Sir Keir Starmer has taken a commonsense position but in recent years the concept of reparations has gained ground
STEFAN ROUSSEAU/PA
To pay or not to pay? That is the question which is dogging Sir Keir Starmer at the meeting of 56 Commonwealth countries in the Pacific island nation of Samoa. Officials from Caricom, the body that represents Caribbean nations, are drawing up an agreement to begin a “meaningful conversation” on Britain paying billions of pounds in reparations for its historical role in the transatlantic slave trade. This will be an embarrassment to the prime minister, who explicitly ruled out any such payments in advance of the meeting. He argued that rather than engaging with such countries in “very long, endless discussions about reparations in the past”, it would be better to spend time on their “future-facing challenges”, including climate change, economic growth and securing favourable financial assistance for struggling economies.
Sir Keir’s response, which would seem to have the advantage of common sense, simply restated the long-held position of the British government. But his position is made more difficult by the fact that in recent years the idea of slavery reparations has been gaining ground. The foreign secretary, David Lammy, has in the past called for “reparations and compensation” to Caribbean nations. The Church of England announced a £100 million commitment last year to atone for its own historical enrichment from the trade: this year its independent oversight group raised that target to £1 billion, to be invested in disadvantaged black communities. Other organisations, such as Glasgow University or the Scott Trust, which owns The Guardian newspaper, have established funds and grants intended to make amends for past links to tainted profits.
• Commonwealth leaders defy Keir Starmer over slavery reparations
Such voluntary initiatives exist at the discretion of organisations, and might well create valuable outcomes, not least in education. But a commitment from the UK government to paying national reparations for a Caribbean slave trade, which was finally abolished in 1833, comes with different considerations. There can be no argument over the abhorrence of this grim traffic in human beings, or the historical injustice of the Bank of England’s £20 million compensation payment to former slave owners while the freed slaves themselves received nothing. But the notion that it is possible, or desirable, to affix a cash figure to a wrong committed nearly 200 years ago is fraught with complications. Estimates of the UK’s reparations bill by campaigners and academics vary wildly, sitting anywhere between £206 billion and £18 trillion: the latter, eye-watering figure, from a report co-authored by the UN judge Patrick Robinson, was described by him as an “underestimation”. Yet with those who oversaw the horror of slavery, and those who endured it, long dead, there is also the vexed question of who would make this potentially astronomical payment, and to whom.
It should be possible for the UK to discuss the painful legacy of the slave trade frankly with Caribbean countries. But it would be a great pity if a row over reparations overshadowed the practical work of the meeting, not least in reinforcing the links between Commonwealth countries and boosting investment. A significant number of small states at the meeting, too, are low-lying island nations, which will need every assistance from wealthier nations to combat the effects of climate change. It shows no disrespect to the past to say that money, where available, must be directed to where it is most badly needed in the present.