Matt Western MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Dec 2025 · Official Secrets Act and Espionage · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments, and I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question demonstrating the importance of parliamentary security, safety and sovereignty. The case of alleged spying on behalf of China caused widespread concern among the public and Members of both Houses. My Committee, which is comprised of senior Members of both Houses, examined the timeline, and actions and decisions of the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service. While this was a highly unusual inquiry for a Committee to conduct, it was essential that Parliament examined the processes that led to the collapse of the case. Our inquiry found nothing to suggest a co-ordinated, high-level effort to collapse the prosecution, nor deliberate efforts to obstruct or circumvent constitutional safeguards. However, we did find a process that is beset by confusion and misaligned expectations, and that can, at points, be best described as shambolic. There were systemic failures, and deficiencies in communication, co-ordination and decision making between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government. Indeed, the episode reflects poorly on the otherwise commendable efforts of public servants to keep our country safe. Given the conclusions I have just set out, will the Minister give reassurances that the Government will work closely with the CPS to ensure that communications and processes are tightened up, particularly when dealing with cases involving national security? Does the Minister acknowledge that the new National Security Act 2023, while comprehensive, may not entirely cover low-level espionage activity, especially given its structural parallels with the previous legislation? Finally, does the Minister agree that greater support should be given to the deputy National Security Adviser and civil servants acting as witnesses in such cases, to ensure top-level grip on cases with significant public exposure?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That was one of the great failings of the last 14 or 15 years; when interest rates were at record lows, that was the time as a nation to invest in our infrastructure. Any business would have done that. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Returning to productivity, if we had continued at the same rate as when the Labour Government left office, the average worker would be making £5,000 extra per year. That is the loss in productivity we face. This past 15 years we have seen national debt rocket—from 2010 to 2024, it increased by a third—leaving us paying more on debt interest than on defence. That is the reality. I recognise what the Chancellor is doing, and I congratulate her on her determination in delivering for the British people. As she said, it is a Budget that addresses the most important and pressing issues for people up and down our country, so I am encouraged by the proposed changes in business rates, whether that is for the hospitality sector—our pubs, cafés and so on—or small retail, and also by the taxation on dividends. It cannot be right that unearned income pays considerably lower tax than earned income. The Budget today has made some difficult choices, but we can tackle these problems and address the concerns of our constituents and the problems facing businesses. We need to recognise the deep structural problems that undermine our economy, and without a doubt the biggest worry for my constituents is the cost of living. Despite inflation having fallen, the price of goods is 28% higher now than in 2020. The weekly food shop, for example, is now 37% higher than just five years ago. Given that, I am pleased to see the announcements on the cost of living set out today: the £150 saving on energy bills, the train fares freeze, the freezing of fuel taxation, support for childcare and the increases in the living wage. It builds on the progress we have already made, with wages having risen more in 10 months under this Labour Government than in 10 years of the Conservatives. Let me turn to the automotive sector, which is really important for my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, where thousands are employed either by companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin or in the supply chain. I am proud of the support that the Government have already set out. We have delivered £2.5 billion under DRIVE35—a bold industrial strategy that provides clarity and long-term direction for industry —as well as a £1.5 billion loan to protect the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain. In addition, the US trade deal is huge for this country, as is the India trade deal. The additional £1.3 billion for the electric car grant is very welcome, as is the additional £200 million for EV infrastructure. As chair of the all-party parliamentary motor group, I have heard concerns from the industry about the 3p mileage tax on EVs. I hope that the additional support for vehicle purchase, along with the infrastructure grants, will help to offset that, but we must not allow a repeat of what happened in New Zealand, which saw a significant reduction in take-up and demand. I welcome the fact that the Government’s plans to change the employee car ownership schemes have been put on hold. They would have cost the industry £1.5 billion and risked 5,000 jobs. I thank the Treasury team for listening to Members, given the important role that those programmes play in vehicle manufacture and in meeting manufacturers’ zero emission vehicle mandate targets over the coming years. I will focus—perhaps unusually in this place—on the productivity problems facing the UK. Since 2009, productivity has flatlined. The previous Government failed people and businesses. How can UK productivity have fallen so far that it is now 20% lower than that of the United States and Germany, and 12% lower than that of France? I have never believed that productivity is a puzzle; for me it is about fair employment rights, addressing the casualisation of the workforce, incentivising investment and improving on skills delivery. I welcome the measures aimed at young people, including the free apprenticeship training for SMEs and the youth guarantee scheme. If we are to improve productivity, we need people to be fit to work. That is why sorting the NHS workforce, ending the strikes and getting people back into work has been so important. The initiative providing 30 hours of free childcare has released young parents back into the workplace—again, improving productivity. All that, along with restored stability and international credibility, means that investment is flowing back into the British economy. Since July of this year, the Government have secured over £250 billion of investment in high-growth sectors, supporting 45,000 high-quality jobs. That is in additional to the increased capital spending of £107 billion laid out by the Chancellor at the previous Budget, and a National Wealth Fund equipped with £28 billion to catalyse investment. That is all incredibly significant. On exports, as a trade envoy, I am very aware of our opportunities abroad and of the confidence that other countries have in this country—they want to invest here. In fact, we know that Britain was the fastest-growing G7 economy in the first half of this year, and that it recorded the second highest growth year on year. That is now allowing us to rebuild our public services. The NHS has already delivered 5 million additional appointments, including an extra 23,000 in my local NHS trust. The Chancellor talked about money for defence. I would like more clarity not just on defence but on security. As chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I say that it is incumbent on us now to place more focus and resource in areas of resilience and wider security—and not just of our shores. We have seen cyber-attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and Marks and Spencer, for example. JLR took a £1.7 billion hit. That is what we are facing, and we must wake up to that reality and put more resource into it. That is a plea to those from the Treasury who are listening. I have listened closely to Opposition Members, and I fear that there is a degree of naysaying. We have got growth back into the economy, and there is so much in the Budget to be positive about. We are making good progress, but we must be patient. It takes time to clear up the mess when rebuilding, but that is what we will do.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Here we are three years on from the Tory Truss kamikaze Budget. It is worth recalling just how bad that was—absolute carnage, with interest rates rocketing and mortgage market mayhem, and people and businesses left to pay for the Conservative chaos. That 49-day con trick was an ideological experiment that will scar this country for many years to come. It is worth remembering that their catastrophic failure was hailed by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) as “the best Conservative budget since” the 1980s. So much for economic illiteracy! There is clearly much to be done in our schools. It remains for this Labour Government to clean up the mess of the last Conservative Government. It was not just the Truss Budget; successive Conservative Budgets failed the public, whether it was with the lowest investment levels in the G7 despite having historically low interest rates, or with stagnant wages and flatlining productivity.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the Government published the witnessed statements last night, but clearly there are a lot of questions yet to be asked in terms of how this came about and what evidence there was that may not have been shared, or perhaps was not asked for. The Joint Committee met this morning to discuss the situation. We will hold a formal inquiry into the issue. Just to remind Members, the Committee comprises the Chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee, so we are well covered. We will be holding the inquiry as soon as we possibly can. Will the Minister give his commitment that we will have access to Ministers, civil servants and whoever we wish to come before us?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Police and Crime Commissioners (Accountability and Review) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the accountability of police and crime commissioners; to make provision about the measurement of police and crime commissioners’ performance; to make provision about the setting of priorities for police and crime commissioners; to require the Secretary of State to commission a review of the operation and functions of police and crime commissioners, including consideration of options for their abolition and replacement; and for connected purposes. My constituents are worried about crime and disorder across their communities. It is the same for a great many colleagues, if not the vast majority. For years now, they have seen a rise in crime, be it anti-social behaviour in their neighbourhoods, crime on their high streets, or, in more extreme cases, violence. Those concerns really matter; people deserve to be listened to and taken seriously by the police. I am pleased that this Government are taking action, with the Crime and Policing Bill making massive strides to protect our communities. However, it will take time to reverse the impact of the original cuts to police numbers and the erosion of experience over the previous 14 years. The problem is that the public feel helpless: they feel that no one is listening to them and they do not know who to turn to, who to talk to and who is responsible for the police in their area. That brings me to the purpose of my Bill: that too often, police and crime commissioners have not delivered for their communities. I will argue that PCCs need to be replaced and reformed with police and crime panels while the wider devolution process takes place. However, first, to understand the problem, we must look back 15 years to the changes introduced by the then incoming Government and their promise to bring “democratic control over policing” through the creation of PCCs. That proposal resulted in PCCs replacing police authorities and becoming the sole authority. As Prime Minister, David Cameron explained that police and crime commissioners would “lead the fight against crime” and be someone “to hold to account if they don’t deliver.” Today, how many of our constituents can name their PCC? Indeed, how many know what a PCC is? How many of our constituents think that their PCC is leading the fight against crime? Many would say that the promises of that original Bill have not been delivered and that we need to amend these shortcomings for the sake of our constituents. How did we get here? Back in 2012, the first PCC elections were held. Turnout in the first election was just 15%, making it the lowest-ever turnout for a peacetime national election. As Prime Minister, David Cameron promised that turnout would increase over time, and it did, but it was hardly impressive and certainly not representative. In fact, turnout last year, 2024, reached 23% across England and Wales but it coincided with certain mayoral elections on the same day. The apathy for PCCs remains. The problems run far deeper. Indeed, in 2024, the Home Affairs Committee said that the PCC approach faced “a number of challenges”, the foremost being the lack of public awareness of PCCs and their functions, the relationships between PCCs and chief constables and the lack of accountability. The Committee was concerned that the introduction of PCCs had seen the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy and additional cost, with questionable impact on the outcomes for police forces. It also noted that there was considerable variability in the relative performance between PCCs across the country, and that the nature of the relationship they have with their chief constable can damage the model entirely. The Committee concluded that their effectiveness was highly variable and questionable. There is also the matter of legitimacy. As elected representatives, PCCs are held to account at the ballot box, but with turnout percentages often in the mid-teens, the public are clearly not taking them seriously. Also, while police and crime panels exist to scrutinise PCCs, they are constrained by funding and formal powers. The panels are limited in their funding to £53,300 a year, and this does not reflect the workload required to proactively hold the commissioner to account. In terms of formal powers, the police and crime panels lack the proper mechanisms to hold the PCC to account. The panel can only veto a decision once, be it a budget or a chief constable appointment. Furthermore, PCPs can investigate police and crime commissioners, but in real terms it is no more than a polite inquiry. Across the country, we see examples of PCCs failing constituents. This became an issue for me in Warwickshire, and not just through casework and wider constituents’ concerns, of which there are many. It was truly crystallised by the news story of a cover-up between Warwickshire hunt, Warwickshire police and the police and crime commissioner. I will not go into the details, but the allegations are that the PCC, Philip Seccombe, and the then chief constable, Debbie Tedds, engineered a cover-up that prevented a case of illegal foxhunting by Warwickshire hunt from going to court. The PCC is supportive of Warwickshire hunt, and so was the chief constable, whom he alone appointed in 2021. That was rubber-stamped by the PCP. Between October 2023 and November 2024, I wrote to the PCC and the chief constable six times on this issue. They blanked me. They withheld information from me, an elected MP, and also from the police and crime panel. The PCC claimed that he did not have the information and that he had not seen it. I believe he obstructed me from getting that information. As a result, neither I nor the residents of Warwickshire have any trust or confidence in Commissioner Philip Seccombe or the senior leadership team at Warwickshire police. There was clearly collusion. That is what the public believe, and that is what I believe, too. The chief constable, whose daughter worked for Warwickshire hunt, retired early in September 2024, just three years after her appointment. Public concerns across the country are not simply confined to ineffectiveness or collusion, as in the case of Warwickshire; they also centre on costs. In my home county of Warwickshire in 2023-24, the running costs of the PCC and his office were a staggering £1,175,000. That is just for one year. That is the equivalent of 38 trainee police constables in Warwickshire for one year. Across England and Wales, the total budget for the 41 commissioners is just shy of £50 million. Given that context, I am encouraged by the Government’s ambition to move the responsibilities of PCCs across to mayors through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but these changes will take at least two years to come into effect, so more immediate action is needed. In the meantime, we could be saving tens of millions of pounds a year and diverting that money straight to frontline policing. It is increasingly clear that for, the most part, PCCs have failed to meet the needs of their communities. They have not brought greater accountability or improved police outcomes. I would argue that the time has come for us to change the system and do away with police and crime commissioners. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Matt Western, Chris Bloore, Adam Jogee, Debbie Abrahams, Sam Carling, Rachel Taylor and Matt Western present the Bill. Matt Western accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 May 2026, and to be printed (Bill 312).

• 11 Sept 2025 · Consumer Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all those who participated in the debate. It is a Thursday afternoon, and I would have anticipated that a lot more people would have wanted to speak to this issue. I welcome the points that have been made. We have used examples that perhaps bring a certain lightness to the debate, but they are good examples of what is going on more generally across markets. I am absolutely pro-markets—I used to work for a corporate in a very competitive sector. All I am asking for is greater transparency, clarity and responsibility from the marketplace. So many points, such as those about variable pricing and drip pricing, were repeated. Some of the examples were about the financial sector and what has happened there. Many of us have seen the scams in that sector over decades, whether it was endowment mortgages or whatever. Most recently, we have seen that about £950 will be paid out to most of the claimants following the mis-selling of automotive finance since 2007. I was really encouraged to hear what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said about the provision of a helpline. My goodness—I remember those. Northern Ireland offers that for consumers. Points were also made around experiences in the housebuilding sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) talked about the leasehold sector and the management charges. There are so many facets of the marketplace that we could have talked about this afternoon—so many different categories in which consumers feel cheated by the system. I therefore welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place and the vigour with which he will, I am sure, look at this. I will absolutely continue to pursue it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered consumer affairs.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Consumer Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered consumer affairs. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. You will be familiar with the expression “knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing”. Perhaps that was yesteryear, or possibly yesterday, but today I want to say this. UK consumers are now living in a land of confusion; nothing is what it seems. In fact, a staggering 82% of the British public feel that they are paying more but getting less. Products are not what they were, and services are not all they seem. Prices are not even the same between the same company’s stores—and whether in store or online, the advent of new technologies, such as algorithmic pricing, brings further opacity. Let me turn to a simple item. Every day, so many individuals get a meal deal, and they might get a bag of crisps in that meal deal. I opened up one of those bags of crisps just the other day and I found 20 crisps in a bag of crisps that cost a pound. That filled just 40% of the volume of the bag. When I put in for the debate, I said to colleagues in the Chamber, “When did you last try to book a flight? Don’t tell me: when you went on the portal, you looked up the flight and it said, ‘Just two flights remaining!’” Everyone just smiled at me. They knew exactly what I was talking about. We are just about to check out on that flight and, woah, the price has just increased. Products are packaged so that we cannot see or gauge the contents. Labelling is deliberately so opaque that we are not aware of the true contents. Today, I will argue that British consumers are getting a raw deal. They feel they are being ripped off—they know it. How many times have I listened to supermarket chief executives saying that the consumer wants choice, while at the same time those companies make any choice comparison virtually impossible? I am not even talking apples and oranges; I am talking about comparing oranges with oranges or apples with apples. It is all produce that would be bought by weight, but it is often sold by quantity instead, and the sizes vary. Some things are priced per kilo; others, in adjacent baskets, are sold per 100 grams. Mental maths is needed, but why? We have not even got to quality. Elsewhere we see products that are wrapped and labelled, so we cannot see the entire contents, as they are partially masked, and there are products that shrink and shrivel in size from one year to the next. Brands are happy to exclaim when they promote something with 10% or 20% extra free, but they never tell us when they have shrunk the product by 10%, 20% or 30% or when they have made changes to the quality of the ingredients. Of course we have regulators, but if we ask any consumer, they will tell us that nobody is standing up for them. For years, we have lived in Rip-off Britain, and it is time that the Government appointed a consumer champion. In the time I have, I want to focus on the grocery sector, supermarkets and other retailers’ variable, opaque or misleading pricing strategies, and other sectors too. I will also consider the practice of dynamic and algorithmic pricing and subscription traps, before turning to the regulatory landscape. I could also talk about water bills, insurance premiums and so many other sectors, but let me start with groceries, because of course they are one of the main constituents of every household’s cost of living. In June 2025 in a survey by Which?, 94% of people cited the price of their food shop as the reason for their cost of living increasing. According to the same research organisation, trust in the food and grocery sector has fallen to the lowest level in 12 years. The Food Standards Agency said in its research that 91% of consumers were concerned about food prices. We are talking about products packaged so that we cannot see their contents and labelling deliberately so opaque that we are not aware of the contents. Other constituents complain about shrinkflation. Indeed, a Which? survey in 2023 found that a huge 77% of shoppers have noticed shrinkflation in their shops—products getting smaller while the price creeps up or even rockets. Fast-moving consumer goods are an obvious area. You cannot imagine the years when I was growing up, Dame Siobhain, but back then a Mars Bar was pretty sizeable. If we look at one today, and it is the same with a bar of Dairy Milk, the size is a fraction of what it was.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Consumer Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  Several hon. Members around the Chamber raised the differential pricing between in-town and out-of-town stores. The points the Minister made are totally right, but when retailers were asked about this at the Business and Trade Committee, they just said that it was due to a different cost base. A corporate has a big cost base. It cannot make the case that there is a different cost base for in-town versus out-of-town stores. It may as well say that it has different cost bases for Cromer and Shoreditch, or wherever—it does not wash. Consumers in different parts of the country, wherever they may be, should be offered, I believe, a uniform price. Pricing should not be to the detriment of those who do not have access to out-of-town stores.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Consumer Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  There are other products available, Dame Siobhain, but I will not give an entire list of them. Whatever someone’s guilty pleasure is, though, the products that they have grown up with and loved are not what they were. Even tubes of toothpaste in boxes, despite appearing to be a similar size to the product bought a few months ago or a couple of years ago—whenever it was—have been reduced in size from 100 ml to 75 ml. Pats of butter were 250 grams when I was growing up. Then they were reduced to 225 grams and now they are 180 grams. Then there are packets of digestive biscuits; I think we are all familiar with those. I will not go into particular brands, but they were recently reduced in size from 433 grams to 400 grams, with no indication that they had been reduced, other than a discreet numeric tucked away on the packaging, where it cannot be found. Whatever the product, the same applies. Of course, nearly all of us rely on supermarkets for our groceries, but we are not happy. In 2023, Which? conducted a survey of more than 2,000 UK adults and found that two thirds of them felt that supermarkets were ripping people off through the prices in their convenience stores, which are often more expensive than the larger stores and rarely stock budget items at all. Every year for four years in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, I have been buying a basket of products in a supermarket’s in-town store and its out-of-town store, in order to compare the prices. The two stores are owned by the same company: it happens to be Tesco, but I have also just done it for Sainsbury’s as well. I wanted to see what the discrepancies were by buying the mainstream, everyday products that households depend on. I am sure that I could also talk about Morrisons, Aldi, Asda or whatever supermarket it may be; I do not mean to simply identify the two supermarkets that I mentioned before. I buy the products within an hour of each other on the same day, so that no one can say, “Oh well, it was a different day,” or, “It was a different delivery,” or whatever it might be. I also do my own market research. The price discrepancies are shocking and appear arbitrary. The worst case was a bottle of wine that was 60% more expensive in the Tesco Metro store versus Tesco’s own superstore. That is incredible but true. There are other examples. Sainsbury’s sells the identical bleach in its express store for a 38% mark-up on the price in its main store, and it adds a premium of up to 11% for basic items such as cornflakes, eggs and biscuits. As I say, Tesco was no better, as it charged an additional 39% for apples in its Metro store and 27% more for bananas. At £3.20, a pat of butter was 64% more expensive in the express store in the heart of Leamington, right in the centre of the town, than in the superstore, which is not a mile away, where it was £1.95. I will leave you with one key fact, Dame Siobhain. As I said, 94% of people recognise that groceries are a major driver of their cost of living inflation. I wanted to look at the same basket, going back in time. In 2021, the basket that I bought then cost £28. Four years on— today—it costs £38, which is £10 more expensive from a base of £28. These findings from the last four years are substantiated by Which? research. It found that three quarters—75%—of consumers said that they find the price of convenience store food too expensive compared with the price in larger supermarkets, and nearly half—45%—struggle to find affordable food in convenience stores. On the Business and Trade Committee, we recently held an inquiry into this issue and we asked retailers about these price differentials. They cited the different cost base for their operations. I used to work in business; I worked in a corporate for 24 years. Of course, I appreciate that there is a different cost base, but the same logic could be applied to a rural store or a small town store versus a major town store, or we could compare a different cost base between the north of the country and the south of the country, or between different regions. I appreciate that rents and labour costs vary, as do disposable incomes and weekly expenditure. When we put that to the supermarkets, Sainsbury’s said it charges “a slight premium to reflect the increased cost”. That “slight premium” is on average 8%, but I gave the example of 60% for a bottle of wine and the huge mark-up of 64% on a pat of butter. These are everyday products. I do not buy the supermarkets’ argument. First, they never used to differentiate between stores decades ago; there was a national price. Secondly, there is a big social injustice here. More often than not, those stores are the only choice for the elderly and infirm, or for students and others who do not have easy access to good public transport or affordable private mobility. One constituent wrote to me last week and said: “I am someone who is affected by the inflated price of food and goods in Tesco Metro, The Parade, Leamington Spa. This is my local shop which is the easiest one for me to access. I consider it wrong that I have to pay more than if I shopped at the big superstore in Warwick. I am a pensioner on a limited income so every penny counts.” Let me look further into opaque pricing. The Competition and Markets Authority in 2023 found that supermarkets allow “unhelpful inconsistencies”. I suggest that it is incredibly helpful for the big retailers, who confuse and perhaps manipulate consumers. I recognise that the Price Marking Order 2004 has recently been updated to address some of these problems, and the CMA and trading standards should take necessary enforcement action when they are presented with evidence of misleading pricing practices. As I understand it, from next April we will see improved industry practices, so that comparisons are much easier and enforcement action is taken against businesses that are not compliant. These big brands are built on trust, but they have all the power versus the consumer. It is not just groceries or supermarkets; in any shop, products may be plastered with “was” and “now” labels, claiming discounts. The same Which? investigation in June this year uncovered questionable and dodgy pricing tactics at Sports Direct that it alleges may break the law. Researchers analysed the prices of 160 different products sold on the Sports Direct website and found examples where the savings suggested by the higher reference point—the recommended retail price—did not appear genuine. For 58 of the 160 products, Which? found no retailer selling them at or above the Sports Direct reference price. Under existing consumer law, Sports Direct could therefore be involved, as I understand it, in misleading actions. Elsewhere, Which? found electronics retailers using sneaky “was…now” pricing practices that mislead shoppers by exaggerating discounts. In an analysis of televisions sold by major UK retailers, more than half—56% of cases —had a “was” price that was not the most recent price charged before the promotion, which can create the illusion of bigger discounts than in reality. As a result of those misleading pricing strategies, Which? researchers found that 84% of consumers do not trust these claims. It is not just about products; it is in the services sector as well. Turning to tickets and bookings, dynamic pricing exploits consumers. There is pressure at checkout and no transparency about what is happening, be it trains, hotels, airlines or gigs. I mentioned flights earlier, and talked about the “two seats left”. Airlines argue that what they are doing is in keeping with demand, but I argue that they seek to confuse consumers. How many of us, maybe in the last few months, have tried to book a summer holiday? We think we have booked the luggage and x, y, z, but it is not clear. We are pressured into buying more luggage capacity and into additional expenditure. The same applies to hotels, which always have “three rooms left”. We start the process and then the price changes at checkout. It has happened to me, and I am sure to everyone who is watching this debate. The most egregious examples have been flight tickets to major football matches. Back in 2019, a flight to Madrid was typically £50. As soon as the champions league final was announced, it surged to £750 to £1,000 for a seat. Fans rightly described that as shameless greed. The same applies to tickets for gigs. There was a huge public outcry at the seedy scam, just last summer, that was Oasis and Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster also came before the Select Committee. Which? saw evidence that fans were shown one ticket price when they were queuing for tickets, only to have that price taken away at the last second and replaced with a far higher, unexpected ticket price when the page reloaded. However, the consumer was committed; they had spent an hour or longer on the system, and the system knew it. We could say, “Computer says yes”, but at twice the price or more. In one example, the cost of standing tickets, originally advertised to the consumer for £148.50, surged to £337.50 each due to in-demand pricing. That meant that four standing tickets could cost an eye-watering £1,400, once service and order-processing fees were included. I turn to subscription traps. We have all been stuck in unwanted subscriptions, and I am happy that the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has given new rights to consumers. Too many are trapped in subscriptions, and it will help to ease that burden. I am proud that the Labour Government are being proactive, with a consultation on subscriptions that closed in February. I ask the Minister, however, what assessment has the Department made of the responses thus far? I urge him to do all he can to back consumers against unscrupulous firms that use those subscription models. Why does all this matter? Products on the shelves are being deliberately presented in a misleading way. It is becoming a wild west for consumers, and I fear that things will only get worse with real-time pricing changes, for example, through electronic price labels on shelves. Ultimately, there is a power imbalance between big brands and consumers, because the brands and retailers have the data. I would argue that they are profiteering while vulnerable people are being exploited; trust is at a record low. It seems that the CMA is not doing enough for consumers and trading standards are under-resourced. I will talk briefly about some recommendations that are both simple and complex. There are specific reforms that we can introduce, and they are championed, for example, by Which?. They include a new ban on using dynamic pricing to increase a price once a transaction has begun. The Government could also make life easier for consumers by ensuring that shops display clear and consistent unit pricing to allow people to make a more informed choice. Greater responsibility could be moved to national regulators for the most complex businesses operating nationally. Strategic regional and national hubs could be created with a critical mass of resources and expertise to tackle local crime and to proactively address consumer harms. Trains and train tickets are another example. A constituent wrote that there should “be limits introduced on maximum pricing—for example for people going to work, it is just stupid pricing and is pricing people out of commuting.” His dad used to travel from Leamington to London every day for work in the ’80s and ’90s, but that is no longer affordable. He suggests scrapping peak fares on nationalised trains, and it is interesting that in recent days, Scotland appears to have announced that it is looking to do that. I also ask the Minister to consider banning dynamic pricing in certain sectors where the market conditions lead to time pressure and a power imbalance. Perhaps more simply, I ask for trading standards to be given more funding and more officers to investigate. The CMA needs to use its power to investigate with vigour, so it also needs additional resourcing. There are clear laws in place to prevent consumers from being ripped off in this way, and the CMA and trading standards should take the necessary enforcement action when they are presented with evidence of misleading pricing practices, but we need someone on the side of consumers to call out rip-offs, scams and basic profiteering. I want to introduce the idea of a consumer champion who has the power to call out those rip-offs and to stand up on behalf of consumers against big business. In conclusion, I want to see a Government who are more on the side of the consumers. Of course we need successful businesses, but there is such a big power imbalance right now and it is only going to get worse. Unscrupulous firms are profiteering while consumers are getting ripped off and do not trust businesses. We need to bring order back to a chaotic market, so consumers have more information and are more empowered. We need to rebalance the asymmetry that exists between consumers and businesses. The Government should urgently look at what legislative reforms they can introduce to provide greater protections for consumers, because constituents all too often get a raw deal while firms profiteer. We must make change, and we could make it quickly. We need to stand up more for consumers by saying no to clear profiteering, the shrinking of basic elements, price gouging and dodgy pricing strategies, and yes to transparent prices, fair markets and the trusted brands that we all used to know and love. We need someone to stand up and be on the consumer’s side. We need a consumer champion.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Consumer Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I should have congratulated my hon. Friend at the very beginning on his appointment—a very warm welcome, Minister, to the role. He talks about dynamic pricing and ticketing. He will probably be aware that in the Business and Trade Committee we looked at Ticketmaster and Live Nation. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) made some comments about smaller venues. What was striking was the scale of dominance that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have—their control over this entire market.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, it is quite clear, as we have seen, that the number of deaths we have seen at the food distribution centres run by Gaza Humanitarian Foundation—something like 3% of the total number of deaths—is an outrage. Does my hon. Friend agree that restoring an orderly supply of humanitarian aid is critical?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Climate Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  Three of the UK’s five worst harvests have been in the last five years, and this year is looking particularly concerning, with yields likely to be down and margins for farmers on the brink. Just last month, the Bank of England said that extreme weather is now one of the key factors in driving food price inflation. Could the Minister elaborate on what other steps the Government are taking to mitigate food price inflation for consumers?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Climate Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of climate change on food security.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has been doing a lot of work on defending democracy. I am sure we will welcome the proposals, particularly on illicit finance and cracking down on unincorporated associations. I gently urge her to look closely at cryptocurrencies, which are clearly the currency of choice for criminals and rogue states. For example, one individual has routed £13 million into political organisations in this country through such a currency.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, Lydia and Frankie both run businesses that employ around 50 individuals. They both have covid loans and energy loans on top of the usual business pressures they suffer. Beyond maintaining the current discount on business rates, may I urge the Government urgently to review business rates reform, which is so desperately needed?

• 10 Jul 2025 · London’s National Economic Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Just a gentle reminder please to speak through the Chair —so “you” is me, as Members will appreciate. At this juncture, I do not think that we need to put a time limit on speeches.

• 10 Jul 2025 · London’s National Economic Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind hon. Members to keep interventions short.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Government Resilience Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this statement. The point about Exercise Pegasus reminds me of Exercise Cygnus, the findings of which, I am saddened to say, the previous Government ignored in advance of what then became the pandemic we faced. In recent weeks we have seen attacks on Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and others, and the fire at Heathrow, so this action plan is incredibly welcome. It states that the Government will develop a “consolidated, data-driven picture of our resilience baseline” to show how resilient the UK is at any moment, and a new cyber-resilience index that highlights the critical national infrastructure at greatest risk. Will my right hon. Friend give the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, which I chair, access to those indices, and may I suggest that we help him in developing them?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Neighbourhood Policing · Hansard source

  More

  We need good community policing, but we also need good senior leadership teams in our forces. A recent review of Warwickshire police showed the leadership and the force management need improvement, and that its response times were inadequate. Would the Home Secretary look into Warwickshire police?