THE battle against the Air Passenger Duty (APD) and its crushing effect on the Caribbean tourism industry continues. Last week, I called for and was granted a special debate in Parliament on the subject. Members of Parliament took part from both the Labour and Conservative parties.

I pointed out that two successive rises in the APD meant that passengers to the Caribbean now pay £75 per person on the duty and passengers in all the other classes paid £150. I explained, as I have set out for Treasury ministers in the past, that the fundamentally iniquitous thing about the APD was the way it was calculated.

I was at pains to point out that everyone supported action to protect the environment and that nobody wanted to deprive the British Treasury of much-needed revenue. But I argued that the method that the UK had chosen to calculate the APD is simply indefensible.

Countries are put in zones according to where their capital cities are. So, because the US capital is in Washington, that puts the US in a cheaper zone than the Caribbean. Consequently, flying to anywhere in the US, including Hawaii, is cheaper than flying to the Caribbean. In particular, airline passengers pay less duty if they fly to Florida than if they fly to the Caribbean. Because Florida is a direct rival in the holiday market to the Caribbean, this is a very real problem.

I also examined the environmental arguments for the duty. When the duty was first introduced many MPs were swayed by the idea that it had an environmental purpose. But if the tax was really designed to discourage air travel, it should be higher on short-haul flights. If you are travelling from the UK to Europe you can go by modern high-speed train. So, high duty on those flights stands a good chance of encouraging people to use alternative means of transport.

But there is no alternative to flying if you want to travel to the Caribbean. And duty on long-distance flights looks suspiciously like a revenue-raising device. Furthermore, if the duty was really about protecting the environment it would take into account the type and age of the aircraft, whether it is full or half-empty and how long it is actually in the air.

I went on to point out that the APD was having a negative effect on British business. Increasing numbers of British business travellers are flying to airports on the Continent and flying to the Caribbean from there to avoid paying duty. I further made the point that business travellers contribute £70 million to the British economy and there was a real danger that this was money being slowly lost because of APD charges.

Then I set out the damage to the Caribbean tourism industry being caused by the APD. I reminded Parliament how dependent the Caribbean is on tourism. For instance, 25 per cent of Jamaica’s workforce is employed in tourism. But arrivals from the UK to the Caribbean are declining and this must partly be due to the APD.

And finally I set out what a burden the APD was on British citizens of Jamaican origin who choose to travel home to see friends and family. I pointed out that many families of Jamaican origin save for long periods of time to travel home, and the total APD that they were paying as families represented a big outlay.

I was supported in all these points by MPs of both parties, and I hope that by calling for and getting this debate early in 2011 I have reminded government ministers that some of us are determined to continue campaigning on the issue.

Earlier in the week I called a meeting of concerned members of parliament and the Caribbean high commissioners to discuss the APD. A number of my colleagues pointed out to the high commissioners that more needed to be done to mobilise the Caribbean Diaspora on this issue. A fellow MP representing one of the biggest Caribbean communities in the country said that he had not received a single letter or postcard on the subject.

He compared this to the hundreds of letters he received on other issues. High Commissioners seemed taken aback by this. Many seemed to think that because Caribbean heads of government had spoken to the British prime minister, that was all that was required. MPs tried to convince them that in the British system it was very important to mobilise voters to put pressure on MPs.

Some colleagues said that the high commissioners need to think about modernising their methods of communication with their nationals. The Internet and various social network sites were suggested. It remains to be seen if high commissioners take this advice. Certainly it has long been my view that the greatest underused asset that the Caribbean has is its Diaspora.

But I am still hopeful of persuading the Government to review the workings of the APD. My next step will be take a deputation of MPs of all parties to lobby Treasury ministers on the subject. This is a battle that we have to win.

The Air Passenger Duty structure of placing countries in zones based on where their capital cities are means that flying to anywhere in the US, including Hawaii, is cheaper than flying to the Caribbean.