work is supported by Project Vigilant, which the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned. The project, which is funded by Government, is a proactive policing tactic used by trained officers to identify and disrupt perpetrator behaviour in public spaces.

[Marie Goldman]

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?

[Satvir Kaur]

The hon. Member is right to focus on the victim. This should not just be the responsibility of the victim. We need to design out the issues so that it does not happen in the first place, and platforms 1000% have a responsibility and should take down any images that were put up without a person’s consent. The sharing of those images without consent is illegal.

As I was about to say, where content captured using smart glasses is illegal and uploaded or shared, the Online Safety Act 2023 provides important protections. Platforms must remove non-consensual intimate images, prevent users from encountering them and prevent their services from being used to carry out an offence.

[Edward Morello]

I had the dubious pleasure of questioning representatives of the social media platforms during the Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry into misinformation and disinformation. Although I take the Minister’s point that there may be online safety regulation that directs them to remove it, the problem is that spreading engaging content is fundamental to their business model.

By the time someone has gone through the process of flagging something to a social media company and having it removed, it has already been spread by a dozen different accounts. These companies are monetising it; it is inherent to their business model. Until we start tackling the profitability of sharing this content, we will never force them into action. Can we please get some provision that allows us to fine the hell out of them for sharing this information, so that it stops making them money?

[Satvir Kaur]

Ofcom is fining platforms, but I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. Do I believe that all platforms are doing everything possible to root this out? Absolutely not. Do they need to go further? Absolutely.

[Shockat Adam]

Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) about profitability for social media platforms—and going back to what the shadow Minister said about how the manufacturers of these products intend to be good—I think we may be being a little naive. The company that makes the most popular smart glasses on the market is worth £28.5 billion. These are very smart people, and they know how these things can be utilised. Does the Minister agree that the product manufacturers hold a great deal of responsibility, and that we must be able to legislate for that as well?

[Satvir Kaur]

The hon. Member will have heard me talk at the beginning of my speech about designing out the problem. That is really targeted at manufacturers—an Apple or a Google—rather than the platforms themselves. One example of us going further where tech companies have failed is device-level controls. We need to nip this in the bud rather than allowing it to get out of control, and one way to do that is designing out the problem in the first place.

[Blake Stephenson]

I want to take the opportunity to clarify that I did not make the point that manufacturers were intending to do good. I said that they were not intending in their design to cause harm to women and girls, which is different. I do not think they intend to cause harm, but through their design, harm is being caused. I just wanted to clarify that; maybe the Minister agrees with me.

[Satvir Kaur]

I do, although I would add that tech companies are very clever, and while they may not intend harm, they absolutely should feel their responsibility when producing and designing these products to safeguard women and girls. I know the shadow Minister and I agree on that.

I was asked directly about this, so let me be clear: sharing or threatening to share an intimate image without consent is a criminal offence. That includes creating or requesting the creation of deepfake intimate images of adults without consent. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 strengthens those offences further.

[Marie Goldman]

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.

[Satvir Kaur]

No, absolutely. Irrespective, if someone’s image is out there without their consent, that is a problem.

I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for sharing the harrowing story of Isabella, and I thank Isabella for allowing him to do so. It is completely unacceptable. Stories like that, which I sadly now hear on a very regular basis, make me and the Government even more determined to tackle this issue and focus on supporting the victim. We have heard so many times about how women and girls can act differently, and nothing frustrates me more. We really need to go for the perpetrators and for those that are creating the harm—big tech companies.

I want to reassure the hon. Member that misogyny, and particularly online misogyny, is being taken seriously by this Government. That is why we have created the national taskforce for tackling misogyny, which received £15 million in the Budget to do its work. Healthy relationships are now being taught about in schools. I have been part of one of those sessions, which I found really insightful and powerful. It was a bit sad hearing about teenagers’ experiences and what they think is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. We sit here and think, “Surely children must know,” but actually they do not, because of what they are seeing online.

To reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset further, the Government have looked at domestic violence protection orders to ensure that they are not just about violent behaviour but that we broaden the scope to include abuse, which is why they are evolving into domestic abuse protection orders. There is already a pilot, and we are hoping to roll it out nationally by the end of this year. It will better protect victims, and it covers not just violence but things such as coercive control and stalking. To date, the pilot has resulted in the introduction of more than 2,000 police-led DAPOs, so I see it as a turning point that will widen the scope, increase our understanding and result in the police being given more powers.

I again thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for securing the debate, and I am grateful to Members for their invaluable contributions. This is not the end of the journey; it is very much the beginning. The Government are committed to this agenda, and I am personally determined to ensure that everyone—especially women and girls—can live their lives without fear of abuse. Our response must include a clear and robust response to the technological advancements of our age, whether in the form of smart glasses or any other product. Safety must be prioritised.

Tech companies have a responsibility. This Government will hold them to account, and we will not hesitate to act where they are failing. The scale of the challenge is vast, and we will tackle violence against women and girls only if everyone plays their part, but I am confident that together—including by working across parties—we can do that.

10:35

[Anna Sabine]

I will not rehash everything that everyone has said, but I genuinely think that this has been a really useful discussion. I appreciate the way that everyone has been so generous with their time; it has made the debate much more conversational and useful.

The Liberal Democrats and I are not calling for a total ban on this technology; I just worry that we are sleepwalking into finding that it is out of control before we have managed to do anything about it. MPs can feel rather exposed when we are out and about in public spaces; we wonder who is looking at us and clocking what we are doing. Once a number of MPs have been covertly filmed by this tech, I wonder whether we will suddenly find that it is shoved up the political agenda, but I would like it not to get to that point. I welcome the cross-party consensus on this issue and the Minister’s desire to work across parties—we would certainly like to do that.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) will pass on our thanks to Isabella for sharing her story. It is only when people like her and her mother share their stories that the issue becomes personalised and we can effect change. [Interruption.] I have just seen a mouse running behind my hon. Friend, so I will draw my remarks to a close and exit the Chamber as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered smart glasses and violence against women and girls.

10:37

Sitting suspended.

Lifelong Learning Strategy

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

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.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a national lifelong learning strategy.

This debate is well timed, as we are midway through Get the Nation Learning Week, a national campaign co-ordinated by the Learning and Work Institute. The campaign, backed by more than 230 organisations, marks a rare opportunity for adult learning to be pushed to the forefront, and for employers, community organisations, learning providers and Parliament to highlight the importance of the issue. What is more, today is the Get the Nation Learning awards ceremony, one of the biggest celebrations of lifelong learning in England.

In our fast-changing digital world, there has never been a time in history when the need to learn continuously throughout life has been greater. Many Governments have used education as an enabler for national renewal, a policy to call upon when the country requires radical social change. Today, we see the Government highlighting the need to radically rewire the state, foster true cross-departmental working and shake up Whitehall for good. However, there is, I believe, a gap in this plan. National renewal as lifelong learning needs to be incorporated across Government agendas within a national lifelong learning strategy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue; I spoke to him before the debate. His proposal is something that I have been seeking as well. Does he agree that a successful national lifelong learning strategy must include all regions across the United Kingdom, including my Strangford constituency, where local colleges and community groups do phenomenal work retraining older workers? Continued adult education keeps the mind sharp, tackles isolation and directly reduces pressure on our health services. Does he agree that modular training should be shared equally across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so that no worker is ever left behind?

[Paul Davies]

The hon. Member must have been reading my speech. I will get on to some of his comments, but I totally agree with them; they were very well put.

Across the country, including in my constituency, people desperately want to see good growth in every postcode. I believe that that cannot be achieved without access to lifelong learning in every postcode. Lifelong learning has been an instrumental driver of social change at key periods in our history. In 1919, the Ministry of Reconstruction’s landmark report on adult education provided the foundations to make lifelong education a permanent national necessity. In the 1970s, the Right to Read campaign raised the profile of adult literacy across the nation. Lifelong learning has been a catalyst for social progression throughout our history, and there are important lessons to be learned. I encourage the Minister to reflect on the Ministry of Reconstruction’s foundational principle from more than 100 years ago, which is just as important now as it was then:

“adult education is a permanent national necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and lifelong”.

An institution that helped to shape the report was the Workers’ Educational Association, which is still the largest provider of community adult education. Its history shows us how the course of working-class lives can be changed for the better when people have access to lifelong learning. The WEA shaped and was part of the history of workers’ education throughout the last century and continues to do so in this century. As one of the largest lifelong learning charities in the country, the WEA campaigns to bring learning within the reach of every adult, no matter what their circumstances are.

Learning has multiple cross-cutting outcomes. Participating in learning is shown to improve wellbeing and health. It improves connections, brings people together and reduces social isolation. It increases understanding and empathy for people from different backgrounds or cultures. It ripples out to strengthen whole communities. Furthermore, the WEA has found that more than 84% of people with pre-existing mental health conditions say that taking part in adult learning improves their wellbeing, signalling the extent to which learning helps one to lead a happier, healthier life. The WEA knows at first hand how lifelong learning brings communities closer together and helps to build confidence and agency for individuals.

Just as the evidence base for health and wellbeing is strong, the link between lifelong learning and connecting communities is powerful. Learning helps people to become more active and combats isolation and loneliness: 80% of learners say that they meet people on their courses they would not otherwise meet.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

For young people with special educational needs and disabilities, the transition from education to further learning and employment can be really challenging. Does the hon. Member agree that a national lifelong learning strategy should prioritise dedicated pathways and support for young people with SEND, particularly in rural or hard-to-reach areas, so that opportunities after education are equal across the country?

[Paul Davies]

Absolutely. A lifelong learning strategy provides tremendous opportunities to take account of individual needs, particularly when we look at local implementation. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on tackling loneliness and connected communities, which spoke to young people a number of weeks ago. The key thing they talked about was individualised support, and many of them talked about SEND issues.

Not only do 86% of people who attend learning courses say that they make new friends as a result, but the volunteers also benefit: 77% of WEA volunteers feel more connected to their community following their involvement. From my perspective as chair of the APPG, that connection and that aspect of tackling loneliness are especially powerful merits of lifelong learning.

Despite the clear benefits, lifelong learning has steadily slipped down the political agenda for decades. England still lacks a national lifelong learning strategy to ensure that people have access to learning no matter where they live or what their circumstances are. That is concerning. The Government are spending £1 billion less on adult skills in England than in 2010. Employers are spending 36% less on training per employee than in 2005. The UK figure is well below half the EU average.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing a debate on this important issue. He is presenting his case wonderfully. I want to highlight the point about the fall in investment and the vital role that both employers and trade unions play. We have seen a culture of decline in lifelong learning. As a young man, I did not go to university, but I had the great fortune to attend WEA courses in my village that were run by Ray Hudson and Huw Beynon, who came from Durham University and are now professors. That inspired me to go on to day release and night classes and to get vocational qualifications in that way. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for employers to play a greater role alongside Government and trade unions, and that the restoration of the union learning fund by this Government is an important step towards rebuilding that partnership?

[Paul Davies]

I absolutely agree: that is a vital step. We have to look at creating partnerships right across our communities, and trade unions are a vital part of that.

Unfortunately, enrolments in publicly funded adult qualifications from the most deprived areas have fallen by 27% since 2010. That is not a situation we want to be in. More than 8 million adults still lack essential literacy, numeracy and digital skills. That is nothing short of a national tragedy. A strategy for something as fundamental and universally needed as access to learning should not be considered a luxury; it is essential infrastructure for a thriving society and economy.

There is no doubt that the UK is facing multiple skills crises. Following the Milburn report, we hear a great deal from Government, rightly, about the challenges that young people face. Significant work is under way to address them, and I am grateful for Alan Milburn’s efforts to bring together Departments and develop a cross-Government response, but the conversation must not stop at young people. Adults of all ages also need opportunities to learn for joy, to retrain and develop new skills throughout life, whether by adapting to changes in the labour market, navigating new technologies or remaining active and connected in their communities. Lifelong learning is just as important for individuals at all stages of adulthood. To unlock the merits of adult education, lifelong learning needs its Milburn moment.

Earlier this month, the APPG on further education and lifelong learning released the report of its inquiry into adult education. It recognised the lack of an overarching vision for adult education. A national lifelong learning strategy could help to overcome that; it is something that the WEA has called for and which forms the centrepiece of its lifelong learning labs campaign. The campaign started at the beginning of this year, collecting more than 2,000 pieces of evidence and bringing together more than 100 organisations, ranging from the TUC and trade unions to institutes of adult learning, charities working across prisons and with asylum seekers and refugees, and organisations looking to shape society for all ages, such as Intergenerational England. The final report and recommendations of the year-long campaign will be published on 15 December and launched in Parliament. I encourage the Minister to meet the WEA to learn more about the campaign and explore the recommendations, which could support the Government’s mission on delivering growth in every postcode.

We want to be a nation where learning is valued, where it is accessible and flexible for people to choose what is right and best for them, where adults can pick up learning at any age, where people have fun learning and want it to be part of everyday life, and where both informal and formal learning are valued and their contributions to wellbeing and productivity are understood. We know that it is not a magic bullet for all our social and economic challenges, but access to lifelong learning offers a way into a wider network of support and connection. Importantly, it improves confidence and self-worth in individuals. Finally, it will unlock greater empathy and understanding of others.

A national strategy would clearly signal that the Government value lifelong learning right from the top and see the connection across civil society. Once it is in place, regional and local leaders and providers can be empowered to deliver it and focus on local needs and priorities; I emphasise that looking locally at individual needs is crucial.

I am grateful that the Government have made positive steps in the area of learning and training. The creation of the lifelong learning entitlement, the Milburn inquiry and the youth guarantee are sensible interventions, but we need to build on them. There are issues to be addressed in the lifelong entitlement, which begins only at level 4; it automatically excludes level 1, 2 and 3 qualifications. To reap the rewards, we need to take the protocol across all levels. The strategy should provide a clear national framework with the learner at its heart, recognising that the best delivery is often local. It needs to empower regional leaders, fitting alongside the Government’s devolution agenda, to deliver community-led lifelong learning provision.

In 1919, the Ministry of Reconstruction’s report made it clear that

“adult education is a permanent national necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and lifelong.”

More than 100 years later, that principle remains just as relevant. We have the evidence, we have the organisations and we have the opportunity to make a difference. Now we need to apply the political ambition to match it.

11:15

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate on lifelong learning and on his incredibly powerful contribution.

I pay particular tribute to the extraordinary work of the u3a, both nationally and across my constituency. I recently had the pleasure of speaking to more than 120 members of Arnold u3a, and I want to thank all the wonderful u3a groups across Gedling, which collectively support more than 2,000 of my constituents. Their contribution to lifelong learning, friendship and tackling loneliness is truly inspirational.

The importance of that came home to me particularly powerfully last weekend when I attended a new friendship group in Mapperley in my constituency that was established by the inspirational Sarah Klotschkow. Sarah tragically lost both her beloved parents to cancer, yet out of the heartbreak of bereavement, she found the extraordinary strength and compassion to create something positive for others, bringing people together, building friendships and tackling loneliness and isolation. I pay a special tribute to Sarah today. She reminds us of the extraordinary difference one person can make to everybody else’s lives.

I was also delighted to speak at the recent parliamentary launch of the u3a’s excellent “Retirement Rewired” report. Drawing on the experience of more than 10,000 of its 438,000 members across the country, it found that 95% had said that u3a had improved their lives, 90% said it had helped them continue lifelong learning, and 45% said it had reduced loneliness or isolation. Those remarkable findings remind us that retirement should never mean retiring from curiosity, ambition, learning or contribution to society.

I therefore ask the Minister how a national lifelong learning strategy could better support organisations such as the u3a alongside grassroots initiatives like Sarah’s in my constituency, because surely the measure of a learning society is not simply how well we educate our young people but how successfully we enable every generation to continue learning, contributing and flourishing throughout their lives.

11:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate and highlighting the opportunities that lifelong learning presents for learners, education providers, employers and our economy.

I particularly want to thank my hon. Friend for setting out the historical context of this debate and for drawing Members’ attention to the efforts of previous Governments during reconstruction and some of the economic tumult that the UK has experienced in recent years. It certainly makes the historic comparison very relevant. I also want to thank the Workers’ Educational Association, representatives of which are in the Public Gallery for this debate. The association has been in existence for 123 years, following an inspirational mission. I start my contribution by confirming that the Government would very much welcome working with the WEA on these matters and many others.

The world of work is changing, and our education and skills system must change with it. New technologies and changing skill needs mean people will benefit from more opportunities to learn, retrain and upskill throughout their working lives. We need to move beyond the idea that education happens just once, at the start of life. People should be able to return to learning as their lives and careers—and the economy—change. If we want to grow our economy, we need a workforce who are able to adapt as industries, jobs and technology change. Lifelong learning helps people to develop the skills they need to seize those new opportunities.

There is a clear case for action. Recent polling indicates that nearly half of adults in England are considering a career change, but for many, finding the time to retrain around work and family life remains a major obstacle. That is why this Government are delivering a more flexible post-18 education and skills system with the lifelong learning entitlement at its heart, giving people greater flexibility over what, when and how they study. Student finance in England is changing to reflect that, and this debate is timely, because last Friday 30 October, the application service for the new student finance system, the lifelong learning entitlement was launched. The policy was announced by the previous Government just over six years ago, and I want to acknowledge the cross-party working that has been pivotal to achieving the successful launch of the lifelong learning entitlement.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for addressing these issues. I did not want to break his flow, but on that specific issue, there are regional disparities. My constituency is in the north-east of England and many people in that region are denied opportunities, not through lack of ability but through lack of opportunity. Will the youth guarantee include the opportunity to access lifelong learning, particularly for younger people who have been denied that opportunity previously?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for highlighting the need for both the youth guarantee—which is a separate but related policy area to the LLE—and the LLE to ensure greater flexibility over not just what can be studied but where people can access those opportunities. If someone is in a rural or more remote part of the country and physically further from a higher education institution, that should in no way be a barrier to being able to access those units of study that the LLE is designed to give people the right to access.

Alongside full qualifications and degrees, learners will, for the first time—this is the crucial thing about the LLE—be able to access student finance for individual modules of higher education. People need that kind of flexibility to fit around their work, family life and other commitments, while others may want to return full-time to upskill or retrain. Ultimately, the LLE is about creating an education system that keeps pace with people’s lives and our changing economy. It will help people build the knowledge and skills they need throughout their careers and support the workforce and economy into the future.

The Government’s response to lifelong learning, however, is broader than that single programme. We are building a system of post-18 education, skills, adult learning, career advice and higher education. Adult education helps people access new opportunities, enables employers to find the skills they need, helps the economy and builds stronger, healthier and more resilient communities. A number of Members have referenced the impact on isolation.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

On the Minister’s point about building stronger communities, does he agree that lifelong learning should also include civics education? Having a detailed knowledge of our political system is not and never should be the criterion for having the vote. None the less, gaining a better understanding of the political system, the different roles within it, and people’s rights and responsibilities would enhance our democracy. Perhaps further education colleges or schools could offer opportunities across the country for adults to dip into that civics education throughout their lives, and we could have a healthier democracy as a result.

[Josh MacAlister]

As a former secondary school citizenship teacher, that is music to my ears. Understandably, the current focus of the LLE and the adult skills agenda is, rightly, very much on ensuring that people can get that route into the dignity, pride and security that comes from work. Given some of the threats and challenges that our democracy faces, there are wider debates about how we ensure that not only our institutions, but our society is more resilient and deeply democratic. Education is crucial to that.

As a Government, we are investing in education and skills training through the adult skills fund, which has been referenced by a number of Members. It is worth £1.4 billion a year and supports adults to access skills training up to and including level 3, so it sits just below the LLE. That covers a broad range of provision. By fostering adult learning through the ASF, we are not only supporting learners to gain the literacy, numeracy, digital and other vocational skills that they need for meaningful employment, but driving sustained economic growth and innovation.

I welcome news highlighted in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) of the restoration of the union learning fund by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September. It aims to generate 180,000 learning opportunities through the restoration of that fund and speaks to not only the values of the Labour party, but the demonstrable evidence of collaboration between industry and workers when it comes to the pipeline of future talent and skills that are needed in the economy. As the Member of Parliament for Whitehaven and Workington, I am very proud to represent those people who work at Sellafield, which has a very strong history of union engagement in learning opportunities.

Good careers advice is an essential part of lifelong learning. It gives people the confidence to make informed choices, whether they are leaving school, moving into work or retraining later in life. For young people, we are strengthening careers guidance and expanding meaningful work experience opportunities. Strong careers provision is associated with an 8% lower likelihood of becoming not in education, employment or training, with twice the impact in the most disadvantaged schools. That is why we the Government are turning that evidence into practical action.

We want every young person to benefit from two weeks’ worth of meaningful work experience built up over time during secondary school, rather than through a single placement. That will obviously have an impact later in those young people’s early adult lives. Careers hubs have already been testing that approach with more than 2,500 young people, 66 schools and 114 employers. For adults, the developing jobs and careers service will bring careers and employment support together. It will help people find work, progress or retrain as jobs and skills change in the economy.

There is a whole range of other matters that we have not had time to cover in this debate. Those include the role of devolution in adult skills funding, changes that were made by this Government to the funding formula for adult skills in 2024, and changes to the apprenticeship levy. All of those will help in the effort that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley has highlighted by securing this important debate. I also put on record my thanks to the u3a organisation highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne).

To wrap up, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for securing this debate and thank all of those who have contributed to today’s discussion. Although we have not had time to cover every base, it has been an important debate and one that needs to continue in the months and years ahead. I welcome further discussions and engagement on the issues considered today.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Heating Oil Prices: Rural Areas

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

14:30

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

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.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

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?

[Jamie Stone]

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.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Last week, a constituent got in touch to say that she had had to make a minimum order of 500 litres of oil at the cost of £560, meaning that she was out of cash for the rest of the month. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to bring down minimum orders as well as look at issues affecting the price of oil?

[Jamie Stone]

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.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he has done a great service in bringing this matter to the Chamber for our consideration. In my constituency, as in his, the vulnerable people are often in isolated communities; I think of Holbeach Hurn, Holbeach St Johns, Gedney and Fleet Hargate. Those people depend on heating oil, and they do not enjoy the same kind of protection that other energy users do. It is as simple as that. The Government need to act.

[Jamie Stone]

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—

[Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

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?

[Jamie Stone]

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.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Member that households reliant on heating oil, including those in my constituency of West Lancashire, face particular issues, especially around price volatility and the absence of the consumer protections that users of electricity and gas might have. But does he not welcome the Government’s previous £50 million investment in supporting the sector, including working with Ofgem, the industry and consumers to bring forward consumer protections? [Interruption.]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order.

14:36

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

14:45

On resuming—

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

The debate will now run until 4.10 pm.

[Jamie Stone]

Thank you very much, Mrs Barker; aren’t these Divisions annoying things?

The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) made an extremely fair point in her intervention. I have previously welcomed the Government’s commitment of £53 million, which she mentioned, to help households struggling with soaring heating oil prices. That was a move in the right direction, and I give credit where it is due. The support was well meant, but the trouble is that, balanced against the 1.5 million homes that use heating oil, it is only about £35 per household.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Thousands of my constituents rely on heating oil. Although the Government are taking VAT off electricity and have announced the removal of standing charges for electricity customers, those things do nothing to help heating oil customers. Does he agree that the Government really need to focus on those customers to ensure that they are getting the help they need?

[Jamie Stone]

I do agree. Hopefully, a debate of this nature will gradually, through good will on all sides and among all political parties, shift the focus on to the sort of people we are talking about.

There is also concern about the take-up of the schemes and the practical difficulties involved in identifying households. Age UK has highlighted the challenges facing organisations and local authorities in reaching out to people who desperately need the help. Perhaps we could all collectively work with the Government to ensure that steps are taken to support people to get what they desperately need.

Turning to my own party’s specific proposals, we have called for three months of zero-rated VAT on domestic heating oil. I appreciate that a VAT reduction would not necessarily reverse the international price increase that is so bedevilling this issue—it would not solve the underlying problem—but it would provide practical assistance at a time when households are facing exceptionally high bills. To quote somebody more august than me, it would be a “breathing space”. For that reason, I encourage the Government to properly assess the cost and practical implications of a temporary reduction in VAT. We will see what comes of that, but I make that appeal to those on the Government Benches.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

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.

[Jamie Stone]

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

I live in an old, stone-built house in the highlands, and its only source of heating, apart from anything electric we put on, is an oil-fired boiler. People have raised with me issues around price transparency and whether the quotation is really what it says, because the quoted price and the final delivery price are not always the same thing, and we do not seem to have a proper complaints or redress process. For older and vulnerable people—the people I have talked about, who worry about whether to put the heating on and run into debt or what to do—it can be particularly difficult to navigate.

I welcome the Government’s acceptance in principle of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations, and their commitment to bring heating oil customers within Ofgem’s regulatory remit. That can only be a good thing, but I ask for a clear timetable, because households have waited a long, long time. Hon. and right hon. colleagues will know that this is not the first time that I have gone on at some length about this particular issue, so that would be handy.

As many Members wish to speak—I thank each and every one for coming—I will make one final point: we must look beyond the immediate crisis to the long-term solution. I think we would all agree with that. It is not sustainable simply to respond every time international events cause heating oil prices to rise. We need to make rural homes warmer, more energy-efficient and cheaper to heat.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

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?

[Jamie Stone]

I entirely agree. As we know, doing this work on some older properties is incredibly difficult. I am bound to say—I return to where I started—that when I ask my constituents in the highlands, in the very far north, “Well, what about a heat pump?” many laugh at me and say, “You’re joking—in this old croft house? That is not feasible at all.” We have to be practical about what we can do.

I am very grateful to the many Members who have turned up to the debate. I believe it is the start of a discussion, and we are all on the same sheet. Let us make it happen and see what we can do for some of the most vulnerable in society.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I will be imposing an immediate two-minute limit on speeches.

14:49

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.

I pay tribute to the Labour Government for putting heating oil on the agenda for the first time; for a long time, most Governments have ignored off-grid homes. I know that the hon. Member would recognise a peat turf if it were thrown at him. Peat is how most homes in my Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency were heated traditionally, but of course most have now been converted to oil. Forty-eight per cent of homes in the Western Isles rely on heating oil. Because of the age and condition of the homes, the Atlantic weather and the demographics of the population, 40% of households are in fuel poverty. In fact, it is worse than that, because 24% of households are in extreme fuel poverty: they spend over 20% of their income on keeping their homes warm in winter. Heating their homes is a huge challenge.

That is why the £53 million heating oil support scheme, and the £10 million to Scotland, was very welcome. The Scottish Government added £5.4 million to the £4.6 million from the UK Government. They had to do it bigger and better, and they centralised it. The result, of course, is that none of the money is getting to the Western Isles. Only 324 of the nearly 13,000 households there—3%—have received support, and another 337 have been turned down. The picture in Scotland is no better: there have been 13,900 applications, but only 7,000 have been declared eligible, and there are 169,000 households in Scotland that rely on heating oil, most of them in rural areas.

Instead of bleating about the mid-term elections or what the Budget can do for them, I think SNP Members should do what I have done: write to the Scottish Minister and ask for the eligibility rules for heating oil support to be expanded to take into account rurality, isolation and insularity, and for a reduction in the 500-litre minimum order, because some households cannot afford 500 litres. We call on the Scottish Government to extend the criteria to take in rurality and insularity, and to ensure that this money gets out the door.

14:49

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

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.

14:55

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I have heard from constituents in the rural parts of Cannock Chase that they often feel forgotten in national discussions about energy, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate.

For people many in semi-rural constituencies such as mine, heating oil is often the only realistic means of heating their home. Last month, I held a coffee morning in Prospect Village and spoke to Ian and Linda, who are on oil. They told me that the price they were facing trebled over a single weekend. Although they recognise that the cost of crude oil is outside our control, households on oil are effectively left to the mercy of market forces, which is why we need greater regulation in the market. I very much welcome the Government’s plans to introduce that for the first time. I am glad that minimum delivery quantities are being looked at; as has been said, that will help households to manage the massive up-front costs of heating oil.

The present situation underlines why we must accelerate the transition to clean and affordable energy, generated in Britain, to cut our reliance on imports and strengthen our energy security. For rural communities, the transition must be practical, affordable and fair, and we must recognise that not all households are the same, so a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. The enhanced £9,000 heat pump grant for off-grid properties was introduced in recognition of the extra costs that many rural households face when moving away from heating oil. Heat pump uptake is still lower in rural areas, and the subsidy is due to expire at the end of this financial year. I hope the Minister will look carefully at extending it so that rural households have certainty about the help that will be available to them. My constituents Ian and Linda are keen to get off oil, but they need help to do so.

To end where I started, we must ensure that the households we represent that are reliant on heating oil are not forgotten. As we make the transition, I hope Ministers will keep rural households at the forefront of their thinking. These families face unique challenges, but they deserve the same protection, certainty and security as every other household in the country.

14:57

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member from the very north of the highlands, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for securing this important debate.

Those of us who own an oil tank have all been there: that dreaded moment when we stick the upside down broomstick into the tank and pray that there is more oil in there than we know there actually is, because we know that means that a big bill is coming. And we put it off—as I did once, which resulted in us running out of oil on Christmas eve. The only occasion forgotten less by my wife is the time I forgot to get the septic tank emptied and it exploded on the public footpath down the side of our house—that was great for my electoral prospects.

I am not alone in Fylde: nearly 10% of houses in my constituency are not connected to the national gas grid, and it is as high as 14% in areas such as Singleton and Greenhalgh.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

In my constituency, a huge number of houses in the Worth valley are impacted by the lack of Government support with heating oil. Does my hon. Friend agree that there was a major missed opportunity in Labour’s Budget to look at the implications of reducing VAT on heating oil?

[Mr Snowden]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It was an opportunity missed.

There are 4,765 houses in my constituency alone that are not connected to the grid. In Fylde, 28% of people are over 65, compared with a national constituency average of about 18%. That means we are dealing not just with rural isolation and rural poverty, but with the health and wellbeing of older people. As other Members have said, households with oil tanks often have septic tanks and other infrastructure that is far more costly to operate and maintain than being connected to the grid in the traditional way. That compounds the issues that are being felt now.

As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, the funding the Government set aside works out at £35 per house. The average price of oil has gone up by about £1 per litre and the average home uses about 2,000 litres of oil, meaning that support covers less than 2% of the cost increase facing the average household. Many of my constituents have made that point to me. I encourage the Government to move faster and find more ways of supporting those people who are reliant on oil to heat their home, as the bills they face will be crippling over the winter period.

15:00

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing about this important debate.

With the conflict in Iran and the blocking of the strait of Hormuz, the price of crude oil shot up, which directly impacted about 2,700 homes in my constituency. The UK Government provided £4.6 million of targeted support to be administered by the Scottish Government to help families, so it is disappointing to see that only half of that money has been spent. I call on the Scottish Government to urgently review the criteria and the process to get the Scottish emergency heating oil payment out. It has been far too slow to get to those who need it most.

Since prices began to spike, I have heard deeply concerning accounts from families who budgeted for one price, only to find themselves facing skyrocketing costs after orders were cancelled and costs tripled. That has left too many of my constituents feeling held hostage by fuel suppliers in an unregulated market. I welcome the action taken by the Competition and Markets Authority to secure compensation for affected customers and to recommend stronger protections for heating oil users. I also welcome the removal of the 4% tariff on kerosene announced in the Budget last week.

The Government and regulators must ensure that we have a robust and fair framework for families and businesses that rely on off-grid energy supplies. We need robust regulation and zero tolerance of companies that exploit their customers. Those who exploit heating oil consumers should face tough penalties and public scrutiny to ensure that my constituents get a fairer deal now and in the future.

15:02

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

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.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Graham Leadbitter]

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.

15:04

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

From homes and farms on the outskirts of Stirling to rural communities stretching towards Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, including Aberfoyle and north to Killin, and Crianlarich on the edge of the highlands, heating oil is not a lifestyle choice. It is the main source of warmth for thousands of households across my constituency, and many have contacted me, deeply worried about the sharp rise in heating oil prices and the impact on their household finances. Prices have more than doubled, placing enormous pressure on families, older people and some of the most vulnerable in our communities.

Understandably, there is anger and frustration—frustration that households that are reliant on heating oil do not enjoy the same protections as those connected to the gas and electricity networks, and anger that this long-standing disparity is yet to be properly addressed. There is also a wider challenge that goes beyond the immediate pressures of heating oil prices. It is about fuel poverty, the particular circumstances of rural communities and how we deliver a fair and practical transition to cleaner and more affordable heating.

The support available to households can be incredibly difficult to navigate. Across the four nations of the United Kingdom, we have different definitions of fuel poverty, different schemes and eligibility criteria, and a complicated mix of responsibilities among Governments and energy providers.

[Torcuil Crichton]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech. When it comes to delivering support, the system is complicated. In Scotland, it is centralised rather than delivered through councils, which means that less than half the £10 million of heating oil support has gone out the door to consumers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the money should have gone to local authorities and areas that would have more efficiently handled it?

[Chris Kane]

As a former council leader, I can say that councils, regardless of their political colour, are crying out for the Scottish Government to recognise exactly what can be done if local authorities are empowered to deliver good local services—it does not happen enough. I hope that the SNP Government in Edinburgh realise they can do more to empower local communities through local authorities.

How do the Government intend to work with the devolved Governments to deliver a more co-ordinated approach that recognises the particular challenges facing off-grid communities? We need targeted action that gives people greater protection today while helping them to move toward more affordable and sustainable heating in the future. Whether someone lives in Stirling, Aberfoyle or a remote home near Crianlarich, they deserve the same basic reassurance that they can afford to keep their home warm and will not be left behind in the energy transition.

15:06

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

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.

South Cotswolds is one of England’s most off-grid constituencies. One in five households there relies on heating oil, which is around four times the national average. One constituent wrote to me last month that they feel “forgotten about”. Costs have doubled for families already paying a rural premium of 10% to 20% on everyday essentials and living in some of our hardest-to-heat homes. Unlike gas bills, heating oil must be paid for in a large lump sum when the tanker arrives. There is no Ofgem price cap, which leaves households exposed to volatile global markets and decisions made thousands of miles away.

I welcome the Government’s efforts and the work of Wiltshire council and the Centre for Sustainable Energy to get support to those who need it, but £53 million across 1.5 million oil-heated homes works out at just £35 each—enough for about 30 litres. The 4% tariff suspension is welcome, but it hardly compensates for prices doubling, and removing gas standing charges is no help to people without gas.

I have three asks of the Minister. First, will she press colleagues for a clear timetable to regulate the heating oil market? Secondly, will she push for further support through the crisis and resilience fund? Thirdly, will she commit to rural-proofing future energy and cost of living measures so that people are not disadvantaged simply because they live beyond the gas grid. Being off the gas grid should not mean being off the Government’s radar.

15:08

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.

As the first missiles went into Iran, bills doubled for the households in my constituency that use heating oil—there are about 5,000 of them. It was a terrible moment, and I am really pleased that the Government stepped in with the £53 million we have been talking about. In March this year, £5 million was given to the Conservative-run Northumberland county council for the crisis and resilience fund, which can be used for heating oil. The CRF can be used for heating homes, but it is very opaque; it is unclear how that money is being used and how much has gone the door. I have been asking, and I have not yet got a clear understanding.

I am pleased that Labour have provided further relief. They are providing £100 for energy bills for households in council tax bands A to D this winter. They are cutting the kerosene tariff—I will be chasing suppliers in my constituency to make sure they pass that on to consumers—boosting the boiler upgrade scheme, and so on. It is welcome that we are bringing in regulation to heating oil.

All the responses we have heard today follow an important principle: do not mess with the market when it is working, and do not let the market mess with people when it is not—that is where we have to step in. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister: what if higher heating oil prices are here to stay? What can we do in the medium to long term? I welcome the short-term measures we are taking.

Last year, I spoke to a development trust in Norham that wants to introduce a local grid in my constituency using renewables, solar and wind. Great British Energy, which I fully support, is supposed to support little communities like that. If we can circumvent this problem and get people off heating oil where possible, and if we can empower communities to have local grids, that is what we should be pursuing. Will the Minister say something about progress on that?

15:14

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate.

In the brief two minutes I have, I will speak about the situation in Northern Ireland. I remind the House of a stark, unyielding reality: for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the energy price cap is a complete myth. The official statistics tell a story of systematic vulnerability: 5% of households in Great Britain rely on domestic oil heating, but 63% of households in Northern Ireland depend entirely on oil central heating. In the rural community of Strangford, where I live, dependency skyrockets to an astonishing 82%. I doubt that there is anywhere else in the United Kingdom where the figure is 82%. In Strangford and the Ards peninsula, people cannot flick a switch and rely on a regulated utility grid; instead, they are forced to watch the price of a drop of kerosene like a hawk. When the price of crude spikes, off-grid families face an immediate, brutal financial penalty. In a matter of just three weeks, we watched the average cost of 500 litres of home heating oil almost double.

What does that mean for a working family, small farmer or pensioner in Strangford? They are looking at an up-front lump-sum demand of more than £1,000 just to keep the radiators warm. If they cannot find the cash, they are left with an empty tank and a freezing home.

[Mr Snowden]

There is a perception that a lot of the households on oil are rich or in large houses, but in rural communities a lot of the houses that depend on oil are actually smaller properties, where there is rural poverty and isolation.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The Minister will be listening to the facts.

In Northern Ireland, fuel poverty stands at 22%—nearly a quarter of the population. Our people are being disproportionately punished simply because of where they live. We need an urgent, comprehensive strategy that bridges the gap between off-grid rural communities and the rest of the United Kingdom. I implore the Minister and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to work urgently with the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver sustained structural protections. We must ensure that a child growing up in rural Strangford is afforded the same basic right to a warm home as a child living in metropolitan London.

15:14

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. In my constituency, 3,603 households are not on the gas grid, and rely on either heating oil or alternative fuel for their heating. One Belton resident who recently contacted me lives in an older house that is not connected to the mains network. They rely entirely on oil to heat their home. A year ago, it cost £864 plus VAT to fill up their heating oil tank. This year, they were quoted £1,700 plus VAT—almost double.

Traditionally, households have tried to manage the costs by filling their tanks in September, when prices are often at their lowest, but prices this high mean that, even with careful planning and budgeting, the money only goes so far. A full tank will last my constituent only till the end of January, before winter is even over, and they will then face another, potentially even higher bill. My constituent said that this is simply impossible to afford on their household income. The price has doubled, but their income has not. They are not protected by the energy price cap. Rather than being able to spread the cost across monthly payments, they have to find thousands of pounds up front to cover the uncapped cost.

I welcome the Government’s recognition of the particular challenges facing heating oil customers, including through their recent of announcement of plans to introduce stronger consumer protections. Heating a home is not a luxury; it is a necessity. People should not face additional financial insecurity simply because they live in a rural community without access to the mains gas network. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure that households across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, including the one I just mentioned in Belton, will benefit from the proposed improvements to consumer protections, particularly when it comes to managing the substantial up-front cost of heating oil.

15:14

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. During the autumn recess I had the opportunity to tour villages in my constituency. Heating oil costs were the issue that came up time and again. Over 30% of households in Waveney Valley are off the gas grid—the highest percentage of any constituency in the east of England. As many hon. Members have said, heating oil is unique because, unlike households that use mains gas and electricity, heating oil users are not protected by the energy price cap and are therefore exposed to global energy shocks, geopolitics and market volatility. Hon. Members have all heard cases of people having to choose between heating and eating, and of pensioners and children going to bed at night cold. That simply cannot be right in 2026. We cannot allow large swathes of our citizens to have to make, at the whim of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, that choice between heating and eating.

The Government’s response so far has not been adequate. As we have heard, the £53 million that was invested last April amounts to only £35 extra for each household. That hardly scratches the surface. Even scrapping VAT on heating oil, which would be welcome, would save only £50 for a £1,000 purchase. What do we need most? First, regulation of prices in the sector; secondly, far more significant assistance through councils, which are having to stretch the funding they are given further and further; thirdly, as other hon. Members have said, proper investment in home insulation measures. Announcements in last week’s Budget that seemed to suggest cuts to the warm homes plan take us in the wrong direction. We also need investment in things such as renewable heating systems that can work in rural communities. Those green measures are essential but they are, of course, not enough for this winter. Efforts to reduce costs and to help people right now are absolutely needed.

15:16

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate. The cost of heating oil has been very much at the forefront of the minds of my South West Norfolk constituents over the last seven months. Some 25% of homes in my constituency rely on heating oil; that is thousands of properties. The sudden increase in price left many in a desperate situation. My constituents, like the constituents of many hon. Members in this debate, are already paying a rural premium, given the additional costs linked to rurality. I was pleased that the Government responded quickly with the £53 million national support package. In Norfolk we got a larger share of that package than any other county council in the country, with more than £3 million for our county. However, I am furious that Reform-led Norfolk county council has barely lifted a finger to promote that support service. I have looked at the council’s social media and could barely find mention of the fact that the fund is available. My team and I have been working flat out to encourage people to apply. Many people in Norfolk who rely on heating oil are in the west of the county, and we are particularly affected.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Some 11% of my constituents in Banbury rely on heating oil. Like my hon. Friend, they welcomed the £53 million provided by the Government. In our case, Oxfordshire county council has also done very little to make people aware of that money. Does my hon. Friend agree that national and local government need to do more to make people aware of the help that is already out there for people who rely on heating oil?

[Terry Jermy]

The Oxfordshire example is a huge shame. It seems that there are many examples around the country. There is money sat waiting in council bank accounts that could be put to use to support local people.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a devolutionary lesson here? When money is handed out from Departments, there must be transparency and accountability from devolved Governments such as that of Scotland, from councils and from local authorities?

[Terry Jermy]

I am sure that the Minister will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point. There absolutely needs to be learning from this process. This is a desperate situation. The money needed to be spent quickly and here we are, months later, with it sat in bank accounts, not being used.

Andrew, one of my constituents, lives in Welney, a very small village in my constituency. At the time of the crisis his wife was going through breast cancer. He was completely unaware that the help was available. We managed to get him £350-worth of support. I hope that, in her response, the Minister can talk more about what the Government can do to pressure councils to get that money out the door to help my constituents and those of other hon. Members in this Chamber.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that we are on a tight timeline. It is up to colleagues if they wish to accept interventions, but they may want to be mindful of that.

15:19

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

When heating oil prices go up, rural communities across Yeovil really feel the impact, yet as Trevor from Hardington Mandeville and many other constituents pointed out, the Chancellor did little to nothing to support heating oil issues. Heather put it best:

“The weather is getting colder and yet again people in rural communities seem to be forgotten.”

Many constituents have also written to me about how the biggest impact of heating oil cost rises comes from minimum-value orders. Residents have described having to order 500 litres at a time, which is totally unaffordable. I have also heard from residents in Haselbury Plucknett and North Perrott who are facing fuel poverty yet still do not qualify for Government support. As a result, they are having to dramatically cut usage, but being pushed to use less misses the bigger point. When prices are so high and there is no particular alternative to heating oil, there is only so much people can do before it begins impacting their quality of life, particularly over the winter.

Catherine from Chard’s last order cost her just shy of £2,000 for 1,500 litres. Both Catherine and her tenant are retired and would have liked to have kept the heating off and worn jumpers to save money. But Catherine says she cannot do that as her tenant is struggling to recover from a stroke, and she refuses to risk their health to save money on bills. Their property is off grid and upgrades are difficult or impossible without serious work.

Too many heating oil users like Catherine are stuck between a rock and a hard place and need Government support. I hope the Government will look to improve targeted support so that struggling constituents in Yeovil are not left out. If the Government really want to give rural communities breathing space, we need a price cap for heating oil. Rural communities simply cannot afford to bear the rising cost of heating oil any longer. It is all well and good having No. 10 North, but what we really need is No. 10 rural.

15:21

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate.

In Truro and Falmouth, 5,000 homes are off the grid. Like others, I welcome the £53 million of support and the regulation of the market for the first time. Similarly to other councils, Cornwall council was given £1.53 million and is handing it out in pockets of £300 for people who get council tax support. However, only £402,000 has been handed out so far. The council is doing a second round of funding and putting it into the crisis and resilience fund, but people need to know that is available. We need to push that out further.

In Kehelland village in Cornwall we have piloted hydrotreated vegetable oil—a renewable fuel that is not from the middle east. It simply needs technical consultation with heating oil suppliers and a statutory instrument for that renewable fuel obligation to be rolled out in a similar way to how it is for transport. That could really help. Many villagers in Kehelland are pleased with what they are getting and would like to see it rolled out further.

The warm homes plan will of course help people move to renewables, but in Cornwall, many houses are listed properties or in conservation areas and people struggle to make differences to their homes that will enable them to keep the heat in and make the use of the warm homes adaptations.

15:23

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

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.

15:25

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing such an important and timely debate. It is a pleasure, as always, to stand alongside my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), as well.

I want to start by speaking about a family who work four jobs between them, a tenant who cannot insulate her own home because she does not own it, two pensioners who do not qualify for further support, and a full-time worker on a modest salary. In rural communities, those are the people who are used to falling through the cracks and who are used to the system simply not working for them.

I have limited time, so I want to focus on what I would like to see the Government do: that is, to consider rural communities when making policy. For far too long, possibly because of the complacency with which some of these communities were represented by their constituency MPs in the past, rural areas were not particularly advocated for. I urge the Minister to consider in particular the importance of protecting those consumers and of doing what the Conservatives never did in government: to look at fixing the roof while we can. We must fix things before the crisis occurs and a time-sensitive decision is needed.

I want to praise the Government for seeing a problem and taking swift and immediate action. When the missiles started flying in the strait of Hormuz, it was a matter of days rather than months before money was committed, but the Government need to think about future crises and what we can do to avert them. I welcome the points made by colleagues on decarbonising houses. It is an open question. I urge the Minister to find ways to support rural households, as well as the businesses and community spaces that communities rely on. They might be off grid, but they must not be shut out.

15:27

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

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.

15:28

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

My constituency covers St Austell bay, the clay country and Newquay, and it contains many households who are not connected to the gas grid and remain heavily reliant on heating oil. For those families, fluctuations such as those we have seen in oil prices can have a very stark impact on household budgets, particularly through the winter months. We need a practical solution and a transition towards cleaner heating.

I know that switching to a heat pump like the one I have in my home will not be right for everyone, but for those who do wish to go down that route, substantial support is available, including the £7,500 boiler upgrade scheme and the warm homes loans, which should go some way to dealing with what is sometimes, but certainly not always, a significant up-front cost. For now, there is of course the 4% tariff abolition. I will follow the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) and ensure, with local companies, that those savings are passed through to the consumer. We will need to push the Minister for crucial industry reforms, such as a reduction in minimum order volumes.

I would like to hear whether the much-needed Government crisis and resilience fund, which previously gave £53 million to users of heating oil, can be extended, and whether more similar support can be given to councils. If so, I would like to see our local council in Cornwall ensure it reaches a broader base of users.

I know there is more to do, such as greater support for insulation and solutions that work for off-grid homes. Clean liquid fuel such as HVO can play a huge role, as we have heard. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on how to support those fuels and what steps the Government can take to provide additional support for heating oil users right now.

15:31

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

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?

15:33

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate. In my remote coastal constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, more than 5,500 homes rely on heating oil as their only source of central heating. In villages such as Kehelland, Mawnan Smith and Port Navas, it is closer to half.

I warmly welcome the two-year kerosene tariff suspension announced in the Budget, alongside the previous Chancellor’s £53 million crisis and resilience fund for low-income households, and plans to strengthen consumer protections and tackle price gouging. For many, heat pumps are an answer, but they are rarely practical or cost-effective for older off-grid remote homes. Fortunately, Cornwall has part of the answer.

As mentioned, residents in Kehelland have been trialling the use of HVO for the past five years. A 20% HVO blend can reduce carbon emissions by up to 90%, while cutting consumption by around 18%, without a costly retrofit for a heat pump. The legislation already exists for a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation, which would enable HVO to be deployed at scale, but we still await the necessary technical consultation. I therefore urge Ministers to examine the Kehelland trial in depth, to reassure themselves that the supply issue they have imagined does not exist, and to set out specifically what further evidence is required, so that HVO can be realised as a low-carbon, efficient option for remote off-grid homes.

15:34

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate. Since March this year I, like many Members, have been inundated with pleas from my constituents, including 79-year-old Barbara from Launceston, who said:

“Will the Government please do something about the soaring prices of heating oil? I already can’t afford to put fuel in my car. If things don’t change,”

she is not sure how she will make it through this winter.

In some of the most rural parts of North Cornwall, in villages such as St Breward and Blisland that surround Bodmin moor, up to 97% of households are completely off the mains gas grid. The cost of their heating oil per tank has gone from around £400 up to around £1,200 or even £1,500. Many also rely on liquefied petroleum gas, with no specific support or targeted support outlined so far. They often have no option to switch to a cheaper provider, and when the cold sets in, as it is right now, many face a long and perilous winter of damp and freezing cold.

Finally, in the words of an elderly constituent from Nanstallon:

“Many elderly folk like us, who have lived off grid all their lives, cannot afford solar panels or heat exchangers—we are stuck with oil and LPG.”

Will the Minister please address our concerns and our calls for a price cap on heating oil and LPG, for a free month with zero VAT on heating oil and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) already said, the removal of standing charges on electricity, as well as extra support for rural households to insulate and upgrade their homes?

15:36

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

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.

09:30

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate and for his thoughtful and eloquent speech. We have had a good debate this afternoon, which has highlighted the additional costs that fall upon our rural communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for his contribution, and I trust that he will not forget to top up his tank before Christmas. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) highlighted the need for local councils to take a proactive approach to getting Government money out the door as quickly as possible. It seems that some councils are not doing that terribly effectively.

About 1.4 million households across the UK rely on heating oil, predominantly in rural areas, including many in my constituency. For those households, using heating oil is not a choice. Most are not connected to the mains gas network and have little practical alternative when it comes to heating their homes. They face particular challenges. They are exposed to unpredictable delivery costs and the burden of paying hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds, up front to fill their oil tanks. Many are older and more vulnerable households, which simply cannot absorb sudden price shocks.

Recent international developments have demonstrated just how exposed those households have become. Disruption to oil supplies and shipping routes drove up household prices, with consequences quickly felt here in the UK. Households that had been paying £300 for 500 litres of heating oil suddenly faced quotes of between £600 and £1,000. For many families, that was simply unaffordable.

The Conservatives raised these concerns with the Government at the time and, after rather too much delay, some support was eventually provided through the crisis and resilience fund. While welcome, it addressed the consequences rather than the cause of the problem. That is why the Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation was so important. Following reports of cancelled orders, sudden price increases and demands for additional payments, the CMA identified significant concerns in the way that parts of the market were operating. The CMA intervened where suppliers may have breached contractual obligations by cancelling orders after prices surged, and secured compensation for affected customers. I welcome that intervention. However, investigations after the damage has already been done do not fix the issue.

I know that the Minister will refer to the Government’s intention to regulate the heating oil sector. I welcome the fact that action is finally being considered, but households deserve more than good intentions. Can the Minister tell us when the Government expect to implement the CMA’s recommendations and when consumers can expect to see tangible improvements? What timetable has been set for the Government’s work on price transparency and consumer choice, and when will Parliament be updated on the progress? Those questions matter because winter does not wait for reviews, assessments or consultations.

Some of the announcements in the Budget may have sounded impressive on the day, but for many households they will hardly be noticed. There may be £100 for certain households, but when some people’s energy bills are set to rise by more than £500, many will reasonably ask, “What was the point?” It is clear, however, that the Chancellor has at least noticed the Conservatives’ cheap power plan. Cutting VAT and scrapping carbon levies on energy bills—I find myself wondering where he might have got those ideas from. The broader problem is that the Government appear more interested in managing the consequences of high energy prices than in addressing their causes.

[David Smith]

On the hon. Member’s point about managing consequences, I welcome his positivity about the things that the Government are doing, but does he agree that it was a terrible idea for the last Government to abandon the UK’s gas storage in 2015?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

That is a complicated issue, because of course the cost of managing Rough would have meant a levy on gas bills, so it is not quite the easy solution that the hon. Member proposes. It is not as if gas storage automatically reduces all gas bills; in the long term, it may actually lead to higher costs for gas consumers. It is an important issue, but that is not the simple fix that the hon. Member claims.

The United Kingdom possesses significant oil and gas resources, world-class expertise and a highly skilled workforce, yet key decisions continue to be delayed. The decision on Jackdaw, for example, was delayed for months. I wonder why. Could it possibly have been an inconvenient by-election in Holborn and St Pancras? The future of Rosebank remains uncertain. Time and again, Ministers have chosen hesitation over action.

Good policy is not simply making an announcement; it is having a plan, delivering that plan and achieving results. That is the test by which households reliant on heating oil will judge this Government: are their energy bills lower? For millions of people, this debate is not about regulation or market design; it is about whether they can afford to keep their homes warm this winter. Rural families should not be disadvantaged simply because they live beyond the gas grid. Affordable energy should not depend on someone’s postcode, and far too often this Government forget our rural communities.

The Government talk repeatedly about managing expensive energy. That is not enough. People do not want expensive energy to be managed; they want energy to be made affordable. Let us therefore have clear deadlines, measurable commitments and action, not an obsession with process. If Ministers cannot tell households when they will feel the benefit of those reforms, all they are offering is more process and more delay. Families facing another winter of high costs cannot afford to wait. Those households need lower bills, warmer homes and a Government focused on making energy cheaper.

15:53

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate, and indeed their correspondents and constituents, for raising the issue of heating oil and the powerful ways in which they have conveyed it here in this Chamber.

It will be of little comfort to those people that the situations that I hear about in my own correspondence regarding heating oil keep me awake at night. The reality is that, for far too many families in this country, our exposure to the global energy crisis is felt most strongly by people who simply thought that this was the way they would be able to heat their homes for good. That change is a profound and difficult transition for them, which we as a Government have a responsibility to support them through.

Others have mentioned those 1.5 million homes and talked about the thousands of people affected in their own constituencies, and we recognise those particular challenges. It is worth while, however, thinking about how we are addressing that in the context of the wider global energy crisis and the efforts that we have already made.

This is an extremely difficult international backdrop. Some Members have mentioned how hopeful they are because of the midterm results overnight, but I tell this Chamber that, even if there were to be a full and complete ceasefire in Iran now, we would not see a return to the comparatively low prices we had before. Half of the recessions since 1973 have been caused by fossil fuel shocks. I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), but if we are to protect these families in the future, we need to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster, not simply talk about drilling more—anywhere at all, frankly. Oil and gas will continue to be part of our energy mix for some time to come, but continuing to allow these families to be exposed to the fossil fuel rollercoaster would be a dereliction of duty.

That is why it is so important that we have committed to the boiler upgrade scheme, for example. I slightly correct my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), as the scheme actually provides £9,000 for off-grid homes. The last quarter saw a 120% increase from this time last year in the number of people applying. That indicates that people can see that, if they want to reduce their exposure to the appalling consequences of this fossil fuel crisis, the best thing to do is to take advantage of the scheme and adopt cleaner heat technology.

I reassure those colleagues who mentioned that the housing stock in their communities is possibly not suitable. The Department has done a significant amount of work on this, and it suggests that more than 90% of households will be suitable for heat pumps. That will include many of the households that are currently exposed. This is not, in any way, shape or form, enough on its own. We have an emergency, bearing in mind that it is early November.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

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.

[Ms Billington]

I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it would be helpful if the Scottish Government understood the importance of devolving the responsibilities for this kind of thing to local government in Scotland, and ensuring that local government has the skills, powers and potential to deliver the jobs and skills that will be required. That is part of our commitment under the warm homes plan. I would like to see that fully implemented in co-operation—I believe in problem solving, not point scoring—with our partners north of the border.

It is important to think about this in the context of the other things we have done. The £100 household energy payment will be made to everyone with a house in council tax bands A to D from January, and 19% of those homes—that is 3.9 million—are in rural areas. The idea that this will not reach those people is not true. Remember that the temporary zero VAT rate on domestic electricity will extend to 98% of people who use heating oil, because they are also on the electricity grid. That will benefit them.

[Mr Snowden]

The Minister has just quoted the number of houses in council tax bands A to D in rural areas. Does she know how many of those houses are not connected to the grid? We need to know whether these are people in small houses in villages, or whether the measure is actually getting to the people who use heating oil.

[Ms Billington]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify that 19% of the people who will qualify are in rural communities and off grid. I am pleased that they will benefit.

Remember also that everybody who is on the electricity grid will benefit from the reduced policy costs on bills, which is worth £150. We have also extended the warm home discount, a £150 rebate for people on means-tested benefits, to 6 million households. These are not inconsequential efforts in taking some of the pressure off people and creating the breathing space that is required.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive and confident approach to the questions. She is right that this is about solutions—life is about solutions. I mentioned that 82% of my rural community need oil to survive, so they are greatly impacted by this. The Minister and the Government have given some help, but when such a large proportion of my constituency, and 65% of households across Northern Ireland, entirely depend on heating oil, do they have any other ideas for how help and alleviation can be given to those who entirely depend on heating oil?

[Ms Billington]

We have allocated £17 million to Northern Ireland for precisely the reason that so many people there depend on heating oil. It is also important to make sure that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive take up the opportunity to shift and accelerate people away from dependence on heating oil by using schemes similar to the boiler upgrade scheme that we have in England and Wales.

A lot of Members talked about the Competition and Markets Authority recommendations, and how we are accepting the recommendation to regulate. This is a long time coming. I remind the hon. Member for Bridgwater that we had an oil crisis when his party was in charge, and there was neither a decision to call in the CMA nor a decision to regulate. In fact, people who have been involved in energy campaigning and strategy for a long time are saying, “Thank goodness! This has been decades in the making.” The fact we have not had regulation in this space has caused significant problems for decades.

Through the Energy Independence Bill, which has been published today, we will be able to bring forward a new general authorisation regime to take the powers needed to bring heating oil within a proportionate regulatory framework and to strengthen protections for consumers, particularly vulnerable households. It will take time to get that regulation right, and I am sure that hon. Friends and colleagues will be aware that there are large risks in regulating at speed unless we are absolutely clear that we have ironed out all the potential risks. For this winter, we need to ensure that there is voluntary co-operation with the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association and the Northern Ireland Oil Federation to ensure that providers sign up to voluntary codes of conduct and behave properly this winter.

Remember, it was the Competition and Markets Authority that enforced and secured compensation for consumers who ended up either having their orders cancelled or being charged excessively at the beginning of this conflict. That is the kind of regulation we need to see in future, and I am keen that we will be able to do that, including on minimum order volumes, which Members have talked about, and payment schemes. It is unconscionable that, for electricity, one can have a fixed tariff, a direct debit or a prepayment meter, if they are really struggling, yet people on heating oil cannot manage things in the same way.

I am extraordinarily grateful to everybody who has contributed to debate today. I am conscious of time, and I want the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) to be able to sum up, but I assure people that the concerns of rural communities around heating oil, exposure to the fossil fuel rollercoaster and the global energy crisis are absolutely at the forefront of my mind as the Energy Minister for consumers. It is absolutely essential that we establish an energy market that works for people. Notwithstanding the particular things that are helping at the moment, in the long term we will reform the energy retail market not only for those on heating oil but for everyone, so that we can benefit from the clean energy we are generating ourselves and give ourselves resilience and security that we have not previously had because of our exposure to fossil fuel shocks.

16:03

[Jamie Stone]

It is most encouraging, to be absolutely honest, to see a Minister who seems to be on top of her brief—a generally good impression has been made. I thank each and every hon. and right hon. Member who has spoken. The collective discussion we have had today advances our cause in the right direction. That is one of the better things we do in this place, and I hope people watching this debate will take some comfort from it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of heating oil prices on rural areas.

Illegal Off-road Bikes: North-east

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

16:06

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered police powers for tackling the use of illegal off-road bikes in the North East.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank all the Members who have come to support the call for more police powers, police resources and a multi-departmental approach to tackling the scourge of e-bikes, battery-powered bikes and off-road bikes on our streets. Since I was elected with this Labour Government in July 2024, it has become increasingly clear that battery-powered bikes are the getaway vehicle of choice for those who do not respect the rule of law.

I alert the House to my constituent Julie Francis, who is in the Public Gallery today. Her mother, Gloria, was killed in Sunderland by a teenager illegally riding an off-road bike. Julie is as determined as I am to get more resources, and to get justice for Gloria, herself and the family.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Gloria Stephenson was my constituent, and her tragic death in Ryhope really affected our community. Does my hon. Friend agree, as the number of Members present suggests many of us do, that we need swifter action to prevent such tragic deaths in future?

[Lola McEvoy]

I absolutely agree that we need more powers, more action and more police on our streets to tackle this. I have some points on powers and resources that I ask the Minister to address in her remarks. She and I have previously met to discuss this. It is a cross-departmental issue, and as a group we will be meeting the Department for Transport to address some of the licensing issues, but this debate is about what the police need now.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue, and she is absolutely right. I share her concerns, which we have back home, too. We have been working on a cross-party basis in the Assembly to ensure that the Justice Bill enables the Police Service of Northern Ireland to seize scooters and bikes right away, without warning. Does she agree that the Minister should commit herself—I know she will—to sharing best practice across the regions to stop those reckless riders turning our public parks into dangerous racetracks?

[Lola McEvoy]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a clear and coherent point.

I ask the Minister to consider bolstering police powers to support our communities, which regularly report antisocial behaviour in the form of balaclava-clad battery bike riders. The police’s problem is that they do not have the resources to send out a police helicopter and a full squad to chase down those people every time antisocial behaviour is reported. The issue in Darlington and across the north-east is that e-bikes are also the vehicles of choice for organised crime.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and I have worked very closely on this issue. It is helpful to highlight that we are talking about two types of bike: dirt bikes, which have been around for more than 100 years, and e-bikes. The problem is that dirt bikes are unlicensed, so riding them on a road, in a park and so on is illegal. Similarly, when a non-compliant electrically assisted pedal cycle is ridden on a road or in a park, it immediately becomes illegal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sale of non-compliant e-bikes and the horrible kits that create them should be banned? A number of police, fire and crime commissioners across the country have asked for that. Does she feel that the solution for dirt bikes is that they should have a registered keeper when they are sold and that, if they are going to be used off road, they should have a statutory off road notification?

[Lola McEvoy]

My learned and hon. Friend is the expert on this issue in the House, and I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. In the interests of time, I will not reiterate the points I agree with, because I agree with all of them, and they were part of my speech, but I ask the Minister to please address them.

I agree that we need to ban the sale of e-bikes, but I am concerned about the use of antisocial behaviour as a reason against the police being forced to take action on this issue. I would like the prolific use of off-road electric bikes in our communities to be increased to a criminal offence.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

One way we can help the police is to better educate the public. We are in the run-up to Christmas, and it is generally misunderstood that e-bikes are not legal in our parks, on our roads or on our pavements. One young constituent found that out to his cost: he had owned his e-bike for only a couple of weeks, but he rode it on the road, and it was seized and crushed. Should we not say to parents, “Do not buy them this Christmas, because you are likely to lose them”?

[Lola McEvoy]

I absolutely agree. I have written to some high-street retailers that sell battery-powered scooters, which are popular among the younger generation. Children also use them to copycat and mimic the criminals that we see across Darlington. That is an escalation in antisocial behaviour, and it is really dangerous for those children.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should ask the Minister to consider targeted funding? The shoplifting element of the safer streets programme, and the police operation we had, were really successful. We need targeted funding with better intelligence and transparent data about where bikes are being seized and crushed.

[Lola McEvoy]

I agree that we need targeted funding, including for police vehicles in Durham and constabularies across the north-east. Having the ability for a police team to use a motor vehicle or a motorbike is an effective way of catching these criminals. The problem is that it is a game of cat and mouse. The police have to go round all the alleys in Darlington and across the north-east, and they do not have enough power. We need deterrents too.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lola McEvoy]

I will make some progress. One of the deterrents I ask the Minister to consider is repeat reporting in hotspots. Neighbourhood policing needs more resources if it is to act as a deterrent. We would like to see increased police resources in estates or parts of the town where there is repeated antisocial behaviour involving off-road bikes.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. I thank her for her tireless work on this issue. At a recent meeting that I convened on this issue at Beamish museum with stakeholders including the police, local authorities, emergency services and community groups, a key theme raised was the need for stronger enforcement powers. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to extend to police community support officers, as well as police officers, the power to stop and seize these bikes and report road traffic offences? That would give them the tools they need to tackle this persistent antisocial behaviour.

[Lola McEvoy]

I agree that PCSOs need further powers to be able to tackle the use of these bikes and to seize them. I attended a crushing, if that is what it is called—that word is new to my vocabulary—of 70 of these vehicles, which was incredibly satisfying; I really enjoyed myself. However, it is not enough to confiscate them. The public do not want to see them. They do not want them on the streets. We need to probit their sale, impose consequences for those selling them and strengthen community powers to ban them from areas.

[Adam Dance]

On community, a lot of residents in my constituency are scared to leave their home because of people with masks and balaclavas on riding scooters and e-bikes. I spoke to a resident who has not left her home in three weeks because she was knocked over the last time she did, and the police are just not doing enough. Will the Minister write to Avon and Somerset police to give PCSOs the authority to have handcuffs? We are one of the only places in the country where PCSOs do not have handcuffs.

[Lola McEvoy]

Unfortunately, I do not know enough about that bit of the legislation, but I am sure the Minister does and will address that point.

The use of balaclavas to evade detection is intimidating. The fact that the bikes are not licensed, plated or chipped means that the riders have a getaway vehicle. If the police were to catch and prosecute them, they could confiscate and crush the bikes, but that is not enough of a deterrent and the balance is weighted in favour of those using them.

I would like the Minister to consider our points. We are seeing an increase in blatant disregard for the law. There are reports of these criminals wearing balaclavas, drug dealing in plain sight in the street, and carrying machetes and other very dangerous weapons. It seems that they are willing to take the risk because they do not think they will get caught. As I said, the police are making incredible headway with Operation ORB, which is about seizing and crushing these bikes, but things seem to be weighted in favour of the criminals.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

In Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, this problem destroys not just lives, but livelihoods. We are giving grants to community centres to get people out, but people are scared to go. Farmers and rural communities are having their livelihoods swept away by this horrible scourge. Will the Minister give us some reassurance that we will give our police more preventive measures to catch these people?

[Lola McEvoy]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister consider addressing the powers around this use of off-road vehicles, including antisocial behaviour orders? Using a public spaces protection order to ban the use of balaclavas and off-road bikes in Darlington town centre, for example, which I have called for, would mean that a police officer had to go and find somebody who was not committing a crime, but who was wearing a balaclava and using an off-road bike, and then issue them with a £100 fine for being in breach of the PSPO. Will the Policing Minister address the concerns about the deterrent being skewed, and not in favour of the public? A £100 fine is not enough of a deterrent, and the person has to be caught. We need to make sure that there are other deterrents in place, such as confiscation.

There are also problems with the licenses for riding these vehicles and with who is buying them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned, these scooters can be bought on the high street, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) knows well, kits can also be bought online to change what could be seen by a parent as a pretty safe and fun vehicle into a really dangerous vehicle. We need to address that with more deterrents and tougher punishments.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for leading the debate and for her national leadership on this issue. She makes important points about additional powers, but those powers need policing resource. Just a few weeks ago, we debated Durham constabulary’s financial challenges in meeting the requirements of increasing crime. Does she agree that, as well as additional powers, Durham police must have the proper funding they need to lead a crackdown on this appalling problem?

[Lola McEvoy]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The funding formula is not in Durham police’s favour. We need funding formula reform, and we need it soon. I would also say that it is all well and good funding neighbourhood policing, which will act as a deterrent, but we simply do not have the resources to tackle the organised and very serious crime that is often masked as antisocial behaviour. I would argue that the scourge of balaclava-clad people on electric battery-powered bikes and dirt bikes on our roads is encouraging a more blatant flouting of the law in other areas.

I ask the Minister to address the fact that although communities are making a comprehensive attempt to report the use of these off-road bikes, by the time the police turn up, the culprits have obviously fled on those vehicles wearing a balaclava, and go completely unidentified. I therefore ask for some investigation into tracking the sale of these bikes or into other ways we can identify the wearers, who are blatantly dealing drugs in the town and surrounding areas.

I know that the Minister will be meeting the Department for Transport to address lots of these issues in a cross-departmental approach, but I ask that the Durham and north-east police forces, which are on the frontline, are seen as a pilot for any interventions. We have been given drones by our police and crime commissioners, but they are only as good as the police officers on the ground who follow them. It is all well and good seeing where the bikes are going, but if officers cannot then go and identify those using them, because it is seen as too little of a crime to drive one on the road, then it is not in their interests to use those resources to follow them. It is also not in the police’s interests to engage in a very dangerous high-speed chase down the main roads, because they know that that will endanger pedestrians.

I ask the Minister to understand some of the challenges we are facing in Darlington and the surrounding areas. I urge her to see what I have said not as an MP clutching her pearls and saying, “We are a lovely town”—which we are—“and we deserve better,” but as a canary down the mine for what criminals think they can get away with. If it is happening in Darlington in the north-east, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will happen right across the country.

16:22

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for securing a very timely and important debate.

I will start by making the basic point that I absolutely recognise the challenges my hon. Friend describes. As an MP in Croydon, I have very similar challenges, and there are similar challenges across the country with this emerging nasty problem with off-road bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. It is probably safe to say that every MP in the country has a challenge with them.

It was a privilege to meet my hon. Friend and her constituent to talk about the awful death of her mother. It was an impactful experience that made me think about the need for us to act and do more. I hope that those who have lost loved ones or been injured, and the MPs who have had conversations with them, can be reassured that we are looking very carefully at this challenge in the Home Office and across Government.

On the wider issue of funding and how we tackle these challenges, I am acutely aware, as my hon. Friend said, of how important it is to have police presence in our communities, and I am very aware of the wider challenges in the north-east with police funding and numbers.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

I know exactly what my hon. Friend is going to ask me, but I will happily give way.

[Luke Myer]

The Minister will be sick of me raising this, but I promised my constituents that I would continue to bang on about it. I urge her to remember Cleveland police in all the conversations she has around police funding, and of course the wider north-east, which hon. Members have mentioned.

[Sarah Jones]

The funding situation for Cleveland at the moment is that we have secured the money to cover the mutual aid costs that Cleveland has borne—just over £5 million. Durham and Cleveland have both applied for what we are calling exceptional finance for next year and are both through to the next stage, where the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy does an analysis of the challenges. It will look at the financial resilience of the organisations and the context within which they operate, so both those forces will be going through to that. We are doing a lot of internal work on the funding formula, which we will say more about soon, but the exceptional finance will be for this financial year. The year starts in January, but the announcements will be made in December, so we are looking at those issues now. Obviously, within the funding window, it is important to say that local police are operationally independent, so it is for them to make the decisions on the tactics they want to pursue.

There have been many questions about what we can do at a national level to support the tackling of this challenge.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I emphasise that my constituents want to see extra resource and devolved powers to our local authorities to address the scourge of e-bikes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) eloquently put it. I also want to make the Minister aware, if she is not, that a consultant at the Royal Victoria Infirmary told me that the hospital’s 36% rise in open leg fractures in the last three years is due to increased e-bike use. There is a cost to young lives and to the NHS. Is she working with her Department of Health and Social Care colleagues to look at the costs and at how they can be addressed by the policy she can put in place?

[Sarah Jones]

That is a shocking statistic. We will certainly take that away and see whether that is replicated elsewhere. We will ask our NHS colleagues to see whether there is data on that and how it is gathered, but that would be useful.

On what more we can do, I am having a series of conversations with MPs and I will do a couple of roundtables. I know a lot of MPs are interested in this space—I understand there is a WhatsApp group—and want to give their views. We have obviously taken some steps, such as the powers to seize these vehicles and not have to give notice, and the powers to extend dispersal orders, as well being able to dispose of these vehicles quicker than before.

On the point my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington made about PSPO breaches, we have increased fines to £500. It is not the answer to everything, but it is at least something, going from £100 to £500. We are looking at a number of different areas, and all the things that have been suggested are things we are looking at. I cannot promise that there will be magic money and, although I would like to, I cannot wave a wand and give all police forces extra money to tackle this problem, but we are very much looking at this challenge in the round and I know that the Home Secretary is very interested in this area, too.

There are legal changes we can think about, which obviously involve the need for legislation and to go through that process, so what are the things we could do sooner rather than later? How much can we corral police forces that carry out big operations that take these vehicles off the streets and dispose of them, and look at that nationwide? There are issues around training for officers, which we are looking at. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington talked about the dangers of pursuing someone, but to be able to pursue, officers need a level of driving training. We need to look at whether there is an issue with the number of officers we are training. I talked only today with the new inspector of His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, who has just started his new role—he was the head of the College of Policing—about the things in this space that we can think about doing.

There is obviously a big piece of work to be done across Government about the rules for how these things can be used. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington about people not understanding that a lot of this is illegal is absolutely right. The existing legal situation is messy when it comes to what someone can and cannot do, and we need to work across Government to address that.

[Lola McEvoy]

I would have liked to have addressed a few easy wins, but in the interest of time maybe the Minister could address them now. One issue is that a lot of people who are caught are under 18 and do not have a driving licence. Is there any avenue to addressing that through the parenting orders? For example, if someone’s child is caught riding one of these on the road, there could be knock-on consequences for their driving licence.

We had an incident in Darlington where parents were ringing up the police and asking when they could get the confiscated vehicle back. It is not the same thing as when a teacher confiscates a child’s phone for using it in school; these bikes are illegal and dangerous and have no place on the road. We need to differentiate that for parents by applying some consequences, if we cannot do it for the young people themselves.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend raises a good point about what to do with under-18s. We have just introduced respect orders, which are useful in this space because people who are consistently antisocial and driving these bikes are prime suspects for respect orders, which can result in a criminal offence—people can end up in prison if they breach their conditions. But respect orders do not apply to the under-18s. We need to look at our under-18s and make sure that, whatever the antisocial behaviour is, there is deterrence and interventions, as well as support where the child is vulnerable and may need it. I will take that away and commit to looking into it.

We need to look across Government and the consider the different laws that exist around these vehicles. In the Home Office, we need to be thinking about what bit of legislation, what change, or what corralling in policing we can do, and how we can send out messages about what is and is not legal. We are considering all of these issues in the Home Office. Now is the time to have these conversations, and we are looking at what we can feasibly do.

There is a general point around bikes and antisocial behaviour, which is that post covid there has been a big increase in antisocial behaviour that policing has not kept on top of, largely because of resources. This is a symptom of that. We have to make it clear to our communities that there is a way to behave and a thing to do, and that there will be consequences if people do not stick within the law. The message to all our fair, law-abiding citizens should be, “You are abiding by the law, and we are grateful for that. These other people will not get away with what they are doing.”

I am thinking about what the quick wins are, what longer-term wins we need through legislation and how we can make sure this is not seen as in any way acceptable.

[Lola McEvoy]

I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. Something that comes up a lot on the doorstep when we talk about this issue is that it is the same small group, and everybody knows who it is. They might say, “Everybody knows who it is and they are always driving these bikes in and out the house.” Obviously, I do not know because they will not tell me who it is, so there is an issue there with the neighbourhood policing.

Is there any support that the Minister could give police around repeated multi-problem hotspots and families, where it is known by the community? This is driving down public confidence in the police, as well as how people feel on a day-to-day basis, as has been raised by many hon. Friends across the House. It is making people feel intimidated, scared and miserable, as well as being a danger. Can the Minister address that?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is the wider issue here of the years of austerity that ripped away services that supported parents and families to be the best they can be, whether Sure Start or the various iterations of family interventions over the years that have been ripped away. The police can do only so much. There is an infrastructure issue around our other public services. That is something we will look at.

I want to touch briefly on PCSOs because they have been raised a couple of times. Certain powers are given to PCSOs by each force. Different areas do different things with their PCSOs. Some, for example, are able to use drones, but others are not. On a basic level, they cannot arrest people or carry weapons. There are certain rules about what PCSOs can do, but within that local forces have some flexibility. I will take away the questions about that. I am always keen to encourage more PCSOs and their use as much as possible. I am very happy to take that away and look at it.

[Lola McEvoy]

Let me put on record the stellar job being done by PCSOs on the beat in Darlington, across the north-east and in every other constituency. I am sure that everyone will agree with that. PCSOs take huge personal risk for very low pay, and they work often gruelling shifts.

One PCSO—she would not like me to name her—was incredibly brave when she found two people on an off-road bike. She followed them, jumped them and got the bike; but when they turned around and realised that she was on her own, they got the bike back and assaulted her. It is deeply disturbing that that is the level we are at in the lovely town of Darlington. It is not right that the balance is so skewed in favour of those who do not respect the law. Will the Minister keep her in mind when increasing the powers of PCSOs?

[Sarah Jones]

I will certainly keep that in mind. There are lots of extraordinary examples of PCSOs showing great bravery and being really important crime-prevention agents as well as fighting crime in our local communities. It would be wrong of me not to say that three police officers have died in my hon. Friend’s region over the past year. We pay tribute to them and what they have given for their country. We will continue to do that, and we are very grateful for what the police do.

I absolutely hear and am having lots of conversations about the need to look at this challenge, recognise it and see it. The Home Secretary recognises and sees it, and we are very much in the market for the things that we can do. It is, therefore, a very helpful time to have this conversation and debate. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed and encourage them to keep talking to me and others in the Home Office. I will convene some roundtable sessions, and we need a proper cross-Government session as well. I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important matter.

Question put and agreed to.

16:37

Sitting suspended.

Potholes: Suffolk

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

16:39

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered potholes and road maintenance in Suffolk.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, and I thank everybody for staying a little bit later as the House rises and everyone disappears on recess.

I will be honest: upon being elected, my focus was fighting for better schools in Ipswich and rural NHS services in Suffolk, as well as supporting small and independent businesses. I never for a moment imagined that I would become immersed in the issue of road maintenance—but, of course, events changed that.

Over the past 12 months, the condition of roads across my constituency has deteriorated massively, largely as a consequence of three major problems that have perfectly converged. First, extreme weather exacerbates fractures in the road surface. This is commonly known as the freeze-thaw cycle, and involves rainwater seeping into cracks before freezing in sub-zero temperatures, expanding in the process. In November 2025, there was some 107 mm of rain across Suffolk, followed by a significant cold snap; temperatures on the night of 20 November dropped well below 0°C and overnight frosts continued for the rest of December, somewhat unsurprisingly for that time of year. Those conditions wreak havoc on our roads.

Secondly, there has been a significant uptick in heavy-duty traffic across Suffolk roads, a consequence of increased activity at the Sizewell C site as well as increased housing construction across the county. On any day there can be between 500 and 600 heavy-duty vehicles, some with police escorts and carrying abnormally large loads, using the A12 between Martlesham and Leiston. Then there has been a proliferation of new housing developments, bringing more activity of heavy goods vehicles along quiet country roads. East Suffolk’s housing target has gone from approximately 800 homes per year to more than 1,600. Mid Suffolk has also seen its housing target more than double. Grundisburgh, Framlingham, Wickham Market and Debenham are all expanding towns with ancient road networks connecting them to the outside world.

The point of my speech is not to bemoan the impact that construction is having on residents—that is for a different day. Nor is it to question the ongoing commitment by Sizewell C to managing congestion on the A12—a topic it is very much alive to and trying to manage. It is to highlight the impact that development and other things are having on the road surfaces around our county.

The third cause of poor road conditions across Suffolk in recent years, in my opinion, is a shift in the way we allocate capital. The A12 was partially de-trunked in 2001, meaning that everything north of Ipswich fell in strategic importance and priority. It joined the A1120 and other arterial roads under the responsibility of the local highways authority, which spent years dealing with short-term funding arrangements, and then inflation eroded longer-term pay deals.

I said this morning to the BBC that this debate should not be about point scoring, so I pay credit to Suffolk county council: progress has been made in recent years in dealing with the problem. Between 2021 and 2025, the council repaired some 88,329 potholes. Each year, more potholes were repaired than were reported, showing that the council was not only responding to new issues, but dealing with existing defects.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is bringing forward an issue in Suffolk, but the fact of the matter is that potholes are a major issue in all our constituencies. Is he aware of a new system for repairing potholes? I understand that there will be a cost outlay, but the return is that it fixes the potholes more quickly, more efficiently and better. If we have a better system of doing it, is it not time for the Government to encourage all councils to use that new system, to ensure that potholes are repaired better and more quickly and the issue for the motorist is taken away sooner?

[Patrick Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment; either he has read my speech or, as usual, he is far ahead of the curve, because I will get on to talk about the Dragon Patcher and the JCB Pothole Pro later on. He is absolutely right.

To get back to where I was going, today only 3% of Suffolk’s A road network is in poor condition. That is better than the English average, with the proportion in good condition broadly aligned to national figures. Suffolk’s B and C roads also outperform national averages, with a high share in good condition and significantly fewer in poor condition. Of course residents are still angry about the state of the roads and disruption caused by roadworks. I am one of those residents. I have to drive on those roads—fortunately not every day of the week, because I am here. We use our country roads to get our children to and from school every day, so I know exactly what it is like to regularly dodge potholes. That is why we are debating how we can improve the situation.

As I said recently, I recognise that the Department for Transport has substantially increased—actually, astronomically increased—funding for potholes. That should be recognised. However, I also know that the Department gave Suffolk county council a red warning for road maintenance performance in January 2026, as part of its new accountability mechanism for highways authorities. I am in favour of holding public bodies to account—it is a good thing—but it is unfortunate that in this situation the Department managed to make a slight mess of the methodology. What lessons have been learned from that process? I am wary of a system that ranks a local authority as failing when the condition of its road network is above average. I am aware of the same fraught issue in the school system, where schools that achieve very good grades are ranked as failing by Ofsted, so I understand that it is complicated.

The traffic light system includes a decarbonisation test. Councils lose five points from their best practice score if they fail to provide evidence of plans to decarbonise maintenance operations and increase climate resilience. What remedial support will be made available to local authorities that do not fare well on the interactive map? There have been confusing stories of support given to high-performing local authorities, while failing ones are offered expert advice. Expert advice is almost always useless when resources are not meeting demand. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government will take to help local authorities such as Suffolk when they are judged to be not fulfilling their statutory role?

The purpose of this speech is to look to the future and probe this Government’s position on a number of ways in which our road network—not just in Suffolk but across the country—might be remediated in the long term. As I said, I recognise that the Government have provided more than £7 billion for road maintenance over the next four years, and that that will kick up slightly to £2 billion a year. It is absolutely right that we recognise that that is a significant increase in funding. Much in the same way, it is right that we recognise that it is still less than what the Conservatives committed in their 2024 manifesto, which would have delivered more than £2 billion per year straightaway.

I wish to ask the Government whether they will go further on a raft of issues. First, will they take reasonable steps to ensure that highways authorities have access to technology and machinery that are imperative to the quick remediation of potholes in country settings? Suffolk county council has recently deployed a JCB Pothole Pro, which I believe is on loan from JCB, and before that it leased a Dragon Patcher. These are short-term and unstable arrangements. If we want to deal with the proliferation of potholes, it strikes me as eminently sensible that local authorities are given the financial support to use the best technology available. It is worth noting that the Conservative plan for drivers, launched by the Leader of the Opposition in April 2026, commits to a national pothole patrol, with a national taskforce deploying hundreds of specialist repair units and using technology such as the JCB Pothole Pro, to fix roads faster.

Secondly, there is no doubt that British roads are in a worse condition than European comparators. RAC Europe published a survey in 2024 in which six in 10 motorists said that local roads in Europe were in better condition, with fewer potholes, than the equivalent roads in the UK. Only a fifth thought that UK roads were in better shape than those on the continent, and 57% of all drivers believed that there were fewer potholes on the motorways in Europe relative to high-speed motorways in the UK. Plenty of people therefore wonder why we do not deploy the same road maintenance strategies as other countries. Germany, the Swiss and the French have more efficient and more technologically advanced approaches to managing road maintenance.

However, the British Government do not hold data on how long councils take to repair potholes. Ministers cannot tell us whether drivers are waiting longer than they used to for repairs. We rarely deploy road maintenance teams overnight on country roads. While we give utility companies the power to start work immediately through immediate emergency permits, we do not hold contractors to account for fast delivery of road maintenance works.

I am inundated, as I am sure other Members are, with complaints from local residents who see traffic management mitigations in place way before and way after workers are seen tending to remedial works. Our roads are already clogged up with utility companies carrying out work on gas pipes or broadband wiring, under strict regulations, at low cost and involving different teams over long periods.

This all strikes me as a classic example of British bureaucracy having a hugely negative impact on the state of British roads and our economy. The BBC published a report in 2026 that stated that traffic disruption linked to roadworks cost the UK economy £4 billion between 2022 and 2023. What can the Government do to relax the rules and regulations around road maintenance, so that companies can carry out works at night, quickly and with as little disruption as possible?

Thirdly, I think that everyone, whichever side of the House they sit on, recognises that a lack of skills is blighting the road infrastructure network. A 2023 report by the Local Council Roads Innovation Group said that training budgets had dwindled—unsurprisingly, in the face of prioritisation for other areas of the road maintenance budget; that the quality of technical training was considered substandard, with a bizarre over-emphasis on net zero; and that the road infrastructure sector struggled with an image problem, such that fewer young people considered it as a potential career option, resulting in an ageing workforce.

Thirty-six per cent of people in the road infrastructure construction sector are aged 55 or over. I read in a report online that there are some 140,000 vacancies, despite a population of people not in education, employment or training of more than a million. I cannot believe that there is not an easy solution to the problem of skills in the road maintenance sector, considering the underlying structure of our labour market at the moment. If we do not have the people, we will not be able to tackle an issue where scale is the major challenge. What are the Government doing to encourage young people into the transport infrastructure sector and specifically the road infrastructure sector?

Lastly, I want to probe the Government’s position on the long-term de-trunking of strategically important roads. I said at the beginning of my speech that the A12 north of Ipswich was de-trunked in 2001. I am still perplexed as to why it has not been redesignated as a critically important road, given that we are building two nuclear reactors just off it. The German road network is more centrally managed than ours—and, by the way, it is far better managed as a result. If National Highways has longer-term funding visibility, as it now does, why would it not want to broaden its remit and look after more elements of our road network?

Before I conclude, let me tie all this up into what I think is an increasingly obvious perspective: all of the above is futile if our economy does not grow. I will say that this Government—the Labour Government—made the right decision by increasing funding. It was a mistake—a fundamental mistake, albeit a consequence of the economic situation we faced in 2010—to cut budgets. I am sure that all Government Members are raring to go after my speech identifying a load of problems with our road network that began before 2024; that is not lost on me. I implore the Minister, and all other Members, not to give me an easy time, but to take this opportunity to rise somewhat above the “it was all down to cuts, innit?” attitude. I know the Minister comes from a place that believes borrowing to spend on infrastructure will drive long-term growth, but growth will not emerge without this Government getting to grips with debt, the deficit, our welfare budget and bringing down taxes on businesses.

We have a proud history of being at the forefront of the revolution that transformed road use, when Thomas Telford and John McAdam started building roads with all-weather surfaces. There is no reason why we cannot repeat history and become the best country in the world for roads. I thank hon. Members for their time.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. Due to the earlier Division, the revised end time for this debate is 5.40 pm.

16:55

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) for securing this debate.

I would like to invite all Members to take a journey along the A143 between Ixworth and Stanton in my constituency. I would recommend a sturdy vehicle with good suspension and at least one spare tyre. This summer, the road made headlines all over the world, because it was literally melting. After months of closures, disruptions, repairs and long diversions, residents might reasonably have expected a road they could drive on, but I am sad to say that the potholes are already back. There are slices of Swiss cheese with fewer holes than the A143. Sadly, convention in this place does not allow me to show the drone video created by my assistant Mr Tom Howard, but it is available on all good social media channels. I urge hon. Members to take a look.

The Reform administration at Suffolk county council came into office promising a war on potholes. Several months into the war, I have to report that the potholes are winning convincingly. How frustrating is that? The Labour Government delivered a record £7.3 billion for local road maintenance for four years, giving councils the funding and certainty to deliver lasting improvements. The money is being provided and the tools are there, yet in Reform-run Suffolk we still see the same roads being repaired again and again. Residents do not care much for party politics or party political slogans when they are dodging potholes on the school run. They simply want safe roads, lasting repairs and value for money.

I wrote directly to the leader of Suffolk county council asking for answers and a permanent solution. We need to know why the repairs have failed so quickly and who is accountable. Is Suffolk county council demanding compensation from the contractor? The people of Suffolk are not asking for gold-plated roads. They are simply asking for roads where the tarmac stays down and the potholes stay filled.

16:57

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I think this is the second time my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) has invited Members of this House to visit his constituency. I am a regular visitor—it is a beautiful part of the world—and I thank him for all that he is doing on the issue and on Haughley junction, which I will come on to.

Every week, I am out talking to local residents who raise the same issue over and over again: potholes. People in Ipswich and Suffolk are fed up. Frankly, they have every right to be. This is not something that has occurred just in the past year; this comes after years of under-investment. As my hon. Friend articulated so well, it is leaving rough and unpredictable surfaces that leave drivers with burst tyres, buckled wheels and expensive repairs. Cyclists are forced into rush hour traffic to avoid dangerous craters. Parents are late to work because the school run has revealed a new hole in the road.

For people across Ipswich and Suffolk, the state of our road network is not merely an inconvenience; it is a daily source of frustration, cost and, in some cases, genuine danger. That is why the publication of the Government’s road maintenance audit earlier this year was so important. For the first time, we have an objective measure of how councils are performing in maintaining our roads. Results for Suffolk were incredibly disappointing, although not surprising for anybody who uses our roads. Suffolk received an overall red rating, placing it among the worst-performing highways authorities in the country.

We have to be honest about what, and who, is culpable. Is it the Conservatives at Suffolk county council, who until May this year were in power for more than two decades? Was it their incompetence that led to one of the worst ratings in the country, or was it the Conservative Government here in Westminster who were in power for 14 years and starved Suffolk and its roads of the investment it needed? This is not just a little bit of rain; it is huge underfunding. Between 2011 and 2020, Suffolk’s annual highways allocation was cut from more than £22 million to £17.5 million.

I can only presume that whatever fantasy unicorns might have been in the 2024 general election manifesto should go in the same bucket as the unfunded hospitals and the Ely-Haughley upgrade that was announced three times but never funded. We cannot really believe any of it, given that the Conservatives had 14 years in power and their record was one of cutting funding. Admittedly, it crept up a little towards the end of their time in office, as the general election loomed, but by then it was too little, too late. The result was entirely predictable: short-term fixes became the norm, roads deteriorated and taxpayers ended up paying more in the long run. That is the consequence when incompetence and lack of interest are married with a complete lack of funding.

I am pleased that our Government are taking a fundamentally different approach. To make that possible, as I am sure the Minister will mention, we are investing £7.3 billion in local roads over four years and doubling national road maintenance funding by the end of this Parliament. That is the biggest investment in road maintenance our country has ever seen, and it includes record funding for Suffolk. Over the next four years, our county will receive £219 million to improve and maintain local roads.

By 2029-30, funding will reach nearly £65 million a year, nearly quadruple what it was under the Conservatives in 2020. That is not a modest uplift, tinkering around the edges or a temporary sticking-plaster; it represents a fundamental change in how our roads are funded. Instead of the hand-to-mouth approach of yearly settlements that we had under the Conservatives, this is a long-term funding commitment so that councils such as Suffolk county council will know exactly what they are getting for the next four years and can plan ahead. Instead of endless patch-and-mend repairs, they will have the certainty and resources to plan long-term improvements and prevent potholes in the first place, which is what we all want to see. That is the difference between the managed decline that we saw under the Conservatives, and the investment and renewal under our Government.

Investment alone, however, is not enough; delivery also matters. I will slightly depart from the assessment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. The new Reform administration at Suffolk county council did not create this mess—that lies squarely with the Conservatives, locally and nationally—but it has inherited record road maintenance funding and now has the responsibility to right the wrongs that have been evident in the system for years. It has the resources and now the certainty, and residents rightly expect to see results.

Pothole-riddled roads in Suffolk are not the county’s only transport challenge. I am delighted about the package of measures that the Government have allocated to our county, including £9 million to improve bus services, the biggest upgrade since 1998. They are investing £4.5 million for active travel, which includes improved walking and cycling provision, and committed nearly £55 million in funding for upgrades around the A12/A14 Seven Hills roundabout. These are significant investments, but of course I want more. On Ely-Haughley, for example, there is a single point of failure in Suffolk, which is the Orwell bridge—

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman to remain within the scope of the debate, please?

[Jack Abbott]

I was about to say that road maintenance relies on transport infrastructure, which is why Ely-Haughley is so important. The Ely-Haughley scheme will take 100,000 HGVs off the road, which is incredibly important, but it is not a like-for-like replacement for the Orwell bridge, which is crossed by more than 12,000 HGVs a day coming from one of the world’s busiest container ports. That is a crucial piece of infrastructure. We have a job to do locally to make sure we renew the business case, which is now half a decade old, and see whether we can reduce the number of level crossings. The scheme has my wholehearted support, and support across the House, but we have a job to do in our local system. I am pleased that Transport East in particular has grasped the nettle.

[Patrick Spencer]

I have a sense of déjà vu. I feel I have said this to the hon. Member before, but it is incumbent on me to remind him that his party is now in government, with a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last week was the third opportunity for this Government to fund Ely-Haughley. I accept that it was not done by the previous Government, but he cannot just repeat some tired line like “You didn’t do it, so I shouldn’t be expected to do it either.” If it is so important, why is the hon. Member sitting here shouting at all of us, when it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer he needs to make this point to?

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate that the hon. Member has not been in Parliament for a while, so he may not be aware of the conversations that we have been having across the system. He is absolutely right to point out that the previous Conservative Government pledged three times to move ahead with Ely-Haughley but did not allocate a single penny of funding. It is also the case, however, that we have met consistently with the Rail Minister about this issue. The business case that was put forward for Ely-Haughley is now half a decade out of date. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) can continue shaking his head, but this is the reality, and I am giving strong feedback. This is feedback, by the way, that Transport East has grasped, that the Cambridgeshire mayoral authority knows and that our chamber of commerce knows, so it seems that everybody apart from the hon. Member is aware of the detail here.

We have been asked, as a local system, to update the business case, because how can we reasonably ask the Government to fund something half a decade out of date, from before the Liz Truss mini-Budget? How can we reduce the number of level crossings along the Ely stretch, which will also reduce the cost of this important infrastructure scheme? Is there any private investment that we can put into it, in a similar way to the lower Thames crossing? Can we build up wider regional support for the scheme? The ball is in our court. Every single stakeholder locally knows that and is advancing with that.

The other thing I would say is that Suffolk has to get serious. Collectively, we have to get serious when we pitch for funding. We are competing against every single region and nation in this country. To sit there and amateurishly keep demanding the same thing, over and over again—[Interruption.]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I remind Members to be mindful of their tone, please?

[Jack Abbott]

Absolutely. But to make the same amateurish demands time and again, without doing any of the straightforward things that have been clearly asked of us, is not feasible. That is why, collectively, the local system is heading towards the spending review and is making sure that we are doing the things that have been asked of us at a local level.

I hope that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich will listens to some of this and reflects on it, and that he will join with Transport East, the mayoral combined authority, the chambers of commerce and Members of all parties across the House on this. It does not look as though he is going to do that, which is unfortunate, because we could use all power to the wheel.

What I was going on to say, before I was interrupted, was about the fact that the Ely-Haughley upgrade is incredibly important. We want to move freight from HGVs on to our rail network. However, that is not a silver bullet for our local road system. As I say, 12,000 HGVs a day cross the Orwell bridge. We also have the Copdock junction, which I have talked to the previous Roads Minister about on a number of occasions. It is a crucial pinch point in our local road network, and one that impacts on Felixstowe. I am really hoping that we can move it forward in a future road investment strategy programme, after it was pushed from RIS3 to RIS4.

However, we have structural weaknesses within our road network. Although those schemes are incredibly important, there still seems to be a single point of failure in the Orwell bridge. Every time the bridge closes, Ipswich and the surrounding area grind to a halt. That pushes HGVs on to our country roads and unsuitable road networks, which creates an even bigger problem for road maintenance. Residents sit in traffic for hours, businesses lose money, emergency services are delayed and our local economy pays the price too.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s significant investment in potholes—£7 billion across this Parliament—but we have not yet talked about the impact that potholes have on pedestrians. In my constituency, residents have fallen in potholes while walking across roads, and wheelchair users and people with visual impairments have been injured while trying to traverse potholed roads. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we talk about investment in potholes, we need to consider accessibility and pavements as well? Issues have been raised with me about Owston Ferry, Norman Drive and Coppice Road. We need to tackle those with our investment too.

[Jack Abbott]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is about not just the roads but the surrounding infrastructure, including our pavements. I walk the streets every weekend and the roads and pavements alike are in an incredibly poor state, so I hope the whole road maintenance network is looked at.

It is incredibly important that the Reform county council gets to work fixing those potholes, but we will keep coming back to this place time and again if we do not also deliver major infrastructure, such as the Ely and Haughley junctions and the Copdock interchange. As I say, I welcome the investment in the Seven Hills roundabout too.

To finish my point on the Orwell bridge, we also need to address that single point of failure, which is impacting our local economy. It is not just a bit of traffic; HGVs are being pushed on to unsuitable roads, including through our villages. That is why a northern bypass for Ipswich is so critical, not just for our town’s traffic but for the long-term future of Felixstowe and our surrounding economy.

A northern bypass is the only credible solution to that single point of failure, as a WSP report has previously outlined. It is incumbent on our local system to deliver it. The Reform county council has finally reopened work on it, six years after it was shelved with no credible alternative put forward. I hope that when that work reports back in the spring, we can go to Ministers and push ahead with that vital project.

For now, our residents deserve safe, reliable, well-maintained roads, and our businesses deserve infrastructure that supports growth rather than holding it back. The Government are doing their part, and the funding and opportunity are there for our county council. However, the new administration must now get on with the job and deliver the roads that the people of Ipswich and Suffolk deserve.

17:11

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

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.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that the debate is about potholes and road maintenance.

17:15

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who chaired the debate earlier. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing this important debate. He is a true champion for his constituents, and I am sure that they will appreciate his work in bringing the challenges that they face with potholes to this place.

Let me reflect on some of the speeches that we have heard. I find myself sitting opposite the Minister for not the first time this week, as we were in the Highways (Financing) Bill Committee earlier this week. We previously sat together on what was then the Business and Trade Committee, and I sit on an all-party parliamentary group with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley). I want to reflect on some of the real positives of cross-party working, as Westminster Hall has the ability to demonstrate to our constituents how well we can work together.

The speeches that we have heard today were a little honey and vinegar—that is perhaps the best way of putting it. I think that honey, rather than vinegar, tends to achieve the desired results. It was absolutely delightful to go on a journey in my imagination of melting Swiss cheese in Suffolk with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, although perhaps that journey is not delightful for the people actually doing it. It was disappointing to hear the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) be less parliamentary and collegiate. I felt rather let down by that, given the way in which Westminster Hall can really bring this place together.

The conditions of our roads have a direct impact on the lives of all our constituents. Many depend on our roads to get to work, take their children to school, attend medical appointments and run their businesses. In rural communities such as those in west Suffolk, there is often no alternative to travelling by car, yet for many drivers dodging potholes has become part of the daily routine.

Every journey brings the frustration of trying to avoid another jolt or an expensive repair bill. The RAC estimates that hitting a pothole can leave motorists—I include myself—facing a bill of up to £590 for damage that is simply not their fault. For cyclists and motorcyclists, the consequences can be much worse. When the same potholes remain week after week, people understandably wonder when anything will be done. They put up with diversions and road closures while repairs take place, only to see the surface break up again. They want repairs that last.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich raised the particular challenges that face west Suffolk. He rightly praised the excellent record of Suffolk county council’s previous Conservative administration, which repaired more potholes than were reported each year.

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying about the previous Conservative administration at Suffolk county council, but they were the ones who received a red rating while in charge—one of the worst ratings in the whole country. That is not much of a record to be proud of, is it?

[Alison Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Member for his point. I simply refer him to the speech that I am making. My point is about potholes. The council demonstrably repaired more potholes than were reported each year.

Recently, the issue in west Suffolk has got worse, and pothole reports across the country rose from just under 14,000 in 2024-25 to more than 18,000 in 2025-26. It is a familiar picture in my West Sussex constituency. The county council received almost 24,000 pothole reports last year, up by more than a quarter on the year before. My constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton want roads they can rely on. When they report a pothole, they expect it to be fixed and for that to be that. They should not have to report the same issue again a few months later. It is all the more frustrating when the council’s own figures show that the average cost of repairing a pothole rose from about £82 in 2024-25 to £118 in 2025-26.

Returning to Suffolk, the A143 between Stanton and Ixworth was resurfaced in September last year, as we heard from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member is slightly beyond the conventional time limit of five minutes. I ask that she bring her remarks to a close.

[Alison Griffiths]

I have two questions for the Minister. First, what assessment has he made of whether Suffolk and other rural counties have enough funding to maintain the roads their communities depend on? Secondly, where councils have discretion over how they spend their maintenance funding, how will the Minister use the existing incentives to make sure pothole repairs are a priority? When his Department judges the results, will it look at how long those repairs last?

As we have heard throughout the debate, potholes are a nuisance that touch the lives of constituents across the country, in west Suffolk and elsewhere. Our roads keep the economy moving and enable all of us to go about our lives. The Government must heed the vital points that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich has made today. I congratulate him once again on securing this important debate and I am sure, like me, he will hope to hear the vision from the Minister.

17:24

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing the debate. He spoke with real passion about the condition of the roads in his constituency and around Suffolk more generally—and rightly so, because this is not an abstract issue. All Members, whether they are present for this debate or not, know that the issue matters to people every day. Getting to work, taking children to school, reaching essential services, supporting local businesses—none of that can happen if we do not have roads. As we have heard, for too many people across Suffolk, those everyday journeys are harder when roads simply are not good enough or safe enough.

The poor state of roads is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned, the product of over a decade of under-investment in our local road network. Potholes have been left unrepaired, surfaces have deteriorated and preventive maintenance has been deferred again and again. We are now dealing with the consequences of that, as we have heard, and we are determined to turn the situation around. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich complained about the short-term funding fixes of the past. It was fair to say that, and he was gracious enough to acknowledge that we are now on a different path.

We are providing a record £7.3 billion of funding for local highways maintenance over the next four years. We are giving not only record funding, but the long-term certainty that councils need to plan properly to resurface roads and tackle the pothole plague, which will hopefully become a thing of the past. It is worth saying that Suffolk county council will receive more than £219 million over those four years, including over £45 million this year alone. That is a significant increase on the £31 million that it received in 2024-25, and a further increase on the £43 million it received last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, the funding received from central Government was as low as £17.5 million in 2020. By 2029-30, that figure will rise to £64 million—almost a quadrupling. All Members would rightly acknowledge that as our giving the necessary resources.

My hon. Friend raised a number of other projects in his constituency and throughout the wider Suffolk area that he would like to see dealt with. It is important to bring all stakeholders together to present credible business cases to try to bid within what he rightly acknowledges is a competitive environment. Every constituency and local authority has lots of projects that they want to be funded.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), asked whether there has been an assessment of funding for rural councils. We have confirmed that we will review the formula ahead of the next highways maintenance funding cycle so that any potential changes can come into effect from 2030 onwards. We will engage with local highway authorities as we consider any changes to the formula, because if it is decided that one area and one type of road network is more deserving, another, by definition, has to lose out. We know that every area has its own challenges, whether geography, climate, traffic levels, or, indeed, as we have heard in the debate, the nature of the local network. That is why funding is currently allocated using established national datasets such as road lengths to provide a fair and, importantly, consistent basis for distribution across England.

Of course, funding is only one part of this; delivery is also important. We have done our part, and it is now up to councils to turn that record investment into visible improvement. That is why we have introduced a strengthened system of transparency reporting, updated ratings and incentive funding. That has a number of elements to it, the first of which is transparency. Local highway authorities published updated transparency reports in September, setting out how they will spend their funding and maintain their networks. That will allow residents to see what their council plans to deliver and it will enable them and hon. Members to hold councils to account. Secondly, ratings measuring road condition, capital spending and adherence to best practice will provide the public with an accessible assessment of how well each authority maintains its roads.

As we have heard, Suffolk county council received an overall red rating for 2025-26. In the light of that, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich asked what support would be provided to the local authority. I can confirm that all red-rated authorities have received support, including peer reviews by sector experts and practical advice tailored to their needs. Of course, we will publish updated ratings in early 2027, drawing on this year’s strengthened transparency reports. We are working with local highway authorities and sector bodies to refine the approach, and we have given councils the opportunity to check their submitted figures before ratings are finalised. We therefore hopefully will not have a repeat of the debate we had with Suffolk county council, whereby one set of figures was submitted to the Department and another was relied on by the council at a later date.

On incentives, to receive their full funding allocation, local highway authorities must meet certain requirements aimed at driving best practice and continual improvement in highways maintenance. This helps to ensure that our record investment is supported by sound planning, professional capability and a commitment to best practice.

Building on that, last month saw the publication of the updated “Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice”, which underpins highway asset management across the sector, with input from local authorities and, importantly, industry partners. This approach is already bearing fruit. This year’s transparency reports show that nationally we are starting to turn a corner. Councils report that they are spending almost £5 billion on highways maintenance this year, more than £800 million more than two years ago. They plan to resurface nearly 7,000 miles of road—the distance from London to Singapore, should anyone wish to drive that far, although I would not recommend it—which is a 10% increase on last year.

We also know that 94% of authorities are now planning preventive treatments, which is up from 76% previously, and the focus is increasingly on stopping potholes from forming in the first place and not simply on patching them up. It is so important that we are able to move to that preventive model, because improving maintenance is about not just smoothing rural journeys, but actually making them safer. The more preventive work that we can do, the safer the roads will be.

In 2024, rural roads accounted for 60% of road fatalities, despite carrying only 45% of traffic. Road users are six times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on rural roads than on others. That is one of the reasons why our road safety strategy sets out targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 65%, and by 70% for children under 16, by 2035. Good maintenance is not merely a question of convenience; it contributes to a safer and more reliable network.

I have already tried to deal with some of the points that hon. Members made, but I will now try to address any remaining ones. I must say that I am intrigued about what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) got up to with the Opposition spokesperson and this cheese business. No doubt when we re-engage with the Highways (Financing) Bill next week, she can tell the Public Bill Committee all about that particular—[Interruption.] Perhaps Hansard will just have to be left guessing as to what exactly went on there.

My hon. Friend made important points about the A143 and its issues over the summer. Decarbonisation is in the metrics, but this about not just decarbonisation, but taking action to ensure that roads are more resilient to climate change by using road surface materials that can withstand extreme heat. The new transport resilience strategy that was published on 2 November strengthens how the transport sector anticipates, prepares and responds to disruptions. Of course, it is fair to say that asset owners—in this case, Suffolk county council—are indeed responsible for ensuring that such matters are dealt with.

My hon. Friend cited an interesting phrase when he said that this is a war and the potholes are winning. I am sorry to hear that that is the case. However, with the record funding that we have delivered, the transparency that we are requiring and the support that we are offering, all local authorities should be winning that war.

The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich asked about skills in the road maintenance sector, which is obviously a very important issue. We want to ensure that we have continuity and succession planning in this vital sector, so the incentive framework is about improving the adoption of best practice. There is a training requirement on local authorities, and how organisations offer training is reflected in an increased interest in training since we introduced that requirement. Actually, 10% more preventive maintenance has resulted from increased training. As I have said, we will give support to those authorities that are red-rated.

The hon. Member asked whether we hold data on how long it takes to fill potholes. He is correct that we do not hold that data, but we do collect data in the transparency reports about whether residents can tell their council about potholes and whether the council then responds about the action it has taken. From a public-facing perspective, that is an important metric. He also asked whether councils could have more access to technology, particularly councils in rural settings; I suggest to him that, because we have set a long-term funding strategy in place and given certainty to local authorities, they will have greater capacity and ability to plan ahead and invest in some of that new technology. He may also want to refer his local authority to the Live Labs 2 innovation programme, which includes several trials of innovative practices in rural areas.

I think I have probably covered hon. Members’ main points. The record funding is all good, but it is incumbent on local authorities—particularly, in this case, Suffolk county council—to use that funding effectively to improve their performance and deliver what I think we in this House all expect: safer, smoother and more reliable journeys. I close by thanking the hon. Member for securing this debate.

17:36

[Patrick Spencer]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.

I thank the Minister for a very spirited effort. I appreciate that I had not sent him my speech in advance, so many of the issues I brought up were new to him. I appreciate his point about machinery and Live Labs 2. I will probably write to the Department, reiterating some of the points I have raised, and continue the process. I am not here just to continue to frustrate his inbox, but I feel there is more that can be done beyond simply talking about funding.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) raised a very interesting point that often turns up: failed remediation work. I am sure he, like me and like most MPs, has an inbox full of messages from residents who are frustrated when, if a pothole emerges and is resurfaced, it then re-emerges. When I asked Suffolk county council about the failure rates, it insisted that the rate was 1%. Whether that is true is rightly for debate, but I would also say that 1%, when we are dealing with 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 potholes, is still a lot of potholes. It could be the case that that 1% figure is true—although it might not be—but it is a point well made.

I also thank Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), for an interesting insight into life in Norfolk, and I appreciate his point about street works. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) made a speech that reminded us all what life is like driving along roads covered in potholes—it is predictably miserable and it never seems to end. I also thank the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), for some very worthy points. I know she takes this issue seriously and that, whatever mistakes were made in the past with prioritising roads, the Conservative party’s work will prioritise road maintenance and transport infrastructure.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered potholes and road maintenance in Suffolk.

17:38

Sitting adjourned.