Steff Aquarone MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, a past Government wrote to all those revealed by the Panama papers to ask them about their financial affairs. Might the Minister perhaps commit to doing the same for those shown not to be fully complying with beneficial ownership registration? Speaking of getting our own house in order, naturally, I must turn to the overseas territories. When looking into opaque property ownership in my own area, I was sadly unsurprised to see that the British Virgin Islands were partly culpable for obscuring true beneficiaries. It is all well and good running a big international summit and talking a big game on transparency and fair taxation, but when we are allowing hundreds of billions in illicit finance to keep rolling through countries that fly our flag, rely on our defence and are citizens of our King, it looks as though we are not taking this issue seriously. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are part of our British family, but part of being a family is calling them out when they are doing wrong. So many are taking positive steps towards financial transparency, and their work will allow us to fight corruption and illicit finance more effectively, but there remain bad actors who are letting the side down. Their progress has been achingly slow, with deadlines missed, promises broken and beneficial ownership registers half delivered. The Government’s own anti-corruption champion recently said: “I think we’re coming to the end of the road trying to do this through agreement”. Such registers need to be free and publicly accessible. Restricting registers, or those behind payrolls with claims of legitimate interest, prevents journalists or non-governmental organisations—or even the interested public—from seeing who is truly behind these companies. We know that, in corruption and tax abuse, sunlight is the best disinfectant. For those malign actors who want to use existing secrecy to hide their ill-gotten gains, we have to smash that ability by ensuring that this information is freely available, just as is expected of anyone setting up or holding significant control in a company in this country. I hope that the Minister can build on what Baroness Hodge has said and give a clear signal to us of the next steps that he is expecting to take if he has also, finally, run out of patience with these regimes. I can tell him and the House that most people ran out of patience long ago—hard-working, honest people who pay their way in what feels like an ever increasing tax burden. All the while, criminals, billionaires and dictators are seeing their dirty money flowing and growing, letting them live a life of luxury while we cobble together any penny that the Treasury can find to keep our public services afloat. For those of us who are supporting the brave Ukrainians in their fight against Putin and his illegal war, we should be sickened that hundreds of private yacht transactions went on in overseas territories since the war began. Putin’s cronies, awash with blood money, are sunning themselves while Ukrainian people fight for their very future as a nation. While the Iranian regime represses protests and attacks our allies in the Gulf, the new Ayatollah has a multimillion pound mansion by Kensington Palace Gardens, just a short tube ride from here, which is one of the many ways he can launder wealth plundered from the people of Iran. Illicit finance is a poison and cancer spreading through our country, infecting everything it touches. We have to get serious on this, and fast.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Illicit Finance Summit 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am delighted to have secured this debate on the illicit finance summit 2026, although it might be more accurate to say that we are debating the illicit finance summit that is just about in 2026, or the illicit finance summit that will probably be in 2026 if we are not too busy. I am glad that this debate is an excellent opportunity to remind the Government that they are supposed to be hosting this summit and to break the radio silence of the past few months. Hundreds of billions of pounds of illicit finance flow through the UK annually. This is a major drain on our economy and a driver of criminality across society. Illicit finance touches every one of us and, on a daily basis, makes our lives that little bit worse. For those who are fed up with a dying high street in their town, with an endless stream of neon-clad vape shops, illicit finance is making it worse. For those who are furious about dodgy donors ploughing money into political parties, illicit finance is making it worse. For those who are tired of hearing politicians tell them that there is no money to keep our basic services functioning, illicit finance is making it worse. The phrase “illicit finance” might not come up much on the doorstep, but “fairness” does. When it comes to people and organisations paying taxes, it does not get much more unfair than a system that makes it trivially easy for wealth to be hidden offshore but, bafflingly, still within His Majesty’s jurisdiction. It is not just tax that we are missing; illicit finance is funding criminality around the world. That is why I find it particularly difficult that this Government have put the summit six months into the future and that they sneaked out the news on a quiet Friday after the House has risen. My first ask of the Minister today is that he commit to greater engagement and candour with Members relating to the summit from now on. All that aside, we must now look ahead to the summit. If the Government are to delay it, they had better make sure that it is effective and delivers real change. So far, we have heard very little from them on specific aims and priorities. The Minister told the House that he was personally committed to tackling illicit finance, and I hope that in today’s debate he will get some welcome support in finding some areas to report on. I am pleased to remind the Minister that this debate is attended by MPs across the parties with serious expertise and experience in this area. The Government can see that this is a truly cross-party effort. We are not here to score points or win votes; we are here in the belief that we can make Britain better and free it from the scourge of illicit finance once and for all. I might briefly note that I am looking carefully and there is one particular party that is not represented here, and its Members’ attendance may or may not have indicated their interest in getting dodgy money out of our country and our politics, but I will do my part in helping the Government with a few ideas as to what could constitute a successful summit— [Interruption.]

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  A quick recap: a gentle jibe at the Minister, a sharp poke at Reform and a commitment to doing my bit in helping the Government with a few ideas that might constitute a successful summit. First, when many think of property in this country, they might think of the words of my predecessor as a Norfolk MP, Sir Edward Coke, about how an Englishman’s home is his castle. I am not sure whether Sir Edward foresaw so many being owned by a complex and secretive array of companies and trusts, lacking clarity about their ultimate beneficial owners. Properties under secretive ownership are not only multimillion-pound mansions in Kensington; in fact, if many of us looked closer to home, we would be shocked by what we found. The Tax Policy Associates’ “Who secretly owns Britain?” map says that an unassuming cottage near the centre of the village of Cley next the Sea in my constituency is ultimately owned by a faceless company called Claystone Investments Ltd, registered in Switzerland. A Companies House search finds a similarly named company registered in the British Virgin Islands, which in turn gives its beneficial owner as a company registered in Panama. A search of the Panamanian company register gives no indication of who actually owns that cottage. That level of complexity and layers of ownership for a cottage in a quiet Norfolk village simply cannot be right. This summit is a chance to call this out for being as ridiculous as it seems. The Government need to work with international partners to bring an end to anonymous property ownership. If an Englishman’s home truly is his castle, it cannot be a castle registered through multiple trusts, bouncing the legal rights halfway around the world and back again. If someone owns a property, they need to declare who they are and face the music, not hide behind shell companies and legalese. It is also important that we get our own house in order on this. We have laws around beneficial ownership and property transparency, brought in under the last Government, with the help and hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and others. However, “Who secretly owns Britain?” indicates that rule-breaking is rife, and little seems to be being done to crack down on those flouting their obligations. I hope the Minister can assure us today that he is looking into the wealth of publicly available evidence of companies not doing what they are required to do, and will take action.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. People are drawn to North Norfolk’s beautiful coastal communities and they stay for our fantastic hospitality sector. The sector is the backbone of our tourist economy and creates hundreds of jobs, contributing millions to our economy. It is a crucial part of our local identity, but it is also an industry, like so many, that faces challenges. It could deliver huge growth in areas that desperately need it, but unless the Government face up to the challenges, there is an existential threat to many coastal businesses. The elephant in the room is the soaring costs that businesses face, driven partially by international affairs, but also massively by the Government’s avoidable jobs tax. Many of the cost increases the Government have caused could be absorbed by a huge business with a sizeable bottom line, but they can push a small shop in Wells-next-the-Sea or a hotel on the Norfolk broads into a really difficult position, making it unviable to bring in more staff and grow the business. A further staffing challenge concerns training and skills for our hospitality industry, which could provide a skilled profession to many, particularly young people. A coastal community such as North Norfolk is a hotbed of opportunity.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I thank him for his intervention. Those things are all great, but I gently say that in rural and coastal communities such as mine they will be useless without the public transport accessibility options that will get young people to those opportunities. So it is a “Yes, and”. The availability of training, the funding for it and the challenges of accessing it are all blocking young people and employers from benefiting. The Government need to see the opportunity to tackle unemployment and deliver growth by backing businesses and young people. Finally, transport challenges are a choke point for growth in our communities. I want to see better connected, more affordable public transport in our coastal communities, such as between Wells and Norwich, to make it easier for people across the county, the country and the world to come and see North Norfolk and our world-class hospitality businesses and to support our communities.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will be aware of clause 4 on reducing health inequalities, which I welcome. As a rural MP, like me, she will also know that access and outcomes are poorer in our communities. Does she agree that the Government should go further and ensure that the Bill explicitly refers to equality of access and outcomes for rural and coastal communities such as North Norfolk?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I start by acknowledging the dedication to public service of all who serve and have served or who support those in our armed forces and our wider defence industry. There are opportunities, as well as glaring omissions, in what the Government have put forward for this Session. I am certainly glad to see new legislation coming forward on two of the biggest issues facing us in North Norfolk: getting our NHS back on its feet, and getting sewage out of our rivers and seas. I hope the forthcoming Health Bill will be another step towards rebuilding our NHS after the appalling damage done by successive Conservative Governments. I am keen to see how the Bill can tackle some of the rural inequalities we face in North Norfolk, however, which are about not only health access, but health outcomes, and that is one reason why we will not back down over Benjamin Court, a vital rehabilitation resource for people leaving hospital that was closed down by Norfolk county council under the Conservatives. Elsewhere, I am pleased that the clean water Bill will be coming forward, but I do have serious worries that it will be yet another piece of weak, watered-down legislation that does not place proper pain on water companies when they behave badly. I am delighted that our years of campaigning have helped secure £83 million of investment from Anglian Water, which has already brought down sewage spills by 95% in some parts of North Norfolk, but there is still much to do and I will not rest until sewage spills are a thing of the past. The Government must also take steps to make our chalk streams UNESCO natural heritage sites and recognise and protect the unique character of chalk streams, such as the Glaven, the Stiffkey and the Bure in North Norfolk. The forthcoming education for all Bill will be cautiously welcomed by parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities in our area. It recognises that the system is broken and is failing schools, local authorities, parents and, most significantly, children. But many parents have told me they are worried about how the rights of their children will be affected and how access to adequate support will be guaranteed for them. The Bill also needs to ensure that reform of the SEND system includes equal access for the whole country and ends the continuing postcode lottery. I have heard concerns from constituents about how underserved some of our coastal communities are and how far young people have to travel just to get to a setting that suits their needs. I have also spoken to parents with primary schoolchildren who are worried about what is happening right now in our overstretched schools. They worry that these reforms will be too late for hundreds of SEND children who need help now. I am also awaiting the digital access to services bill with interest. The Government missed a lot of opportunities with last year’s Data (Use and Access) Bill to legislate for a more data-driven Government who are better at doing things digitally. Part of this is about ensuring people who do not do things digitally can still access those services, yet just weeks after assuring me in Committee that existing legislation would cover this, the Government announced their ill-fated digital ID pet project. So despite believing that digital transformation is a key ingredient in fixing what is broken in our country, I will be pushing them again, as I did last year, to enshrine in law a right to non-digital ID to protect the elderly and vulnerable people in North Norfolk or those who simply do not want to use it. Frustratingly, there are still some important omissions from the 35 Bills put before us. On defence readiness, I am disappointed to see no concrete action on financial transparency in the overseas territories. Offshore tax havens are simply hiding places for dirty money, oligarch wealth, rogue states and corporations dodging their responsibilities while ordinary people pick up the bill. We know these gaps can be closed, so why are the Government not prepared to bring forward legislation to close them once and for all? Meanwhile, many young people are worried about how their careers will be impacted by AI and older, vulnerable people are worried about how criminals can misuse AI to defraud and scam them. We have to keep up with the times. We have to ensure that AI is providing benefits to all, not just concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few select tech barons and foreign states. The economy used to be powered mainly by people, but it is increasingly powered by software. It is therefore regrettable that the King’s Speech did not make provision to adapt the tax base to accommodate the hyper-concentration of ownership of tech firms, starting with a digital services tax. It is clear to me from speaking to people at the thousands of doors I knocked on during the local elections and the many emails I receive every day that change is not coming fast enough. People feel the Government are dragging their feet, and that the machinery of the state has little interest in delivering the radical change this country needs. There are green shoots in this Government’s programme, but little more. My hon. Friends and I look forward to scrutinising, pushing and challenging the Government to do more over this Session.

• 27 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the steps that the Government have taken today in recognising the importance of rural and coastal communities. The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made reference to my constituency earlier in this regard, and I thank her for doing so. The Government clearly realise how important it is to recognise a rural and coastal communities in this Bill. Has the Minister now had her mind changed such that we should recognise rural and coastal communities with their own Cabinet position?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  On heating oil, members of the Chancellor’s Treasury team have been keen to point out that the small amount of funding—the equivalent of about £35 a household—was just the first step. Can she outline when the next step will come to support houses that are dependent on heating oil?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Illicit Finance Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The summit is an opportunity for global action on the dirty money that flows through our financial systems, but the Foreign Secretary might rightly be asked by our international partners why overseas territories, who fly our flag and have our King as their Head of State, are preventing transparency and accountability for billions of pounds of illicit finance. Britain should be a world leader in tackling dirty money, but we have to get our house in order. Can the Minister assure the House and our international partners that he will bring overseas territories into line, and can he outline which of his powers he will use to do so?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Illicit Finance Summit · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps she is taking to help ensure the illicit finance summit 2026 will tackle international economic crime.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I agree, for reasons I will come on to. I will just note that the ministerial meeting for Members early on in this crisis, which was very welcome, featured a really interesting profile of Members from across the House. Rural and coastal Members often find themselves together, and Northern Ireland Members such as the hon. Gentleman were well represented at the meeting. As I said, since the outbreak of war, the price of heating oil for my constituents has skyrocketed far beyond the gradual increases they suffer due to the usual inflationary pressures. This was a near-overnight shock that saw people having to scramble to find hundreds of pounds in already stretched household budgets. I want to share just a few of the experiences I have heard from my constituents. Roy in Roughton has paid £1,400 to fill his tank, which usually costs him £800. Eric in Salthouse paid 55p a litre in January, but was quoted £1.34 a litre in March. Wendy in Hindringham told me that she had been quoted £720 for 500 litres of oil—double what she paid in October. She says: “We just don’t have that sort of money.”

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I surely will, and I will explain why very shortly.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  A couple of years ago, I recall a senior former Secretary of State from the Conservative party, who shall remain nameless for the purpose of this anecdote, saying how annoying it was that the Liberal Democrats had gained 72 seats. Previously, they knew we would work out the right answer to these complicated challenges and they could steal the ideas with pleasure without anybody knowing, because we did not have a platform—so how inconvenient it was now that we had one! If individual Members want to know, I will tell them who said that to me. The speech from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) reminded me that these problems are solvable and that the Liberal Democrats have plans to solve them. In particular, we have the longer-term vision for bringing about a future where energy is produced and used in Great Britain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) said. I do not have time to reflect on all the valuable contributions from Members across the House, of which there were a great many, and it would be discourteous to suggest that only my party has added to this debate. We have been enriched by contributions from all corners of the country and almost all corners of the House. I note the absence of any contributions from Reform Members, which is regrettable; I believe that 2,000 houses in Clacton and 6,000 in Newark rely on heating oil. As they cheered the war in Iran, it is frankly embarrassing that they are not here to defend some of the consequences. On a note of consensus and optimism, I do think that the Liberal Democrats have offers and ideas to bring to the table, whether it is about a closer relationship with the European Union or tackling the water companies. We are not ashamed to have our ideas taken forward in somebody else’s name. There are many things we want to contribute to this, and I am sure my colleagues will be just as willing as I am to do so. I thank the Minister for his response. I am optimistic about the progress that he has indicated—it just cannot come soon enough. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for the cost of heating oil.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the cost of heating oil. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. It would be fair to say that North Norfolk is quite rural. We are proud of that, and we enjoy the beauty and tranquillity that it affords those of us lucky enough to live there, but in the decades I have lived there and all the time I have been campaigning and working for the people of North Norfolk, I have seen too many ways in which we seem to be punished or penalised for rurality. Much of the North sea gas that is used across the country passes through the North Norfolk countryside, deep underground and at high pressure. A vast amount of gas is onshored at the Bacton gas terminal, one of my constituency’s largest employers, and then sent out across the country. Despite our being the custodians of that vital resource, around half of my constituency is not connected to the gas grid. Of those who are not connected, more than half rely on heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas to heat their home and provide hot water. These homes, and the families in them, vary widely. The homes range from listed buildings that cannot be retrofitted to run-of-the-mill family homes that happen to be somewhere with no gas connection and were built long before the advent of heat pumps and other green energy solutions.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  Gladly. [ Laughter. ]

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I was so glad to be granted this debate, and I am sure other Members share that view. There is a long-term discussion to be had about Government action on retrofitting and reducing the fuel poverty gap, but right now the urgent issue is the price today. I was pleased to see progress on some of these concerns in North Norfolk. Local heating oil delivery company Goff agreed to honour the prices it had agreed before the global price increases, which meant that many of my constituents were protected. But as welcome as that is, we cannot just rely on the good will of companies to regulate their own market. It has been left as a wild west for too long, without any strong regulations or protections to keep my constituents safe from unaffordable price spikes. While we rightly discuss a great deal the rises in the cost of energy, many who rely on heating oil will look enviously at the energy price cap, which at least puts a strong ceiling on what will be paid. For them, there are no guarantees of where the price rises will stop. Another key issue is the minimum order requirements for heating oil. It is not like filling up a car, where if the prices look bad, we might just stick in £20-worth and hope it gets us to the end of the week. For most, the minimum order of heating oil is 500 litres. If someone runs out during the peak of a price spike, that means a minimum outlay of more than £500, or no heating or hot water.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. As I said, these homes vary widely, as do the families that live in them, but what connects all these places and people is a unique and worrying exposure to oil price shocks impacting their daily lives. Running a home on heating oil means buying energy in advance, in bulk and irregularly throughout the year. Households know that even half-filling an oil tank will cost them hundreds of pounds. They expect and budget for that. But since the outbreak of Donald Trump’s war in Iran, they have seen the price of heating oil skyrocket far beyond the changes in the price of crude oil.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I wish my hon. Friend’s constituent well in his recovery. This is just not something we had to think about 10 or 20 years ago. I am sure price-sensitive households were always thinking about every line on their household budget, but for somebody going from hospital to convalescence to home, continuing healthcare probably thinks about everything under the sun—except the cost of energy, because it has not been a thing for that long. We have to do more, because this issue is so urgent right now. We finally have to say, “Enough is enough.” Heating oil customers need to stop being seen as an afterthought in energy policy. We need to reform properly how we support these people, so that they are never again forced to find vast sums of money just to keep their heating on because of global events that are totally out of their control.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree. It is the same cash-flow problem, the same price peaking problem and the same issue of intermittent delivery—because people do not refill every week or every month—but it is a different slice of the petroleum refinement process, so it is volatile in a slightly different way. In some cases, it is even more problematically volatile, so I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing that point. Well-insulated homes powered by renewable energy will prepare us for whatever volatile fossil fuel markets may do down the line and reduce my constituents’ exposure to the effects of the late-night proclamations of President Trump. I want to be clear with the Minister: residents in North Norfolk should not be poorer because they live in a rural area. We face unique challenges, and we accept that, but we should not be punished for them. The Government have a responsibility to step up and help where necessary, and that is what I am calling on them to do today. If we were in power, Liberal Democrats would be stepping up for Britain; the Government must do so, too.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start with a story about greed from a previous life. When I was a young, stony-broke filmmaker, unable to afford the hotel costs of the Cannes film festival, I was staying many miles away in cheap digs and was therefore stone-cold sober for the entire undertaking. I watched as, under the gaze of Harvey Weinstein’s hotel suite, Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio spent $1 million extending a jetty into the sea, on which they hosted the most lavish launch party ever for a film company. It was a manifestation of greed and profligacy. The movie they were launching was “The Wolf of Wall Street”, and I do not think it is superlative to suggest that the scale of the scandal we are discussing today is of that same epic Hollywood standard. If this place will not take the action to secure the transparency and accountability that is needed, then hopefully the world of moviemaking will. I am pleased to be representing the Liberal Democrats here today and picking up the mantle of a campaign that my predecessor, Sir Norman Lamb, started more than a decade ago. He was one of the first people in Parliament to speak up about this scandal and how it continued to affect constituents in North Norfolk. It is greatly frustrating that we are still having to push for action so many years on, but I know he will be pleased to see that Members are still keeping the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue. Hon. Members from all parties often come to this place to champion small businesses. We know that the economies of our constituencies are built on them, and they provide us with vital services on a daily basis. I know that both as a consumer and from my professional background in the business environment. People who run businesses carry on regardless. They are not greedy people; they simply want to make a living, and yet they have been exploited by others who want to make a killing. People’s entire livelihoods and careers were put at risk because wealthy banks and bankers saw them as an easy cash cow to mis-sell products to. BankConfidential believes that tens of thousands of small businesses have been affected, and tens of billions of pounds extracted from SMEs into the pockets of giant multinational banks that were using the profits to prop themselves up after the disastrous 2008 financial crisis, which, as we know, was made so catastrophic by profit-chasing in an under-regulated sector. Not content with being bailed out by the taxpayer, the banks chose to rinse SMEs in our communities, too. It is worth mentioning that BankConfidential has seen cases of NHS-linked organisations being subject to these practices as well, with capital used to finance and purchase GP surgeries or medical centres being lent with hidden credit lines, which also suffered when interest rates plummeted. It is unconscionable that banks may have gone as far as to rip off GPs and our NHS in their pursuit of profit. It is deeply concerning that this appeared to be a well-rehearsed routine in which SMEs were taken down, in effect to fund the recapitalisation of banks after the financial crash. It is not just the businesses that suffered, but those in the sector who tried to speak up and speak out. My constituent Mark Wright’s story is detailed in the APPG report, and his experience shows that the sector simply is not fit to handle whistleblowing effectively and fairly. He raised serious concerns about market abuse by his employer, affecting not just him but thousands of employees with savings and investments tied to the profitability and capitalisation of RBS. He tried to challenge senior management and speak out. He has seen his banking career tarnished and his health suffer, and he has spent more than a decade trying to secure justice. His complaint and case were severely mishandled by the FCA, and he has faced barrier after barrier in trying to get answers about his treatment and about the action that it will take on what he revealed. The ordeals of Mark and others who have worked to expose scandals show that we need to greatly strengthen protection for whistleblowers in this country. So far, in my view, the Government have missed two opportunities to take action: as they stand, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the Public Office (Accountability) Bill have left whistleblowers behind. Whistleblowing is not about someone having the unreserved right to denigrate their employer; it is not a defamation charter or the power to complain in public. It is about calling out things that are wrong and should not happen, but will continue to happen unless someone decides to be an upstander and not a bystander. The Liberal Democrats would introduce an office of the whistleblower with stronger legal protections to enable people to challenge corporate behaviour without risk to themselves or their careers. We also need to replace the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 with a stronger and far more effective piece of legislation. It is simply not fit for purpose and does not give those seeking whistleblower protection enough confidence. In recent years we have seen too many scandals that could have been avoided or reduced if people had had more ability and protection to call out bad practices and illegal behaviours. I am sure the Minister will not treat us to a sneak peek at the King’s Speech and tell us that it will contain more whistleblower protections, but will she make the case to the Government for such protections to be enacted in the new Session? The complexity of the financial machinations at play in this scandal should not make any less clear to people the wrongdoing that has happened and the damage that it has caused. People have lost livelihoods, those who have tried to speak out have lost careers and, as the report sadly identifies, lives have been lost. I will end where I started. A wealthy man who I have known for some time for his integrity and generosity—the opposite attributes to greed—built a billion-pound business from nothing that was taken down entirely by the bank. I asked him what the key ingredient to success in business was, and he said luck—he is possibly the only entrepreneur ever to answer that question honestly. He was lucky enough to build his business back up, but we owe it to those who have not been so lucky to ensure that the hidden credit line scandal is shown the light of justice that it deserves.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I draw Members’ attention to my interest as a serving county councillor. May I thank the Minister for seeing through Norfolk Conservatives’ self-serving scheme for a mega-council for Norfolk? The three-unitary model will ensure that my residents get the efficiencies of joined-up services, and that decisions are still made as locally as possible. The Conservative county council will throw yet another strop, but the Conservatives will be gone in May, and the transition work needs to start now. Can the Minister confirm that adequate funds will be made available to cover the cost of authorities transitioning, and will she rule out expecting them to make cuts to services to fund the transition?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, which is linked, of course, to the Transport Committee’s report on disabled people’s access to public transport. I am a passionate advocate for public transport. Over my years of campaigning, I have pushed for more buses and trains, in order to make people’s lives easier and more affordable; and I have pushed to get more people riding them, so that we can take action on climate change and boost our local economy. Increasing ridership, though, has to mean increasing it among all groups. Our Committee found that too many people face accessibility barriers, meaning that they either have a far worse experience when using public transport or simply cannot use it at all. Disabled people use public transport 28% less than people without disabilities; public transport is a more affordable mode of travel than private car or taxi, so poor accessibility is another financial burden placed on a group who already have significant premiums due to their disabilities. In many rural areas like North Norfolk and North East Fife, the taxi service can be patchy at best, due to the nature of rurality. If a disabled person cannot or does not drive and cannot access a taxi, they will be isolated from employment opportunities, and cannot visit family and friends as easily as others. A two-tier system in rural North Norfolk is unacceptable; that is why it is so important for the Government and local councils to take steps to deliver greater accessibility in the transport system. For many dealing with accessibility barriers in their area, the fight to get them removed can be long and drawn out. I ask Members to cast their mind back to the 2019 general election. I was a candidate in Mid Norfolk, and visited Wymondham station with a group of local campaigners to see the issue that they face with the station having no southbound step-free access. Since then, the campaigners have seen four Prime Ministers come and go, as well as five Transport Secretaries, ten junior Transport Ministers and seven Norwich City managers, and there is still no step-free access. I am very glad that. following years of campaigning from local Liberal Democrat councillors like Suzanne Nuri-Nixon—now well supported, I am assured by Suzanne and others, by my constituency colleague, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough)—the Government have recently announced that they will be bringing forward plans for these improvements by the autumn. It will, however, have been a long seven years since I got involved, and even longer for many local residents, who have been without equitable access to their town’s railway station. In a country that demands equality for our citizens, making disabled people feel like they are second-class, and forcing them to wait so long for improvements, really is shameful. I am glad that much of North Norfolk’s rail infrastructure is step-free and accessible, but the same cannot be said of our rural bus network. In rural areas, many bus stops are little more than a sign placed on a verge; in other cases, there is simply a local understanding that the bus might stop in a certain place. That might be good enough for some, but for those with access needs, it is far from a usable service. People need higher-quality, accessible bus infrastructure to allow them to utilise public transport. With that in mind, I hope that the Government might learn lessons from the “Buses connecting communities” report about new models for rural public. Transport hubs that create quality bus infrastructure that is linked into a strong network across rural areas can benefit all of us in many ways. For disabled people and those with access needs, it can give them the reassurance that they can be picked up and dropped off from an accessible stop. When it comes to many of the reforms to public transport that we need, a more holistic view, in which we assess the issues that we face in the round, can deliver for groups across society. After all, better transport accessibility does not just benefit the people for whom it is essential; it makes choosing public transport easier and more convenient for everyone. The assessment that needs to be made of the experiences of disabled transport users, for instance, could flush out opportunities to improve the user experience for all current and would-be public transport patrons. Whether it is clearer signage or better bus shelters, ramps or real-time information, it is in all our interests for the barriers to accessibility in public transport to be reduced and removed. I remain hopeful that the Government will take up what our Committee has found, and I know that Members from across the House look forward to working with them to make the recommendations a reality.