Letter: Secure travel industry needs government monitoring
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I suspect that your leading article 'Holiday horrors' (28 July) will not be the last time you have cause this year to refer to the plight of stranded holidaymakers and the economic difficulties faced by the travel industry. Indeed, the excess of a supply over demand makes this virtually an economic inevitability. Whether, in the long term, the effects of the current recession will influence tour operators in their dilemma of profits or market share remains to be seen. Market share alone will not pay the shareholders' dividends nor the banks their interest.
The implementation of the EC directive on package travel has, for more than a year now, been a source of concern to the DTI charged with its implementation and the industry, which must face its consequences. The Government is somewhat more than under pressure from Brussels to implement the directive, which must be law by the end of this year. Whether or not ministers are unhappy about the introduction of universal bonding is irrelevant. This must, as a matter of EC law, be introduced. The directive will abolish the illogical distinction that requires bonding by all charter operators, whereas there is no similar obligation on surface travel operators. The issues arising from this are complex and potentially costly for the industry, but necessary none the less, as few, if any, would argue against proper consumer protection.
As to a 'health warning' under the directive as it is proposed to be implemented, all travel organisers will be required to state in their brochure how they intend to provide security for the consumer. Failure to provide sufficient evidence of security, or to explain how it is provided, will be criminal offences. However, experience shows that criminal liability does not deter the rogue or the desperate man and there must be an effective monitoring system. It is to be hoped that the current negotiations between the DTI and the industry will result in a body which can ensure prevention rather than cure. The knowledge that an inadequately secured tour operator faces a prosecution after his insolvency is little consolation to the disappointed holidaymaker.
One final point. In preparing proposals for the implementation of the directive, the DTI has acquired a considerable body of knowledge of the workings of the travel industry. Responsibility for this industry falls under several heads - DTI, Department of Transport, Department of National Heritage and the Office of Fair Trading. It would, in my view, be a great waste if the DTI's accumulated knowledge is ignored or dissipated and not used as, at least, the springboard to the creation of a unified government department for the travel industry.
Yours sincerely,
T. S. ROBINSON
Head of Travel Law Unit
Nicholson Graham & Jones
London, EC2
29 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments