A few days ago Britain’s Finance Bill received royal assent and in so doing passed into law changes to Air Passenger Duty (APD). As a consequence travellers to the Caribbean from the UK will from November pay more in tax than those going to almost any part of the US.
Despite this, and the Caribbean region not being able to have the effects of this discriminatory tax mitigated this year, the Caribbean succeeded in worrying the British government at a particularly fraught time in British domestic politics. For the first time ever it mobilised thousands in the Caribbean diaspora and had their voices heard.
For those who do not know the background, APD is an allegedly green measure aimed at taxing aviation’s carbon emissions. Originally introduced by the UK government in 1994 it imposed a flat rate tax on all passengers departing from UK airports at varying levels depending on the class of travel.
Last November, however, the UK made known that it planned in the context of its annual budget, a number of significant changes by introducing four distance-related bands. For the Caribbean they proposed that anyone travelling in coach from the UK will pay 25 per cent more in tax from 1 November 2009 and 87 per cent more in tax from 1 November 2010 with higher rates of tax applying in other classes of travel.
Extraordinarily, this measure has the effect of discriminating in favour of the US over the Caribbean “for reasons of administrative ease.” It does so by determining that all of the US and Hawaii (although oddly not the USVI or Puerto Rico which are considered Caribbean) are “closer” to London than all of the Caribbean.
The measure is particularly damaging to the region in economic terms at a time of dramatically falling visitor arrivals as a result of the global recession, especially as the UK is the leading tourist market for many Caribbean nations and because many of the region’s newer visitors have to transit London.
However, at a more personal, emotional and most importantly, a political level, it significantly affects many in a less financially well-off part of British society who travel frequently to the region: the Caribbean diaspora.
The Caribbean came late to recognising the need to campaign on this issue. Despite this, in a less than co-ordinated and very Caribbean way it had its voice heard. Simply by the weight of its various representations and complaints, it joined up in the minds of the UK government and opposition parties the fact that the Caribbean and its diaspora was being disadvantaged. That is to say it heard at one and the same time the anger of the people of Caribbean descent living in the United Kingdom; received letters from Caribbean heads of government; experienced a high profile national media and lobbying campaign led by the Caribbean Tourism Organisation with the support of the Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association; received representations from all of the Caribbean’s diplomatic representatives including Cuba and the Dominican Republic; heard from political friends of the region in both Houses of Parliament who met with ministers and spoke-up in Parliament; saw petitions on the Prime Minister’s web site; and involved travel agents who encouraged their clients to raise the issue with their MPs. Which is to say nothing of those Caribbean leaders, most notably the Prime Ministers of Jamaica and Barbados and the Leader of Government business in the Cayman Islands, who visited to make direct representations or well-known and popular figures of Caribbean descent in the UK who wrote in national newspapers about how discriminatory the measure was to those in Britain of Caribbean descent.
Although the Finance Bill has now become law and APD banding will come into force in November, the battle is far from over. Specifically the British Treasury Minister responsible promised MPs in a debate in the House of Commons on July 9 to instruct her officials to look further at the issue of the banding disparity between the US and the Caribbean. This suggests the Caribbean and its diaspora still has everything to fight for. It implies that if pressure is maintained, a change in banding or the actual rate proposed might be possible in the next finance bill. In practical terms this would mean encouraging the British government to address the issue in its November budget statement which establishes the UK government’s approach to the budget for the year 2010-11, the period when the most swingeing increases in the APD will be introduced.
There are lessons for the Caribbean in what it has so far achieved in London that deserve wider consideration at the right time. Space does not permit me to go into any great detail but the messages coming out of what has happened might be summarised in the following ways:
Firstly the diaspora is a powerful political voice, especially if an issue relates to its pocket book. If guided and given the ammunition by the region, its diplomatic representatives and community activists, it can cause MPs from any political party and especially those with significant numbers in their constituency from the Caribbean, to take action. This is as relevant in the US and Canada as it is in the UK.
Secondly the Caribbean has many more friends in both houses of the British Parliament than it recognises. Quite literally dozens of politicians spoke out on behalf of the region.
Thirdly the Caribbean’s voice is causing Britain to look again at what it can do to ameliorate the tax in relation to the region. This is a radically different response from the Treasury’s earlier dismissive approach. This suggests that changes in policy are possible if guided, well argued and accompanied by political and media pressure in the UK.
And fourthly, the Caribbean dominated parts of the APD debate and was able to force its issue to be recognised, indicating that the Caribbean can cause its specific concerns to be taken notice of in a distinct way
The issue of APD and the Caribbean is far from over. Despite what has been written in some Caribbean publications it is one of the few examples of the region as a whole coming together in a foreign country and mobilising almost all of its resources to a single end. Above all it has demonstrated, for the first time, that the voice of the Caribbean diaspora in the UK can be joined up, be political and if encouraged and directed, bring benefit to the Caribbean on an issue that matters.
Previous columns can be found at www.caribbean-council.org
