Tour Operators (Advertising of Foreign Holidays) (Hansard, 20 December 1983)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the regulation of advertising foreign holidays by tour operators with regard to safety standards of hotels and accommodation in use by families with children.

This week, which leads up to Christmas, is perhaps more important than any other in the year in its dedication to the family. Immediately after the festival, we are usually inundated from every quarter in the press and on television with invitations to think about booking a holiday to look forward to the following summer.

We are shown, or have described, the merits of far-away places with exotic names and a great deal of sunshine, to dispel thoughts of the cold, wet winter clays at home. Many of those holidays are described as being ideal for families, to encourage the patronage of those with children.

Part of the excitement of visiting the places offered is to experience the differences in language, customs and culture, to see how other countries behave, and the advantages and disadvantages of their way of life. All those comparisons add to the excitement and pleasure of visiting foreign lands. However, when a hotel is described as a family hotel, surely it should not just mean that the proprietors are prepared to accept children, but that it is, in general terms, safe for them. That in no way suggests that parents should not take all reasonable steps to care for and protect their children, but, at the same time, they are likely to encounter unexpected hazards that can be lethal and should be drawn to people's attention before they book their holiday.

I should like to give two examples. In June this year, a constituent and his wife took their two young children to Minorca on the first holiday abroad that the family had had for five years. They have a daughter aged four and a son aged two. Their room was on the sixth floor of a family hotel that they had booked from a Cosmos package holiday brochure. On going to their rooms to collect their swimming clothes after breakfast on the third day. their small son was standing in the lift holding his father's hand. As the lift lurched as it started its journey upwards from the ground floor the boy lost his balance on the lift's wet floor and put out his hand to save himself. Unfortunately, the lift had only three sides. Being so small, in an instant the boy's arm was dragged down between the lift's floor and the wall.

Despite the fact that his mother pressed the stop and then all of the buttons, the lift continued to the sixth floor where the father managed to release the child's limb and rush him to hospital. A major operation and 45 stitches sewed back the boy's arm. The holiday was ruined and the family returned home for further specialist advice as soon as it was medically possible. After the operation, the Spanish surgeon told the parents that their child was lucky; two other children had been taken to the hospital earlier in the year but had lost limbs in each case.

The other example that I wish to mention is the report in the Liverpool Daily Post on 26 November about a 20-month old baby. In that case, the baby plunged 80 ft. to his death after crawling through the horizontal balcony 293 bars of a Spanish hotel which was recommended by the tour operators as ideal for family holidays. The rails were 8½ inches apart.

Those are not the only types of hazard, nor is Spain the only country where they can be found. There are other dangers in electric power points without safety shutters, windows without safety catches, poorly protected stairwells and swimming pools with inadequate fencing or supervision. All such matters are, of course, covered by building or other regulations in this country. Should either of the two hotels that I have mentioned, or for that matter many others, be described as family hotels without any warning to parents of the hazards that are likely to be encountered?

I have tried to encourage the trade, through its powerful organisation the Association of British Travel Agents, to take up the issue, because I believe that self-regulation is the best method of control in the majority of businesses and professions. It is sadly reluctant to take on that responsibility, or to insist that hotels take out third party insurance.

Over a period, it would of course be necessary for additional inquiries to be made when the hotels are inspected. It would also place a specific duty upon the tour operators to take special care in that respect. Those involved might also worry about the possibility of changes in the hotels after their inspection. However, none of those arguments in my opinion imposes insuperable difficulties. I believe that tour operators have a duty to warn their clients of dangers that they might encounter in any country in which they offer holidays. I should have thought that those hotels that can provide better service and higher standards of safety would be pleased to advertise the advantages and benefit from the additional trade. Where a trade is unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to protect the public, it is open to Parliament to make good that shortcoming. Therefore, I ask the House for leave to bring in this Bill.