(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of regulating airport drop-off charges.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to make the case for ending airport drop-off charges altogether, or at the very least introducing a free grace period, and for clear, consistent signage at all airports so that passengers know exactly what they are being charged and how to pay. I have received significant casework on this issue, and I know that colleagues across Greater Manchester and across the country will share my concerns. The current system is unfair, confusing and punitive. It does not work for passengers, and it is time for a change.
Manchester airport is our international gateway. It is the third busiest airport in the United Kingdom, and a vital engine for the north-west’s economy. It should be a source of pride, not stress, yet the regime for dropping off and picking up passengers has become overly complex and, for far too many people, deeply unfair.
Let me start with the current rules. Outside each terminal, the tariff is £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. Since last spring, the airport has operated a barrierless automatic number plate recognition system. If people forget, or if the process is unclear in the rush and stress of a drop-off, they are liable for a parking charge notice of £100, which is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.
I do not dispute the fact that airports face operational pressures. Forecourts are constrained spaces and congestion causes delays and emissions. The aim of a barrierless system is to keep traffic moving, but we have to be honest about the human reality. A parent unloading luggage at 5 am or a carer helping an elderly relative to the terminal door is not thinking about an online payment later that day. They should not receive a penalty notice in the post just because there is no clear or simple way to pay at the time.
There is a wider issue with value for money. The RAC has shown that UK drop-off fees have increased across many airports. On a cost-per-minute basis, Manchester is among the worst, charging £1 per minute for the first five minutes. That is hard to justify and is out of step with passengers’ experiences elsewhere. A member of my staff shared his experience from a recent holiday he took via Kraków airport, for example: the drop-off and pick-up area offered eight free minutes, then a small fee of 5 złoty—about £1—per four minutes thereafter, with simple rules, clear signs and visible ways to pay.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing today’s important debate on drop-off charges. My long-suffering and complaining Slough constituents have been on the case about extortionate drop-off charges—not to mention excessive parking charges—at our nearest airport, Heathrow, as well as at Gatwick. I have consistently raised with Heathrow the issue that there is a disproportionate expense for merely spending a few moments on its premises. Does my hon. Friend agree that, without a direct western rail link to Heathrow or sufficient alternative public transport from Slough, passengers are being forced into a corner and into paying excessive charges? Does she agree that that must stop?
Yasmin Qureshi
I absolutely agree.
I want to discuss the realities in Bolton. There is a direct rail link from Bolton to Manchester airport; a typical journey time is about 36 to 45 minutes and, at off-peak times, a single ticket can be found for anywhere between £4 and £9. There is also a direct coach from Bolton interchange, which takes about 65 minutes; generally, prices range from £6 to £12. For many travellers, these options work, and we should promote and protect them, but they do not work for everyone. For a family of four with two large suitcases and a pushchair, or for people catching a very early flight or arriving back late at night, public transport is not always practical.
For those who drive, the maze of choices remains problematic. The airport provides a free drop-off at JetParks with a shuttle to terminals. That works for some people, but it is further away, involves a transfer and is simply not suitable for those with mobility needs or heavy luggage.
We should also reflect on governance and accountability. Manchester airport is part of the Manchester Airports Group, which has a unique ownership structure combining public and private shareholders. Manchester city council owns 35.5%, IFM Investors owns 35.5% and the nine other Greater Manchester councils, including Bolton, together own 29%. That public stake brings with it the responsibility to treat passengers fairly.
What should the Government do? Many of my constituents would say that the answer is simple: scrap drop-off charges altogether, or at least introduce a short free period for pick-ups and drop-offs. I recognise that all airports differ in size and layout, and one solution may not fit all, but there is a clear and proportionate role for Government in setting expectations around fairness, transparency and consumer protection.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech; I am grateful that she has secured this debate. Airports are imposing drop-off charges primarily to increase profits, despite their stated claims of environmental benefits. On the point about transparency, when I inquired of Heathrow how many cars are using its drop-off point each year, it declined to answer. It said that the data was classified as “commercially sensitive”. If it truly believes that raising drop-off charges has a positive impact on customers’ transport decisions and provides environmental benefits, why is it reluctant to share that data?
Yasmin Qureshi
I totally agree. Later in my speech, I will be asking for more detail about what happens with drop-off charges, as well as other information that we need from airports, such as how many people have had fixed penalty notices.
Secondly, there should be national guidance on simple and consistent signage at all airports for parking charges and fees. Thirdly, the barrierless system for dropping off and parking should come with clear payment prompts at the point of exit and, where possible, a reasonable reminder rather than an immediate penalty for first-time non-payment.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. I must say that I love Manchester airport, but not these charges. A constituent of mine, who is an Uber driver, makes countless trips to Manchester airport every week. He was recently fined twice for not paying drop-off charges. He tried to pay, but the website kept crashing. The airport failed to send him a reminder before the penalty and fined him straightaway, although it was its fault and he was not responsible. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is deeply unfair for hard-working people to pay the price of faulty tech that the private companies fail to fix?
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my fellow Greater Manchester Member of Parliament for raising that issue. I will come on to the similar experiences that my constituents have had.
I was talking about barrierless systems for drop-offs. I believe that airports should publish data on the number of drop-off penalties that are issued, how many are cancelled on appeal and the reasons why. The Government’s position is that although airport parking charges are
“a matter for the airport operator as a commercial business”,
the Department for Transport
“expects car parking at airports to be managed appropriately and…consumers to be treated fairly”.
Too many passengers feel that that expectation is not being met.
I want to speak directly about the human element, because that is where my office’s casework has been the most compelling. The stories that we have been told follow a very clear pattern: people acting in good faith, anxious to get loved ones to the airport on time and unaware that payment cannot be made on site, and then being shocked to receive a penalty notice days later when they believe that they have done everything right. The stress and frustrations are real, but they are avoidable.
One constituent contacted me after dropping his wife at Manchester airport and leaving after noticing that there were no barriers or pay stations. He then received a £100 fine in the post for not having paid. He was stationary in the drop-off area for just one minute and 10 seconds. If there had been a pay station, he would have paid. Instead, he went home and then received what he felt was an entirely disproportionate fine for being there for less than two minutes.
Another constituent contacted me after he tried to pay online in good faith but was unable to do so because of problems with the website. He did not see the signage and was made aware only after the fact that he needed to pay. Despite trying to pay the £6.40 charge, he was unable to do so and received a £100 fine instead. That does not feel fair or reasonable.
These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a system that relies too heavily on people remembering to make an online payment after their journey, rather than being clearly prompted to pay at the time. A short free window in which to park, clear exit prompts and a one-time reminder invoice would entirely prevent many of these cases.
Airports are the front door to our country. That front door should be welcoming, efficient and fair. It should not depend on whether a tired or stressed driver remembers to make an online payment later that day. It should reflect the reality of places such as Bolton, where rail can be a good option but is not always practical.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I should declare an interest, because Manchester airport is my local airport and is used by many of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme. In fact, I was there on Sunday: my poor wife had to wait because the flight from Northern Ireland was delayed. The first thing she said to me was not “Hi, love,” but “Don’t forget to pay.” That speaks to the impact that these charges have on marital harmony.
To be serious, this unfairness speaks to a lack of consistency across the United Kingdom. More importantly, it makes the case for a direct line between Stoke-on-Trent station and Manchester airport, which would benefit my constituents. I hope that my hon. Friend will support my calls.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am so sad that my hon. Friend’s wife was not able to say “I love you” at the point of greeting him. I hope she has made up for it.
Adam Jogee
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. In the interests of getting home safely, I should say that my wife quite often says “I love you,” and I am very grateful to her for doing so.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful clarification. His serious point is one that I think a lot of people here would agree with, and I am sure the Minister has heard his appeal for a train line from his area to Manchester.
The cost of a taxi plus a forecourt fee can push travel beyond what many families can afford. With modest regulation, better design and a willingness to learn from our European neighbours, we can manage traffic without turning airport forecourts into what feels like a penalty for helping someone we care about.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate, the importance of which is reflected by the number of Members who have turned out—some of them from further afield than Greater Manchester. There is clearly a pattern of airport operators looking to maximise every aspect of income from the land that they own.
In Greater Manchester, we are very proud of Manchester airport. It was built and grown by the local authorities, and they remain an important shareholder of the airport, as well as the wider group, which includes East Midlands and Stansted airports. The benefit of that, particularly during those 14 long years of austerity, was that the airports were providing a dividend payment to the local councils to fund local public services.
With that in mind, Manchester airport has a bigger responsibility than just paying dividends. It has an important economic role to play in our city region and the whole of the north of England. As has been said, it is a gateway to Britain for those coming in. Their experience on arrival and when being collected by loved ones will really shape that experience. We are very proud of it and it is vital to our economy. It is a significant employer that drives economic growth, and it is a thriving hub supported, by and large, by the public.
The charging policy was introduced in 2018 and was controversial at the time. I may have a slightly different view of charging policies, perhaps because from a local government finance point of view all streams of income are welcome, but I think the principle of payment has been settled for most people. However, I strongly believe that any payment system must be fair for those who pay it. In far too many people’s experience, the system at Manchester airport is not one of fairness.
Many years ago, there was a campaign in Oldham against the weekly payment stores where people go in to buy a washing machine or TV and then pay a set weekly amount. At the time, the campaign was against BrightHouse. BrightHouse’s business model relied on people not being able to afford the weekly payment. If they could not make the payment of, say, £20 a week for a washing machine, they could not make a £19 contribution if that was all they had; BrightHouse wanted either full payment or no payment. It would reject the £19 and then charge a penalty on top. For every normal person, that is not a fair way of doing business, but for BrightHouse, the business model relied on it. That is how it made its money.
We need to be careful, when looking at any system, to make sure that it is not built on inherent unfairness as a way to generate money. This is not about whether £5 is a fair charge to pay; it is about what happens if someone does not pay, and whether the penalty is proportionate.
Afzal Khan
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about fairness. I am concerned about these charges, because someone I know took one minute extra while trying to get out of the airport, and he was lumbered with a £60 fine. That is not fair.
Jim McMahon
That is the point. For the sake of a £5 fee, the penalty could be a full day’s wage for a low-paid worker. Is it a fair penalty to take away a day’s pay from somebody for going over by a minute? Most people would say that that is not a fair response.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Doncaster Sheffield airport in my constituency is about to open. I want there to be access for everybody, and I want everyone to feel that they can use it. For some people, it is not optional but essential to get really close to the terminal because of their disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in principle, whatever regime we have in future must take into account those people who need to be close and give them a grace period without having to pay, so that they can get on their plane and go on their dream holiday or work trip?
Jim McMahon
I think so. It is not just about being fair; it is about being reasonable. We have all dropped loved ones off at the airport. We know how stressful it can be, and we know that the family member giving the lift normally tries to fit it around other things as well. Sometimes they will be dropping people off in the early hours of the morning. They rush to the airport, drop their loved ones off, say their goodbyes, make sure they get on the flight nice and safely, a bit upset perhaps that they are leaving, go home, maybe go to bed, and wake up in the morning—and before they know it, the day has taken over. It can be very easy to miss the deadline to pay. If it were extended from 24 hours to, say, 48 hours, most people would eventually say, “Hang on: I should have made that payment.”
It cannot be that every organisation relies on an app. In my town, the hospital and the leisure centre now have apps to pay, and so do some supermarkets. There are so many apps, and keeping track of them can be very difficult, so some people will have to search out how to make the payment. That is where the idea of reasonableness really comes in.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
A lot has been made of transport links to airports. At Edinburgh airport, we have excellent links—it is the end of the tramline and there are special buses—but if people are being picked up or dropped off, they have to pay £6 for the first 10 minutes and £1 for every minute after that. That is difficult for people on a fixed income. The holiday may be the big thing of the year, but if the flight is late they face bigger charges, so the principle of fairness does not seem to apply. Taxis also have to pay the charge, so there is an extra cost there too. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me?
Jim McMahon
Many people ask their loved one to send them a message when they land or when they pass through the terminal ahead of collecting their baggage, but in Manchester airport there have occasionally been delays in getting the luggage off the plane and sent through to the terminal, or the conveyor belt has not worked in sending the luggage through, so faults with the airport or airline delays can lead to a penalty.
Jim McMahon
I will make some progress, because I am mindful of the time.
On reasonableness, of course an app can be used if it is a convenient way to pay, but why not have a simple contactless payment system at the lay-by where the luggage is taken out, so that people can tap in there and then? Then they would not have to wait 24 or 48 hours to pay online. With a lot of these things, if the lived experience of those using the system had been thought about when it was brought in, it would have been designed very differently.
In November, we met the managing director of Manchester airport, Chris Woodroofe. We raised those points and put forward a number of requests. The first was for payment on site, so that people can pay not just on an app, but when they are at the airport.
Secondly, we asked for an end to the system that allows charges to be racked up. For example, there may be separate lay-bys for arrivals and departures, so it is very easy for someone not familiar with the airport to pass through the arrivals terminal drop-off point, realise that is the wrong place to be, drive around the block and eventually get to the correct location. If they do that, the system charges them twice because they have passed through one before they get to the other. That could be easily resolved using technology.
These organisations do not have the legal powers that local authorities have, but rely on contract law in enforcement. Many airports have confusing road networks that rely on roundabouts, with one-way systems through the terminals to drop off. In contract law, for a contract to be fair, those entering into it must have the right to decline it. How can they have the right to decline if they are charged at the moment they enter the place where the signs advising them about the contract are, with no way to reverse or pull out? Those dropping off should have the ability to say, “Now that I am aware of the charges, I don’t agree and will find a different way of dropping off.” Some airports have a bus that enables drop-offs further afield. Some people may not have been aware of that before they arrived, but may choose to use that.
Although I am personally sympathetic to the idea that charges can be realistic, Manchester should not follow Gatwick airport and go from £5 to £10, or even close to it. Most people would find an airport’s charging £10 to drop off completely unreasonable and unfair.
John Milne
Gatwick is precisely the airport that I was going to raise. It jumped to £10 in very short order, over a couple of years. That is an enormous amount of money for something that takes a couple of minutes. The objective is allegedly to cover the increase of business rates and to fund airport expansion. Does the hon. Member agree that the public should not have to bear the cost of an airport’s expansion? It benefits private companies financially, but puts pressure on public services, trains and transport and means that people are parking all around the airport. Does he agree that that is unfair?
Jim McMahon
Logic says that business rates are derived from the commercial value of the asset. The opposite is true of Gatwick—if it commercialises a lay-by, the business rate liability probably goes up—so I am not sure that that quite solves their problem.
This debate has been important, and I express my appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for securing it. We are very proud of Manchester airport and the airport group that it operates, but we are determined to see a revision to the ability to pay, how to pay and the grace period—from 24 hours to 48 hours—and I hope that we see progress.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. If Members keep their interventions shorter, we can have a very loose six-minute time limit and get everyone in.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate.
In many countries, a quick kiss and fly really is quick and really is free. At Amsterdam Schiphol, the kiss and ride drop-off is free. At Paris-Charles de Gaulle the first 10 minutes are free, and at Madrid-Barajas the express departures car park gives drivers 10 minutes free. Meanwhile, here in the UK we are normalising the idea that dropping off and saying a hurried goodbye at the airport comes with a bill. Bear with me here: kiss and fly? More like kiss and buy.
At Gatwick airport, which serves so many of my constituents in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, the drop-off fee was hiked to £10 for 10 minutes—a 43% jump from £7. That hits everyone: the parent, the friend taking someone to an early flight and taxi drivers trying to earn their living. It is true that Gatwick offers free drop-off in the long-stay car park with a complementary shuttle, and that blue badge holders are exempt, but we all know that that option adds time and complication, and is not always practical at unsocial hours.
We should be clear about responsibility. Most airports in the UK are private businesses, and drop-off charging is a matter for the owners to decide and manage. That is certainly true at Gatwick, where the increased drop-off charge has been explained on the grounds of growing financial pressure on the operation. However, the extra costs place a burden on my constituents using the airport, and I urge Gatwick always to keep them in mind when analysing the numbers and ensure fairness, the importance of which the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) eloquently highlighted. It is easy to assume that people can use the train or bus as an alternative, but that is often not the case for the elderly, the disabled or those who simply cannot transport all their luggage by hand.
Gatwick has said that the drop-off charge increase has not been taken lightly and follows a number of cost increases, including a more than doubling of its business rates by this Government, from £40 million to more than £80 million per annum. It is relevant to note that Heathrow has also increased its drop-off charge this month, although far more modestly, from £6 to £7. Unfortunately, that is what happens when the Government pile ever more taxes on our businesses: those costs inevitably find their way back to the consumer in some shape or form. If Ministers would like to see the trend of extra charges and surging prices reduce, I say gently that they might consider not continually taxing businesses. Rethinking the damaging business rates hike would be a good start and would give British businesses, including our airports, room to breathe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, Ms Vaz, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for leading today’s debate on this matter. It is an important issue, as others have said and will say after me.
Back home, this has been a topic of conversation with my constituents. Air travel has become much more usable and cheaper than it has been in the past, but that means that many people travel through Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport—they are all used. I have heard numerous complaints from constituents about changes to pick-ups and drop-offs at airports in Northern Ireland, so it is important for me to be here and to get our perspective across.
I share other Members’ concerns about drop-off charges. They seem a little drastic and unfair, and many people have complaints about them. The traffic wardens in Newtownards are very zealous—even evangelical—and they get their money. We get complaints about parking tickets on private land, and by and large we have been able to fight them, but people cannot fight the CCTV at Belfast City airport or Belfast International airport.
I fly out of Belfast City airport on Mondays to come here, and I go back on Thursdays. It is a great airport and has had some recent updates; it covers mostly regional flights, but some are international. According to my constituents, the drop-off area has a minimum price of £4 for up to 10 minutes. It used to be that there was no charge at all. Is it a revenue earner for the airport? I suspect it is, but the staff may tell me differently. If people stay longer, the charges increase as follows: it is £6 for 10 to 20 minutes, £20 for 21 to 30 minutes, and £25 for 30 to 60 minutes. If people’s planes are delayed, they had better not forget their cards, because they will be digging deep that night.
Similarly, at Belfast International airport, it costs up to £3 for 10 minutes. If someone’s car stalls on the way round, they are in trouble, because the price will increase. Airports have CCTV everywhere, and people cannot get away with dropping somebody off, because the airport has them on CCTV. They can expect a £60 fine. If someone thinks they can do it the sharp way—perhaps the car is still moving as they jump out—it does not matter, because they will be fined
One thing that annoys me greatly at the airport is flight delays and cancellations. What happens to the person who thinks, “I’m just going to pick them up,” and then looks at the screen and says, “Oh, it’s 15 minutes late”? Guess what? They owe more money.
Adam Jogee
Further to the hon. Gentleman’s description of the situation at Belfast City airport, I found out on Sunday, when my mother-in-law dropped me off from the long-stay car park, that it is free for the first 10 minutes. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made about accessibility is important, because the long-stay car park is further away and there is no canopy. We all know about the liquid sunshine for which Ulster is well known. [Interruption.] Liquid sunshine, not rain. If someone is not as able-bodied as others, or if they have children, bags and all the rest, it is more difficult for them to get into the terminal. The accessibility point extends not just to the east midlands, but right across the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for sharing his experiences of Belfast City. It is a good airport, by the way. I am just saying, “Follow the rules, and make sure the timings are right.” The planes are sometimes cancelled, and more often than not they are delayed, which seems to be a fact of life now. Some may say that the clue is in the name: “drop-off”. The plan is not to be there for long, but we all know that it takes a little time for people to get their cases, say goodbye to loved ones or pay taxis. It has been argued that the first 10 minutes should be free, which is fair. If drop-offs and pick-ups are made financially inaccessible for people, they will double-park and potentially cause congestion, which poses a safety risk.
One thing that strikes me is that Belfast international airport has a 15-minute free drop-off in the long-stay car park. It is only a short walk to the terminal, but it does not suit everybody. There is £3 to £5 fee for less than 10 minutes. There is certainly a case for the fees to be regulated, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Sometimes we can use compassion and understand that it is not always easy for someone to drop people off and get on their way. To give an example, one of my constituents moved to Scotland for university when she was 18. She has been living there for nine years now and is working as a nurse. It is always lovely when she comes home, but saying goodbye is the hardest. She tells me that she wants to say goodbye—she wants to give people a hug and a kiss, and to say cheerio—but guess what? The clock is ticking, and that long goodbye could be a very costly one.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend mentions compassion and understanding —and the lack of it. He reminds me that many years ago, when I was on the Transport Committee, we met a certain chief executive of Ryanair who is not noted for his compassion and understanding. He made it absolutely clear to us MPs that he did not care—I will not use the expletive—if passengers had to crawl over broken glass to get to the airport. Compassion and understanding need to be shown by the airport operators, because they certainly will not be shown by Ryanair.
Jim Shannon
Absolutely.
The moral of the story involving the young lady, who happens to come from Newtownards, is: “Don’t get too emotional at the airport, because the clock is ticking.” People might find that £3 or £5 has become £10 or £20. If they reach for a hanky and cannot find one, they are in deep trouble.
Airport drop-off fees are increasingly becoming a burden on ordinary passengers, taxi drivers and local residents, and that is not to mention the extortionate air fees. When flying from Belfast to the mainland, we pay the highest flight charges in the whole of the United Kingdom. We might be on the periphery of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we are an integral part of it, and we should be shown fairness when it comes to prices.
We recognise that airports need to manage congestion and maintain facilities—I understand that—but the charges must be fair and transparent. There are calls to look at them again, and I look to the Minister for a positive response that will encourage not only us regular travellers but, more importantly, constituents of mine who are regular travellers, who tell me about the airport charges all the time. It is time to address them.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this important debate.
I have heard much about this issue from many of my constituents in Mansfield, and they all make the same point again and again: people feel as if they are being unfairly charged for simply dropping someone off at the airport. They are not asking for special treatment or favour; they are simply trying to drop off a partner, parent or child. That often takes no more than a few minutes, yet this basic act now comes with a significant charge at many airports, particularly for those on lower incomes. Let us be clear: this is not about parking, and it is not a premium service. It is a fee for stopping a car long enough for someone to get out, unload their suitcase and say goodbye.
Two of my constituents who wrote to me on this topic, Emma and Keith, commented on what this looks like at East Midlands airport, which is close to Mansfield—many of my constituents fly from there. At East Midlands airport, drivers are charged £5 for up to 15 minutes in a drop-off zone, with a number of extra charges for additional minutes. As Emma and Keith made clear, the problem is not just the price, but the whole system under which they are charged. At East Midlands airport, there are no barriers or ticket machines. There is no way to pay by cash or card, and one might not realise that one has incurred a charge. Drivers are recorded by automatic cameras and required to pay later, either online or by phone. Crucially for many of my constituents, the payment has to be made by midnight the following day. If drivers miss that deadline, they will be hit with a parking charge of £100.
Many of my constituents have pointed out that the system penalises people who do not have a smartphone or access to the internet—particularly older people, as we have seen with automatic number plate recognition systems and cashless systems in some car parks in my Mansfield constituency. Some people do not use apps, and others might not feel confident about paying online. Some people might not even realise that they have to pay, or that they have been charged, until a penalty notice arrives through the post.
This is not modernisation—at least, it is not a modernity of which I would approve—but exclusion. Working people feel it the most, including parents dropping off their children and families trying to save money by giving lifts, as well as disabled passengers and older travellers who need to be dropped off close to the terminal entrance. For many of those people, being dropped off is not a convenience but a necessity. We should be honest about the market: airports are effectively local monopolies. Someone living in Mansfield cannot shop around for somewhere else to drop off at East Midlands airport. There is no cheaper accessible drop-off option. They either pay the charge or do not use it.
That is why this debate is important, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for securing it. We need to consider regulation, because if airport management is not prepared to act, we should be prepared to do so. My message to airport management is very simple: stop the excessive charges, end the punitive enforcement and ensure that systems for payment work for everyone, not just for those with smartphones and digital confidence. I say to them: act now, or MPs like me will look to compel them to do so.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate. We have had unanimity across the House, with a real feeling of injustice at the rising charges that we see at almost every airport that has been mentioned today. It should be of concern to all of us, and indeed to our constituents. Many of us receive letters and correspondence about this issue; I certainly do, given my constituency’s proximity to both Heathrow and Gatwick.
I will focus on three themes, two of which are directly related to the drop-off charges issue and one of which is a slight shoehorning of another issue that I feel passionately about, which corresponds to the topic of today’s debate. The first issue is about the rising cost of the charges, particularly for people who have no realistic alternative to get to an airport. The second is about the transparency and fairness of the payment processes themselves. The third is about the wider enforcement and security consequences of poorly designed payment systems involving ANPR, and about the insecurities in our ANPR system.
I am the Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath. Camberley, our main market town, is 19 miles from Heathrow airport and about 45 miles from Gatwick, but we have incredibly poor public transport systems to take us to those airports, so people rely on driving and therefore incur the £10 charge, for example at Gatwick, which my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned. These are not lifestyle choices; they are structural necessities, driven by poor public transport infrastructure as we come out of central London and head towards the shires in the likes of Surrey.
I absolutely welcome the recent introduction of a fantastic new express bus service from some of the villages in my constituency to Heathrow, but its connect only three of the communities in my constituency to the airport, so lots of people are left beyond that system. For those people, driving is the only realistic option. Of course, the lack of choice disproportionately affects the disabled, people with young children, older people and those travelling to or from regional airports, where public transport systems are even more limited than in my area. That all reflects the wider national picture. The Business Travel Association has been clear that public transport is frequently not a viable substitute for accessing airports, and that pricing people out of kerbside drop-off does not make it suddenly accessible.
That leads me to my second point, which is about the fairness and justice of the payment systems themselves. The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made a series of excellent points, and I have been a victim of exactly the situations to which he referred. I have driven around the loop at Heathrow airport and incurred the charge that he mentioned, purely by accidentally turning the wrong way. I appealed to get my money back, but I did not get it. Then I had to go and park in a multi-storey car park, so I felt doubly aggrieved, and nobody ever got back to me when I called the number.
The problem is that the system seems to be baking in penalties as a form of revenue-raising. I do not know whether that is entirely fair, but that is how people feel and that is the perception. Why do people feel like that? Because the companies involved are not making it straightforward by issuing clear signage and they are not making it easy to make payments. The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden talked about some of the scenarios in which people go to airports, such as late at night or early in the morning, and they often do multiple other things during the course of the day, so it is easy to forget the act of payment.
That leads me to my third point, on ANPR. Because of the increasingly punitive nature of some of the costs, we are seeing a huge rise in the use of ghost plates and in number plate cloning. Constituents of mine have received fines from both Gatwick and Heathrow airports because their number plates had been cloned, perhaps by taxicab companies that are apparently seeking to avoid the repeated application of charges at airports. If the system is driving increased criminality to avoid fines, we have a problem that needs to be explained, because the costs and inconvenience are falling back on constituents. That issue is perhaps not something people will have considered—I think it is the first time it has been raised today—but it is really important.
Although the previous Aviation Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), said that there was no intention to review the process, I urge the Government to look at it again. There need to be proper, fair payment systems and a cap on how much airports are allowed to charge, because I do not want to have any more constituents writing to me about it.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate, which holds such importance for my constituents.
My constituency is proud to be the home of East Midlands airport—part of the Manchester Airport Group —from where about 4 million people fly each year. Before I focus on the drop-off charges at the airport, it is important to understand them in the context of a wider local problem. The closest train station to East Midlands airport is East Midlands Parkway, which is a 10-minute drive away. The only bus service from East Midlands Parkway is dial-a-ride only—that is, it is an on-demand service, not even a regular bus service.
For those who might not have experienced an on-demand service, a passenger basically rocks up at the train station and rings a number, and there might be a bus available. That is how it operates. It is very good, but the reality is that when someone is going through the stressful scenario of going on holiday with a couple of kids in tow, they are going to get a taxi. The taxi will have to use the rapid drop-off option, so despite travelling via public transport, the passenger will still have to pay the drop-off charge to get to the airport.
Some 91% of travellers to East Midlands airport travel by car, leaving just 9% travelling by public transport—a proportion so much lower than for every other passenger airport in the country. The drop-off charges seem so unfair because our choices to get to airports are pretty limited. People are also parking in villages near the airport, including in Leicestershire. I was chatting to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) yesterday, and he said it was a problem in his constituency too. Essentially, to avoid parking at the airport for any length of time, people will get a taxi from a village outside the airport and make their way there, thereby avoiding the weekly charges. Given that there are hardly any alternatives to travelling by car to the airport, we need to look at the infrastructure around our airports, as people feel they have no choice but to drive or get a family member to drop them off.
Raising drop-off prices, as we have seen many airports doing, does not mean that my constituents or others who travel to East Midlands airport are suddenly able to magic up a bus or train to get them there. People want the convenience of being dropped off close to the departure gate, and airports know that. Let’s face it: it is a cash cow. It is an easy way to make money. As has been stated, East Midlands airport has recently been made barrierless, which means that someone can only pay online or by using an automated phoneline by midnight the following day. When dropping someone off early in the morning or late at night, it can be really easy to forget. I am sure we all have examples of that.
As the airport is in my constituency, I get a lot of casework on this matter that I then field to other MPs, because it generally does not come from my constituents. I was contacted by someone who returned home just after midnight, having dropped off a loved one at East Midlands airport, and they had just 24 hours to pay. Thankfully, they remembered, but they felt it was so unfair that they had such a short time to pay. It is possible to set up an account to take automatic payment, but that simply will not be accessible to all, and setting up an auto-payment for a single or twice-yearly event is not worth while.
What other service operates a system in which it is impossible to pay at the point of sale? It feels like the system is set up in the hope that people will forget, with fines of £100 if it slips their mind—although, of course, there are no reminders. The fine is reduced only if it is paid within 14 days. Coincidentally, 14 days is the length of many family holidays, which is ironic.
I have raised the issue directly with the airport and requested that a pay terminal or a simple QR code be put in the terminal building. That request was refused, based on fraud issues. Yet such options are common practice. Just yesterday I used the QR code at my local train station—which happens to be operated by the very same parking company. If the company can do that at Leicester train station, it could do it at East Midlands airport with no trouble. That is where regulation could bring merit, with clearer payment methods, reminders and limits on parking charges—not radical ideas, just basic consumer protections.
I wrote to APCOA parking to request data on the number of parking charge notices issued prior to and after the introduction of the new system at East Midlands airport. I was refused that data, which is not a good sign. Companies that are privately fining individuals should be subject to data-access rights relating to the schemes they operate. Ultimately, the current system of airport drop-off charges is unfair. When we factor in inadequate transport infrastructure, the case for regulation becomes even stronger.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate for airport communities.
Residents in my constituency know very well the impacts of airports, with Heathrow on our doorstep. The recent decision to increase the drop-off charge at Heathrow from £6 to £7 has been met with increasing frustration. Another issue mentioned in respect of the impact of airports on nearby villages is displacement. All too often, significant numbers of vehicles park in and around the Heathrow drop-off zone. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were here, he would vividly describe the impact on Heathrow villages of the antisocial parking of people who are avoiding drop-off charges.
In my constituency, given the nearby bus routes and the Elizabeth line connection at West Drayton, people are clearly getting around drop-off charges by parking in and around airport communities, causing a huge amount of frustration and nuisance. That has led to local authorities, such as Hillingdon and many others, introducing controlled parking zones, which charge residents significant amounts to park in their own streets to avoid the impacts. Even then, CPZs are only as good as the enforcement. We have a massive issue with parking enforcement, particularly out of hours, at evenings and weekends. People park in streets and neighbourhoods, often blocking residents’ drives, and there is no enforcement activity. There is also a significant increase in unregulated car parks popping up on private land, where people sell parking at competitive and preferential rates, leading to significant impacts on local communities.
I agree that airport charges could support alternatives that discourage people from driving to the airport, along with the related impacts, but all too often we do not see the investment following the charges. In Heathrow’s case, the transport funds that the airport hold are unspent, and a large amount of investment has not been put back into improving local bus routes. Bus connections from my community to Heathrow are incredibly poor, both for airport visitors and for staff, who have to take indirect routes to get there by bus, on infrequent services and undercapacity routes. The smaller, infrequent buses make it difficult for people with luggage to travel.
With the introduction of the Elizabeth line, we have seen a really positive improvement in transport connections, but it is ultimately the taxpayer who has led investment on that route. There is concern and frustration that as Heathrow potentially expands—a lot more will be said on that should proposals come forward—it will again be the taxpayer who continues to fund public transport options, rather than Heathrow airport making an adequate contribution.
As has been said, self-employed people who work for Uber, and other app-based drivers to the airport, have reported feeling increasingly squeezed by the increasing charges. They are struggling to make ends meet given the cost of living crisis and the increasing charges that they and their customers have to bear. They feel under-engaged and under-consulted by the airports; as important stakeholders, they clearly should be engaged and consulted.
I hope that the Minister, in considering the many issues raised today, will also consider the role that could be played by better guidance and regulation on charges. In particular, will he look at the options for making it clear that the funds raised through such mechanisms must be spent on alternatives to driving to the airport? There has to be transparency about the funds raised and how they are spent because, as many Members have said, it is very hard to get that information out of the airports. There should be a duty and responsibility on airport authorities to collaborate on issues like transport displacement with the local authorities in which they are based.
Lastly, there should be real clarity in the design and communication of any measures. Like others, I recently drove to the airport to pick up a friend who had missed the last train and drop him off at a different tube line. It was incredibly difficult to work out exactly what is and is not within the drop-off charge zone, and where the ANPR cameras are and where they are not. The signage and communication are incredibly poor, both before and after the journey to the airport. I hope the Minister will consider those points and ensure that if drop-off charges are to continue, they work for local residents and the surrounding communities.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this important debate.
What should be a simple act of kindness—giving someone a lift to an airport, as we have all done—is increasingly being met with extortionate airport charges. This is neither fair nor reasonable, and it is why we believe the Government must now look seriously at regulating the fees. For constituents like mine in West Dorset, who live in a hugely rural area with limited public transport, where many villages do not even have a reliable local bus service, let alone a direct rail link to a major airport, it is increasingly painful. For my constituents to get to Exeter, Bristol or Bournemouth airports, let alone Heathrow or Gatwick, means driving, booking a costly taxi or, more often than not, asking a family member or neighbour to help.
If we want to drop someone off, we have to use the airport system and pay its charges. At Bristol, that now means £8.50 for 10 minutes, or £30 for an hour. Bournemouth airport promotes what it calls a passenger pick-up offer of up to 90 minutes to meet and greet friends, for the small fee of £6. For many people, that £6 will be spent on merely five minutes’ activity. For families who are already paying inflated air fares, baggage fees and taxes, it is just another hidden cost added to the journey.
The charges have risen rapidly across the country, far beyond inflation. Gatwick now charges £10 for just 10 minutes—double what it charged in 2021. What began in 2007 as a £1 security-driven charge at Birmingham airport has become a nationwide revenue stream. Airports often justify the increases by citing environmental goals or the need to encourage public transport use, but unless the charges are accompanied by serious, accessible and affordable public transport investment, they do not change behaviour; they simply extract more money from those who have no alternative.
The charges hit some groups particularly hard, including disabled passengers, people with reduced mobility, parents travelling with young children, and those from rural areas who are least able to use public transport and most dependent on car access. Although airports have duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments, statutory provisions for blue badge holders do not apply in private car parks, and many people fall through the cracks.
The Competition and Markets Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority previously concluded that there was insufficient evidence of harm in surface access charging. That assessment is now out of date. Since 2016, charges have risen sharply. Free drop-off zones have all but been removed, and on-site payment options have been closed in favour of online or phone systems that are confusing for most.
As people try to avoid the charges, police have reported increased dangerous behaviour, with cars stopping on motorway hard shoulders to pick up passengers. That is unsafe for drivers, passengers and emergency services and is a direct result of an unfair pricing system. It is also worth remembering, as has been highlighted, that these charges are not normal across Europe. Passengers at Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol, Frankfurt and Madrid do not pay to drop off loved ones. If it can be done there, it can be done here.
Airports argue that they face financial pressures, particularly from business rates, which were recalculated after the pandemic. We Liberal Democrats sympathise, and passing the bill directly to passengers through drop-off fees may be the easiest lever to pull, but it is not the fairest or most effective one. The Department for Transport has previously said that it has no plans to monitor or limit parking fees at airports, and I believe that position is no longer acceptable.
The Liberal Democrats have been clear that we want to reduce the environmental impact of flying, but it has to be done in a way that is fair and effective. We support investment in zero-carbon flights, reforming aviation taxation so that frequent flyers pay more, taxing private jets, improving rail alternatives and banning short domestic flights where fast rail options exist. What we do not support is offloading the cost of climate policies on to families, friends, disabled people and rural transport.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I rarely intervene on another spokesperson’s speech, but this raises a question: if the Liberal Democrats want these expensive policies and say that consumers should not pay, who should pay?
Edward Morello
I thank the hon. Member for the opportunity to clarify my point. It is not about whether the consumer pays; it is about whether the airports are using the revenue they claim they are generating to support climate policies for that purpose, or whether it is simply another revenue stream for them. Airports and providers must use the money correctly, rather than just levying another tax on passengers.
Regulation could take several forms. There could be a cap on drop-off charges linked to inflation. There could be a requirement for a free short-stay grace period. There could be mandatory exemptions for disabled passengers and carers. There could be greater transparency on how revenues are used and whether they genuinely fund sustainable transport.
What we cannot do is to continue to allow airports to exploit their control over access to extract ever higher fees from consumers who have no meaningful choice. It is time we recognised that airport drop-off charges have become unfair, unregulated and disconnected from their original purpose. I hope the Government will act.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I join all other contributors today in congratulating the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate. We often say, “This is an important debate,” and most of the time in this Chamber we do not mean it, but on this occasion I think we do.
Through some very articulate speeches, building one upon the other, the debate has exposed two significant problems with the current state of affairs in drop-off charges at our airports: first, whether we should be charging in the first place; and secondly, if we accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) that it is okay to charge for drop-offs, whether the process of charging is itself fair. Frankly, I was taken by surprise on this point, which was raised repeatedly. At multiple airports, the charging mechanism is itself unfair, as it does not give the opportunity of point-of-service charging—a barrier at which the customer pays—but instead requires customers to pay after the event by what are, at times, very complex mechanisms.
I was a barrister a very long time ago. There is a health warning on my legal advice, but this matter was first settled in 1877 by Mellish LJ—I do not have this at the back of my memory; I looked it up—in Parker v. South Eastern Railway Company. When parking somewhere, the terms and conditions are typically on a board. A provider seeking to rely on those contractual terms has to take reasonably sufficient steps to draw them to the consumer’s attention for the contract to be established, and it must be at or before the point at which the contract becomes established.
The reason why that triggered my memory is because, in my day, I learned about a very famous judge—Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls—who developed the argument in Spurling v. Bradshaw in 1956. He said that the principle covers typical, expected terms and conditions, but if there are particularly onerous conditions as part of the standard terms, the level of notice has to increase to a commensurate degree.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s considered thoughts on this issue. I wonder whether a requirement not to pay now, but to pay later and by a circuitous route, would constitute an onerous term when dealing with a consumer, as these contracts almost always are. If that is the case, has a contract been established at all with any of the people dropping off at these airports? I cannot give legal advice, and I am very out of date anyway, but consumer rights groups should explore this issue with a test case—a group action would run to many millions of pounds if it were proved successful. That is the point about whether charging is fair.
Jim McMahon
Throughout the whole conversation, the thing that keeps coming to mind is: why would the airports not want to provide a payment option to pay there and then at drop-off, if not for the fact that they would raise less revenue because they would not be able to charge a penalty if people miss the 24-hour window?
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the kind of evidence that a judge would assess to establish whether sufficient notice had been given and how onerous a term is.
The second part is about whether the travelling public accept that this is a reasonable charge and has become the norm, as the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton asserts. An awful lot of people do not feel that it is fair in principle to charge for this service, because no real service is being supplied. People are occupying a bit of tarmac for one or two minutes. It used to be free, so the feeling of value is limited at best.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about a hidden charge, and he was absolutely right. As passengers, we are incredibly price-conscious when it comes to buying our flights. We will wear only one pair of socks for the entire holiday in order not to pay for baggage. We then get lumped with paying a tenner for being dropped off, and it is a hidden cost—it is not in the headline price of the flight.
I totally understand the reaction of many that this is unfair, and that the market is not working. The communal reaction is that we must regulate. Perhaps we should, but before we do so we need to understand why airports are raising these charges. I am sorry to say that in many cases it is because this Labour Government are forcing them to do exactly that.
If Government policy increases costs for airports, the airports, as rational commercial organisations, will seek to recover those costs from their consumers, because there is no one else—ultimately, the consumer always pays. This Government have increased employer national insurance contributions, levying more than £900 in additional tax for every single employee on the books. They have raised business rates enormously and have increased environmental targets, which also have significant cash consequences. All of it comes for the consumer.
I will not deal with national insurance contributions because we all know how impactful that change has been, not just to pubs but right across the private sector.
Danny Beales
I am just a bit confused. The hon. Member suggests that drop-off charges are the responsibility of this Government. At Heathrow, the charge is £7, but it was £6 during the 14 years of the last Government, so proportionally—following his argument—90%, or whatever the maths says it is, of the cost came from the last Government and only 10% from this Government. I do not exactly follow the logic of his argument.
Jerome Mayhew
The logic is not exact, but if you increase costs, you cannot be surprised if prices go up. Essentially, that is the point I am making.
On business rates, Gatwick has had the worst increase. According to the Financial Times, its business rates have increased from £40 million a year to £90 million a year, so the Government have increased Gatwick’s costs by £50 million every single year. Where do they think that money will come from? It will come from the consumer via drop-off charges, other additional charges or increases in the landing rates applied to airlines—such increases would go on to the consumer through increased air fares. It is therefore financially illiterate for the Government to very substantially raise the cost of doing business—particularly for airports, with their increased business rates—and then complain when these companies raise their charges.
There are additional costs on airports, which I will briefly talk about, because of environmental and net zero targets and requirements. Many airports have directly cited those costs to explain why they are raising charges. Many of them, including Bristol, Heathrow and Gatwick, have said that they are trying to raise drop-off charges to force passengers to use alternative modes of mass transport. That would be fine and well if additional public transport were available for those people being disincentivised from using their car.
However, I do not agree that we should penalise passengers by using the stick of increased charges to force them to use a less convenient mode of transport to get to the airport. Instead, we should lure passengers to airports by providing a method of public transport that is even more convenient than using the car. That is where the Government have gone wrong, because they have incentivised airports to use the stick of payments or costs to beat their own customers without providing an attractive alternative to car use.
I fear that I am running short of time—I see that I have one minute left—so I will not do the peroration where I say, “Aren’t the Conservatives wonderful? We are re-evaluating our environmental policies to get rid of the target of net zero by 2050, which is driving the transition at such a pace that it is increasing costs unrealistically, and we should be focusing on the consumer rather than on interest groups.” However, I hope that in the time available to him the Minister will show that he takes seriously what is genuinely an important issue that affects many millions of people around the country. It is an unfairness in plain sight. This is his opportunity to assure all our constituents that they have been listened to and that the Government are taking this issue seriously.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate. As she so clearly and eloquently expressed, this issue affects many of her constituents, and indeed many airport users across the country, as other hon. Members have outlined. I commend her commitment to advocating for those impacted by what can sometimes be unfair and disproportionate airport drop-off charges, and I will engage closely with the points that she and hon. Members of all parties have raised.
Turning to the specifics of her speech, my hon. Friend clearly set out how airports are nodes of economic productivity. They are essential to UK growth, but they are underpinned by the lived experiences of people in the communities we serve as Members of Parliament. She spoke powerfully about the impact on people with disabilities, young families and those who need to be dropped off in the middle of the night, including on their ability to use airports, if parking charges are not set in a way that is fair and proportionate. I thank her for doing so.
My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and others subsequently spoke about the underpinning principle of fairness being required within the system. Whether through apps or websites, the rules must be clear and transparent, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), also spoke about. The rules must also be easy to navigate, regardless of when someone drops off a passenger or when they come to pay the charge.
I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon). His point about the fairness of penalty charges for non-payment was well made. It is incredibly important that there be transparency about that aspect of the charging system, and airports must express it clearly to their consumers. That point was buttressed by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme, who used the specific example of a failure to pay a fee for staying an extra minute ending up in a £60 fine. That goes to the heart of the fact that there are people who serve the economies connected to our airports—particularly taxi drivers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) mentioned. It is really important that we make sure that those people are at the heart of designs for parking systems at our airports.
Important points were also raised about airport signage being clear, and I will take those away. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) made valuable points about rural connectivity and access to airports. My hon. Friend noted that a dial-a-ride service can work very well in certain instances, but consumers cannot always trust a bus to show up when they need it to so that they can get to the airport on time, often at night. I understand the concern. We need to make sure that surface access across our airports, whether for people who live in rural or urban communities, is improved. That is a key priority for me as Aviation Minister.
Lee Pitcher
Does the Minister agree that there is an opportunity for franchising in certain areas? I am working with South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority at the moment, to put in place a Doncaster East super loop that includes the airport and improves services, so that our residents can get to the airport safely and quickly.
Keir Mather
Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is a virtuous circle of economic prosperity to be created through multimodal access to airports. Rail provides an incredibly important piece of that puzzle and it is hoped that increased powers in the Railways Bill, including more control of the provision of passenger services, will allow us to cluster economic focus to the areas that need it most.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) raised issues to do with East Midlands airport. Although the airport uses a proportion of its car parking revenue to fund public transport, cycling and walking access options, including its local electric bus service, that does not negate his important point about fairness. He mentioned the penalty fee being incurred by midnight of the next day if someone fails to pay their fee on time. His point about transparency and consumers being able to know when that fee is approaching is incredibly important.
My hon. Friend also raised an incredibly important point about accessibility. For older residents or people who do not have the same digital literacy as others, navigating smartphone apps and websites to pay that charge can be very onerous indeed. I will certainly be taking that point away.
Jim McMahon
Part of the issue is that there is a starting principle that does not accept that taking a car to an airport is legitimate on the grounds that people should cycle or take the train, the tram or the bus. If that alternative is available, fine, but for most people the ability to see off loved ones safely and say goodbye is a very important part of the experience.
Keir Mather
That point is incredibly well made. Too often, when we discuss aviation policy in this place, we fail to recognise that the people who use our airports may well be making emotional journeys with their loved ones and dropping people off to travel around the world and explore new opportunities. They deserve to know that they can do so in a context where the airport is providing them with a good quality service.
I also want to reflect briefly on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden about our airports being a gateway to the United Kingdom. That is an incredibly important and useful lens through which we can view some of these policy considerations.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), pointed out that travel to Bristol airport is a real challenge from his Dorset constituency. I visited Bristol airport a couple of weeks ago, and I got to see the fantastic local bus service that they are pioneering there. He raised a very good point, building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton: if someone has to go a longer distance they will be taking a car and will therefore need to access that drop-off zone. We need to think realistically about the impact on the constituents he represents.
The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, raised the principle of fairness that lies behind the mechanism for payments of charges and how, in an opaque system where the rules are not clear, that can cause difficulty for people paying. Where is the fairness in that system? The point is well made. I will leave to him the legalistic determinations about how it relates to certain principles of contract law, but I am happy to explore the issue further with him.
My hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for West Dorset made important points about accessibility. The CAA enforces the rules on accessibility at airport car parks, including through the Equality Act 2010. Passengers with a disability or reduced mobility are legally entitled to special assistance free of charge when they fly from UK airports. Many airports, including Manchester, offer exemptions from fees for blue badge holders. That is not to say that there is not still enormous work to do to make the system fairer and more transparent. I am always happy for hon. Members across the House to write to me with specific instances of where they feel the framework is not serving the needs of passengers with disabilities. I will happily look into that for them.
Finally, the hon. Members for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for West Dorset and for Broadland and Fakenham raised taxation. In the autumn Budget, His Majesty’s Treasury announced a redesigned transitional relief scheme worth £1.3 billion in support to airports over 2026-27 and 2028-29. That caps airport bill increases at just over double by 2028-29, compared with the larger increases that there would have been without support. The Labour party’s view is that airports do not exist completely separately from the public services on which their workers depend. People need to travel to airports on the strategic road network, and workers at airports need to be able to access the NHS. It is incredibly important that airports should play their part in contributing to the public finances, but we want to ensure that is done proportionately. I am always happy to have conversations about that with hon. Members.
Jim McMahon
Gatwick was given as an example, but it is worth bearing in mind that it paid out £600 million in shareholder dividends.
Keir Mather
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.
In the time remaining, I want to turn to the actual operating model of these parking charges. Most UK airports are privately operated and have the commercial freedom to set their own fees for the services they provide, but the Government expect fees to be set in a way that is both fair and proportionate. Well-designed parking facilities help to manage traffic flows and improve accessibility and local air quality. At the same time, airports must encourage passengers to use public transport options where possible.
Although all that is being considered, I am sure that some hon. Members in the Chamber will be disappointed to hear that the Government do not believe that it is their role to dictate parking prices from Whitehall. Airports must retain the ability to manage their own infrastructure; the Government’s role is to ensure that competition and consumer laws are protected. Ultimately, each airport operator must justify the charges they levy and show that they are fair, transparent and carried out with proper accountability.
We support the continued success of our world-leading aviation sector, but we must do so in a way that delivers a green, more sustainable future. Airports should use their surface access strategies to set clear targets for sustainable travel and offer positive and practical incentives so that people do not drive to airports, but instead to use public transportation. When airports develop those strategies, they must clearly set out their approaches to parking and drop-off charges, and they must use their airport transport forums to plan future transport options in consultation with local people. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip made that point powerfully.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden said, many airports, including Manchester, offer a range of parking options, including free drop-off zones for passengers and public transport, but it is important that everyone who needs to can access our airports. Some parking options and public transport alternatives may not always work for passengers with accessibility needs. Although airports such as Manchester offer exemptions for blue badge holders, I want to push that further.
More than anything, today’s debate has highlighted the importance of fairness and transparency. It is essential that passengers can easily find information about parking and drop-off options so that they can plan their journeys and make the right, informed choice. We expect airport parking and drop-off charges to be clear and accessible, both online and at the airport itself. Airports must also make it easy for their customers to pay the relevant fee in a timely manner before proceeding to issue penalty charges for failure to do so. I was disappointed to hear Members across the House give examples of where that has not been the case for their constituents. I undertake to remind airports, including Manchester airport, of their obligations.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made the very good point that the notice of the charge was situated beyond the point at which someone could reverse out. Will the Minister undertake to remind Manchester airport that any notice of a charge has to be at a place where people can decide not to accept the charge?
Keir Mather
It should be incumbent on all airports, including Manchester airport, to provide transparency, clarity and ease of access to information about parking charges, so I will happily raise that when I next meet Manchester airport representatives. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden needs no support in being a champion for her constituents in this space.
Importantly, airport users are protected by consumer law. Most airports have contracts with private parking operators, which must belong to a trade association and follow the sector’s new code of practice and appeals procedure. If drivers feel that signage is inadequate or that they have been treated unfairly, they can appeal through those services.
More widely, we recognise concerns about poor practices among some private parking operators. That is why the Government have consulted on proposals to raise standards, in preparation for a new code of practice and compliance framework. Responses are now being analysed, and we will publish our response in due course. I am cognisant of the pressure that this creates on local communities, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned. He also mentioned ghost plates, which we are taking real action to tackle through the road safety strategy.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden on securing the debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. The debate has shone a light on drop-off and parking charges at airports, and reinforced the Government’s expectation that airports manage the arrangements with fairness and respect. We will continue to work to ensure that they do so, and I encourage Members across the House to join us in those efforts.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Yasmin Qureshi, you have two minutes to wind up.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who took part in the debate, and I thank the Minister for his response. He will be reassured to know that I was not expecting the Government to dictate car parking charges at airports. What I wanted was an assurance, which I think he has given, that he will work with the airports and explain to them the challenges we face. I want them to come forward with a better way of dealing with people who come to the airport, and with the drop-off charges, the signage, the payments and all the issues that we have discussed. I thank all my colleagues again for attending and taking part in the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of regulating airport drop-off charges.