Cost of Heating Oil

Debate between Victoria Collins and Steff Aquarone

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone]

The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to upgrade his geographical reference to “fellow Member from Norfolk”, as a decent quarter of his constituency is in the same county as mine. He will know that a disproportionate percentage of the population in Norfolk is older. There is a tragic, understated reality. When I visit households in my constituency—I am sure he can relate to this—I can just tell whether they are suffering from fuel poverty, because they will be living in one room. That is all too common for older people, and we have to take it seriously. I do not want to indulge in cheap soundbites, but the reality of how the older, retired generation live is quite different from the perceptions that are often peddled. I am grateful for his reminder of that point.

On policy, let me turn first to the support the Government have announced during this crisis. The money is welcome, but I cannot help but wonder how they thought that £53 million was adequate for the millions of people who are affected. I accept that they sought to prioritise those in greatest need, who must receive support, but do the Minister and the Government recognise that even if someone is not on the lowest income or relying on benefits, a sudden extra bill in the hundreds of pounds just to keep the heating on can cause real problems?

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I have a case from Berkhamsted. Louise’s entire estate relies on heating oil, and the price for filling her tank went from £1,080 to £2,500—a more than £1,000 increase—over a weekend. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £35 per household will not touch the sides?

[Steff Aquarone]

I do agree. That great example shows that even if the increase does not push a household over the edge into total poverty, it will cause people to have to make tough decisions about their money. Like my hon. Friend, I have inevitably received a range of messages on this issue. Unfortunately, I have had quite a few on social media over my calls for support with fuel costs. That is a shame, as I am an environmentalist, but we will not win the argument on renewable energy by making struggling rural households pay the price of Trump’s illegal war in Iran. This is part of a wider debate about retrofitting and rural renewables. We do not have time to explore it here, but the need is urgent.

I have found it incredibly frustrating to hear the repeated line from the Chancellor that these households will receive support anyway through the cut to electricity bills announced in the Budget. That is of course true, but their biggest outlay on energy by far is on heating oil. If a person does not use electricity to heat their home or their water, the impact of electricity prices is far, far smaller. The Government continue to demand that they be grateful for that small mercy, which sort of implies that they should stop asking for more, and that is starting to grate slightly on my constituents—and on me. I ask the Minister to acknowledge the profile of energy use in rural areas and perhaps reconsider that approach.

Local government, however, is stepping up on this crisis. It is dishing out the Government support, which is no mean feat, and finding its own ways to support communities. Liberal Democrat-run North Norfolk district council has allocated £50,000 to support households that have been plunged into fuel poverty due to these rising costs. That was set up within days of the crisis by Councillor Lucy Shires, our finance portfolio holder, and will be distributed to vulnerable households by North Norfolk Foodbank. They stepped up while the Government were still trying to work out their sums, and that has been hugely welcomed by my constituents.

Looking to the future, we must establish a cap on the cost of heating oil. As many hon. Members have said, the two-tier system of price protection for those using gas and electricity and for my constituents using heating oil is wrong and has gone unchecked for too long. We saw many prices surge well beyond the actual cost of oil on the global market, and there is a real risk that unfair margins are being made. People will say that it cannot be done. In fact, the Minister might do so, but I gently remind him that the same was said of the energy price cap, which is now accepted across the political spectrum. We can take tough decisions and develop tricky policies. That is what we were sent here to do. I offer the Minister my support—I am sure Members of other parties do too—in developing proposals that will support and work for rural residents everywhere. As Grahame from Thursford told me:

“The Government’s response in relation to this is simply not good enough. A price cap is the way forward.”

Further to that, I hope that the investigation that the Competition and Markets Authority is undertaking will allow the Government to introduce a better set of regulations for the industry. In fact, much of the industry would welcome that. There are many good businesses out there that behave in the best interests of their customers, and they do not want to be dragged down by bad actors. Ensuring that everyone is held to the same standards is good for the industry and consumers.

Although we are discussing heating oil today, I urge the Minister not to forget those who rely on LPG. They may be fewer in number, but their need is just as great. They often feel ignored in such conversations, and it is vital that we address their struggles too. They are often hit just as hard by price spikes, and they need protection.

Beyond that, we need to ensure that our homes are cheaper to heat. We should have been fixing the roof when the sun was shining—perhaps literally. It is time for an emergency programme of upgrades to make our homes fit for the future—well insulated, energy efficient and with renewable alternatives.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Victoria Collins and Steff Aquarone

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Bryant]

The new lawful ground of recognised legitimate interest in clause 70 and schedule 4 have been designed to give organisations greater confidence when processing personal data for important public interest objectives, such as preventing crime, safeguarding vulnerable individuals and protecting national security. They also ensure that non-public bodies can share information with public authorities where it is necessary and proportionate to do so without having to conduct a complex balancing test in situations where timely action is essential.

Amendment 49 would remove that provision, making it harder for organisations to share data confidently and swiftly for those public interest purposes. I recognise that the hon. Lady might be concerned that the removal of the need to do a detailed legitimate interest balancing test in this narrow set of circumstances could reduce protections, but strong safeguards remain in place, as was recognised in the House of Lords, which did not approve such an amendment. Any processing must still be necessary and proportionate and comply with data protection principles under UK GDPR to ensure that individuals’ rights continue to be protected.

Amendment 50 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to amend the list of recognised legitimate interests using regulations, and delete the list itself from schedule 4 of the Bill. We believe that the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the list is a necessary safeguard to future-proof the framework. This power is not unrestricted. It is subject to strict safeguards, including parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure and the requirement that any additions must serve public interest objectives under article 23(1) of the UK GDPR. Removing the power would make it more difficult to adapt the framework over time.

I have also considered amendment 53, which would prevent health data being processed under the new lawful ground, and I would argue that it conflicts with amendment 49. Health data would be processed under this new ground only in so far as that was necessary for one of the specified recognised legitimate interests in schedule 4 to the Bill. Any processing of health data would also have to meet one of the relevant criteria for processing specific category data in article 9 of UK GDPR and schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendments.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I rise to speak to amendment 53. I thank the Minister for his comments, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Turner. I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. I am concerned not by the unchecked power of the Secretary of State under this regulation—we of course have precedents to go with under GDPR—but it is the specific and extremely high-grade personal health data that remains a concern for me.

[Victoria Collins]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.