Consumer Affairs

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [R]]

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.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Not to mention Wagon Wheels.

[Matt Western]

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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It is a pleasure to serve in my first debate as a Minister under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this debate. I would have felt cheated had the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) not been at my first outing as a Minister. He mentioned that perhaps this work was different from the work that we had done together previously on human rights. I think there is a lot of overlap, because on human rights we are asking for people to be treated with dignity and to be treated fairly under the law, and I think it is the same with consumer protection. What there is also in common is that when those rights are not respected, that causes enormous anger, so I think there is considerable overlap.

This has been a fantastic debate, with many different issues raised. I will refer to as many of them as possible. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I had hoped, as a matter of professional pride, to get through the whole debate without the ministerial get-out of “I will write to you about that”, but she asked me to write to her, so I thank her for saving me.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch made similar points about ensuring that innovation is balanced with consumer protection. I am quite encouraged, in my first few days in this job, by the approach of the leadership of the CMA as a watchdog. It is very clear that it will bare its teeth at the most egregious abuses of consumers, but where having a lighter touch and some guidance would be better, it is doing that, so that the innovation that was mentioned is not lost.

I am looking forward to working on the licensing review—particularly because it means I get invited to a night out in Hackney. We will add that to the diary pile in the office. My hon. Friend gave the example of Meta and asked about acting quickly online. I think the CMA now has the online interface orders, which allow it to quickly ask companies to change or to take down content. We are looking forward to seeing how that operates in practice.

My hon. Friend and a couple of other Members mentioned algorithms and AI. I am really interested in how AI functions here. There was a case in Atlantic City in which there was some suggestion that algorithms were being used to fix hotel prices and operate a cartel, but human beings were involved in that decision making. One of the interesting questions is how we regulate things when AI might be making decisions to breach consumer law, without a human being involved in that.

To come to some of the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, it will come as a shock, in a debate talking about the size of Mars bars, that I am no stranger to the confectionery aisle. [Laughter.] In case Hansard did not pick that up, everyone cried, “No!” there. My ire, when a Back Bencher, was actually directed towards the changing size and shape of Easter eggs from last year to this year.

My hon. Friend was right to mention the changes to the price marking order that are coming in in April and which will require consistency in unit pricing, so that people, when making consumer decisions, are able to compare different goods. We are also putting in place more clarity for consumers on multi-buys and things like that, but we need to keep an eye on this. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to monitor it, and that he will make that case very strongly in years to come. In relation to his point about a consumer champion, I think that my ministerial colleague who will be primarily responsible for consumer affairs will hope to feel that that is their role, but I will take the suggestion to the Department.

Many Members spoke about concerns around variable pricing models, such as dynamic and algorithmic pricing, and a broader sense of a lack of transparency in pricing. It is a frontier for regulation—things move very quickly—but we do believe that it is our job to ensure that consumers have protection so that they can easily and accurately compare prices.

As the shadow Minister for business, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, rightly said, pricing flexibility, when used responsibly, can be good for consumers and business. It can manage demand, improve access and support innovation. We all love a bargain; we all love the January sales. We like discounts for different groups, but against that evolving backdrop, the Government are actively engaging with regulators, industry and our watchdogs. The CMA’s dynamic pricing project is a recent example of that work.

We will strengthen the law where necessary to uphold transparency, as evidenced by the recently implemented ban on drip pricing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to as a particular bugbear, to ensure that the price presented at the start of the shopping process is the price that consumers pay at the checkout. The principle that underlines that, and that underpins consumer law, is that consumers must know the price that they will pay, and can make an informed decision about whether that price is right for them. Where that is not the case, the Government and our watchdogs will look to take action.

Dynamic and algorithmic pricing have been spoken about, and they are a growing concern for many Members’ constituents. We know that changing prices in response to demand is an essential part of any market economy, but it needs to be done responsibly and within consumer law. It should not be the case that businesses use technology to rapidly change prices in a way that misleads customers or is otherwise unfair, resulting in them overpaying. That would be wrong in any circumstances, but particularly when so many of our constituents are struggling to make ends meet.

Let me be clear: when consumers are misled or pressured into paying a higher price, that is unlawful. The law, including the recently introduced Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, requires that businesses provide clear, up-front pricing so that consumers understand what they are paying for. Additionally, consumers must be able to evaluate that information in the absence of undue pressure. Aggressive tactics and pressure selling are illegal. When price fluidity or instability puts customers in an unfair position—for example, as we mentioned, in ticketing, when consumers feel that they have to immediately accept a high price for fear of it going even higher—that is unacceptable.

The CMA is acting when businesses fail to comply with those laws. For example, last year, it took enforcement action against Wowcher, which agreed to change its selling practices after concerns were raised about its use of a countdown timer to pressurise customers, among other marketing claims.

Before moving on to Oasis, I should declare an interest, which is that in the late-1990s fight between Oasis and Blur, I was very much Team Blur, so that may inform my attitude towards these matters. The CMA is seeking to make changes to the way that Ticketmaster labels tickets and provides pricing information to fans, in response to concerns about last year’s Oasis sale. Obviously, that investigation has yet to conclude. We will continue to work with the watchdog to ensure that pricing practices are transparent and proportionate, and that consumers have the right safeguards.

The CMA recently examined the use of dynamic pricing across different sectors of the economy, and its report sets out all sorts of conditions that may make dynamic pricing problematic, and the information that businesses should provide to consumers when it is in operation.

[Matt Western]

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.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. He referenced the comments made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) on the impact on venues, big or small. It is important to say that there are ways of doing this that are advantageous to everyone. An example that was mentioned to me is Radiohead’s practices in selling their tickets to make sure there was not widespread industrial buying and reselling. There are ways of doing this. The Government really welcome the CMA’s guidance on dynamic pricing, and it has been clear that it will continue to actively review those practices and will tell us if it feels there is a need for changes in the regulatory environment and the law in future.

Another issue that has been raised is personal pricing, where technology is increasingly enabling online businesses to use personal data to set different prices and tailor them to different groups of people. It is not against the law, as with dynamic pricing, to change prices for different groups in a free market; that is part of the functioning of the market. As with dynamic pricing, it can offer consumers benefits, such as tailored deals based on regular purchases, but we know that customers worry about their data being used in more targeted and less transparent ways to set personalised prices that are higher than those they would otherwise see.

The watchword on this is transparency, in accordance with consumer law. It is an evolving issue, and the Government will keep a close eye on developments on this frontier. We will, of course, look to the watchdog to act on any suggestions that consumers are being disadvantaged.

I want to turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington on the pricing of food and essential goods and services. Other Members made these points too. The difference between the smaller high street supermarkets and the hypermarket is one that I feel very personally. I grew up in a household without a car, so we had to go to the local shop, where there was much less choice and fewer bargains. It is not an easy issue to solve, but it is one that I feel particularly personally.

It is really important in those situations that there is transparency and fairness in pricing. Our role in Government is to protect consumers and ensure minimum standards, including on pricing. Sector regulators build on the framework that we set by introducing targeted regulations to support consumers in their sectors, particularly in essential services such as energy, financial services and telecoms, where affordability challenges are most pronounced for our constituents at the moment.

[Matt Western]

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.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. The argument that the Government sometimes hear from business is that it is about the cost of the property. He is shaking his head, and I will try to transmit the shaking of his head throughout the system on his behalf. He makes an important point.

I reiterate my thanks for all the contributions to the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it. I assure him that we will not be complacent on this issue. Using the DMCC Act and the CMA’s recent work on pricing, we are working to take tangible steps to ensure that pricing practices are fair and transparent, and that businesses across the economy are held accountable.

Where specific markets require more targeted interventions, the Government have been willing to do so. We have seen that recently with the regulation of buy now, pay later arrangements and ensuring that customers continue to pay fair prices for energy. Our work will not stop there. We are always testing the case for going further, working in partnership with regulators and enforcers to ensure that consumers are adequately protected as pricing practices evolve. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.

[Matt Western]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind invitation. It is possible that I will be darkening the door of businesses in her constituency this summer.

We are determined to continue working with hospitality businesses, whether in Scotland or in the rest of the country. As I said in an earlier answer, we have set out plans for a licensing taskforce to look at what else we can do to lower the cost of red tape and regulation. As the hon. Lady rightly says, we are taking measures to reform business rates, and perhaps the Scottish Government might like to follow our example.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

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?

[Gareth Thomas]

I recognise that my hon. Friend is a great champion of businesses in his constituency, and I was pleased to meet one of them when I was there recently. I absolutely recognise the significance of business rates reform. The Chancellor has been very clear that she is committed to business rates reform, and we will set out further detail on our plans in the Budget later this year.

Businesses in Rural Areas

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I am pleased to see so many Members here. It is a warm afternoon, so if you wish to remove your jackets, you may do so. I do not necessarily expect a hot debate on this subject; however, a great many of you are expecting to speak, so we will start with a time limit of two minutes—and I am already anticipating that it could be reduced—and you may wish to prepare your speeches accordingly. I remind you all to speak through the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

It is good to see so many Members bobbing; I remind Members that they should bob throughout if they wish to be called in the debate. I am going to set a two-minute time limit, but we may have to reduce that at some point, given the amount of interventions that have been taken—I am not criticising that but, when speaking, please bear in mind that should you take an intervention you will prevent others from speaking later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. It has taken until 2025, but Barr, a rural south Ayrshire village, is finally able to enjoy a mobile phone signal. I was pleased for the community; I had my photograph taken with residents, and the local papers covered the story. It should have been a non-event—this is 2025, after all—but rural communities are too often left behind when it comes to digital connectivity, which is why it was an important moment for Barr. That is the first of three points that I want to make about businesses in rural communities such as Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock.

My second point is that businesses employ local people, and people buy houses and spend their money in the local community. Sometimes the issue is finding local talent, and that is made more difficult by a skills mismatch. Take green energy: many rural communities are hosting new wind farm projects, but vacancies for local engineers and maintenance staff for wind farms are not always easy to find. I am sure that that is also common in many other areas. We have talent in Ayrshire, but we do not have the right skills. We need to train our young people with the right skillsets for local jobs for the future. I want growth deals, such as the Ayrshire growth deal, to invest in skills for the future, and I made that case to the Scotland Office yesterday.

My final point is about broader infrastructure such as transport. Poor road connectivity and limited public transport options hinder people’s access to work. The A77 in Ayrshire is in desperate need of an upgrade. It is plagued by congestion and shocking road surfaces, which make travel difficult for residents and businesses alike. Last week, the Government announced £15.6 billion for transport in the spending review. The spending review shows that the Government are backing the devolved Administrations. Those funds should be used directly to ensure that Scotland’s transport network is efficient and accessible. I have again written to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, about the state of the A77.

I want to finish on a broader point—

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid you are out of time.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this excellent debate. In preparation, I surveyed local businesses to hear from them directly. What came through loud and clear is that rural businesses face the same mounting pressures as many others. As one business in Tring said:

“The cost of business is the highest it has ever been.”

Another told me:

“Currently, there is no incentive for small businesses to employ staff or even start up.”

I grew up helping my mum on the shop floor in a rural market town, so that breaks my heart. Such businesses are the backbone of our community.

Practically all the businesses who responded cited the combined impact of Government Budget measures, from the employment costs faced by Claire in Wheathampstead, who runs 2by2 Holidays, to Tring Martial Arts Academy and DJ’s Play Zone, which are reducing operating hours and workforce, and shelving expansion plans. How does that support the growth of our economy?

Accountants are often the canary in the coal mine when it comes to business health. AngloDutch accountants in Tring confirms that numerous clients, especially in hospitality, are struggling with employer’s national insurance increases alongside rising business rates. There are also the rising costs of day-to-day operations, from energy bills to products, as highlighted by Savage’s and Tabure in Berkhamsted. The cost of living has an impact on customers too. Chantal from Wheathampstead tells me that people simply are not buying like they used to, a concern also raised by businesses such as iQuilt.

As has been mentioned, our rural businesses face additional structural burdens. Connecting people to businesses in person or online is hindered by terrible internet and inadequate transport services. Flamstead, Markyate, Gaddesden and parts of Wheathampstead are in the worst 10% for connectivity nationwide. What is more, under the Conservatives, Hertfordshire saw the biggest cut—56.5%—in vehicle mileage on bus services from 2016 to 2021. I call on the Minister to take action for our rural businesses.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to keep an eye on the clock. The time limit is two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on the welcome focus on our vital rural businesses. When we talk about rural business, we are talking about the lifeblood of our countryside. In Taunton and Wellington, and across Somerset, businesses are not just economic units but the backbone of our communities. Family farms are not taxation units for inheritance purposes; they put food on our tables. The Government should think hard about their family farm tax, and should do so urgently.

Rural entrepreneurs face rising costs across the board, unreliable infrastructure and a postcode lottery in support. Constituents in villages such as West Hatch, Staple Fitzpaine and West Buckland, as well as those around Wellington, simply cannot get reliable broadband or mobile signals. Transport is another key concern, which is why the Liberal Democrats proposed an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have provided compensation for rural firms, such as Apple Campers, Western Recovery Services and TLC, that are losing business due to the closure of junction 26 on the M5 for three whole months under National Highways requirements.

Public transport is also essential. It is about connecting the parts of our UK economy to make a stronger whole. Banking and postal access are also vital to our rural businesses. Although I welcome the introduction of the banking hub model in Wellington, as I know the Minister does, it is somewhat bizarre for residents to see, in a town that has no post office, a building with the Post Office logo above the door and window that is not a post office and does not provide post office services. That craziness is straight out of “Yes, Minister” and needs to change urgently.

Rural businesses do not ask for special favours. All they ask for is fairness and for a level playing field for infrastructure, support and services.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I call Llinos Medi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

There are over 3,400 fantastic businesses in Yeovil that provide amazing services for our communities, from big employers such as Screwfix and Leonardo to local businesses such as Ben Russell’s hairdressers or the Somerset Cheesecakery in Ilminster. Thanks to terrible Government Budgets, unfair trade deals and soaring energy prices, many businesses in Yeovil do not feel supported by central Government. This Government can change that.

I am sorry if this sounds like a list of local demands but, well, it basically is. The Government changes to national insurance are an unfair jobs tax. Let us get rid of that, and instead, reverse Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increase the digital services tax to 6% on social media giants and raise the remote gambling duty for online gambling companies.

Next is our family farms. Farmers deserve some actual support, because in Yeovil they have lost trust in this Government. To start, the family farm tax has to go, or at least be delayed until April ’27 as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee suggests. We also need to strengthen the grocery code so it has some actual teeth to support farmers.

Finally, our high street businesses need banking hubs. I was happy to have secured a banking hub for Crewkerne, but, despite having the same needs, Chard and Ilminster were denied one because they had cash machines. They are not alone. Will the Government expand the criteria for approving banking hubs and commit to rolling out a few more than 350 banking hubs?

I could go on about funding for vital bus services, such as the No. 11 bus in Yeovil, and the need for better broadband, greater investment in apprenticeships, greater defence spending to support jobs in Yeovil and so on, but time is short, so I will just say that I hope the Government take on board my asks and those from hon. Members today, because then we might finally start to get a Government who help rural businesses thrive rather than getting in the way.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Last, but certainly not least, I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I remember my right hon. Friend visiting the farm. It was in my constituency at the time, but the boundary changes actually took it away from me. Preventing the theft of machinery from not just farms but all rural businesses, which suffer so badly when equipment theft takes place, is a critical measure that we have to get right.

I take the important point that my right hon. Friend makes around illegal encampments. Any illegal development needs to be clamped down on in whatever form it takes. I pay tribute to Thames Valley police’s rural crime taskforce for some of its work on that. It would be good if the Minister could work with Home Office colleagues to extend that work across the whole country, and push the Minister for Policing, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to introduce the statutory instruments that would bring the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act into full force.

Let us turn to the direction of travel on rural business under this Government, which gives me real concern. First, as others have mentioned, the increase in national insurance contributions and changes to the NICs thresholds place a disproportionate burden on rural employers, many of whom already operate on the tightest of margins. For a rural farm employing five seasonal workers, or a family-run dairy business with a handful of long-serving staff, these extra costs are not abstract; they are the difference between hiring and firing.

The sharp rise in the national living wage is hitting rural sectors, with seasonal and low-margin employment—especially farming, food processing and rural tourism—hit particularly hard. These sectors do not have the luxury of passing on costs to consumers in the same way that some of the big urban retail or tech companies do. They face fixed contracts and price pressures from supermarkets, and this change risks hollowing out jobs that were previously viable.

Compounding that is the change to business property relief, which will strip tax protections from many family-run rural enterprises such as holiday accommodation and equestrian centres, undermining succession planning and deterring future investment in those rural businesses. Labour has targeted the very dynamism that it claims to support.

Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill poses a serious threat to rural enterprise. By relaxing environmental safeguards and expanding compulsory purchase powers—removing hope value protections from prime farmland—the Bill risks allowing developers and central authorities to override local rural businesses and agricultural land. The removal of green belt-like protections from the mythical grey belt areas also paves the way for large-scale development in what were previously safe rural areas. Rural entrepreneurs now face heightened uncertainty over their long-term investments and succession plans. Farmers, holiday let providers and small rural manufacturers alike may wake up to find their economic foundations undermined by top-down planning interventions.

The Employment Rights Bill threatens significant administrative, legal and recruitment costs for rural businesses, which are estimated at up to £5 billion across the economy and are disproportionately heavier for small rural businesses, jeopardising their ability to hire flexibly or offer seasonal work.

But perhaps the most damaging of all is Labour’s recent change to agricultural property relief: the family farm tax. This is not simply a tweak to inheritance policy; it is a direct assault on the ability of farming families to pass on their land and their livelihoods from one generation to the next. An estimated 40,000 farming jobs will be lost under Labour’s plans to force all farmers to stop farming on up to 20% of their land.

The Government’s estimate of 27% of farms being impacted is based on outdated APR claims data from 2021-22 that does not reflect rising land values or the full economic picture of commercial family farms. Nearly 40% of farms rely on a combination of APR and BPR to mitigate inheritance tax liabilities. The £1 million threshold applies to both combined, making it far more restrictive than the Government’s modelling suggests. In my constituency, this is already causing disinvestment. I have spoken with farmers who are now deferring expansion, shelving plans for tourism ventures and, in some cases, considering breaking up long-held estates that have supported jobs and communities for generations.

Farm shops have, after years of successful trading, made the difficult decision to close. On rural high streets, costs have risen 15%. At Rumsey’s Handmade Chocolates in Wendover in my constituency, this is already leading to job losses and reduced hours for the staff they have been able to retain. The Pink and Lily pub in Lacey Green shut in February, just seven years after it first opened.

Rural Britain does not ask for favours, but it does demand fairness. It wants policies that reflect the unique challenges of doing business across distances, in smaller labour markets and with greater exposure to the weather, the global economy and regulatory interference. That is why the Opposition will continue to champion low tax, light-touch regulation and a level playing field for rural enterprise. The future of the rural economy cannot be sustained on sentiment alone; it must be underpinned by policy that understands the realities of rural life. On that test, thus far, Labour is failing.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I gently remind him to allow a couple of minutes for the mover of the motion at the end.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Matt Western Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for taking the time to brief me last night ahead of today’s sitting, and for advance sight of his speech.

To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail. What a way to proceed: recalling Parliament for only the sixth occasion since the end of the second world war to debate a Bill published only 90 minutes ago. This would be conduct unbecoming of a parish council. Our country, our economy and this Parliament all deserve better. That is why the amendment in my name would at least put a sunset on the Bill, and I hope the Government will accept it.

Today is not a failure by the steelworkers of Scunthorpe and elsewhere, their families or the community. They have toiled for generations to ensure that we have the primary steel we need for our structures, our safety and our security. This is a failure on the Government’s watch. Let us be crystal clear what today means: we are entering a tunnel with only one exit. This is a botched nationalisation plan, revealing that the Government have no plan.

In government, we acted to secure Port Talbot and we were negotiating a plan, including British Steel’s preferred option of an electric arc furnace on Teesside, which would have limited job losses and kept Scunthorpe running in transition. Once again, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses—the Chagos islands, US tariffs, the train drivers and now this latest crisis. A bad toolmaker blames his tools, but this time the Government have only themselves to blame.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in the years between 2010 and 2023, steel production in this country fell by 50% —40% to 50%—and does that not underline the lack of strategy under the previous Government?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will talk about the difficulties facing steel around the world, but let us just be clear what is happening today: the British people must not have lost their winter fuel allowance and their disability benefits in order that China can walk away from its liabilities, leaving British taxpayers to pick up the bills.

Steel needs energy, and energy needs steel. No one denies that steelmaking has been difficult for some time, but Scunthorpe is the victim of a dishonesty that pretends it is better for the environment to ship coke halfway around the planet than from down the road, and of an energy policy that has driven costs higher than in any competing nation. No one is more responsible for this than the Energy Secretary and the Prime Minister who appointed him.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this urgent question and for his comments. I know we will continue to talk and have honest conversations.

Jingye is very much talking to us. As I said, I met Jingye with the Secretary of State and others on Friday, and we hope to do so again this week.

Our priority is respecting the workers, safeguarding jobs and retaining steelmaking. We have been clear in our belief that the best way forward is for Scunthorpe and British Steel to continue as a commercially-run business with private investment and with the Government acting in support, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that no options are off the table.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I was concerned to read about the cancellation of shipments of essential coking coal and so on for Scunthorpe. The Business and Trade Committee heard from British Steel and Tata about some of their needs. The Minister will be aware that an area where we have failed as a country over the last six years or so is not having an industrial strategy, so I make clear to her once more the absolute urgency for us to establish a steel plan to set out the UK’s needs and ensure that we have resilience across our industries and for our economy.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we talked about exactly that at the Business and Trade Committee. This country has seen a significant decline in steel manufacturing over the last decade, and we want to turn that around. Long before we got into government, we committed to a plan for steel, which represents a £2.5 billion investment in UK steelmaking. As we speak, there is a roundtable at JCB in Stafford on the plan for steel, on this occasion discussing trade barriers—I was due to be chairing but came back to be in the Chamber. We have been having a series of roundtables to gather evidence and pull the facts and figures together so that we can put the right investment in place.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, the Secretary of State is and has been talking to Jingye, as have I and officials. Those negotiations will continue. The site at Scunthorpe produces a lot of different types of steel, as he will know. It provides 95% of all steel used by Network Rail. It is incredibly important in that sense, and he is right to draw attention to that. There are many different ways of making steel. On the primary steel point, we are investigating the merits of investing in direct reduced iron, which is when hydrogen is used instead of the old blast furnaces. The reality is that the Scunthorpe blast furnaces are old infrastructure—decades old—that needs updating. We need to move to new technology, and that is what we are trying to do with Jingye.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Clearly, the absence of an industrial strategy in the past five years has had an impact, so I welcome the Government’s notion of a steel plan. Given that the industrial strategy features three major elements—construction, defence and energy infrastructure—will the steel plan look not at a 10-year horizon but at one of 25 to 30 years, to ensure that we get the investment we need for the UK to have virgin steel production, like all other 19 countries of the G20?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his expertise as a member of the Select Committee. We had this debate yesterday. Yes, having a long view has to be the right thing. The Government must ensure that we spend that £2.5 billion of taxpayers’ money in the right way to secure the industry well into the future.

“Chapter 4A

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady makes a point that she made in Committee. It was good to debate with her and others in Committee—we had a genuine and robust debate. What I am arguing for is flexibility and a recognition of how the employment market and our economy works in real life. To treat everything with one universal rule will be a disaster for our economy. I fear that it will result in fewer people in work and fewer jobs in the economy, and it certainly will not deliver the growth that this Government pretend they want to see.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

How can I resist the hon. Gentleman?

[Matt Western]

Does the shadow Minister not accept that it is due to the expendability of employees in the workplace that we have such a poor rate of productivity in this country, particularly compared with France and Germany?

[Greg Smith]

I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, and we have worked together on a number of issues in recent years, but I do not accept his point. Is there room to improve productivity? Of course there is—there is room to improve productivity across all sectors all the time; we would not grow the economy if we could not do that. However, the Bill takes a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut. Applying a universal rule for all will not deliver what the hon. Gentleman nobly wishes to achieve in the economy. As is often the case in politics, the thing that divides us is not the end goal or the point we want to get to; it is the means of getting there. I do not think the Bill will deliver what he wants to achieve. He looks like he wants to intervene again. I want to make progress, but I will give him one last go.

[Matt Western]

The shadow Minister is being very generous. I am making a simple point: it is less motivating and of less interest to a company to invest in machinery and plant if it can ultimately change the structure of its workforce or expend them through fire and rehire. That is what is holding us back, and that is why we have a 20% deficit to France and Germany in terms of productivity.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not see businesses out there that want to expend or get rid of their workforces, or disinvest in them, and he is giving a very pessimistic outlook of the way that the business environment runs in this country. Businesses want to innovate. They want to grow and employ more people. They want to make more money. Making money is not something people should look down their noses at—it is a fundamentally good thing that creates wealth, grows the economy, and increases the tax base to pay for the services that we all want. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view of the world when it comes to the Bill and the point he is trying to make.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe that this new clause would help the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in the country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. It is in that spirit that I ask the Minister to seriously consider whether the Government will accept new clause 30.

[Matt Western]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my union membership. The legislation before us today is truly historic. It is totemic in scale—the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. I commend the Minister and the team for the work they have done.

The Bill delivers not only for working families, but for the whole country. It will lead to higher productivity, higher wages and, ultimately, economic growth. These reforms are unashamedly pro-worker and pro-business, in sharp contrast with the past 14 years, when we saw low pay, low productivity and low growth in the economy. Shockingly, productivity grew by just 0.2% a year between 2010 and 2020. Since 2011, we have seen insecure work rise nearly three times as fast as secure work. Whether it be the 800 P&O workers who were sacked over Zoom without notice, the retail workers whose shifts get cancelled last minute and now cannot afford their weekly food shop, or the 9 million people—one in three workers in this country—not protected from unfair dismissal, it cannot go on.

I will talk briefly about some of the measures in the Bill. Day one rights will provide a serious boost for millions of people. Nine million workers have less than two years’ service with their employer, and thus do not enjoy protections from unfair dismissal. I would welcome some clarity around the initial period of employment. What specific timeframe would the measure apply to, and what exactly does it mean? Moreover, I urge the Government to look at what support is available for smaller firms that are concerned about the impact that the measure may have on their costs. Can we consider what more can be done to guide companies through these changes?

Zero-hours contracts are endemic across our economy. So many people with those contracts are given very little notice when their work is cancelled. In some cases, they may have already sorted out their childcare or made travel arrangements.

Let me turn briefly to industrial relations. An important element of the legislation is setting the new framework for industrial relations. The Business and Trade Committee heard from many good employers, such as Jaguar Land Rover and British Aerospace, that work with the unions to create the right employment practices across their businesses. By contrast, we also witnessed the mistreatment of workers and the denial of their basic rights at Amazon, which clearly had problems in the workplace.

The proposed Fair Work Agency, which is welcomed by unions and progressive businesses alike, is a positive move. As we heard in the Business and Trade Committee, the agency needs to be adequately resourced, because it is so important.

I shall turn to some of the amendments that I support. We just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) about new clause 74. One constituent of mine, Mrs E, was the victim of harassment in the workplace. She was victim to a particular individual who was protected by the management. Ultimately, she had to leave the organisation. He then also had to leave himself. Harassment is such a problem in the workplace, and it is something that must be addressed in this legislation.

New clause 81 relates to modern slavery. The Select Committee heard about the problems of Shein and how companies in the UK have been disadvantaged by the practices of businesses that operate elsewhere.

I wish to talk a bit more about productivity and the points that I raised with the shadow Minister. The legislation is important because it brings not only great benefits to workers, but even greater responsibilities for employers. Tighter employment legislation leads to greater productivity, as we see in France and Germany. Both countries have seen a 20% advantage in their productivity compared with that of the UK. This is why we have seen such a stagnant economy in the UK over the past 10 years.

This legislation is another reminder to the people of this country that only the Labour party can deliver for working families. It will mean less uncertainty at work, less insecurity at work and more money in people’s pockets.

I urge the Government to look at the Fair Work Agency, and particularly at the definitions of “reasonable notice”, “moved” and “short notice”, and to provide clarity on how many weeks the initial and subsequent reference periods should be.

This is a colossal piece of legislation that is so important in this decade. It brings about real change, which is what this party will deliver for working people, thereby boosting productivity and ultimately growing the economy.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clause 74, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh). I pay tribute to her and say that the Back Benches are very lucky to have her. May I also pay tribute to Mr B, whose story she told so movingly?

The campaign to redress the power imbalance for those offered non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment, harassment, bullying and discrimination has been many years in the making. It transcends organisations and it transcends party. I pay tribute to Members past and present of all colours who have been part of this campaign for so long. I was pleased to hear from the Minister from the Dispatch Box that he hopes to continue to make progress, but I hope to urge him to go further faster, and for very good reason. It is long past time that this practice just stopped.

I want to reveal another never-before-told story from ITN. It is never-before-revealed because it is covered by a non-disclosure agreement, which means that I will be using privilege to reveal the details. Before I begin, it is worth saying that the victim is not alone; I understand that there are seven out there from ITN—we have heard another one today—and that investigations have been done by ITN’s board, which is intent on change. This victim is clear that she does not want to cause ITN problems, but she wants MPs to understand the effect that this continues to have on her life and why we need to act quickly.

This young woman was in her mid-20s when she landed her dream job at ITN. She quickly became trapped in what we understand to be a coercive, controlling sexual relationship with an older male editor. He would hurl wild accusations at her and accuse her of affairs with colleagues. She ended up suffering from panic attacks as a result of the relationship. Before Christmas 2019, she finally had the courage to end it.

When she returned to work in January, she had been demoted. Her hours were reduced and so was her pay. The first editor she told warned her to stay silent. She said: “You don’t want to be one of those women who always moan about being wronged.” She then confided in a more senior editor, and things got worse. She told her: “It’s not like he ever hit you. It’s not like you ever had to go to A&E with broken bones.”

She went to work every day for the next year. It took ITN months to agree to an HR investigation into what happened. It agreed only on the condition that she would also be investigated. HR found that it could not assess the complaint because it was criminal in nature, but at the same time found it to be unfounded. That makes no sense. Around this time, she asked a question at an ITN women’s empowerment forum, in front of all staff, during the pandemic. She simply asked, “What support is there for women who report alleged sexual harassment in the workplace?” Within an hour, her email had been cut off. HR summoned her to an urgent meeting; her primary offence, it would seem, was asking for help.

From that moment, she was suspended without pay. She had been completely cut off from almost all support networks for about a year. ITN told her that she was not allowed to tell anyone—except the police, to be fair—what was happening. Even her best friend had to sign an NDA to attend a meeting to support her. The NHS offered her group therapy for her anxiety, but she felt that she had to decline because the organisation insisted that she stayed silent. Her lawyer said that the organisation was trying to starve her out in negotiations over her exit. They took years. By the time they got to a settlement, she had racked up £70,000 in legal fees.

Post Office Redress and Funding

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I am certainly happy to echo the right hon. Member’s congratulations to the noble Lord Beamish and to emphasise again my appreciation for his work on championing the concerns of those who are victims of the Capture software. He is one of those whom we will continue to work with going forward as we put together redress and think about these issues more generally.

Specifically on prosecutions, the right hon. Member may be aware that the Metropolitan police has confirmed that it has established a unit and is looking at a number of issues to do with how the Post Office operated. He will understand that, quite rightly, Ministers are not involved in those decisions, but the information that I have set out is publicly available. We will obviously all have to wait to see what happens in that regard.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend rightly said that there is an urgent need to speed up the redress process. What we know is that while £500 million has been paid out in claims, £267 million has been spent on lawyers. Nigel Railton told us that between 80% and 85% of all claims are simple cases, so does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real opportunity to automate the process so that we handle claims far more quickly?

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Specifically on what further action we can take to speed up the process, one of the reasons why we introduced a fixed-sum payment of £75,000 for those whose claims had been accepted as part of the Horizon shortfall scheme was deliberately to offer an option of faster redress for victims.

On the question of automation, we encouraged Nigel Railton and the senior leadership at the Post Office to look at what further steps they can take to speed up the consideration of claims under the Horizon shortfall scheme, where there is particular pressure given the numbers that are still coming forward. I welcome the fact that they are coming forward, but we need faster action to get through them and to support all those whose claims are being accepted to get redress under the Horizon shortfall scheme.

Stellantis Luton

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Yes. In the conversations we had with representatives of Stellantis, they raised every aspect of the previous Government’s policy, including the flexibilities, the ability to cap and trade and some of the allowances, and what they would mean for the bottom line. I take those concerns seriously, which is why I am willing—in a way that does not undermine the destination —to consult on how this policy works alongside my colleague the Secretary of State for Transport. Although I understand the previous Government’s aspiration and why they introduced this policy, I do not think that when that decision was made, they considered the kind of falling demand that we have seen in Europe. We have to work pragmatically across all bits of Government to make sure this policy does not lead to the kinds of outcomes that many of us who are aware of how exactly this sector works are concerned about.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and am greatly saddened by Stellantis’s decision. May I suggest that plant and platform rationalisation would have been a major factor? Let us be honest: the industry wanted certainty, but automotive manufacturers faced the challenge of meeting the ZEV mandate introduced by the last Government, which was more stringent than that in Europe and most other markets. Put simply, consumer uncertainty was introduced by the last Government, so I find the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State disingenuous.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. “Disingenuous” was aimed at a particular person. We do not do that. You have been here long enough to know that, and I am sure you want to withdraw that comment immediately.

[Matt Western]

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

I urge the Government to introduce more flexibility in the annual targets from 2024 to 2029, introduce consumer incentives, and consider redirecting any penalties towards EV charging infrastructure, not to Chinese Government car companies.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend makes some very good points about the fact that while nearly every major market has policies of this kind, ours operates in a different way from how the French, for example, proceeded with theirs. I agree that the major failing of the former Prime Minister’s speech was to keep this policy in place, but change the destination—that makes no coherent sense whatsoever. Logically, he should have done one or the other; doing both undermines confidence while still not providing the pragmatic flexibilities we are talking about today. The specific points that my hon. Friend has mentioned will all be part of the consultation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will lead on.

Port Talbot Transition Project

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the other potential Chair of the Select Committee.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

That is incredibly gracious of you, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I think your words were heard across the Chamber.

May I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and underline the importance of his commitment and the strength of his negotiation? I add my voice to those who talk about the importance of public procurement, but may I draw his attention to the carbon border adjustment mechanism? As I understand it, we have a disadvantage in this area because of how the mechanism was established in the UK. It is due to be introduced on 1 January 2027, which is later than in the EU, clearly disadvantaging our UK producers. Will he update the House on what he plans to do in that area?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and to you, Mr Speaker, for your very skilful introduction. He is right to talk about that wider business environment, and specifically asks about the carbon border adjustment mechanism. We have inherited this situation of the UK being out of line with the EU. Obviously, because our carbon prices are lower, there is a potential carbon barrier to UK exports to the single market. I can tell him that we are looking at that. The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a key part of a wider policy environment that must deliver decarbonisation, which is not deindustrialisation. We must recognise that the current policy environment is not doing that in the way that any of us would want.