Westminster Hall

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

Thursday 11 September 2025

[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

Non-surgical Aesthetic and Cosmetic Treatments

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are witnessing an emerging public health crisis. The cosmetic and aesthetic treatment industry is expanding rapidly, yet our laws have utterly failed to keep pace. In 2023 alone, around 7.7 million people in the UK underwent treatments and procedures, ranging from botox injections to facelifts. Every single cosmetic and aesthetic treatment or procedure is currently under-regulated, both surgical and non-surgical alike. Each year, more people undergo these treatments, and each year, more are left vulnerable to devastating complications because of a systematic failure in our legal system.

The statistics paint an indisputable picture. Without raising the baseline minimum level of clinical standards, millions across the country will continue to suffer, and some will pay with their lives. We live in a time when beauty standards are set at impossible heights. Every single day, people of all ages are bombarded, whether through social media, advertising, magazines, or messages telling them how they should look. Young women in particular are relentlessly targeted with new beauty trends, each one more unattainable than the last. Failure to follow them leaves many feeling ugly and unworthy in their own skin, but let us be clear: they are not ugly, unworthy or imperfect.

More and more people are victims of a culture that thrives on selling unattainable beauty standards. One day, you are too fat; the next, you are too skinny. Your lips are too thin, then suddenly they are too thick. Your forehead is too wrinkly. Your nose is too pointed. The list goes on and on. There is always something to make someone feel that they are not enough. The impact is undeniable. In 2020, a parliamentary report found that 61% of adults and 66% of children in the UK had negative body image.

What do people do? Many turn to cosmetic and aesthetic treatments, searching for confidence in a system that profits increasingly from their insecurity, but these so-called beauty standards do not just lightly shape how people perceive themselves; they create shame, pressure and, for some, a devastating impact on their mental health. A parliamentary report in 2022 revealed the scale of the problem: 80% of people said that negative views about their body had harmed their mental health.

As confirmed by the Mental Health Foundation, the two disorders most closely linked to poor body image are eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorder—the number of diagnoses for which are on the rise. Currently, an estimated 1.25 million people in the UK are living with an eating disorder. Between 2015 and 2021, hospital admissions for eating disorders rose by 84%, and over half of those admitted were aged 25 or younger. Body dysmorphic disorder, despite stigma and under-diagnosis, is thought to affect over 1 million people in the UK, and the true figure is almost certainly far higher. Most shocking of all, one in eight people experience suicidal thoughts and feelings because of body image concerns.

This is a crisis. More and more people across the country are suffering, and many are developing life-threating health conditions. However, the truth is that something can be done. The Mental Health Foundation found that 21% of adults said that advertising images had caused them body image concerns, and 40% of teenagers said the same about social media. Yet, right now, the cosmetic and aesthetic industry is free to advertise however it wants. Businesses can digitally alter images beyond recognition and present them as reality, and social media influencers are allowed to push cosmetic treatments straight at young people.

Currently, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of Advertising Practice restrict the use of enhancements that make an image misleading and restrict cosmetic advertising from being targeted at under-18s, but that is evidently not enough. We need tougher regulations—tougher protections for young people on social media and tougher rules to stop the public being misled. The answer? Requiring all images and videos used in advertising on every platform to display a clear symbol showing if they have been digitally altered or enhanced.

That idea was first put forward by my  hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) in a private Member’s Bill, the Digitally Altered Body Images Bill, which sadly did not make it through all its parliamentary stages before the Dissolution of the last Parliament. That requirement, alongside stricter enforcement of the advertising ban for under-18s, would protect young people from harmful online content, expose the false promises of cowboy practitioners and help people finally see the reality behind the images.

Of course, advertising regulation changes are not the only changes that this industry is in desperate need of. Right now in the UK, anyone can perform non-surgical cosmetic and aesthetic treatments and anyone on the General Medical Council register can carry out surgical cosmetic and aesthetic procedures. We live in a regulated society, leading to a misconception on the part of many people that the industry is already regulated. After all, the rest of the medical sector is, so why would it not be? Many genuinely believe that the practitioners they visit have a medical background. They may see official-looking certificates on the wall, and they presume that the training claimed to have been completed is of the same rigorous standard as nurses and doctors go through.

The reality is that I could sign up to an online course, complete roughly 10 hours of coursework, attend two days of in-person training and call myself qualified to perform fat dissolution or botox injections. I could sign up to another course, watch a series of “specialist” videos and then be “qualified” to inject lip and dermal fillers. How on earth does watching a few videos or attending a two-day course qualify anyone to perform treatments that carry serious risks, including blindness, tissue necrosis, paralysis and even death?

If I were having a simple blood test, I would expect a nurse trained in phlebotomy to handle the needle. If I needed my appendix removed, I would expect a general surgeon to perform the operation. If I were having needles put into my face or my nose operated on, I would expect the person holding the needle or scalpel to have the medical qualifications required by the NHS, meaning specialist training and Care Quality Commission registration.

Today’s debate is about non-surgical treatments, but let us be clear: surgical procedures are also in desperate need of regulation. After my meeting with the Royal College of Surgeons, it is evident that we must tighten the rules on who is allowed to perform cosmetic and aesthetic operations, and we must amend the health and social care legislation, expanding the powers of the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on operations and making “surgeon” a protected title. I would welcome the chance to meet the Minister to discuss this further, because we must not allow non-surgical treatments to be regulated while surgical procedures are left behind.

There must be one overarching framework that encompasses all cosmetic and aesthetic treatments and procedures, and at the heart of that new framework must be a minimum baseline standard of practitioner training. The absence of such a standard has allowed low-quality, unsafe so-called clinics to spring up across the country. They decay our high streets, feed the black market with untested medication purchases and make access to dangerous treatments easier than any others in the medical sector.

These cheap, unregulated clinics, run by anyone who fancies giving aesthetics a go, are putting people’s health at serious risk. They buy cheap products that may never have been properly safety tested in order to undercut professionals with bargain prices, and it works. Young people in particular are increasingly drawn in. The clinics do not offer consultations involving discussion of alternatives or risks. They do not offer cooling-off periods. They do not adhere to safe environment standards to prevent infection. In far too many cases, someone can walk in off the street and undergo treatment on the spot, performed on a living room sofa.

What happens if something goes wrong during the treatment or afterwards? For many people, it does. In 2023, the Government-approved register for medical aesthetic treatments, Save Face, received more than 3,000 reports of complications and adverse outcomes. In July 2025, an ITV investigation revealed that more than 50% of women who had undergone non-surgical cosmetic procedures required medical assistance afterwards, with 15% requiring emergency support. Save Face confirmed that those findings matched its patient records. This demonstrates exactly what happens when unqualified practitioners are allowed to continue unchecked. People are suffering serious health complications. Many are left traumatised, and countless others never seek help at all, out of shame and stigma.

When help is required, it often falls to the NHS to provide corrective care, which costs time and money. There is currently no exact data on the costs. However, an NHS Scotland study found that over five years the average cost of correcting botched procedures and surgeries was £9,327. To put that into perspective, a study in The European Journal of Health Economics reported that the average cost of treating breast cancer is £9,450.

What do we want the Government to do? This is not a party political issue and not just a health crisis; it is an economic one, too, and is entirely avoidable. That is why regulations adopting a traffic-light system that categorises every treatment and procedure with a minimum baseline of standards is imperative: green for non-prescription treatments; amber for treatments involving prescribed medicines or that penetrate the skin; and red for surgical procedures requiring anaesthesia.

There must be clear rules. All treatments across the three categories must be performed by CQC-approved professionals, with at least professional indemnity and public liability insurance in a sterile, fit-for-purpose clinical environment. Any treatment involving prescription-only medications, such as botox or certain hormone replacement therapies for weight loss, must be performed only by a prescriber or a regulated professional with the prescriber on site at all times during the treatment.

All treatments involving injectables must be performed only by a medical professional registered with the relevant professional body, such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the GMC. Every consultation must include a discussion of all alternative options and potential side effects, followed by a mandatory cooling-off period before the procedure may go ahead. During this time individuals should feel under no obligation to commit, and any deposit paid should be fully refundable.

Every surgical operation currently required to be performed by anyone on the GMC register must be performed by a specialist surgeon. The United Kingdom is home to one of the best healthcare systems in the world, yet in this area we are falling dangerously short and it is time to put that right. This is not about banning or shutting down businesses, but instead must be viewed as introducing protections for patients, practitioners and public health. The Government’s announcement in July pledging to regulate was a welcome step forward, but real concerns remain about the timeframe. This cannot be a two or three-year project. The industry is growing far too fast for that and patients are suffering too frequently, with the NHS and society already paying too high a price. We need urgency and clarity, along with a firm timeframe.

Right now, because of failures in the law, the industry is instead risking lives. It preys on the vulnerable, particularly the young. It burdens the NHS and leaves countless people traumatised for life. That is the choice before us. We can allow the crisis to continue unchecked, or we can act with the urgency and courage needed to protect the public. Every day of delay is another life put at risk, and we cannot allow that to continue.

13:42

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Desmond. I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing it. I agree with much of what he said, especially the issues about negative body image and the harm being done. I welcome the Government action that was announced recently. The announcement on 5 August of the forthcoming consultation and crackdown on unsafe cosmetic procedures is very welcome. The last Government did not do enough in this area, despite my pushing on one particular area of it, so I am glad that this Government are taking action. I look forward to hearing more about those actions from the Minister.

I am here because in 2022 my constituent, Jan Spivey, came to my surgery with a lot to say. She was one of those surgery appointments where someone bursts into the room. She had so much to say that I had to encourage her to take a moment to sit down. She had been campaigning for a very long time on the Poly Implant Prothèse breast implant scandal, something that I have been raising ever since on behalf of Jan, who has been so affected by this personally, and on behalf of all the women across the UK. Up to 47,000 women have been affected by the scandal. It has really opened up to me the dreadful issues of surgical and non-surgical cosmetic treatments that need to be addressed. I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove about how this is about cosmetic and non-cosmetic surgery. If we do not tackle one and get the regulation right for one side of it, we will not get it right for both sides, and they are really important.

The company Poly Implant Prothèse, or PIP, was founded in France. It began distributing breast implants made from non-medical silicone, and it was later found that what had been put into the breast implants was basically mattress filler. The implants were far more likely to rupture and lead to long-term health conditions: they were found to have a 500% higher risk of rupturing or leaking and a direct link to a rare form of cancer.

In 2010, PIP pre-emptively liquidated, but between 2001 and 2010, 400,000 people globally and 47,000 people in the UK received PIP breast implants. Many of those in the UK probably received them through implant surgery in another country. In 2011, following the death of a woman from the rare cancer, the French Government recommended that 30,000 women in France seek the removal of their breast implants, and removals were carried out. A criminal trial was held, and the founder of PIP was sent to prison for four years.

In 2022, my constituent Jan came to talk to me about the health issues that she had faced as a result of these implants. She said that doctors were not listening to her. That is a pattern for both non-cosmetic and cosmetic treatments: going to the doctor, being told, “You’re an older woman; it’s menopause”—for younger women it might be ME or something else—and being written off. That is why we are discussing this matter today: for a long time women with these issues have not been listened to.

There is an accountability gap. Many of the private healthcare providers that implanted those breast implants declared themselves bankrupt but then restarted, in the same premises under a similar name. There is also a data gap, because there is no good register of who received these implants. That is also the case with many other non-cosmetic treatments. Who is receiving these treatments and who is doing them? We need to know.

In 2023, I secured a debate in the House to discuss this matter, but I felt that it was pushed aside by the responding Minister. The Minister agreed to produce implant cards with more information about the risks of having an implant put in, but did not agree to tell all the affected women what might be happening in their own bodies and why they were experiencing so many health issues—that it might be because of breast implants—or to remove them and solve the issue.

The PIP scandal is not an isolated event; it is part of a broader, systemic failure in the regulation of medical devices. Both the UK and global systems have long-standing structural weaknesses that create recurring cycles. That is why I am glad that this debate has been secured and the matter brought to the attention of the Minister. There is inadequate pre-market oversight, excessive commercial secrecy, under-researched women’s health impacts, regulatory capture, financial conflicts and poor post-market surveillance. Who are the women affected? Where are they? What is happening to them? Patient compensation mechanisms are weak, and as I have said, women are routinely not taken seriously when they raise these issues.

The key asks from the PIP campaigners are for the Minister to work with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which has absolutely failed them in this instance, and the NHS to recognise and publicise the risks associated with PIP breast implants. If there is a link between breast implants and health issues, the data should be easy to find. The Minister should urge the NHS to collect data to establish how many people have received these implants and how many have had them removed, and to proactively contact everyone affected through their GPs to give them advice. The Government should also conduct a review into the risks associated with PIP breast implants.

I welcome the fact that the Women and Equalities Committee has begun an inquiry into this matter. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the outcomes of that inquiry—I am sure she will. I would welcome the Minister meeting me and PIP campaigners—I am sure that she will find Jan as inspiring and informative as I have—to discuss what actions can be taken to right this injustice and improve the health of thousands of women.

13:50

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am sure that when Jan Spivey went to see her MP, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), it was a meeting between two enthusiastic people—not just the one. It is lovely to see the hon. Lady here, having stepped away from the Northern Ireland Office, to make a contribution in today’s Backbench Business debate. This always says a lot about the individual person, and I am very encouraged to see her here. She is a friend, of course, but none the less we are very pleased to be together.

I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for highlighting this issue. As he rightly says—indeed, as everyone in this debate will say—it is of great importance, given the increasing usage of non-surgical procedures. We have all read the terrible stories of procedures gone wrong. Most of those that I am aware of are of people who went overseas. One person went to Turkey for a hair transplant—to be facetious, I probably need one very badly, but there is very little donor area around the sides of my head to help. Joking aside, people go abroad to have surgical cosmetic changes made, such as butt lifts, which I understand caused the death of one person, lip lifts, which have left some people disfigured, or breast enhancements, which unfortunately have also led to some deaths. I have tabled questions on this very issue, asking the Government to consider legislation to ensure that there is a system, a regulation or a methodology applied for those who go overseas for these procedures. There must be controls; there must be insurance; there must be a way for those procedures to happen in a safe and secure way. So many disasters have taken place, and unfortunately deaths as well.

In my Strangford constituency, so great is the concern that my local council, Ards and North Down borough council, has put up guidance on making clear choices. The council does not have responsibility for this matter—it is the Department of Health’s responsibility—but the fact that it has done that in my area tells me that the councillors have been contacted by their constituents about these issues and that they feel it is important to put up the signage with guidance on making choices. In Northern Ireland, our local councils have no responsibility for health, so the fact that the council has stepped in shows the depth of concern felt locally.

In 2022, Ards and North Down borough council, in conjunction with other councils in Northern Ireland, wrote to the Department of Health to ask for better regulation of cosmetic treatments in Northern Ireland and for a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures to be introduced. All those councils recognise a need to do something above and beyond what has already been done. In the absence of a licensing scheme, they strongly advise anyone thinking of having a cosmetic treatment to read the advice they have put up on the website, which lists the important considerations.

That is great for those who have considered procedures and are looking for a safe way of getting them, and for those who are trying to find the cheapest solution— I hate to say it, but more often than not, people are driven by the cost factor. That is why they go to Turkey, where these procedures are cheaper. Is there regulation? No, there is not. Should there be? Yes, there should. Those are some of the things we need to see. If there is no regulation and no built-in protection, there is a clear danger.

I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in her place. She and I are often in the same debates; I am always one of those with questions, and she is always very helpful in trying to respond to our requests, so I look forward to her answers later on. I am also pleased to see her retaining her position in the Health and Social Care Department; that tells us all that she is a safe pair of hands, and the Government and the Prime Minister recognise that.

In 2023 alone, an estimated 7.7 million people underwent cosmetic and aesthetic procedures ranging from botox to chemical peels, fat dissolution and facelifts. They are all unregulated, and all of them can go wrong, leaving irreparable damage. That is what we need to make people aware of at all stages.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. This year, in June alone, 28 people in the north-east were left with cases of botulism from botched and unregulated botox injections. That is one of the reasons why the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I chair, will be holding an inquiry later this year into hair products and unregulated beauty procedures. We follow this debate with interest.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has just reinforced the need for this debate that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and others have put forward. These procedures need to be regulated and legislated for. Rules that people can rely on for coverage and security need to be formed and put in place.

As we know, the Government-approved register for medical aesthetic treatments received more than 3,000 reports of complications or adverse outcomes linked to cosmetic procedures; 48% involved women aged between 18 and 25. I believe that is only the tip of the iceberg.

When I read this point in my research, I said to myself, “My goodness, in Northern Ireland, under-18s are allowed to access non-surgical procedures.” Children who need parental consent for a filling at the dentist do not need consent to go for lip injectables. They then have no recourse. Really? I say with great respect, Sir Desmond, that it seems idiotic that we have requirements for a dental procedure, as we should have, but nothing for cosmetic procedures or similar. It again poses a question, and we look to the Minister for a helpful response. This simply has to stop.

I know that the Government and the Minister are absolutely of the same mindset as those of us here, and have every intention of bringing in legislation. I wish to ensure that there is UK-wide legislation. My request, as always—the Minister probably knew this was coming before I got to my feet—is to ensure that we in Northern Ireland are encouraged to have similar legislation. I know councils have taken the initiative and have been to the Health Minister and Department in Northern Ireland to ensure that this happens, but a start made here could provide the initiative and the fillip needed to ensure that Northern Ireland follows quickly. If we are not legislating for the devolved Administrations, they too must have the information and the capacity to introduce legislation similar to that we hope to see here.

Further, we need to do this on a quicker timescale. I was never blessed with much patience, but I have gained it as an elected representative. I know the very procedures that we hope to push along take time, but some urgency in this matter is important. The campaign group Save Face, a register of accredited practitioners and clinics, received 136 complaints in Northern Ireland last year about injectable complications. These people have been disfigured; some may remain like that for years, and some of the effects will last for life. To have no regulation in this field seems absolutely crazy to me. It is difficult to understand why we regulate—rightly so—the fostering of animals by animal shelters and yet allow poison to be injected into a 16-year-old’s face by any Tom, Dick or Harry. My goodness. Can you believe it? It is incomprehensible.

We need to work on this issue at some pace across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I look to the Minister to ensure that regulation is introduced as a matter of urgency. I think everyone today will speak from the same Bible or hymn book, if that is the way to put it; we will all push for the same things. I am very keen to hear the Minister give us some answers on how we can prevent these life-changing consequences of a botched job from ever happening again.

13:59

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing an important debate.

Cosmetic surgery can be affirming and often makes people’s lives better. Although I have some concerns about some of the beauty standards that it reinforces, as has already been mentioned, I recognise that it can transform the lives of many people, but we need to do more to make sure that it is properly regulated.

In my previous life at the General Medical Council, I remember there being concerns about how this issue was looked at. Increasingly, however, lower-level procedures are being carried out by entirely unqualified practitioners, as has been mentioned, and that is simply not safe.

We clearly need to regulate clinics in the UK, but we have also seen the rise of cosmetic surgery abroad. While that may seem cheaper, there is a real cost to “Turkey teeth”; too often, people are coming home with serious complications that the NHS then has to put right. In the four years to 2022, 324 people needed corrective operations after work carried out abroad, most often after trips to Turkey, the Czech Republic and Lithuania. The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons— I will not use the acronym—reports that UK hospital admissions for those cases have almost doubled since 2020, with Turkey linked to eight in 10 of them. In one year, complications from cosmetic surgery carried out abroad cost the NHS about £1.7 million. That is equivalent to about £15,000 for each of those procedures; we heard earlier that it costs about £9,500 for UK-based surgery.

Behind those numbers are real tragedies. In 2019 alone, 25 British citizens lost their life after cosmetic surgery abroad. The Department of Health and Social Care is working with TikTok and clinicians to warn people of the dangers by urging them to speak to a UK doctor first, avoid package deals and check credentials. It is also licensing high-risk non-surgical treatments so that only qualified people can perform them. Those are crucial steps towards raising awareness, but consumers need to make wise decisions.

We also need to have an honest conversation about fairness. If someone chooses to have an elective procedure abroad and it goes wrong, is it right for the taxpayer to automatically pick up the bill? What responsibility do patients have? More importantly, what responsibility do the unscrupulous companies that offer such package deals have? It is a real risk.

What matters is that no one is sold a dream that ends up with painful complications in a hospital bed abroad. We must do more to ensure that people understand the risks that come with the procedures, and to ensure that people are fully informed to safely make the right decisions.

14:02

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate.

With every cosmetic or surgical procedure, there are always risks, so we need our practitioners to be fully trained and experienced in the work that they do. When we think of cosmetics, we think of products that we might find on the high street, which are well tested, and sold or marketed by well-known and trusted brands. When somebody takes the next step of getting a cosmetic procedure, they need to be able to trust their practitioners in the same way that they trust those brands.

The risk of complications increases significantly, however, when the individual carrying out the procedure is not sufficiently knowledgeable or trained, and is not using regulated products or carrying out the procedure in suitable premises. That appears straightforward, but we have been waiting for some time for regulation. We also need to consider how we provide appropriate information to people who wish to receive the procedures. Normally, a licensed practitioner gives effective and clear advice.

The desire and pursuit for a perfect result is also growing, so it is perhaps no surprise that complications are increasing. Over six weeks in the summer, 38 cases of botulism were recorded in the east, east midlands and north-east. According to the UK Health Security Agency, the evidence so far suggests that all the clinics involved in those cases had used unlicensed, botox-like products. It is incredibly important to remember that such situations are not just about “botched” botox, where the results are not as expected due to an error in placement; they can cause serious medical complications. People are essentially being poisoned.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

As well as botox, I would also like to talk about the dangers of fillers. A patient in my constituency, Alice Webb, lost her life due to a procedure called a Brazilian butt lift. We owe it to her, as a Government and as a Parliament, to prevent that happening again and to protect people in this country.

[Amanda Hack]

The case that my hon. Friend mentions is the reason that we are all here. The pursuit of beauty enhancement should not risk somebody’s life, so regulation is very important.

The most recent cases recorded in the east midlands involve reports of patients experiencing difficulty in swallowing, slurred speech and breathing difficulties requiring respiratory support. Given there have been 38 incidents in just a few weeks, we can imagine the countless cases across the country over the last few years. That is why regulation is crucial. I am pleased that our Government are beginning to act and have confirmed the introduction of a licensing scheme, and that, according to Ministers, that is just the beginning. I am sure that the Minister will talk more about the regulation.

I wonder whether we need to break away from the term “cosmetic”. Having a cosmetic procedure is so much more than using a favourite moisturiser or serum; it is a serious procedure that should be carried out by a qualified individual. When I speak to salons in my constituency that provide these procedures, they want to see regulation in place because they are proud of the work that they do for people and of their clients’ results. They want to make sure that people have good experiences rather than the negative ones that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) mentioned.

Licensing will be important to ensure the consistency of standards and to protect individuals from the potentially harmful physical, emotional and psychological impacts of poorly performed non-surgical cosmetic procedures. I would like to hear from the Minister how the regulation and enforcement will happen. Will support be given to the local authorities asked to undertake that work?

I also look forward to the report by the Women and Equalities Committee on its current inquiry into the health impacts of breast implants and other cosmetic procedures. After the regulations are passed, I will write to each salon in my constituency to update them of the changes and hopefully reassure them that their skills and professional qualifications are not being pushed aside by unlicensed practitioners who take advantage of vulnerable people.

14:07

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, and to take part in a debate where all the contributions have been so thoughtful. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing the debate and making an excellent speech about not only regulation, but the wider issues of negative body image, advertising, eating disorders and other medical conditions that we should consider as part of this debate.

As we have heard, non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments have become increasingly popular, including, but not restricted to, lip fillers, injectables, thread lifts, semi-permanent make up, laser treatments, piercing and tattoos. While there is a registration scheme in England for some treatments, such as epilation, tattooing, piercings, semi-permanent make up and acupuncture, some of the riskier and newer types of procedure are not within the scope of the current regulatory regime.

People paying for a procedure need to be confident that the person carrying out that procedure is appropriately qualified. Currently, there is no single system to ensure that that is the case. Distressing reports of lives shattered by botched cosmetic treatments—tragic cases such as that of Alice Webb, whose buttock augmentation procedure, as we have heard, was carried out by someone with no surgical qualifications—must drive meaningful change in how we approach aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.

It is crucial that anyone carrying out invasive treatment is properly licensed and meets high standards of safety. There are too many instances where that is not the case. I was horrified to read in The Guardian a story about a lady in Leeds who booked into a clinic to get something called an endolift procedure, a laser treatment that works by inserting a thin micro-optical wire deep into the skin layer and is used to boost collagen and melt little pockets of fat. She had visited the clinic before for other cosmetic treatments and thought that she was in safe hands, but she was not. After paying £100 for what looked like a good deal, she was administered a counterfeit version of the procedure, which normally costs around £2,000. It has left her with intense facial bruising and she describes herself as “maimed”.

The BBC reported on another horrifying case of a lady in Hull, who arranged more than 30 separate treatments at a clinic, including a breast filler procedure and facial fillers. She thought she had done her due diligence by checking the clinic’s reputation; its website claimed it had

“won Best Aesthetics Clinic in Yorkshire in 2022 at the England Business Awards”

and referred to the man who saw her as a doctor. He was actually a former tattoo artist who had bought an honorary doctorate in business consultancy on the internet. After multiple facial procedures, her face kept swelling, with this apparent doctor claiming that it was from an insect bite and urging her to continue. Eventually she needed hospital treatment, with plastic surgeons confirming that she had undergone botched procedures and suffered a subsequent infection, leading to the difficulties she was experiencing. More than two years later, she claims that she sees “a gargoyle” when looking at herself, and lives in a “nightmare every single day”.

Multiple other complaints have been made about the same clinic, all from people who were under the impression that the clinical director was a licensed medical professional. It is unacceptable that this could have happened. There is no mandatory licensing for those providing potentially dangerous treatments such as dermal fillers and botulinum toxin, as we have heard, while highly risky treatments such as the Brazilian butt lift are frequently administered by individuals with little or no training.

While a small handful of areas across England have introduced their own licensing schemes, including London, Nottingham and Essex, other under-resourced local authorities rely on a fragmented hodgepodge of byelaws, statutes and tangential regulations to try to regulate practitioners in their area. Many lack the resources to provide effective regulation. Can the Minister reassure us in her closing remarks that, if local authorities are to carry out any new scheme, they will be adequately resourced to do so?

Loopholes remain even for surgical procedures. For instance, any doctor on the GMC register can legally perform cosmetic surgery in the private sector, regardless of whether they have the relevant surgical training. Complex procedures such as liposuction are being performed by non-surgeons and potentially in non-clinical environments. That is without doubt a huge risk to patient safety. As things stand, not only are consumers being placed at risk of life-changing difficulties, but the NHS—and therefore the taxpayer—is footing the bill to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.

I have heard it asserted that any standardised regulation or licensing is somehow an impediment to people’s choice and self-expression, but I am sure that a lack of safety is not a crucial part of the appeal of getting these procedures done. If we do not act now, many more people will face unwanted, irreversible, life-changing and even life-threatening consequences.

It is notable that 90% of people working in the industry who were surveyed in 2020 support a new licensing regime. They know, as do the public, that no one benefits from the current arrangement other than those who want to cut corners and ignore their duty of care to clients. The Liberal Democrats therefore support organisations such as the Royal College of Surgeons in calling for a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures, such as lip filling and liquid enhancements. It is astonishing that one is not already in place.

The last Government consulted on a mandatory licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures, but it has never been implemented. Minimum standards of safety, including training and premises that are clinically safe, are simple, basic steps that can make a huge difference. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will be consulting on bringing forward new legislation to tackle this issue. We urge them to do so as soon as possible, and they will have our support to ensure a robust and speedy implementation of regulations.

In closing, I also draw the Minister’s attention to the issue of data collection on cosmetic procedures. There is no systematic collection of data on treatments and their outcome, even for the most invasive treatments. That makes it incredibly hard—or even impossible—for consumers or the Government to assess the risks associated with cosmetic procedures or what licensing changes might be needed. I urge the Minister to address this issue as the consultation progresses. As I have said, the Government will have our support in introducing a suitable licensing regime.

14:13

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important and increasingly pressing issue. I also thank the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), who all made important contributions.

A report by the British Beauty Council showed that spending on non-surgical cosmetic treatments totalled £10.1 billion last year. That includes the 900,000 botox injections that are performed in the UK each year, and other non-surgical procedures, which continue to grow exponentially in popularity. We are not talking about a minor issue here; this is a multibillion-pound industry, which is snowballing at breakneck pace.

Yet this sector remains dangerously unregulated. Although there are training standards, such as the national occupational standards for practitioners in beauty aesthetics, there is no legislative framework to require all practitioners to meet those standards. As a result, some practitioners are not only unlicensed, but unqualified and inadequately insured to perform the procedures they are performing. We cannot sit back and allow patients of these procedures to entrust their safety to unlicensed cowboys profiting from the lack of regulation. It is time to call an end to this wild west free-for-all, and give patients in this industry, and the responsible operators, the protection they need and deserve.

To that end, I am delighted that the previous Government kick-started this process, first by banning cosmetic fillers for under-18s in England under the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021. That was followed by the Health and Care Act 2022, which gave Ministers the power to tighten regulations by introducing a new licensing regime. The current Government are slowly and finally getting into gear on that scheme, but when do they expect to implement this protection as a matter of public safety? What steps will be taken to raise awareness of new regulations to improve public confidence in the non-surgical cosmetic sector as these measures are introduced?

Of the 27,462 procedures performed and recorded by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons in 2024, approximately 93% were performed on women. Young women aged 18 to 25 years old also made up 48% of the 3,000 complaints to Save Face, a Government-approved register of medical aesthetic practitioners. That means that the Government’s failure to get on and implement regulations in this sector is disproportionately affecting a vulnerable group to a significant degree.

Furthermore, the governing voice in this area is social media, again, disproportionately placing the burden of risk on younger people. Researchers at the University of Edinburgh interviewed female Instagram users aged 18 to 30. All of them had undergone, or hoped to undergo, cosmetic surgery, and all of them looked to Instagram influencers for information about cosmetic procedures. With nine in 10 children owning a mobile phone by the time they reach 11, and 75% of eight to 17-year-olds having their own social media account, there is a real danger that our children and grandchildren could be exposed to cosmetic surgery at a young age, unaware of the risks of a cheap bodily enhancement.

Mental health struggles and body image challenges are unfortunately well documented, with almost 850,000 children accessing NHS mental health services in June 2025, and two in three children feeling negative or very negative about their body image, according to a survey commissioned by the Women and Equalities Committee from 2020. Social media, combined with heightened self-scrutiny on video calls since the pandemic, has sadly cast the way in which young people view themselves in an increasingly negative light. As such, the cosmetic surgery “boom”—as termed by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, following a 102% rise in procedures in 2022—is alarming but unsurprising.

A failed procedure can have potentially life-threatening repercussions, and an unlicensed practitioner’s lack of training, skills and experience significantly increases the risk of failure. We owe it to the livelihoods of patients, who are predominantly young women, to improve the safety of non-surgical cosmetic procedures as much as we can. Governments are there not to stifle growth and innovation—the kind that creates jobs, rewards entrepreneurship and helps businesses to grow—but to protect the interests of British citizens in times of need. This is one of those times. The safety, and even the lives, of consumers are at risk if we do not act.

With that in mind, will the Government commit to swiftly implementing a licensing framework to combat such life-threatening risks? Furthermore, the problem in this area is precisely that unlicensed practitioners carrying out procedures are operating under the radar. How do the Government intend to support local authorities to actively and effectively enforce the licensing framework, to ensure that such practitioners are prevented from operating on patients in backroom shadows?

The number of complaints from patients with failed non-surgical cosmetic procedures shows no sign of plateauing. Again, I refer to the figures from Save Face, which received almost 3,000 complaints in 2022, 35% more than in 2020. Complaints about dermal fillers—treatments to add volume, typically to smooth out wrinkles or enhance facial definition—made up almost 70% of that figure.

As we debate this matter today, let us remember the enormity of the influence we are privileged to have. When they go wrong, cosmetic procedures can be life-changing for all the wrong reasons. I urge the Government to accelerate the licensing framework for non-surgical cosmetic procedures and treatments—therefore requiring practitioners to be licensed, qualified and insured—for the sake of public safety and the sake of saving lives.

14:22

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing today’s debate on this important issue, and other Members for their contributions. This is an area of significant interest to colleagues, and indeed the public.

I think this may the first time the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) has spoken formally for the Opposition, so I congratulate her on that, and I wish her colleague, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), well. She made the point that we had been slow. Let me make the point gently back to her that this is an issue I inherited and that, as people will know if they have read Lord Darzi’s report—if they have not, I really commend it to them—both the breadth and the depth of the inheritance for me and my colleague, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, is sometimes beyond description.

I was therefore determined to make progress on this issue, and was absolutely delighted to be able to announce in August that we will, as a Government, step in to regulate in this space. As colleagues will know, doing a press round on an August morning is often not the highlight of everyone’s day, but I was humbled by the responses from families, journalists and campaigners—those women who have shared their stories over many years. I pay tribute to many of them, particularly lots of young women journalists who have taken those stories and told them so powerfully.

The response to that announcement, and the interaction with journalists, was humbling. Indeed, it was a pleasure to make those announcements in my home city of Bristol, where some surgeons have been campaigning on this issue for 20 years, and for them to see what has happened and that the Government are prepared to move in. We are really aware of this issue, and I thank hon. Members for the cross-party support for us moving in this area. We have all seen those troubling headlines about the devastating consequences of unsafe cosmetic practices, and all our inboxes have been inundated by constituents who rightly expect us to make things safer. I am grateful to those who have shared their stories about what can go wrong and who have pushed for action.

I have particular concern for parents who are worried by what their children see on social media, as we have heard this afternoon: young women and girls who are made to feel unhappy in their own bodies by what they see online and feel the need to go through risky and unregulated procedures to ease their concerns. Also as we have heard this afternoon, people think the industry is regulated and are shocked to find out that it is not

The Government of course back small businesses. We recognise the benefits that the industry brings to people and communities. I am also mindful that the sector is full of female entrepreneurship. It is an industry led by women, largely for women, and is a success story to be celebrated, especially in the face of fierce competition from medical tourism. Getting a cosmetic procedure can be a very positive experience—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) and others. The sector is growing to meet a demand, as more and more people seek to take advantage of the increasing availability and affordability of cosmetic treatments. That is a good thing, but for too long the sector has been left with little in the way of safeguards. We need to balance the priority of public safety without stifling creativity and innovation.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) made some excellent points. She visits salons to talk to women—there might also be an occasional man running one of those salons, and we want to work with them, too. She talks to them so that she is informed. I encourage her and others to keep sharing views from the frontline, because people want to do a good job and we are keen to hear from them.

So what are we doing? First, we will prioritise developing legal restrictions on high-risk cosmetic procedures, as we outlined in last month’s response to the consultation. I urge anyone listening to this debate to look at “The licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England”. High-risk procedures include the so-called liquid Brazilian butt lift, which tragically led to the death of Alice Webb in September last year. Her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), has been talking to me about these issues since he became a Member.

Bringing the restricted high-risk procedures into the Care Quality Commission’s scope of registration will mean procedures being performed only by suitably qualified, regulated healthcare professionals working for providers who are registered with the CQC. We will come down like a ton of bricks on providers who flout the rules, with tough enforcement from the CQC.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove raised a really important point about qualifications. He is right that it is currently far too easy for someone with minimal or no training to set themselves up as a practitioner. We will introduce a local authority licensing scheme in England for lower-risk cosmetic procedures such as botox and lip fillers. This was widely supported by many people who responded to the 2023 consultation started by the last Government on the scope of licensing. That consultation received over 11,800 responses. Licensing will ensure consistency of standards and allow action to be taken against practitioners who fail to comply with the requirements. All practitioners will be required to meet rigorous safety training and insurance standards.

Local authorities will run and enforce the scheme, under which it will be an offence for anyone to carry out specific non-surgical procedures without a licence. I understand the excellent points made by many Members about local authorities. It will be an offence for anyone to carry out procedures without a licence. If the rules are breached, businesses risk fines or financial penalties. Detailed proposals will be set out in the consultation in the new year, which will seek views from local authorities on suitable enforcement powers and costs. Many hon. Members here who are experienced in local authorities know that we need to do that carefully with them. We also understand that that will add to local government’s workload, so we will work with them closely to understand what support, training and resources are required as we try to strike the right balance and ensure that councils have enough time to prepare and implement proposals safely across England and to swiftly protect public safety. That will be an ongoing discussion as we go through the next stage of the process.

Licensing will allow people to be confident that the practitioner they choose to perform their procedure has the skills to do so safely. For those in the sector who do the right thing, as so many do, this will protect their businesses and position them as trusted providers in a regulated market.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove also warns about so-called lower-risk procedures falling through the gap. I can assure him and other hon. Members present that we will work closely with all our partners on where we should set the bar to make ensure that the measures we introduce to protect the public encompass all necessary procedures, and that all legislative safeguards are proportionate and informed by a careful evaluation of risk. As I said, we will prioritise action against the highest-risk procedures first. We look forward to setting out the changes in a detailed public consultation early next year.

In terms of the impact of regulation, I want to make it clear that this is not about stopping people from getting treatments altogether; it is about preventing the cowboys, the crooks and the chancers from exploiting people. We want to support legitimate and safe businesses to continue to provide treatments while, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, saving taxpayers from footing the bill when things go wrong.

I began my remarks by talking about societal pressures and the influence of social media. Children and young people can be particularly vulnerable to concerns around body image. The Advertising Standards Authority places a particular emphasis on protecting young and vulnerable people. In 2022, new rules came into effect across all media, including social media, banning ads for cosmetic procedures being directed at under-18s.

To meet the challenges of regulating online, the ASA has rebalanced its regulation away from reactive complaints casework and towards proactive tech-assisted gathering, monitoring and enforcement, using artificial intelligence to proactively search for problematic adds and ensure that children are not being influenced by inappropriate and irresponsible marketing.

Choosing to go through a cosmetic procedure is a serious decision, which requires a level of maturity to undertake an informed consideration of the risks and benefits. That is why many procedures should never be performed on children who are still developing physically and emotionally. In England, it is already illegal to give botox or fillers for cosmetic reasons to under-18s unless it is done by a qualified healthcare professional and approved by a GMC-registered doctor. We want to extend this level of protection, and will be introducing further age restrictions on a range of cosmetic procedures.

This is a UK-wide issue, and it is good to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I thank him for his kind words. I can assure him and others that we are working closely with the devolved Governments to understand and share information on approaches being taken across the country. We are pleased that Scotland is also considering similar information, and I have been really encouraged, in my conversations with officials, to learn about the relationship between our officials and the shared learning that is going on with colleagues in Scotland. This is a really complex area and it is changing all the time, with new things coming on board.

The changes we make will affect livelihoods, and it is essential that we get the balance right, given that we know that people are at risk and the sector is expanding. Government action must be proportionate to protect public safety without restricting the legitimate activities of those businesses. We want to collect data, gather more evidence and give businesses their say through the public consultation. That will take time, but we will leave no stone unturned and work tirelessly with expert partners and people across the sector. The proposals will be taken forward through secondary legislation, and therefore subject to parliamentary process in the usual way before legal restrictions or licensing regulations can be introduced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised an issue around implants. She has been a fantastic campaigner for her constituent, Jan Spivey. I know that she has been in touch with my hon. Friend about that, and has played a key role in ensuring that this issue, along with others, received due parliamentary attention in previous Parliaments when women raised the issue. I myself am due to appear before the Women and Equalities Committee, which has an interest in this issue and PIP. We will certainly want to work with them and await the outcome of their review, to see whether any further work is needed in that area.

I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove for raising such a vital issue and all hon. Members for their contribution. Due to different things happening in London, many parliamentarians who would have liked to be here this afternoon cannot. The hon. Gentleman did excellently by getting in early after the announcement.

It is our duty in this place to protect people like Alice Webb from unqualified practitioners who cut corners, while backing British businesses that do the right thing. This is something we take seriously. Colleagues will want to hold us to account as we deliver, and I give hon. Members my commitment that we want to work with colleagues as we develop these regulations. We want to get them right, and that will take time. This is complex, as people understand. I look forward to working with colleagues to make this a success.

14:34

[Bradley Thomas]

I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for attending. First and foremost in my mind remain Jan, Alice and anyone who has had a treatment that has gone wrong or, in Alice’s case sadly, been fatal.

I put on record my thanks to a constituent of mine, Nicky Robinson, who first brought this issue to my attention, around 12 months ago. Nicky is a CQC-accredited nurse and practitioner. She summed it up to me when she visited my surgery and said, “This is not about banning; this is about raising the baseline clinical standard, not just to protect patients but to protect the industry as a whole.” That is the fundamental point we have to bear in mind. We do not want to be in a society that prevents people from having treatments; we want to enable people to have whatever treatments they want in as safe a way as possible.

Let me acknowledge a few contributions from hon. Members. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) talked about Jan and the crisis that has taken place with regard to implants. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of ensuring that any regulations apply throughout the United Kingdom, not just in England. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) talked about the cost to the NHS. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about confidence in practitioners and highlighted the horrific cases of botulism in the midlands and the north-east. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) emphasised the fact that most in the industry want there to be a standard that protects them, so that they can be confident that people who come to see them are not questioning whether the procedure will be conducted in a clinically safe way.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding. This is one topic that will not go away; it is only going to be on the increase, particularly as societal concerns around body image are exacerbated by the continued use of social media. When the Government introduce a regime around these treatments, it is critical that we work closely with local authorities, so that they have the confidence to administer it properly, with a baseline level of consistency across the country. We must be careful not to place burdens on local authorities that they cannot or do not have the confidence to enforce.

As the Government consult on this issue in the new year, the whole industry will be holding their feet to the fire. Although they have to go through a period of consultation, I encourage the Minister and the Government to work at the utmost pace to get whatever baseline level of clinical standard in place as swiftly as possible, so that we can give confidence not just to industry but to society at large.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments.

14:38

Sitting suspended.

Consumer Affairs

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

15:00

[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—]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I can see they are doing so, which is good.

15:20

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. It has been a while since you chaired Westminster Hall; it is always a pleasure to see you and I wish you well. I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for leading the debate; he is right to highlight all the issues, as well as the examples in relation to his shopping.

I am a diabetic, so I should not be having chocolate, but the odd time that I do, I notice that there are fewer M&M’s in the bag and that a Flake is shorter, smaller and thinner than it was. That probably applies to all the others too, because the price of chocolate and other ingredients has risen. I understand the logic: to keep products at the same price, what is in the bag needs to be restricted.

That is an example of where consumer rights can come into play. Consumer rights are incredibly important, and I have no doubt that we have all had complaints from constituents in some capacity or other involving purchases. It is good to be here to discuss the issue and to make people aware of their rights.

I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well in all he does. His appointment is a recognition of his ability and interest in the Chamber and outside. He and I share many of the same interests, including human rights and religious persecution. His new role is different from that, but I congratulate him on it.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to flights. I will be getting a flight—hopefully tonight—from London City to Belfast City. It happened to be the cheapest flight, which is the reason why we took it. We usually go from Heathrow. There are occasions when there are only two places left and the price is £640—that happens. Believe it or not, a flight that could be £200, £300 or £400 on one day, could be £640 on another day. We have no choice, because if we do not fly home, we will not get home—the options are very limited.

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.

15:29

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate. I extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on his elevation to His Majesty’s Government. It is an honour and a privilege to be a Government Minister, but there are obligations and responsibilities too. I have some asks for him, which I will come to at the end. I am sure he will listen to them and take action. I should declare an interest as a leaseholder, as I will touch on some leasehold issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington talked about a Mars bar, which took me back to my youth. I do not know what size a Mars bar was then, because we had it sliced up and shared between us. I could be getting into a bit of a “Monty Python” story, but perhaps if I had kept to that my figure would be less robust than it is today, so maybe there is an argument for that.

My hon. Friend also touched on the poverty premium. Some people are able to buy things cheaper because of where they can go to buy them. The point about differential pricing is an interesting one, and I would add that loyalty card pricing is a real concern now. It is effectively exchanging data for a discount: we can pay extra if we do not have a shop’s loyalty card. If we have a smartphone, we can jump outside, get wi-fi or a signal and perhaps download one, but we are giving away our data in order to get a discount, and the difference in price is quite extraordinary. There is a lot going with respect to pricing, and my hon. Friend addressed it particularly well. He quoted Which? a lot, and I pay tribute to it for its relentless work in standing up for consumers.

I want to talk about protecting consumers, including in financial services, and how innovation can support the consumer. Importantly, it is not all about regulation, but I will touch on that too. The Treasury Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing and whose core membership is in the room today, has been looking at a number of these issues. Obviously, there is a lot of discussion of them. The Chancellor has been clear in her Mansion House speeches about making sure the financial services sector is able to help facilitate growth. We all absolutely support that, but we need to be careful to get the balance right. The regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, has to regulate against harm while, as its secondary objective, facilitating growth. There can be a tension there.

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.

15:47

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate. What we have heard from hon. Members has been extremely wide-ranging. I will focus the vast majority of my speech on ticket touting and scalping. However, I want to reflect on what we have heard from hon. Members on shrinkflation and on how important it is to allow the public to understand the true price of goods. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that, and also on the challenge of the Tesco Metro in the town centre having significantly higher prices than the out-of-town supermarkets. That is a significant issue in my constituency of Torbay. It is perverse that those who are poorest have to pay more because they are least able to jump in a car, and very often do not own a car, so have little choice but to use the Tesco Metro, or a similar shop, in the town centre. I would like some reflections from the Minister on that.

We also heard about e-bikes. It would be welcome to hear the Minister talk about regulations around e-bikes. The problem is not just e-bikes catching fire but the irresponsible ownership of them, and the fact that there is no age limit on their ownership. I spoke to a police officer earlier this week, and that was one of the challenges she faced. In addition, often those using e-bikes are up to no good, so greater regulation around e-bikes and some words from the Minister would be extremely welcome.

I will move on to the main meat of my speech. Concerts are an extremely enriching part of our lives. In my youth, I may have gone to a Deep Purple or AC/DC concert, but my guilty pleasure was going to “Abba Voyage” not that long ago. This is my only pun: we are seeing dirty deeds done not so dirt cheap to our consumers. Surge pricing and hidden costs are absolutely shameful.

Concerts are a way of driving tourism. I would not have gone to Leipzig a couple of years ago had it not been one of the few venues that I could easily get to to see one of my favourite bands, Goran Bregović and his Wedding and Funeral Orchestra. In my constituency of Torbay we have Electric Bay, an outstanding festival that was headlined by Fatboy Slim this summer on the Saturday night. Taxi drivers and those in the hospitality industry told me that the bay was buzzing, and that it was better than a bank holiday weekend. However, there are opportunities for ticket touts to come into play for these types of festivals.

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.

15:53

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this interesting debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing it. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on his appointment. I look forward to potentially confronting him, but sometimes agreeing with him, at the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions.

It has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is right to raise concerns about a range of different challenges with pricing practices. Consumers often find them confusing and frustrating, and sometimes find themselves completely out of pocket, which is a very annoying feeling. I think we can all agree that transparency and fairness need to be at the heart of our consumer markets. My particular pet peeves, quite a few of which were listed by the hon. Member, include subscription traps—they have definitely got me quite a few times—and the meal deal where I think I have the elements right but have not, and end up paying more than I should. Unclear sizes is another issue. There are also the three-for-two offers where we do not buy the right three things but do not realise that until we are in the queue for the checkout. The one thing that I think is probably a good thing, though, is the shrinkflation of the Mars Bar; we probably need to welcome that as a sign of human progress.

We have also heard some really interesting contributions this afternoon from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I have the honour of serving on the Treasury Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Lady, and today she outlined many of the different ways in which consumers can encounter challenges in the financial sector. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) also made a very interesting speech.

The one thing that I want to pick up on in my remarks is flexible or variable pricing, because the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington outlined some of the drawbacks of such pricing, and how we can feel—particularly if we have to use the railway at peak times—how unfair it is. However, I will just caution colleagues against throwing the baby out with the bathwater regarding flexible pricing, because the flipside of it is that it allows businesses to offer much cheaper prices when demand is low. Consequently, it helps consumers to access goods and services at a price they can afford that they might otherwise miss, and it enables venues to fill their seats, airlines to fill their planes and retailers to manage their stocks efficiently. So long as flexible pricing is transparent, there are benefits for consumers and businesses.

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.

16:00

[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.

16:16

[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.

16:19

Sitting adjourned.