Consumer Affairs

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.

What about everybody else? One time I made a complaint and asked an urgent question in the Chamber on it. We all turned up for a flight at Belfast City airport, but it had been cancelled three weeks previously. Guess what: it was still showing on the board, we were cleared through security, and we had the boarding passes, but it was a non-existent flight. It was only when we got to the other side that we suddenly found out there was no flight and there had not been a flight for three weeks.

To be fair to British Airways, it reimbursed everyone on that flight. Even though the flight was showing on the board, I found out that it had been cancelled from a disabled guy who was taken through by assistance personnel. When he got through to the far side, he said, “Jim, this flight’s not on, you know.” I said, “What do you mean—it’s on the board?” He said, “No, it was cancelled three weeks ago.” Again, this was a case where consumer rights came into play. To be fair to British Airways, I had a meeting with the chief executive, who recognised the problem and the reason for it. He made sure that every one of the passengers that day was reimbursed or got another flight in lieu.

In Northern Ireland, we have Consumerline, where people can seek advice and report any issues that they have. I have to say that my office and I have a great working relationship with it. We have been in touch regarding faulty goods, scams, service issues and unfair contract matters.

Another notable organisation back home is the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, which is mainly for issues relating to energy, water, transport or postal services. The list of issues that comes before us as MPs is ginormous. The Consumer Council has also been crucial in providing support for parking fines, which have become an increasingly massive issue in my constituency. Indeed, not a week goes by that we do not have one or perhaps two parking ticket issues—it could be that someone has parked in a disabled section that is not marked, or perhaps there is no sign on the road.

We have to make sure that if a parking ticket is handed out, it is done within the legislation. For instance, when people park at a shopping centre in an area for certain people, or in a private car park, the law is often not clear, and there is an element of greyness. On many such occasions, we have contested parking fines and won, simply because the law is unclear. The ordinary man or woman who finds themselves with a parking ticket probably says, “Oh, I’ll just pay it,” but sometimes, they do not have to. There are occasions when they should make contact with the Consumer Council or Consumerline and check their rights.

I want to highlight a consumer rights issue that I have been dealing with in my office. I was approached by a young couple who had just purchased their first home—they called it their forever home—at the start of 2024. As hon. Members can imagine, they had saved for years—I know them personally—and paid a significant amount for their new build home. They were fortunate, probably, in this day and age to have a good deposit to get them on their way, but to this day, they are still having issues in relation to their snag list. Some 20 months later, minor issues are still unresolved.

Again, the Consumer Council and Consumerline have been very proactive and helpful in trying to sort those matters out. That matters, because after all the avenues have been exhausted, if the issues are still unresolved, the only route to go down is a legal one, which would add more cost for that young couple who just want to enjoy the home that they worked and saved so hard to purchase.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has previously raised the importance of transparency in pricing, especially online, and he mentioned it today as well. He is absolutely right. For example, with hotel or flight bookings, the add-ons are often left until the very end, and are not transparent. We see these offers of flights to, for example, Cyprus for £59, and then we find that there is an extra cost for baggage. If we want an aisle seat, that is another £20. Before we know it, that £59 has become £159. Those add-ons are an issue for consumer affairs. Those questions are asked in my office every week, as I suspect they are asked in the office of the hon. Member and other hon. Members. Prices are never included in one figure, which can leave the consumer extremely confused.

As I have noticed myself over the last few years, there is no doubt that goods and services are getting much more expensive. The hon. Member mentioned the issue of chocolate as an example; I have found that there are fewer peanuts in the bag. I love nuts, and Brazil nuts in particular, but I have noticed that they are getting smaller—perhaps the crop has not been good, but I suspect that is not the reason. It is because they are chopping them in half and into quarters, and there are fewer of them in the bag than there used to be. I can understand the logic behind it—it is to keep the cost the same, by reducing the amount in the bag—but that is an issue for consumer affairs. Is there somewhere people can go to? They need to have some contact and the ability to speak to support when they have a question to ask.

To conclude, organisations such as the Consumer Council are there for a reason. It is great that they are in place to support consumers, especially when large amounts of money have been paid. It is a bit of an initiation for the Minister today, but I look forward to what he will tell us. I hope that he will commit to ensuring that the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are protected, and that more will be done across these nations collectively so that people get value for money and decent services. It is what they pay for and what they deserve.

There is an onus on us in Parliament—I am sure the Minister will have something to say about this—to make sure that our constituents are protected, and we must understand that there are different grades of understanding, particularly in the financial services area. We need to help, support and educate people, but we should recognise that there are people who will always be vulnerable and others who can be vulnerable to certain types of schemes.

The Committee has looked at finfluencers, the people who pop up on our social media feed and tell us, as they stand by their Porsche or villa with a swimming pool, how they have done very well and are going to share their tips. Of course, a number of them tip over into giving advice rather than guidance on financial services, which is a very dangerous area that the Committee is looking at. It is a challenging area to deal with. The FCA has told us that Meta—I should call it out—has not been ready to take things down very quickly when it has been alerted to them. If a major regulator like the FCA has challenges getting a major internet provider to deal with these things, then that is a really big battle.

That is a huge challenge, not just for the Government, but globally, because a lot of these people are not even based in the UK. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thinking on how we deal with that legally, even with the Online Safety Act 2023, which does not really cover a lot of this. I am not suggesting for a minute that he or the Government have a solution, because it is a very challenging problem to solve, but I am interested in what the Government are looking at.

We also have artificial intelligence coming into the financial services sector. There are examples of people who have put models into four different AI systems and come up with what is quite good guidance but very close to advice. One that I came across recently actually recommended investing in a particular named company. This is a very interesting and challenging area to regulate and, again, the Treasury Committee is looking at AI in financial services. There is an awful lot of potential, but there is a lot of risk as well. I know that it is a core area for the Department for Business and Trade to consider, along with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thinking on how the Government will make sure, as best they can, that they are a step ahead in protecting consumers against the risk involved.

Of course, consumers in financial services have a lot to lose. It is always said, “Don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose,” but if we are to encourage people to invest more, as the Chancellor is keen to do, we need to make sure that people really understand that and protect them from losses, which would be very damaging for many of our constituents—certainly the poorest, and even those on modest incomes who would not have the money to lose.

The FCA has also proposed allowing contactless payments to be unlimited. During covid, we saw the contactless limit go up, and it is often even higher on mobile phones. Many of us will have lost a card and only found out because something has gone out of the account. I pay tribute to my bank; I will not name it—it would, perhaps, be unfair for me, as Chair of the Treasury Committee, to pick one out just because of my own consumer moment—but it was very quick off the mark in realising that there had been some fraud. The payments were only very small amounts, but they were outside my normal pattern of purchases. The bank rang me and went through the security processes thoroughly to make sure that the card was stopped and I was reimbursed. The banks are doing a lot of work, but the challenge of increasing freedoms is that on the other side there is the risk of fraud, so thinking about how consumers will be protected is important.

Not long ago, the Treasury Committee published our report on access to cash. We held a very illuminating set of hearings. We highlighted in our report that, with fewer places accepting cash, certain groups, such as older people, those on lower incomes who use cash for budgeting, those with certain disabilities and those in domestic abuse situations, often have nowhere that they can buy things. Dame Siobhain, I think it was you who coined the phrase “the poverty premium”. Some big businesses, and others, will not accept cash. That means that the poorest, who budget with cash, have to travel further. Sometimes they will not be able to buy in their neighbourhood, have not really got the means to travel and have to pay the higher prices of the shops that will still take cash.

I should say that the Association of Convenience Stores is clear that it wants to see cash accepted, and many such stores do. As a point of principle, I sometimes go into the big supermarkets with cash and say, “Where can I queue?” There is often a longer queue for the machine that accepts cash, and it marks out those who only use cash. Mostly, they are not in my situation—I could pay with a card or a phone. They pay with cash because that is how they budget, and they do not want to risk spending more than they have got.

We know the challenges with paying in cash for electricity. There has been some progress in making sure that bills are equalised between those paying on a meter and in cash, but that has taken many years. I have been in this place for 20 years and, dare I say it, Dame Siobhain —it is hard to imagine—you have been here longer than me, and we know that that was a very big battle to fight.

One of the other things about getting consumer affairs right is that if consumers are supported, confident and protected, that hopefully means they have more confidence to buy. We saw the good news that consumer spending was up this July, but it has been a very challenging time for the economy. This Government inherited a really big set of challenges from the last Government, thanks to the Budget of September 2022. There were world events as well, but that dented consumer spending and raised mortgage rates, meaning that people have less money to spend.

I want to touch on the regulation of e-bikes, which is about protecting consumers. According to the London Fire Brigade, e-bikes are one of the major emerging causes of fires. One of my fire stations, in Shoreditch, has been holding what might be called amnesties. Delivery drivers will often buy an extra battery online in order to boost the range of their bike, because of course they make money on the number of deliveries that they make. They have been invited into the fire station to have them checked, and a number have been found to be dangerous. In particular for someone living in shared accommodation in London, if the battery in the bike in the hallway—which might be their livelihood—catches fire, it can be devastating. It can lead to loss of property and loss of life. It is really important that we give some thought to the regulation of e-bikes and batteries.

I have many issues with Lime bikes, which I will not go into now, but one of the things that legitimate e-bike providers, whether for sale or hire, would agree with me on—we do not agree on everything—is the need for proper regulation of e-bike batteries. We need to make sure that online sellers do not get away with selling dodgy batteries and that there are better checks in place. The Minister may not be able to give me a detailed answer right now—he has only been in the job three or four days, so I do not expect a full answer—but if he is not able to answer some of my points, it would be helpful if he could write to me. I have many constituents who are very concerned about these issues.

Utilities is a big area of concern. I have the privilege—I should state for the record that I am speaking with irony—of being a Thames Water customer, as are my constituents. We have seen the challenges there. I am sure the new Secretary of State will be as robust as the last in trying to tackle that. We have had a poor service, with burst water mains and our bills just going up all the time. That does not feel good for consumers. We need to make sure that the Government are given all power to their elbow in trying to tackle the water companies.

One thing that is very specific to the Minister’s Department is the licensing review. Again, that affects a lot of businesses in my area. It is partly about regulation, but it aims to equalise the price of licences at a lower level nationally. This is a very specific point, and I will be writing to the Minister or the Secretary of State on about it, but the London Local Authorities Act enables inner-London boroughs in particular—it affects them most—to charge a certain rate for licence fees for businesses. Hackney has the fastest-growing economy in London, according to the Office for National Statistics and the Greater London Authority, and many of its businesses require licensed premises. Equalising the rate at a lower level will reduce the council’s capacity to enforce licensed premises.

As it is now, licensees pay a fee, and they know that the bad licensed premises will also be inspected—there will be regular review points. That works well, because the good providers are very concerned that the bad providers should not get away with it. If the fee is equalised at a lower level, Hackney council stands to lose up to half a million pounds a year in fees, and will have no ability to carry out the enforcement work as proactively as it does.

We have a high density of licensed premises in Shoreditch and in Dalston, which I have had the privilege of representing since last year. Providers on those strips are very keen to have good enforcement. One licensee said to me, “Every morning I wake up and check my phone in case anything happened the night before,” because they know the responsibility of being a good licensee; it is really important to protect their customers, and also the sector as a whole, because people flock to my constituency to use these premises. If the council is unable to enforce on bad behaviour by licensees, that will damage the sector—and, I contend, damage the growth that is happening in Hackney.

Hackney South and Shoreditch is only half an hour away, so if the Minister or one of his team wanted to visit, or to bring officials in for an explanation from the council, I would very much welcome them. I hope that this issue will be considered. We certainly do not disagree with removing regulation or easing the path for businesses, but if we throw out the baby with the bathwater, we could end up with worse than we started with.

Insurance is another big issue for consumers. It seems incomprehensible to many people how much insurance premiums have gone up. Again, the Treasury Committee called in the insurance companies and raised some of the challenges with them. I will not go through that in detail—not least because most hon. Members in the Chamber were in the room when we had them in—but the costs for leaseholders seem to be going up, and there is a real issue about support for leaseholders, particularly in respect of transparency and accountability for service charges.

As I mentioned, I am a leaseholder myself. We get several long spreadsheets of information about how money is allocated, but it is very difficult to judge whether we are being charged a fair amount, whether that is for window cleaning, general cleaning or insurance. Obviously, since the tragedy of Grenfell, insurance for a block will be not just for the flat and the floor concerned, but for the whole building, and that has caused premiums to shoot up, but they have gone up by an incredible amount given the actual rate of tragic incidents—the reality has not matched the cost of the potential liability—so that is a big area of work.

That is also affecting consumer spending. Many of my constituents are first-time homeowners, who bought their dream homes as leaseholders. Some are shared owners, and they are in the worst of all worlds; they pay a mortgage on one portion and rent on the other, but they have responsibility for the whole thing, including all of the service charges and any remediation works that need to take place—I will leave cladding aside for a moment, but other works may need to take place—and then they are trapped, because the service charge and mortgage have gone up, and sometimes their rent has too, and they are unable to sell. Many are very much trapped in that situation.

On consumer affairs, I must of course mention the issue of cladding. Many of my constituents are still waiting for the first bit of work to be done; all they have had is a slight investigation to determine that the cladding needs to be removed. Sometimes it is only a small amount, but because of the risk-based approach, those with the least cladding are sometimes at the back of the queue. In many cases, scaffolding has not even gone up. We are in 2025. The tragedy of Grenfell happened in 2017, and by 2018 it was very clear what the problems were: a failure of regulation over many generations, which has led to a real problem. That is one of the biggest consumer scandals of a generation.

I know that it is not in the Minister’s Department, but we now have the Building Safety Regulator. My constituents and I are impatient for work to happen as fast as possible. We need to step up not just the number of skilled people to do the work, but—the trade deals done by the Minister’s Department may help with this—the supply chains, so that the necessary materials are available alongside the skills. There is so much more that I could say on this—I have repeated it endlessly in the House—but people are trapped. They have lost faith in the housing system. They feel, quite rightly and understandably, that they were sold the dream and bought a home in good faith, and now they are living the nightmare and trapped. Often, they want to move to a bigger property but are unable to do so because they cannot sell theirs. There is an awful lot to be done there.

More widely, there are options with regulation: we can have regulation that is very heavy-handed and protects people but can be a burden on businesses, but we can also have self-management. We saw that the regulation of building safety went way too far in one direction. Regulations were removed incrementally, so that no one knew who was responsible for certain things and proper checks were not done. We need to get the balance right. Self-regulation can work very well, but there needs to be a robust and, in a way, fearsome regime to make sure that it is audited. There is no point in saying to a sector, “Self-regulate,” if that is not double-checked and triple-checked at some point, so that the sector knows that the heavy hand of the regulator, whoever it may be, can come down heavily on it. If the Government are moving away from regulation—as we are certainly seeing in financial services—or trying to loosen it a bit, we need to make sure that we watch very closely, protect the consumer along the way, and get key assurances in place.

This is an important debate, and there is so much more that I could talk about. I started with Mars bars and ended with building safety, which shows the gamut of important issues that matter to consumers. We need to make sure that they are protected from the worst harm while innovation in things like fintech can give people more choice—that is also important.

One of my staff was impacted by ticket touting on Ticketmaster for the Oasis concert—there is no accounting for taste—which the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned. He spent hours online and saw the ticket go from £135 to more than £300—the surge pricing that we believe is wicked. On the secondary market, we saw that same ticket go up to £6,000. It is utterly shameful. I am aware that Ticketmaster sometimes labels tickets as if they are platinum when they are actually the same as standard tickets. Regulation is needed in these areas. To stop this, we need to take some inspiration from Ireland, where there are limits of 10% increases and surge pricing is banned in both primary and secondary markets. We need to allow true fans to sell on the tickets they are no longer able to take advantage of, but limit the additional handling fees to a reasonable level and ban surging.

Concerts are an outstanding way of enhancing one’s sense of wellbeing, relaxing and, probably most importantly, developing a sense of community. However, we need to ensure that people are protected when buying tickets, because we all need a bit of light relief in the challenging world that we all live in now.

Key to consumers getting good prices is creating good competition in markets and keeping inflation down but, frankly, both those things are being exacerbated by the Government’s current economic approach, particularly inflation, because last year’s Halloween Budget included the tax hikes, the increased national insurance contributions and the reduced business rates relief that are pricing a lot of small businesses out of the market. Those are the very businesses that drive competition, and that can keep prices down. Without them, consumers face fewer choices and therefore higher costs.

I will give an example from the night-time economy. According to the Night Time Industries Association, we have seen a worrying decline in venues across the UK. Recent research has revealed that over a quarter of our towns and cities that had a nightclub before the pandemic now have none, and that 16% of our towns and cities across this country have lost all their late-night venues entirely.

We will hear from the Minister about the Government’s plans to cap ticket resales. Those plans risk making things worse. Capping resale profits at 10% might sound like a fair idea, but in practice it risks harming small venues and up-and-coming artists. It places additional costs on already stretched businesses, and opens the door to the black market and scams. We have seen this play out. We can learn from the state of Victoria in Australia, where a 10% profit cap on ticket resellers did not stop tickets from being sold above the price cap; it just resulted in a spike in the number of scammers, and tickets only being available to international buyers. So, the Minister might want to ask his team about that situation.

We have also seen that in Ireland, a 10% tax on ticket resellers caused an increase in scams. And last year, at the wonderful Paris Olympics, viagogo was banned. Because viagogo is a ticket resale company, that meant that there were empty seats at many Olympic events. So, the ban deprived fans of spontaneous access to the Olympics, and athletes of full audiences.

I urge the Minister to be wary of unintended consequences and to look closely at the proposals. The Government’s approach, as we understand it, risks penalising fans, artists and venues alike. This issue is not just about ticket touts; it is about ensuring a vibrant cultural sector, in which people can access live events safely and affordably. Regulation, if it is done badly, risks moving all of this activity underground.

I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said about keeping consumers informed, making sure that information is clear and ensuring that consumers are not misled. Let us support competition; let us enable a thriving small business sector and not stifle it; and let us back businesses that make our economy dynamic, diverse and responsive to consumer needs.

In summary, I agree that we need to be vigilant about unfair practices, but we must also be pragmatic. The best protection for consumers is thriving, competitive markets, not ones burdened by excessive regulation and shrinking opportunity.

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.

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.