Heating Oil Prices: Rural Areas

Debate between Rachel Gilmour and Jamie Stone

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Debate between Rachel Gilmour and Jamie Stone

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700557 relating to the non-stun slaughter of animals.

As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I always find it encouraging to witness public participation in politics, and this is a good example. It is evident that this petition, which has attracted more than 100,000 signatures, has engaged a very large number of people from all across the country. For that reason, I must very sincerely thank its creator, Mr Martin Osborne, who is in the Public Gallery today with a group of his friends and other supporters.

Mr Osborne created this e-petition because he believes that in a modern society more consideration needs to be given to animal welfare and how livestock is treated and culled. He and his fellow signatories believe that non-stun slaughter is barbaric and should be banned, as some EU nations have done. I had the happy privilege of speaking to him last week, and he made one thing very clear to me: he is an animal lover, and he believes that he lives in a country that shares his desire to reduce suffering at the time of slaughter in so far as it is possible to do so. Put simply, I would suggest that his motivation comes from a place of care.

But what Mr Osborne did not do is create this petition with the desire for it to be co-opted as a mechanism for prejudice and discrimination against religious communities in this country that prepare their food differently from him. I trust Members will bear that in mind while debating the topic. I also had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Halal Monitoring Committee and Shechita UK, both of which expressed respectful interest in the debate. Again, I trust that everyone speaking today will return that respect.

I turn to the topic at hand. The current rules on slaughter in England are set by the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015, under which all animals must be stunned, rendering them insensible to pain before they are slaughtered. However, as we know, an exemption to those rules allows slaughter without pre-stunning for religious communities.

In recent years, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has expressed concern about the large increase in the number of animals that have been slaughtered without pre-stunning. In 2024, 30.1 million animals were killed in that way—a significant increase from the 25.4 million in 2022. Of those 30.1 million animals slaughtered without stunning, 27 million were for halal and 3 million were for kosher.

Evidence presented by the RSPCA makes the case for removing the religious exemption on the basis that animals that are not stunned prior to being slaughter suffer

“very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes”.

That is because the neck, cut, sends a stream of sensory information to the brain in the conscious animal, causing intense temporary pain and distress. Only after prolonged blood loss does the animal become unconscious and thus insensitive to the incision. That process can take up to 20 seconds in sheep, 2 minutes in cattle and 2.5 minutes in poultry. As a result, those concerned about animal welfare are calling on the Government to end slaughter without pre-stunning and to ensure that any free trade agreement that the UK signs with other countries excludes the export of non-stunned meat.

If slaughter without pre-stunning is to remain, the RSPCA requests that

“provisions are used in cases where the religious exemption applies only”,

and that we amend the current rules

“to make sure it better protects animal welfare”.

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

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the issues surrounding this practice so sensitively. I want to begin by saying that my comments are based on animal welfare issues, as reflected by my constituents. Does he agree that this practice is not only outdated but barbaric, and that it inflicts needless suffering on animals? It also does the consumer absolutely no favours, given that heightened distress and panic in the animal at the time of slaughter leads to meat of inferior quality.

[Jamie Stone]

My hon. Friend makes her point with some passion; I will touch on that point in a second.

Such provisions include post-cut stunning for ruminants, minimum-stun parameters for poultry and mandatory slaughter labelling. Conversely, it is crucial that we properly and thoughtfully consider the other side of the debate: namely, the religious communities that require this method of slaughter for halal and kosher practices. Proponents of those practices argue that banning non-stun slaughter would violate their freedoms. The teachings of the Jewish and Muslim religions state that an animal must be fully alive before it is slaughtered. Accordingly, the stunning of an animal before slaughter may be interpreted as not being compliant with such religious teachings.

However, in many religions—including my own, Christianity—there are variations in the interpretation of religious laws. Leaders of more liberal branches may be more open to interpreting religious law in the light of modern customs and welfare standards. However, it has to be said that more orthodox factions may still consider changes to traditional methods as a serious offence.