---

Confident Consumers

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. I understand the point, but I also understand that if the Government introduce extra prevention, they propose to withdraw reaction by cutting back on the fire service. That concerns me, and I look forward to the outcome of the consultation. The Minister also spoke of introducing legislation for the security industry to protect consumers, which I welcome. The problem is that the Government did not provide the resources or allow time to register people in the security industry, so for some months, the industry has been in flux. People who should be registered are not registered, and people who are acting illegally should be closed down. It is rather a mess. When consumer legislation is introduced, I urge that enough time should be allowed for the right regulation to be enforced and that it is not rushed through. Creating confident consumers in the health service is particularly important. Back in November, the Prime Minister gave a guarantee to consumers of the health service that nobody would have to wait more than six months for an in-patient operation at an NHS hospital. The Government failed to meet that in November, December, January or February. The number of people waiting more than six months is growing. If we are to create consumer confidence in the NHS, should there not be some quick remedy for those who wait more than six months, when there is a guarantee—not a target or an aspiration, but a guarantee—that they will not have to wait more than six months? Should there not be a method whereby they can be transferred to another hospital for an immediate operation, given compensation or treated in the private sector? If we expect companies in the private sector to meet all the regulations, why do we not expect the Government to do so? The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine spoke about citizens advice bureaux. I am told by citizens advice bureaux in my constituency—I expect hon. Members across the country hear the same comments—that they are dealing with more and more debt management problems. Unfortunately, some of those are coming about because vulnerable people have been given tax credits, have found that they have been overpaid and are being asked to pay back thousands of pounds. I have had people in my constituency office in tears, saying, ““I can’t possibly meet these bills—what are my options? Am I going to go bankrupt? I can’t sleep. My marriage is on the line.”” Those problems are being sorted out by local citizens advice bureaux. I was horrified to learn that no Government money goes directly to them, but only to the national organisation. If the Minister wants to improve debt management, and I think that he genuinely does, I am not sure that creating a semi-state advice centre is the way forward. That money should be given directly to local citizens advice bureaux, which have the great advantage of being seen to be completely independent of the state and of business, and will give impartial advice. That would represent a change in attitude from the Government, who always seem to think that they can impose from the top, whereas this would be a great solution from the bottom upwards. The Minister is right to say that ombudsmen have a significant role to play in protecting vulnerable people if the banks do someone wrong, as they often do. The process may be lengthy and frustrating, but it does not cost anything, and ultimately the bank is bound by it but the person is not—they can still challenge the ombudsman’s decision through the court if they are not happy with it. I fail to see why the Government cannot accept that principle when it comes to themselves. They are the only organisation—the most powerful organisation in the land—who, when they are found guilty of maladministration, say, ““Sorry, but we don’t agree; we’re not guilty”” I am sure that half the time banks do not think that they are guilty of maladministration, but they still have to pay up. If the Minister could go back and say, ““We’ve been unfair to these pensioners””, I think that the country would say, ““This Labour Government are beginning to listen.”” However, I fear that that will not happen. I should like to talk mainly about the travel industry, which I have been involved in for several years. When it first developed, many years ago, people had to pay a fortune to go abroad, and only the rich travelled. Then came the invention of the package holiday, Freddie Laker and the Association of British Travel Agents. People went into their local travel agent, looked at brochures, and picked a holiday. If the holiday company went bust, they were covered either by ABTA or the ATOL—air travel organiser’s licence—system. Everybody had consumer confidence, and in a highly competitive industry, no consumer ever lost out. Now, the travel industry has moved on. People do not necessarily go to their local travel agent because they are able to book online or by telephone. A system called dynamic packaging has been introduced, whereby people do not book a package holiday but book the airline, hotel and car separately. It is also called split contracting. The problem with that system is that if any provider of the travel arrangements goes bust, the consumer is most unlikely to be covered by protection. If they have booked online, they are not covered in any form whatsoever. They will have an element of protection if they happen to have paid by credit card, but most people do not like to do that because they have to pay a fee on top of the cost of the holiday. If a major low-cost airline were to go bust, many thousands of people would lose out. The waters have been muddied even further by the European Union. There is an EU directive on travel that is so incomprehensible that I am sure that the Department of Trade and Industry does not understand it, let alone local travel agents and consumers. All the EU has done is confuse matters. People could book a holiday to America on an American airline, which might fly under chapter 11 protection. In other words, it might be bankrupt. Many consumers in this country are likely, sooner or later, to lose a great deal of money. I fear that the Government will be blamed for sitting on their hands. The travel industry has welcomed a proposal to charge a levy of £1 on every ticket, thus building up a fund. Every consumer would then be covered. It is a simple solution that does not require all sorts of bonding or ATOLs. People would be covered whether they booked through an ABTA agency or online. Such consumer protection would give people great confidence. I urge the Minister to consider that because the travel industry is highly competitive and produces great value for money. In the past, when big firms have gone bust, all consumers have been protected. I fear that, although we still have the highly competitive industry, we also have difficult times because of higher fuel costs and the possibility of booking with airlines that fly under bankruptcy protection, and consumers could lose a lot of money. I appreciate that the Government’s heart is in creating confident consumers but I sometimes worry about their methods.