The Home Office had good and bad news for the sector in the recent announcement that it would exempt passengers transiting via the UK from needing an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) while increasing the cost of an ETA from £10 to £16.
Aviation leaders had lobbied hard to remove transit passengers from ETA requirements, but no one foresaw a 60% rise in the fee coming eight days after the scheme was extended from applying to visitors from six Gulf states to those from 54 countries, including the US.
The transit passenger exemption, which only affects Heathrow and Manchester, will be a trial and kept under review while the fee hike requires a separate legislative amendment so its introduction will depend on when “Parliamentary time allows”.
Industry reaction to the fee rise was furious. Tourism Alliance director Richard Toomer described it as “staggering” and “a kick in the teeth”, and UKinbound chief Joss Croft called it “a staggering blow” just as ETA requirements for visitors from Europe roll out on April 2.
He warned: “There is a false assumption visitors will continue to choose the UK even if we hike prices.”
Airlines UK chief executive Tim Alderslade urged the transit exemption be “made permanent” but said the ETA fee increase “makes little sense”, while Abta director of public affairs Luke Petherbridge denounced “another tax rise to the sector”.
The Home Office has previously described the ETA as “low cost” and pledged it would be “competitive with equivalent systems run by other countries”.
The EU’s European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), for which there is not yet start date, will cost €7 (£6). But a US ESTA costs $21 (£17), including the processing fee.
Home Office documents on the ETA’s introduction distinguish between passengers transiting airside and those connecting with flights after passing through the border, and have done from the start, suggesting at least a trial exemption was always likely.
The industry will argue the government has at least listened on transit passengers by agreeing a trial. But the quid pro quo is that the system must pay for itself.
The Home Office described the changes as “next steps for a more efficient immigration system” and “measures to reduce the reliance of the migration and borders system on taxpayer funding”.
They are therefore in tune with two government priorities.
The fees, which also increase for other “immigration and nationality services”, are forecast to generate an added £269 million a year.
Global industry leaders have argued for ‘seamless’ travel and borders for some time. This is the price.
Whether this fits the government’s priority for growth is another matter. It appears the Home Office does not share tourism minister Chris Bryant’s aim to increase overseas visitor numbers by almost one third to 50 million a year by 2030.
Presumably, the government will check the £10 ETA does not have a negative impact on numbers before proceeding with the hike.