.jpg)
Government has ‘NO OBJECTION’ to airport drop-off charge review as MPs raise taxi and PHV access concerns during Commons debate
The Government has said it has no objection to a review of airport drop-off charges after MPs raised concerns about the treatment of taxis and private hire vehicles, the cost of reaching terminals and the displacement of vehicles into nearby communities.
The issue featured prominently during the House of Commons second reading of the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill on 9 September. Clause 7, added to the Bill in the House of Lords, provides for a review of airport parking and drop-off charges.
Transport Minister Keir Mather confirmed that ministers were prepared to conduct the review, although its scope and timetable have yet to be settled.
Mather said: “I can confirm that the Government have no objection to conducting a review of this matter, although we need to think carefully about the terms of such a review and about the time that it will take to ensure that we can engage with the range of issues that Back Benchers have raised today about transparency, charging, ability to pay and free drop-off points.”
For taxi and private hire operators, the review could examine an increasingly important component of airport journey costs. Terminal access charges may be added to passenger fares, while tight payment windows and enforcement arrangements can create additional operational risks for drivers.
The Minister said the charges formed part of a wider airport transport strategy. He told MPs they were frequently used to manage congestion, meet targets for the proportion of passengers arriving by public transport and finance infrastructure improvements.
However, MPs argued that charging motorists to enter terminal areas was difficult to justify where passengers, workers and professional drivers lacked a practical alternative.
Ruth Cadbury, chair of the Transport Committee, said airport access should be considered more broadly than private car drop-off fees. She argued that public transport was frequently unavailable during the early morning and at night, when many airport workers and passengers need to travel.
Cadbury said: “Compared to our international competitors, our public transport to and from airports is woeful: it is non-existent at night or in the early morning, and too often what there is proves impossible for those with heavy luggage.”
She added: “I also find that, compared with most other countries, access to taxis, private hire vehicles, buses and coaches is generally an afterthought or an inconvenience.”
Cadbury warned that reviewing charges alone would be “just scratching the surface” unless airports also addressed the availability and quality of surface transport. Her comments raise questions about whether future airport expansion decisions should include firmer requirements covering taxi ranks, PHV collection areas, coach facilities and public transport connections.
Professional drivers can face different access arrangements depending on the airport, including designated pick-up zones located away from terminal entrances. These arrangements can affect journey times, operating costs and accessibility, particularly when passengers have substantial luggage or reduced mobility.
Mather said he would discuss taxi access further with Cadbury. He also acknowledged that existing arrangements could produce “unintended consequences and community disruption, particularly around unlicensed taxis”.
That concern was also raised in connection with areas surrounding Heathrow. Danny Beales, Labour MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, said insufficient public transport was forcing airport workers to drive or park in unsuitable locations, creating disruption for residents.
Beales said people living close to the airport could not necessarily reach it using a direct bus service. He later told the debate that drop-off charges were pushing vehicles into neighbourhoods around airport charging zones, leaving councils to meet enforcement costs associated with parking and unauthorised commercial car parks.
He called for greater transparency over how airports use revenue from the charges. Beales said it was often unknown whether the money supported better community transport or improvements that would reduce dependence on private vehicles.
The debate also heard claims that charges had increased sharply. Shadow Transport Secretary Richard Holden cited a reported £10 charge for 10 minutes at Gatwick and said Luton’s charge had risen from £2 to £7.
Holden argued that a review had not taken place for a decade and urged ministers to retain Clause 7. He linked higher charges to airport surface-access targets intended to increase public transport use, particularly where reliable alternatives remained limited or expensive.
Andrew Cooper, Labour MP for Mid Cheshire, said Manchester Airport charged between £5.50 for five minutes and £25 for half an hour for a terminal drop-off. He accepted that airports needed to control congestion but said charges should be “fair and proportionate”, especially where passengers had no realistic alternative.
Accessibility is likely to become a central consideration. MPs said older and disabled passengers could be affected disproportionately because travelling by rail, bus or coach may not be suitable. Scott Arthur, Labour MP for Edinburgh South West, called for all UK airports to exempt Blue Badge holders from drop-off charges and make terminal access straightforward.
The review could therefore carry consequences beyond motorists making private journeys. Taxi and PHV businesses will be watching whether it covers commercial vehicle access fees, designated collection areas, free waiting facilities, payment systems and the effect of charges on quoted fares.
No final terms of reference or deadline were announced. The Government’s acceptance of a review nevertheless increases the prospect of greater scrutiny of how airport access policies affect licensed drivers, passengers and neighbouring communities.
