House of Commons debate ‘unfair’ airport drop-off charges pushing up taxi and private hire fares
- Perry Richardson
- 1 hour ago
- 4 min read
Taxi and private hire vehicle work was repeatedly cited as a frontline casualty of airport drop-off charging during a Westminster Hall debate on 13 January, as MPs pressed ministers on whether regulation is needed to curb what one speaker called “unfair, confusing and punitive” systems.
The session, chaired by Valerie Vaz, was opened by Yasmin Qureshi, Labour MP for Bolton South and Walkden, who said she wanted drop-off charges ended “altogether”, or at minimum a free grace period and consistent national signage and payment prompts.
Although the debate ranged across passengers, accessibility and airport surface access policy, the taxi angle landed in the centre of the discussion when MPs described professional drivers racking up charges multiple times a day and being hit with penalty notices for missed or failed payments.
Afzal Khan, Labour MP for Manchester Rusholme, told the chamber of a constituent who works as an Uber driver making countless trips to Manchester airport every week and being fined twice for not paying drop-off charges, adding that the website kept crashing and that the airport failed to send him a reminder before the penalty and fined him straightaway.
Qureshi’s speech focused heavily on Manchester Airport’s barrier-less automatic number plate recognition model and the scale of charges that can escalate from a short stop into a three-figure demand. She set out the tariff outside the terminals as £5 for up to five minutes, £6.40 for up to 10 minutes and £25 for up to 30 minutes, with a maximum stay of 30 minutes, and said those who fail to pay can receive a parking charge notice of £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. For taxi and PHV drivers, the operational risk is multiplied by volume as airport work can mean several forecourt visits per shift, and any friction in payment systems, signage or appeals can turn a marginal fare into a loss.
The debate also illustrated how airport charging regimes can feed directly into end fares for the travelling public when taxis are the default option, particularly at unsocial hours or for passengers with heavy luggage or reduced mobility. Qureshi said public transport from Bolton to Manchester Airport works for many but “does not work for everyone”, pointing to families with suitcases and pushchairs and travellers on early or late flights. She also criticised remote “free drop-off” alternatives that rely on shuttles as “simply not suitable for those with mobility needs or heavy luggage”, a point that matters for taxi demand because the alternative is often a terminal-side set-down.
Charges beyond Greater Manchester were raised as evidence of a national problem, with MPs pointing to a wave of increases at major airports at the start of 2026, including Heathrow’s move to £7, Gatwick’s move to £10 for 10 minutes and Bristol’s £8.50 for 10 minutes. The Commons Library briefing issued ahead of the debate noted that increases at Heathrow, Gatwick and Bristol, plus the introduction of charges at London City Airport, had pushed the issue into the political spotlight in early January. For taxi drivers, these changes are a direct cost, either absorbed by the driver or passed to passengers through pricing.
Several contributions framed taxis as a proxy for the wider “fairness” question, because professional drivers are repeatedly exposed to the system and are more likely to encounter edge cases such as website failures, confusing road layouts and repeat charging. Jim McMahon, Labour MP for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, argued that the real issue is not simply the headline fee but “what happens if someone does not pay, and whether the penalty is proportionate”, describing situations where a small charge can turn into what feels like “a full day’s wage for a low-paid worker”. He also pressed for payment options “there and then” rather than relying on drivers remembering an online payment window later.
Concerns about enforcement mechanisms also touched on taxi-adjacent crime risks. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Al Pinkerton said constituents had received airport fines after “number plate cloning”, and he linked punitive charging and ANPR-driven enforcement to a “rise in the use of ghost plates”. While the claims were made in the context of constituent correspondence, the practical implication for licensing and fleet management is that professional drivers may need stronger documentation and dispute processes when penalty notices do not match their movements.
The ministerial response from Keir Mather signalled sympathy but stopped short of supporting direct central controls on airport pricing. Mather said it was “really important” that taxi drivers and other workers serving airport economies are “at the heart of designs for parking systems”. He endorsed the principle that rules must be clear and transparent and payment easy to navigate.
However, he said the Government “do not believe that it is their role to dictate parking prices from Whitehall”, emphasising that most UK airports are privately operated and retain “commercial freedom” to set fees, with government expectations centred on charges being “fair and proportionate”.
Instead, Mather pointed to consumer law, trade association requirements for private parking operators, and the direction of travel on a tougher code of practice and compliance framework for private parking. He said airports must make it easier for customers to pay in a timely manner before proceeding to issue penalty charges. For taxi and PHV stakeholders, that leaves the immediate battleground on design, transparency and enforcement rather than a statutory cap on charges, with scope for operators to push airports and parking contractors on signage placement, on-site payment options, grace periods and robust appeal routes.
Airport forecourts are usually congested and heavily policed for safety and security, and airports officials may argue charges help manage demand and fund access strategies. But for taxi and PHV drivers, MPs repeatedly argued that the current model often feels engineered to create penalty exposure, particularly where payment is not taken at the point of service and where signage appears after a driver has effectively committed to the route. The debate ended with Qureshi saying she was not asking ministers to set airport prices, but wanted government engagement to drive “a better way of dealing with people who come to the airport”.
