Government to lobby for domestic tourism in Brussels
Contributors are not employed, compensated or governed by TD, opinions and statements are from the contributor directly
The UK Government is to lobby for changes to the European Directive on Package Travel in Brussels in support of the domestic tourism market.
In a letter to former Tourism Minister John Penrose, Consumer Affairs Minister Jo Swinson agreed that domestic operators may not have to be covered under package legislation. Penrose had originally written to Swinson asking her to look into how the directive was holding back British operators and to “liberate British resorts from some of its unnecessary burdens”.
“We will continue to argue in negotiations that the new Directive should not place burdens on businesses where there is little evidence that it adds real value for consumers or business,” she wrote. “Getting the definition of a package right is crucial in terms of achieving the correct balance.”
“It’s ridiculous that the same financial burdens should be imposed on firms offerings inclusive trips to places like Norwich as though it was New York, and Stratford as though it’s Shanghai,” said Penrose. “Because they have to pay an expensive bond if they market themselves as part of a package, many British companies are being unfairly penalised.”
However, Swinson suggested British companies had not been enthusiastic at speaking to her department about their issues and concerns. She asked Penrose to gather industry examples to support her lobbying in Brussels.
European officials are to publish proposals into the new Package Travel Directive in March, although Swinson said it is unlikely any radical change will take place. This is due to a current lack of clarity over click-throughs and who holds responsibility for the booking, with the EC unlikely to include click-throughs as a package and instead advise travellers to get insurance to cover other holiday elements.
“You [Penrose] also mention that the Commission has been struggling with the general issue of where the boundaries of the new Directive should be set. This accords very much with our perception, but in our view the difficulty is caused more by the Commission’s desire to maintain the overall coverage of the directive; information provision; insolvency protection; and liability for the whole arrangement,” she added.