Government blunder opens door to cowboys – TravelMole Comment by Jeremy Skidmore

The travel industry is to remain a haven for cowboys with a protection system that few of us who work in the sector, let alone ordinary holidaymakers, fully understand.

Unfortunately, that’s the only conclusion I can draw from the crass decision by the Government to reject plans for a £1 levy, just hours before the issue was due to be debated in the House of Commons.

Here was a perfect opportunity to create, at a stroke, a simple system that would protect the vast majority of people travelling abroad, while creating a level playing field for companies operating in the industry.

Instead, we’re left with a system so convoluted that even the Civil Aviation Authority doesn’t understand it – a colleague of mine was berated recently by a CAA staffer for saying a company was covered when it wasn’t, only to later receive an apology after the employee realised it was he who was wrong – and half the industry unregulated.

Clearly the Government doesn’t care about consumer protection and is giving an open door to anyone to sell flights, holidays or anything else without looking after the holidaymakers’ money. Yet again, tour operators that play by the book are kicked in the teeth.

The justifications for the decision by aviation minister Karen Buck – another person who doesn’t understand bonding  – don’t stand up, but more of them later.

In truth, there are two reasons why the levy was rejected. Firstly, the airlines, which do not want to ask their customers to fork out an extra penny in such a competitive market, have lobbied hard and obviously have influence in the corridors of power.

Secondly, the Government does not see the levy as a vote winner and believes no-one will thank them for asking the public to cough up an extra £1 for holidays and flights. They also believe that a big airline failure, leaving countless people stranded abroad or out of pocket, will not be a huge vote loser, because people will probably not see it as the Government’s fault.

Let’s have a look at Ms Buck’s arguments. She said people should be free to choose whether to pay for insurance or not and points out that it is not compulsory, for example, for people to have house insurance.

If that’s the case, why are people forced to pay for bonding – which they surely do through higher prices – when buying a package holiday? If that isn’t paying for insurance against the collapse of your holiday, I don’t know what is.

She also thinks airlines should voluntarily rescue passengers from failed airlines in future. But following the collapse of EUJet, fewer than 17% of passengers took advantage of special fares offered by airlines such as easyJet. Incidentally, airlines don’t act out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather in an attempt to swoop up the business of failed airlines.

Not for the first time, this Government has bottled the chance to make a brave decision and instead chosen to hide behind a web of spin and waffle. The travel industry and consumers will be worse off for it.

*What’s your view? Send us your opinion.