The UK government has “missed the opportunity” to protect the travel industry from the impact of future pandemics and health crises that could again shut down international travel.
The House of Commons’ Transport Committee made several recommendations in its report into how the government handled international travel restrictions during the Covid-19 crisis.
But most of these suggestions have not been endorsed or accepted in the government’s response to the committee’s UK Aviation: reform for take-off report, which was published in April.
The committee’s recommendation for advice and analysis on the government’s decision-making to be made publicly available has not been backed, nor has the proposal for allowing the travel industry to claim compensation for economic losses when restrictions are imposed solely on international travel.
Conservative MP Huw Merriman, who chairs the transport committee, said: “Specific measures to protect the industry from future pandemics, and allow it more transparency and involvement in decision-making on restrictions, have not been endorsed.
“It’s difficult to expect the industry to expand and take financial risks if it has no comfort that it could be placed into restrictive measures again. The industry deserves more certainty.”
Merriman also criticised the government’s lack of support for bolstering and improving consumer protection for travellers in areas such as refunds, which became a major issue during the pandemic.
Calls to give the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) more “up-front powers” to better protect passengers’ consumers rights have been “noted” by the government but without any timetable for any potential changes to be made.
“The pandemic highlighted several holes in consumer rights around travel but today’s disappointing response will not offer any comfort for travellers,” added Merriman.
“This response is poor on consumer rights, poor on refunds, poor on progress on airline insolvency reform and poor on preparation for future health crises.
“Recommendations to provide peace of mind and consumer redress for travellers have been rejected. The regulator has to apply to court to get compensation redress for passengers.
“It cannot be right, for industry and consumer, that the regulator is still in court four years on from a series of flight cancellations. In other countries, the compensation would have been immediate.”
The committee said the government had acted on some of its recommendations, such as its current slots “amnesty” for airlines and ordering London Heathrow airport to cut passenger charges over the next five years. Several suggestions to speed up the recruitment of new staff have also been accepted.
“However, there is still work to do and if the regulator was given up-front powers we would see a more cohesive approach compared to leaving decisions to individual airlines and airports,” added Merriman.
The Airline Insolvency Bill, which would change the way airline failures are dealt with in the UK, is currently in limbo and did not feature in the last Queen’s Speech. The government has yet to give a full response to the recommendations of the Airline Insolvency Review, which was published in 2019.
Clive Wratten, CEO of the Business Travel Association, said: “Today’s update from the Department for Transport was scant on details and lacked urgency of implementation.
“The BTA welcomes the commitment to an international travel toolkit for future pandemics. However, we are disappointed that something we worked closely with the government to get implemented, is not being rolled out now in a transparent way.”