Question follow-through · 26027
Air Passenger Duty
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Treasury has made an assessment of (a) the potential revenue that could be raised from extending the higher rate of Air Passenger Duty to all private jet flights and (b) the impact of using any additiona
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Treasury
- Tabled
- 1 Sept 2026
- Target answer date
- 3 Sept 2026
- Answer
- 9 Sept 2026 · 8 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
1 Sept 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Treasury has made an assessment of (a) the potential revenue that could be raised from extending the higher rate of Air Passenger Duty to all private jet flights and (b) the impact of using any additiona
3 Sept 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
9 Sept 2026
Answer published
At present, only 36 per cent of private jet passengers pay the higher APD rate, while most pay the same as those on commercial flights, despite private jets offering a more premium service with far fewer passengers and significantly higher emissions per p...
Official data retrieved 1 Oct 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.