Airport Drop-off Charges

Afzal Khan Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Pavement Parking

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire]

Yes, I absolutely agree that councils should have the power to decide where cars can be parked on pavements.

Despite cross-party agreement in the Transport Committee’s 2019 report, clear public support and the examples already in place across the UK, the Government have still not published their response. Each time the question is raised we are told only that the Department is considering all the views expressed. After five years, that is simply not good enough. Inaction is leaving our most vulnerable residents at risk every single day.

The impact is undeniable. Living Streets found that 62% of over-65s in England are worried about obstructions on the pavement. According to research from Guide Dogs, four out of five blind or partially sighted people say pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week, and 95% have been forced into the road because of it. Among wheelchair and mobility scooters, that figure rises to a staggering 99%. Vehicles blocking pavements creates both a physical and psychological barrier, discouraging those with disabilities from leaving their homes. At a time when the Government are claiming to support more disabled people into work, it is essential that they tackle the issue.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a strong case that pavement parking is dangerous. I hear regularly from constituents who are forced to walk their young children into busy roads or from those in wheelchairs who must go back home because they cannot get past the obstruction of cars. Does the hon. Member agree that pavement parking decreases active travel and prevents the most vulnerable in our society from safely accessing their own community?

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree. We need to be encouraging active walking and encouraging people to use local businesses, and they cannot do that if they cannot access them by walking or being in a wheelchair on a pavement.

Parents also face the same challenges, with 87% of parents saying that they have had to walk in the road because of pavement parking. They would be more likely to walk their child to school if there was not pavement parking. They are not simply statistics; I have heard directly from residents about delivery motorcycles on Epsom High Street riding up on to the pavement in front of pedestrians, blocking footways outside fast food outlets and creating a hazardous obstacle course. On one evening earlier this year, a constituent reported 23 mopeds and motorbikes clustered on the pavement, forcing pedestrians into the road and creating congestion as they pulled in and out without warning.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover]

The example my hon. Friend gives from her constituency shows what dedicated infrastructure can achieve in getting more people walking and cycling.

What needs to change, and how? First, as my hon. Friend just said, infrastructure and street design are incredibly important. We know from countries with high rates of walking and cycling that safe and pleasant streets are essential. The majority of accidents in the UK involving those who are cycling occur at junctions, making those areas critical points for targeted interventions. Research consistently identifies the failure to look properly as the leading cause of road injuries among those who are cycling and other road users.

I would love to see infrastructure of the quality in Assen, Groningen, Utrecht or Rotterdam—or any other Dutch town or city, for that matter—everywhere in the UK, but there are things we can do in the meantime. In London, there is an example just down the road from this place, where Westminster’s pioneering of side street zebra crossings—zebra crossing markings without the cost of having flashing lights—is a great example of a simple, low-cost intervention. The evidence shows that those crossings are already saving lives and increasing people’s confidence in walking and cycling.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Greater Manchester is prioritising road safety by implementing 100 school streets by 2028. Those are areas around schools that limit traffic during drop-off and pick-up times, which will make walking, wheeling and cycling to school safer for young people. Does the hon. Member agree that funding school streets will create safer, more reliable and more child-friendly environments around schools?

[Olly Glover]

That is a very good example of how spending money well can lead to a big difference.

I have already mentioned the Netherlands, but my hon. Friends on the Lib Dem Benches would be disappointed were I not to bore them to tears by wanging on about the Netherlands at greater length. If I might plug an opportunity for hon. Members to see for themselves the marvels that have been achieved there on active travel, the APPG for cycling and walking plans a trip to the Netherlands in September.

In my constituency, there are many schools where lots of pupils and parents would like to walk and cycle but cannot because of infrastructure or other barriers. The Europa school in Culham is located on a major A road, and for years the parents and the school have campaigned for a crossing to connect the school with the nearby village of Culham across that A road. They have finally got a commitment that that will happen in the next year, but still the so-called cycle path that runs near the school is nothing of the sort: it is a pavement that someone has decided people can cycle on. It is not wide enough, and there have been collisions because of that. Far more needs to be done.

Draft Franchising Schemes (Franchising Authorities) (England) Regulations 2024

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 General Committees

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I also want to take the opportunity to tell the Minister that we really appreciate these proposals in Greater Manchester. As a former bus driver, I know about the need for them and about the difficulties with cross-community connections. Great work has been done with the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, and the sooner these proposals can be rolled out, the better for all our constituents.