CUT TO DOMESTIC AIR PASSENGER DUTY SETS DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

The announcement of a 50% cut to Air Passenger Duty on domestic flights last week is worrying. Not because we are against flying per se, but because the impact sets a dangerous precedent.

The cut will apply to flights on routes where train travel is often quicker. Take Heathrow to Manchester, for example. Why are five return flights on this route each day permitted? The train from central London to central Manchester takes two hours. But the problem lies in the fact it is often the more expensive option. This is unacceptable. But this tax cut could fuel greater demand for even more short flights like this from Heathrow across the UK mainland.

The Government’s Budget documents claim that the lowering of APD will cost around £35 million per year. Could that money not have been spent on lowering the cost of rail travel, both on local services and on high-speed routes? Cutting Government-regulated rail fares, even by a small percentage, could’ve been a start. With the average season ticket costing £3,000 per year, just a 10% cut in regulated train fares could save some 130,000 commuters’ hard-earned cash. Surely, if the APD cut was about ‘levelling up’, then that would have a far greater material benefit to people than a small saving on a domestic flight that most people don’t even take?

Surprisingly, in the UK, 15% of people take 70% of all flights, while 50% of the population do not fly at all. Yet the emissions caused by the aviation industry account for a significant share of the UK’s total carbon budget. Why should this sector receive a boost, likely to result in more flights around the UK, whilst other polluting sectors are being squeezed as we pull together to achieve a 78% reduction of our carbon emissions by 2035, in order to be on track to meet the Net Zero target by 2050?

If more people choose to take domestic flights resulting from this cut, as the Treasury predict, then this sets a dangerous precedent that making short flights is simply fine and should be encouraged. For £35million, an additional 35 miles of railway track could have been electrified. Widespread rollout of Sustainable Aviation Fuels or electric flights is some way off – the industry has managed to source less than 1 per cent of jet fuel using sustainable fuels, despite promising in 2010 that this figure would be at least 10% by 2020. Current global targets for approximately 50% alternative jet fuel use in 2050 would require three new bio-jet fuel refineries to be built every month for the next 30 years. Today there are just two facilities – the market is not delivering at the pace required. Therefore, radical climate decisions need to be taken now, not relying on technologies that are either still in their infancy or don’t yet exist.

The big option left for the Government is to cancel and rule out expansion at Heathrow and focus on driving rail fares down. Although the Heathrow expansion debate has rumbled on for far too long, the environmental arguments are now more convincing and urgent than ever before. What better way to demonstrate environmental and climate leadership to the world, as COP26 begins? 

Rob Barnstone

Campaign Coordinator, Stop Heathrow Expansion