.jpg)
MPs call for different airport drop-off charges for taxis as Government agrees 12-month review
Taxi and private hire drivers could face a different approach to airport access charges after MPs raised concerns over rising fees, inadequate transport alternatives and disruption to communities surrounding UK airports.
MPs have called for airport drop-off charges to take account of the different roles played by taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs), as the Government agreed to extend a planned review of the fees to 12 months.
The proposal was raised during a Public Bill Committee debate on the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill on 20 October 2026, where parliamentarians examined the impact of airport charges on passengers, professional drivers and nearby residents.
Liberal Democrat MP Luke Taylor suggested that licensed taxis could be treated differently from private motorists because of their potential to carry passengers in both directions, reducing unnecessary vehicle movements and parking demand.
Taylor said: “There is an argument that suggests using public hire vehicles to travel to an airport reduces the impact on roadways because instead of dropping off and travelling home empty, or parking, that vehicle is then available for picking up passengers and returning them to another location.”
He added: “It should be considered that there is a possibility to have different charges for different vehicle types—public hire taxis, for example.”
The comments raise the prospect of airport charging policies being assessed against how different vehicles operate, rather than applying the same fee to every vehicle entering a terminal drop-off area. No specific exemption or reduced rate for licensed taxis or PHVs has been agreed.
Minister acknowledges taxi disruption near airports
Transport Minister Keir Mather also acknowledged concerns about taxi drivers using residential areas surrounding airports when access arrangements fail to meet their operational needs.
Labour MP Joe Morris, representing Hexham, raised complaints about hire vehicles creating problems in public spaces, green spaces and gardens near airports in his constituency.
Mather responded: “My hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents, both those affected by drop-off charges and those—he has spoken to me about this—who live in Prestwick, Ponteland and Woolsington who are particularly affected by taxi drivers not being able to use the airport in the way they want to and who end up impacting local communities.”
The Minister added: “People do not deserve to have disruption and nuisance on their doorstep because we are not getting the systems functioning in the way that they need to.”
The exchange puts airport taxi access arrangements and their effects on neighbouring communities within the wider debate about terminal charging.
For licensed operators, access arrangements can influence where drivers wait between bookings, how passengers are collected and whether vehicles can efficiently undertake onward journeys. Restrictions on waiting and designated collection points can also affect journey costs and the time required to complete airport work.
Government rejects immediate £5 airport drop-off cap
The debate also considered a Liberal Democrat proposal requiring ministers to publish plans for a £5 cap on airport drop-off charges within six months of the legislation receiving Royal Assent.
However, the Government opposed introducing a fixed charging limit before completing its wider review.
Mather said the proposed cap would effectively predetermine the outcome before the evidence had been properly considered.
The Minister confirmed that the Government would instead undertake a review within 12 months of Royal Assent, extending the original six-month deadline contained in the Bill.
The Government’s amendment extending the review period was agreed, and Clause 7, which requires the Secretary of State to review airport drop-off charges, was retained in its amended form.
The review will need to be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament. It does not itself impose a cap, change existing charges or guarantee different treatment for taxis and PHVs.
MPs warn rising airport fees are affecting passengers
Several MPs provided examples of increases in airport charges, with particular concerns about locations where public transport alternatives are limited.
Labour MP Amanda Hack said East Midlands Airport had recently increased its rapid drop-off charge from £5 for 15 minutes to £8 for 10 minutes.
She told the Committee that only 9% of passengers used public transport to reach the airport, citing inadequate alternatives and difficulties accessing its nearest railway station.
Hack also raised concerns about payment arrangements and the potential for motorists to incur £100 penalties after forgetting to pay.
Labour MP Jessica Toale said drop-off charges at Bournemouth Airport had risen to £8 this year, despite what she described as a lack of public transport options for reaching the airport.
Conservative MP Alison Griffiths specifically raised the consequences for disabled passengers who depend on licensed vehicles.
She said the charges were affecting “disabled passengers, particularly those who rely on taxis, who can find themselves facing yet another additional expense simply to get to and from an airport.”
For taxi and PHV businesses, the cost of entering terminal areas can become an additional expense attached to airport bookings. Where charges are passed on, passengers face a higher overall journey price, while operators must account for the fees when calculating fares and quotations.
Public transport availability to influence review
Mather acknowledged that airports do not have consistent levels of public transport provision, despite drop-off charges sometimes being used to encourage passengers to travel by alternative modes.
He said: “Those questions around provision and whether free drop-off spaces are provided, and the transparency with which they can be accessed, is of major importance.”
The Minister also recognised that charging policies can have a particular impact on disabled passengers and those travelling from rural communities.
The discussion could have implications for regional airports where taxis and PHVs provide an important connection for passengers travelling at times when buses and trains are unavailable.
Taylor argued that charges should reflect the transport options available at individual airports rather than applying a uniform approach across the country.
The debate also examined whether airport fees were proportionate to the services provided and whether charges intended to encourage public transport use were appropriate where passengers had few realistic alternatives.
