---

Confident Consumers

All of which generously leads me on to my third point. I believe that consumers themselves have a personal responsibility to take informed decisions. It is not for the Government to protect consumers who took rash decisions when they were in a position to have made an informed choice. It is right, in cases where information is available, to make a rational choice or decision, but consumers must face the consequences of their choice if they make it carelessly. In fact, if the truth be told, the distinction between Government, business and consumer may be partially false, for we are all consumers and we all have a responsibility to ensure that we are appropriately informed. The Government can, of course, help to ensure that the most vulnerable consumers are protected by clamping down on companies that use rogue practices. In the end, I still believe that the principle of caveat emptor should always remain the consumer’s motto. Before I turn to the consultation that was mentioned earlier and deal with ““consumer voice”” and Consumer Direct, I would like to raise two specific issues with the Minister. First, he has had the pleasure of reading many papers this week, so he may be aware that we have been pressing for a national debate on the future of small shops. Promoting the health of our high streets is a classic example of how shared responsibility can work. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that there is a level playing field and that players within the market are not unfairly disadvantaged. That is why we welcome the Competition Commission’s inquiry into the grocery market, so long as it is thorough and comprehensive. I am pleased to say that I have had a direct assurance from the commission that that will be the case. As the Minister and the House will know, allegations have been made of predatory pricing and unfair behaviour to suppliers. If they are proven, they must be exposed and dealt with properly. It is in the interest of retailers and consumers alike that those claims are investigated thoroughly because, in the end, if the final report produced after 18 months or two years is not trusted by the market, the danger is that we shall face calls for a fourth inquiry into the market. That would not be good for retailers, large or small, or for consumers. Equally, in addition to the role of the Government and business, it is the responsibility of small independent retailers to respond to changing consumer demand and to seek out and develop the new market. Most of them already do, but there is a need to encourage firms constantly to seek to improve and not to assume that the Government can always protect them from open competition. Consumers need to realise that they have a vital part to play in the shopping world. Many consumers rightly say that they value their small local shops. If they do, they have a responsibility towards them. After all, it is their spending power that can make the difference. They must recognise that if they genuinely value their local shops, they must use them. Indeed, that is one of the reasons I have endorsed the excellent campaigns by the Evening Standard and, more recently, by Friends of the Earth, which have encouraged people to use their local shops more. The second issue is the growing concern about instances of alleged chip and pin fraud. This week, we have heard that hundreds of customers at garage forecourts have had their details stolen as they paid for petrol using their chip cards and pin numbers. Those incidents highlight the need for customers to make sure that they do not allow the advent of new technology to lull them into a false sense of security—as the Home Office knows, no IT system is completely foolproof. However, it is vital that consumers have confidence that the systems they use are generally secure. Given the clear public interest, will the Minister tell the House what action his Department is taking to establish the nature of the problem, what steps might be taken to minimise it and how the industry intends to maintain consumer confidence in what is after all a relatively new scheme? In particular, does he intend to meet APACS—the Association for Payment Clearing Services—to establish the facts? If not, I urge him to try to do so, although I appreciate that these are early days in his job. I turn to some of the Government’s proposals to rationalise the process of consumer advice, advocacy and redress. In principle, there appear to be considerable benefits from such a move. However, there are a number of points on which we shall seek clarification and reassurance, not just today but as the Bill is debated and implemented. Indeed, the implementation timetable is one of the issues that concerns me. The Government have set out a timetable for consumer voice to be established as a shadow body by November 2007—the Minister alluded to that earlier—which will take up its full responsibilities by January 2009. Significant changes of that nature cannot and should not be rushed, but I would welcome, either today or when he has had the chance to consider them carefully, the Minister’s views on the matter, especially on the measures that will be taken to avoid policy and management drift over what could be a three-year period as the existing system is phased out and the new one phased in. What arrangements will be made to ensure that staff are aware of the status of their employment so that they can concentrate properly on implementing the new scheme effectively? A distracted and unmotivated staff is in no one’s interests. The Government hope that one result of a consolidated advocacy and redress system will be to deliver better value for money. Incidentally, I enjoyed the Minister’s vociferous starter for 100 at the beginning of his speech and I look forward to similar exchanges of a partisan nature. On a non-partisan point, however, can the Minister give me an assurance that the attempt to seek better value for money is not actually a cost-cutting exercise and that there will be no net reduction in the resources dedicated to consumer support? As the Government contend in their document, the new joint association will be both large and powerful and will thus enhance the voice of the consumer in Government, which could prove helpful. However, there is a risk that other equally legitimate bodies could be marginalised in that policy development; for example, the Consumers Association and Citizens Advice, both of which are highly respected organisations. They have gained tremendous experience over the years and are trusted by the public. They perform a useful role and it will be important for the Government to make a clear commitment that such independent bodies are not crowded out by the Government’s new, substantial advocacy body. What assurances can the Minister give me that the body will not prove overly dominant in both the advice and representation roles envisaged in the consultation document? Equally, it will be vital for the credibility of consumer voice that it is seen to be independent of, with the ability to dissent from, Government. Is the Minister satisfied that the structural arrangements proposed will provide that degree of impartiality and independence? The Government plan a range of options for the structure of consumer voice. Can the Minister give us an indication of their preferred option, and can he assure us that the views of all those consulted will be properly taken into account in reaching that conclusion? I think that the Minister alluded to this in his remarks, so I suspect that he will accept that an effective enforcement and sanctions system is only one of the ways in which responsible business practice can be ensured. Given the earlier comments about the Hampton review and the need to target energy on enforcement, what action will the Government take to encourage suppliers to manage complaints effectively, as well as to impose sanctions when they do not? After all, I very often think that carrots prove more effective than sticks. I would also welcome the Minister’s views on how consumer emergencies will be handled. If a utility company, for example, fails to make urgent repairs, principal redress seems to lie in an ombudsman system and will very often occur some months after the event. Frankly, that is of little help to the people affected. Last year, Energywatch dealt with 280,000 such problems. Does the Minister, like me, understand that there is a possible danger that those consumers will be simply stranded by the proposed new system, which will work very differently from the current system? Will the Minister offer further clarification about where responsibility for consumer education will lie? We touched on that issue earlier, when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is sadly not in his place now, asked a question about it in the context of the financial services sector. What will be the role of consumer voice, given the existing role of the Office of Fair Trading? In particular, how will consumer voice co-ordinate its new role in educating consumers, which is anticipated by the Government, with the OFT’s mandate to promote a ““national consumer education strategy””? Informed and empowered consumers benefit us all. They can use their knowledge and spending power to get what is best for them and their families, and they are better able to avoid fraudsters and conmen. They can both encourage producers and retailers to raise their standards and businesses to innovate and respond to their needs. Where consumers recognise the wider social value of, for example, a healthy high street, they can support good local shops, which very often form the focus of both our rural and our urban communities. That is why effective competition and consumer laws are important to a modern economy. The Government have stated that their ambition is to create the best consumer regime by 2008. That is a good ambition, if it is tempered by a recognition that consumers’ rights must be balanced with responsibilities and, frankly, that each of us—the Government, business and consumer—share those responsibilities. But effective consumer policy must also balance the rights of the consumer with a healthy attitude to vigorous but fair competition and a recognition that, if we hamper business with unnecessary rules and regulations, none of our worthy ambitions can be realised. I look forward to hearing from the Minister—whether at the end of the debate or in writing—on the points I have made, and I certainly look forward to what I can see will be a lively debate, as the Bill is developed and presented to the House.