Heating Oil Prices: Rural Areas

Debate between Jamie Stone and John Hayes

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[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—

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Debate between Jamie Stone and John Hayes

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

I do agree, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I shall be speaking later in my remarks about the ombudsman’s report and findings, which will bring me to the constitutional matter I raised about the nature of accountability and scrutiny and how Governments are held to account, and whether ombudsmen are meaningful at all if their conclusions are entirely disregarded. He is right to raise that issue.

I want briefly to describe the events that provoked me to challenge the previous Government on this issue when my party held the reins of power. I am not a recent convert to this cause; I made the same argument then—that we needed to recognise the justice of this campaign and act accordingly—but I did so knowing the events that have occurred.

I will not go over things laboriously—because you would not want me to, Dr Murrison, given the number of Members who want to speak in this debate—but essentially, when pension ages were equalised, which was the result of two Acts of Parliament, the notice given to the people affected was inadequate.

I am not an unbridled advocate of the case that every woman who thought that they were going to retire at 60, and then found that they would have to retire at 65, should be compensated. If a woman was young or middle-aged when that happened, there is a fair case that they had time to adjust—they could re-prepare; they could make different plans.

However, if a woman was born in the 1950s and had anticipated retiring in two, three or four years’ time but then had to work up to five years’ longer, it is a very different matter, because many of those women, anticipating their retirement, had prepared for exactly that eventuality. Many of those women, of course, were no longer working. They had ended work to look after elderly parents; they were playing a caring role; or their skills were no longer relevant to the workplace, because they had taken time out of work, first to have children and then, as I have said, to embark on other social responsibilities. These were women who worked hard and had done the right thing, and they are not all, as they are sometimes characterised by their critics, drawn from the liberal bourgeoisie—who, as you know, Dr Murrison, I generally speaking despise.

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

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

Having said that, I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.]

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

The words “liberal bourgeoisie” made me think. I represent the mainland constituency that is furthest away from Westminster, and I will just point out that this issue affects women from all over the UK, be they “liberal bourgeoisie” or not. In my constituency—that far away—370 people have signed the petition. This issue is huge all over the UK.

[Sir John Hayes]

I meant no slight on the hon. Gentleman. He is right: it does affect women across the whole of the kingdom—and of course, he is much posher than bourgeois, so he could not be slighted by my remark.