Air Passenger Duty
Posted by Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, at 10:33, Thu 9 July 2009:
Climate change is a huge concern to many Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituents. I probably receive more letters and emails on environmental issues than on anything else. So I was a bit thrown when the question of Air Passenger Duty came up in the Finance Bill.
Government proposals within the Bill are to charge passengers higher Air Passenger Duty the further the distance they fly out of the UK. But rather than being based on the exact destination the passenger is flying to, the Duty will be based on the capital city of the country the passenger is flying to. This means that flying to the Caribbean will always incur a higher Air Passenger Duty than flying to the USA, even though many places in the USA are further away from London than the Caribbean is.
I am all for imposing “environmental” taxes that work to reduce carbon emissions. And I know that people in the Caribbean are also in favour of fighting climate change (not least because the region has started to feel the effects, and many of the smaller islands are at risk of flooding and submersion). But I am concerned that the current proposals put an unfair disadvantage on the Caribbean. As many people in the region are pointing out, it seems wrong that Caribbean tourism will be worse hit than the USA despite North America being arguably the biggest contributor to global carbon emissions. I am also concerned that many people flying to the Caribbean from London are not doing so as tourists in the true sense of the word, they are people visiting family and friends, attending wedding and funerals. Many of these people will have saved up for years to make the big trip back to their country of origin and it seems unfair to penalise them specifically.
I would like to see an air tax brought in that is truly environmental, that penalises airline companies that are not working to reduce their emissions – for example by flying half-empty planes or flying inefficient planes – and that recognises the fact that many people save up for years to return to their country of origin to visit friends and family.
What do constituents think on this matter? Is Air Passenger Duty an effective way of cutting carbon emissions, and are the current proposals fair?
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Tom gray, 10:45, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Why don't you propose an amendment that the tax is related to the geographical distance between the 2 airports - how difficult is this?
Posted by Kate Houlden, 10:47, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I agree - as it stands, travel to the Caribbean is unfairly penalised.
Posted by Steve Pagett, 10:47, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
One small step for what ?
Not for the environment.
This is simply a blunt instrument which is not ready for passing ... YET.
Short hall flights where overland alternatives are possible are greater climate crimes - how is this being addressed by the bill ?
Posted by Shimrit Elisar, 10:49, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I think taxing people for making journeys is a cop out. We are already being overtaxed for everything when the biggest culprits are the companies themselves. The government should find a way to avoid taxing the weak and get their money from big business who are the cause for most of the pollution.
Posted by Steve Pagett, 10:51, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Is the tax income going to be invested in rail links or in overall transport reductions?
The Carribean is not alone with the problem - if global measures are the way forward we need to
Think globally and Act locally.
Posted by Jonathan Law, 11:05, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Every plane has to load fuel before it sets off from a UK airport - measured to suit its destination, and reflecting precisely the use of energy resources. Why isn't an aviation fuel tax proposed by the UK government? This would sharpen the airline's attitude to flying with half empty planes, and tempt them to look more favourably at flying slower services (with vastly lower energy use)
Posted by Andrew Senior, 11:27, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Airlines should pay penalties on empty seats rather than a tax be imposed on passengers. Bring back stand by tickets.
Posted by John Callon, 12:32, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Diane - you've managed to summarise a complex question quite well, but there must be other options to consider.
I'm not sure whether this is a regime that will just apply to the UK or is being brought in across the EU or across the world.
If it is just for the UK and I am going to fly to NZ - which I do every other year - or to Southeast Asia which I do every year, then I would catch a plane to Frankfurt or Amsterdam and have a separate booking for the rest of my journey. If it is just for the EU, then I would fly to Zurich and catch a Swissair plane to my ultimate destination.
That would be one way around the proposals you describe and people would catch on to that pretty quickly. That's why there needs to be some other way that seeks to reduce pollution but not necessarily flying per se.
Send the boffins back to their desks to have another try.
Posted by Nic Knowland, 12:37, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I certainly don't understand why the tax should be based on where, rather than how far, a flight would go/be... and agree with the idea that it should be fuel based, see post... 09/07/09 12.05...
Another important point is to make sure that any tax is ring fenced to be spent on other CO2 reduction initiatives such as more grants for households to install Solar Hot Water Panels, more Offsore Wind Farms and Concentrated Solar Power (CPS) from the deserts...
Decarbonization of the energy supply chain is probably our best bet to fix the problem since it is unlikely that we will be able to stop our selves from using energy one way or other..
Posted by Jonathan Hogg, 13:22, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Good grief. When will Governments stop mucking about at the edges and just introduce a carbon tax.
Honestly, the planet is doomed.
Posted by Robert Pendar-Hughes, 16:55, Thu 9 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Dear Diane, Your post bag may well be filled with constituents anxious about the environment but will making air travel the preserve of the rich and privileged save the planet, I think not. They should be more concerned, like me, that our Government's even contemplating imposing yet another tax on ordinary citizens on top of the Income Tax whammy we can expect in 2010.
Posted by Matt Clear, 08:37, Mon 13 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
To rehash the best arguments from earlier posts, what we need is:
a) a carbon tax, with the proceeds ringfenced towards climate change-preventing methods
b) a heavy tax on short-haul flights where rail is a comparable alternative in terms of time (e.g. London-Paris, Bristol-Manchester or indeed most GB internal flights), with the money raised to be ringfenced for high-speed rail
c) a tax on empty seats on planes.
If APD is going to be raised, then yes, it must be charged from actual starting point to actual destination. But the three above ideas are more pressing and important.
Posted by David Heigham, 17:55, Mon 13 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
This is a really duff proposal. If you want to tax flights by destination. every international airport has a unique code ( the one in big letters on your baggage tag ) and can easily have a unique tax rate.
You will still find that people who want ot fly to New Zealand start changing planes in Amsterdam; and charter fights to the Caribbean will change their flight codes at a stopover in Paris. That will increase the fuel consumed per journey, and make travel less convenient.
If we cannot have proper carbon taxation agreed internationally, how about an internationally agreed surcharge on fuel for international flights, the money collected to go to pay for all those promises of aid for the poor and hungry of the world that our politicians have just "committed" themselves/us to at the G8?
Posted by Jo Homan, 21:34, Wed 15 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I agree with the first comment from Tom Gray and with what Matt Clear says.
Posted by Diane Abbott, 11:00, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Thank you for so many constructive and interesting ideas on Air Passenger Duty. During the debate on the issue in the House of Commons, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury Sarah McCarthy Fry promised to look into the disparity in the taxes – particularly between flights to the US and to the Caribbean.
I think many of the posts have pointed out what is really important in this issue. It is not about taxing individuals more, it should be about making big businesses accountable for their carbon emissions. Other excellent suggestions here are: encouraging rail travel instead of short haul flights (which inevitably means improvements to rail travel and cheaper tickets), ring-fencing the proceeds from “green” taxes for improving renewable energy resources and public transport, instead of taxing passengers tax: carbon emissions, empty seats on planes, aviation fuel or fast flights.
I will be writing to Sarah McCarthy Fry to voice these suggestions and will post her reply here when I receive it.
In the meantime, look out for my next post on carbon offsetting and Ed Miliband’s Low Carbon Transition Plan.