Airport Drop-off Charges

Debate between Afzal Khan and Yasmin Qureshi

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Debate between Afzal Khan and Yasmin Qureshi

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I totally agree, and I will come to those points a little later in my speech.

As I said, for many people the debate has been revealed to be less about animals and more about Muslims. If it is truly about animal welfare, will we be talking about the 44,000-plus welfare breaches occurring in the stun industry; the millions of animals affected by failed stunning, painful procedures and transport death; or the use of CO₂ gassing in 88% of pig slaughter, which is known to cause severe distress and pain? Instead, attention is focused on a religious practice followed by a minority, which has been protected by our laws for many decades. The right to practise one’s faith should not be up for debate, and it should not be undermined by misinformation driven by culture wars.

The practice seems to be: pick a minority practice, label it backward or dangerous, and claim the moral high ground under the banner of animal welfare. But this is not about welfare; it is about control, scapegoating and singling out faith communities for scrutiny that others are not subjected to. Let us be clear: although the petition refers to non-stun slaughter, the debate outside this room has focused almost entirely on halal meat. That is what is dominating the headlines. Again, as I said, kosher slaughter is done in a similar way, so it is great that at least one community is not being picked on over this issue.

What all of this highlights is a double standard. As I mentioned, the real welfare crisis is the over 44,000 animal welfare breaches that happen in a single year; the failed stunning, which affects up to 31% of poultry and leaves animals conscious; the CO₂ gassing of pigs, which causes panic and breathlessness, and is still used on 88% of pigs; the transport deaths, which see over 118,000 chickens die before even reaching the slaughterhouse; and castration, another painful practice, which causes prolonged suffering.

Do hon. Members think that the electric bolts sent into an animal’s head—which quite often fail—are somehow painless? They cause immense suffering, yet nobody talks about them. Why do we not talk about them? Because it is easier to attack visible religious practice.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Even the British Veterinary Association has suggested a permit system for non-stun allowances—for halal and kosher demands—not a blanket ban. Does my hon. Friend recognise that debates such as this can feed division rather than unity? With religious hate crimes against British Muslims rising by 13% last year alone, and many feeling increasingly marginalised by political discourse, does she agree that we should confront the underlying racism and Islamophobia that too often drives these debates?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for making that observation.

Jewish and Islamic traditions around slaughter are grounded in clear rules designed to minimise suffering. These are not casual practices. The animal must be healthy. It must not witness another animal being slaughtered; the slaughter must be done individually, with animals away from one another. The process must be swift and carried out by someone who is trained and accountable. It is not a mechanical process; it is solemn and Islamic. As I am sure those who can talk more about kosher practice would agree, this is about recognising that we are taking the life of a living being, so it must be done with respect. In fact, in Islamic slaughter—I think it is the same in the shechita method—the animal is held, or embraced, so that any stress is reduced.

In Islam, all animals must, in effect, be vegetarian. Basically, Muslims eat only lambs, cows, sheep and chicken, because they are considered to be grass-eating vegetarian animals that do not eat other animals. So this is about eating healthy meat, but it is also about protecting animals. The way they are slaughtered is important, and it is wrong to say that it is somehow barbaric. However, as I said, when I have looked at social media, GB News and newspapers, the whole debate has been, “Oh, barbaric! Let’s get rid of halal meat, halal meat, halal meat.” That is almost the mantra that everybody has. Yet, 88% of halal meat is pre-stunned.

I am grateful the Government have taken a sensible approach to this issue. I believe that halal meat and kosher meat should be available in this country, and I am very happy for it to be labelled; it is very important that there should be clear labelling—I do not think anybody has any problem with that—so that people know what they are getting.

Although this has not been mentioned, scientific studies have shown that the Jewish and the Islamic method of slaughter is actually less painful to the animal because it involves a minimum amount of time, whereas gassing animals or putting a bullet through their heads—a lot of times, that actually fails, so it has to be done twice over—is much more painful.