Thank you for your e-petition.

In the 2008 Pre-Budget Report, the Government stated it would not proceed with a per plane tax but would instead retain and reform the existing Air Passenger Duty (APD) regime. This decision recognises the need to ensure greater stability in tax policy at a time of economic uncertainty, while maintaining environmental objectives.

In taking the decision to retain APD the Government has recognised that the environmental signals it provides could be improved. The responses to the consultation for the per plane tax highlighted signals could be enhanced by adding a greater number of distance bands, and almost every respondent agreed that an improved distance factor was important in an aviation tax.

Ministers understand some countries will be disappointed with the new banding structure for APD, and that any banded tax structure will see some instances close to the threshold. However, there is a clear rationale that those travelling farther should pay higher rates of APD and, in general, a geographical banding structure provides for this.

For APD purposes, the distance for each country is based on the distance between their capital and London. Basing the bands on distance to capital cities ensures the reformed APD remains administratively simple. Where existing systems allow, as with Russia, the Government has made the split between east and west.

When APD was introduced there was only one rate of tax – the standard rate. The reduced rate was introduced for travel in the lowest class of travel only, which was and still is the class of travel taken by the majority of passengers. However it is described, if premium economy is not the lowest class of travel it attracts the standard (rather than the reduced) rate of APD, and whether or not an individual or a family decides to travel in premium economy is a matter of choice.

Passengers from the UK regions who transit through another UK airport will not pay APD twice. There is an existing concession for connecting passengers. Under this concession a passenger possessing a connecting ticket is only charged APD once for their whole journey, irrespective of the number of flights they take, rather than for each individual stage. This concession is available for any airline to take advantage of; whether or not they choose to do so is a business decision.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page19851

I share your concerns about the Chancellor’s Air Passenger Duty. This new tax seems draconian and punishes travellers arbitrarily based on their distance from London. It also affects passengers travelling to the same country if one airport falls within one band and another falls in another band.

I have brought this proposal to the attention of the European Commission by means of a Parliamentary Question.

The Commission is now reviewing Mr Darling’s plans and will take appropriate steps if the review leads to any doubts over the compatibility of this tax regime with Community law.

You can read my Parliamentary Question and the Commission’s answer by following the link below.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sidesSearch/search.do?type=QP&language=EN&term=6&author=33569

Regards,
Syed

Thank you for writing to the Liberal Democrat members of the London Assembly. As I speak on transport for the group, I am replying on behalf of my colleagues Mike Tuffrey and Dee Doocey.

Liberal Democrats nationally and in London agree with the points you make about the arbitrary nature of the geographical bands for the new Aviation Duty put in place by the Labour government.

The LibDems have long argued for greener and fairer aviation taxation. We called for an end to Air Passenger Duty and for aircraft taxation based on emissions rather than number of passengers. The old system encouraged inefficient half-empty flights and charged no duty on freight. We therefore welcomed the Government’s eventual agreement and the plans to scrap Air Passenger Duty for Aviation Duty but there is still a lot more work to be done.

Our preference is for Aviation Duty to be based on carbon emissions of the actual trip. This would involve the distance travelled by the airliner rather than just a geographical band and so we support your campaign to get this altered.

With best wishes
Caroline Pidgeon AM
Liberal Democrat Transport spokesperson, London Assembly

Thanks for the link – http://www.ukip.org

I wanted to share some articles with you via the website but was told by the web master that external articles are not permitted. This is a shame because the voice of the ‘lay person’ is the one which will not be heard.

Anyway take care
Heena

You are of course quite correct – this whole issue of ever-rising air fares is just a revenue-raising scam by the government, using the sacred cow of so-called global warming caused by so-called carbon emissions. Unfortunately, however I do not believe that signing petitions will have any effect whatsoever.

What is needed is a government which does not merely posture and play politics with issues like this, but which believes in the freedom of the individual and defends the UK and its citizens.

UKIP totally disagrees with this ridiculous policy of constraining the freedom of our citizens to travel – you can see our environment and energy policy at http://www.ukip.org

If you really want to make a difference I would urge you to vote for us at the forthcoming European elections on June 4th and at local and general elections thereafter.

Gerard Batten MEP

This method of taxing, however, is unfair. Rather than splitting up the world into bands, the tax should be based on the distance travelled or simply on units of fuel used (which will have added benefit of incentivising airlines to use more efficient aeroplanes…