Yasmin Qureshi MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 3, page 5, line 38, at end insert— “(7) The preceding provisions on allocation for trial without a jury do not apply to cases where a defendant has already elected to be tried in the Crown Court prior to the commencement of this section.”

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Amendment 25 relates to the retrospective allocation of cases to the Crown court bench division. I am asking that provisions for the allocation for trial without jury do not apply when election has already happened. The point is that in all jurisprudence in the world, retrospective legislation is bad law and bad jurisprudence, going against the rules of natural justice. Why? Because there is a breach of legal certainty. A core principle of the rule of law is that an individual should know the legal consequences of their actions. People also have a legitimate expectation of the procedural framework in place at the time of the commission of an offence. Retrospective allocation rules disrupt that expectation and weaken trust in our justice system. It is a selective tightening of procedures by the state, which risks an abuse of legislative power and an inconsistency. Article 7 of the European convention on human rights argues against retrospective criminal law penalties. While it is correct that with this clause we are not talking about retrospective criminal penalty, I would say that article 7 is being breached, because even if penalties are not increased, legitimate expectations are being undermined. The defence and legal representatives prepare cases based on existing court structures, and on known procedures and practices. Suddenly to set new procedural rules and different evidential expectation is just not cricket. The state is being given an advantage, because there should be an equality of arms. Administrative convenience should not override fundamental rights. The courts have repeatedly stressed that fairness is more important than efficiency, because it generates among people confidence in the state and in the criminal justice system. That is why—I repeat—our judicial system is recognised to be one of the best in the world.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the point that the Minister is making about victims and I am obviously concerned for them, but we are also talking about defendants’ rights. She will be aware that 900 postmasters and postmistresses from the Horizon scandal have all said, “Please do not abolish jury trial,” and the reason is that when they were being charged with those offences, many of them were told to plead guilty by lawyers who thought that a public jury would find it difficult to believe that a Government organisation had made a mistake. However, some of them did elect Crown court trials and were acquitted. That is 900 potential defendant/victims. Lord Hain and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) mention the importance of the jury trial. I do think that the victim and defendants have a right to elect, and I think that we should abandon restricting the jury trials.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The restriction on some cases not being tried in jury trials is because the Government feel that that will help to bring down the delay in court listing. I say to the Government that the problem is not the jury system, but the fact that other provisions need to be made sufficient. I am afraid that the problem was 14 years of Conservative cuts—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was a Member then. The Conservative Government did not take the Ministry of Justice seriously. There was a Lord Chancellor virtually every year—in 14 years, I think we had 10 Lord Chancellors, which tells us how important the criminal justice system was to the now Opposition. To go back to my point about clause 1, and all the other clauses that follow, I urge my colleagues and the Minister to please rethink this whole thing. Juries are not the cause of the delay in our system.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Before I turn to the substance of this clause, I want to begin by setting out the perspective from which I speak. Before entering Parliament, I worked as a prosecutor for more than 14 years. During that time, I dealt with a wide range of serious cases, including sexual abuse, rape, domestic violence, historical child abuse and cases involving families and vulnerable victims. On a daily basis, I saw at first hand the impact of the criminal justice system on victims, witnesses and their families, as well as their emotions, their concerns and the importance of ensuring that justice is done fairly and transparently. Although I have not practised in recent years, my understanding of the system remains current. I remain in regular contact with practitioners, including solicitors, barristers, members of the judiciary and colleagues in the CPS, and I continue to follow closely what is happening in both the magistrates court and the Crown court. In addition, during my time as a shadow Justice Minister, I worked on issues relating to prisons, probation and the courts, and I have seen how changes in the system, including the increased use of technology, remote hearings and the handling of evidence, have affected the way that justice is delivered. So I speak on this Bill from a position of experience and of ongoing engagement with the criminal justice system. Colleagues will be relieved to know that I will not be repeating this preamble in any future contributions. Let me begin by addressing what lies at the heart of this Bill: the restriction of jury trials. Trial by jury is not a procedural detail; it is one of the most fundamental safeguards in our justice system. It reflects the simple but powerful principle that when the state seeks to take away a person’s liberty, that decision should not rest with the state alone, but with ordinary citizens—a jury of their peers. That principle has a deep constitutional root—from Bushel’s case in 1670, which established the independence of juries, to its role across the common law world, trial by jury has long stood as a protection against arbitrary power. That is not just a feature of our legal system, but a principle reflected across the common law jurisdiction and a recognition that justice must be seen to be done and must not rely solely on the state. It is also one of the reasons that the public has confidence in our system. The proposal in clause 1 to remove the right to elect a jury trial is not a trivial matter. It covers offences such as theft, fraud and stalking that carry real-life consequences, including custodial sentences, reputational harm and long-term impacts on people’s lives. The Government argue that the measure is necessary to deal with the delay in the system. I have great sympathy with the Government about the massive delay in the court system but, respectfully, jury trials are not causing that delay.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 3, page 5, line 25, leave out “the condition” and insert “one or more of the conditions”.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to ask about two things. First, for clarification on what clause 2 is actually trying to do, because, like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, and like the hon. Member for Reigate, I was very confused by it. I read it many times and read the explanatory note as well. In desperation, I even went on to ChatGPT to see whether it could explain to me what clause 2 is trying to do. I hope the Minister will bear with me: as I understand it, the procedures in the magistrates court are as follows: If it is a summary case, then the case stays in the magistrates court—the sentencing, trials and so on—and nobody has any right to go anywhere else. If it is an indictable offence, it has to be heard in the Crown court. There is no discretion and it is nothing to do with the magistrates court. If a defendant is charged with an either-way offence—this is the whole point of a jury trial—it has always been the case that he or she can turn up in court and say, “I plead guilty.”

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not press these amendments to a vote, but I want them to be debated; they are probing amendments. Amendment 23 was tabled by me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). At the moment, the proposed legislation only has one condition; I would like to put in more than one condition to be met when the courts are considering whether a case should go to the Crown court. Amendment 24 sets out the conditions that I wish the Committee and the Minister to consider: when there is discussion or consideration about whether a case should be sent to the Crown court, they should look at whether “the defendant, if convicted of the offence…for which the defendant is to be tried, would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment…of more than three years”, which is what the Government have initially proposed. I also say that whether the defendant is of good character is a completely relevant consideration, along with the considerations in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the amendment. I will explain the rationale behind that proposal. We have spoken about the fact that there are people of previous good character, who may be in a different position from people who have convictions, who could go to the Crown court. That is one good argument to make but, for me, when we are trying to restrict an either-way right of trial, the fact that someone is of good character is a relevant consideration. All the conditions I have set out should also be included in the Bill so that they are considered by the court when determining where the case should be heard.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  We now know that an agreement was about to be reached on uranium enrichment by Iran. However, Israel decided to bomb Iran, as did the USA, engaging in an illegal, immoral and dangerous war of choice. Even during the ceasefire, which included Lebanon, Israel continues to bomb south Lebanon and Beirut, displacing millions of people. This is typical of Israel: just before an agreement is reached, it kills negotiators and bombs countries. This is not a faraway conflict; my constituents are paying the price for it through higher fuel costs and rising mortgages and household bills. [ Interruption. ] What additional steps is the Prime Minister taking to help my constituents, as well as people across the country and the world, by bringing peace—unlike Members on the Conservative Benches, who seem to be finding it very amusing?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Prime Minister for his decision not to get involved in this war of choice. While we are all distracted by Israel’s illegal bombing of Iran and Lebanon, Israel has also occupied the west bank and, in the month of Ramadan, closed Masjid al-Aqsa, which is the third holiest Muslim site. It is in East Jerusalem, which, under international law, has been declared as being illegally occupied by Israel. This is a particularly pernicious and vindictive action. Can the Secretary of State please tell us what discussion she and the Foreign Office have had with their Israeli counterparts, and will she ask them to please reopen the Masjid al-Aqsa and allow the worshippers in, especially as Eid al-Fitr will be celebrated by the end of this week?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome much in this Bill, including the investment in legal aid, the additional sitting days and the funding for our courts. However, I want to focus my remarks on two proposals within it: the restriction of jury trials for either-way offences, and the removal of the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court. I speak as someone who began their legal career as a prosecutor in the 1990s. The kind of backlogs we see today simply did not exist in those days, even though more cases were heard in the Crown court because magistrates had sentencing powers of only six months. The delays we face today are not caused by jury trials. I remember that as shadow Justice Minister I repeatedly challenged the previous Conservative Government about the consequences of the decisions they were making. Courts were closed, judicial sitting days were cut, court staff were reduced, and legal aid was placed under enormous strain. At the same time, the system had to cope with the demands of modern digital evidence, delays in disclosure, problems with prisoner transport and the disruption caused by covid. The Government argue that these reforms are necessary to reduce the Crown court backlogs, and often point to the delays faced by victims of sexual and domestic abuse. I take those concerns very seriously—a substantial part of my career as a prosecutor was spent as a designated child and sexual abuse specialist and rape specialist. I worked closely with victims, witnesses and families affected by these traumatic offences. If I believed that the abolition of jury trials would genuinely allow those cases to be heard more quickly, I would support it, but I do not. There is also the issue of removing the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court. This change will disproportionately affect defendants from poorer backgrounds who may not have legal aid representation. We know that a significant proportion of those appeals succeed, which raises serious concerns about access to justice. These two proposals will disproportionately impact the most vulnerable in our society, particularly those from socially, economically and educationally deprived backgrounds. My constituency ranks as the 38th most deprived in the country. For many of my constituents, the criminal justice system already feels distant and difficult to navigate. We should be careful not to introduce changes that risk criminalising and disadvantaging them even further. There are real reforms that could address the delays. The first and foremost is the Labour party’s commitment to having properly funded specialist rape courts. I know that lawyers and judges will be prepared to sit at weekends to tackle those cases. Secondly, we could be more like the civil system, where timelines are set so that cases progress properly. If any of the parties do not act properly, there could be financial sanctions for them. I know we will be opening more courts and courtrooms, but we need to expand the number of judicial sitting days. We also need to review the contracts with Serco and other bodies that produce defendants in court, because a lot of delay is caused by defendants not being produced at court. The prosecution and the police need to be able to present their evidence to the defence as soon as possible, and the defendant needs to be legally represented, so that additional evidence can be considered. As a result, we could have pleas at a much earlier stage. We need to look at those things first, put them in place, and see what happens, before we get rid of or restrict jury trials.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Social Cohesion Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents tell me about the increased level of hate crime against Muslims. I hear stories of women being abused or having their hijabs pulled off. That is a direct result not just of most of the coverage in our right-wing media, but of politicians in this place, some of whom have held the highest offices in the land, including the Leader of the Opposition. They feed into this narrative and cause anti-Muslim sentiment. What more will we do to counter the level of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Commonwealth Troops: First World War · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) on securing this important debate. It is important that we recognise the contribution of the Commonwealth troops in the first and the second world wars. When we remember the world wars, we rightly honour the bravery of British servicemen and servicewomen, but Britain did not fight those wars alone. Millions of men and women across the Commonwealth stood alongside British forces and played a decisive role in defending freedom in Europe and beyond. More than 1.3 million soldiers from the Indian subcontinent served in the first world war, fighting in some of the most brutal theatres of conflict, including the western front, Gallipoli and the middle east. It is important to remember that what was known then as British India included regions that today form India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Many of the soldiers who fought for Britain came from areas that are now part of Pakistan, and there was a vast number of Muslim soldiers among those who served. In fact, historians estimate that millions of Muslim soldiers and labourers fought for the allied forces during the two world wars; at least 2.5 million Muslims contributed during the first world war and an estimated 5.5 million during the second world war. Nearly 1.5 million Muslims are believed to have been killed in action across both conflicts. These men travelled thousands of miles from their home to fight in conflicts that were not of their making. Muslim soldiers fought in the trenches of northern France and Belgium, endured the freezing conditions of European winters and served across battlefields stretching from Europe to north Africa and the middle east. Many fought alongside soldiers of other faiths, sharing food, hardship and danger. There are records of Muslim, Christian and Jewish soldiers learning each other’s burial rites, so that the fallen could be laid to rest with dignity on the battlefield. One lady who is often forgotten is Noor-un-Nisa Inayat Khan, a British Muslim woman and the first wireless operator sent into occupied France. She was betrayed and then arrested and tortured for months before being executed at Dachau concentration camp. She was given a George Cross posthumously. Despite such enormous sacrifices, the contribution of Muslim soldiers remains largely absent from our national memory. At a time of increasing divisions in our society, and in particular the demonising of Muslims in parts of our political discourse and media—including by some very senior politicians, who should be absolutely ashamed of themselves—Muslims in Britain are too often portrayed as outsiders, or as somehow disconnected from the history of this country, but the truth is different. Muslims were in the trenches of the first world war. They were in the forces that fought fascism during the second world war. They served in the merchant navy, in labour corps and across battlefields around the world. Many of them never returned home. Their sacrifices helped to defend the freedoms and democratic values that we all benefit from today. In my constituency, many families trace their heritage to the Indian subcontinent, including Pakistan. For many of them, the history of Commonwealth soldiers is not distant history, but part of their family stories. My paternal grandfather fought in the war and my maternal uncle had the King’s commission at a time when most people from the Indian subcontinent had the viceroy’s commission. That why we have a sense of belonging in this country. Debates like these matter. They remind us that Britain has always been shaped by the contributions of people from many backgrounds, faith and cultures. When we remember the first and second world wars, we must remember the full story of that shared sacrifice.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I chair the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, an organisation partially funded by the FCDO that works in more than 50 countries to strengthen democracy, Parliaments, political parties and civil society. This year marks its 34th anniversary. If I could speak to any of my predecessors as chair, from any party, I think they would agree on one point: the challenges facing democracy around the world have rarely been greater. Across many countries, accountability, the rule of law and political inclusion are under increasing pressure. The risk is not simply democratic decline in individual states, but the gradual erosion of the international system that has underpinned stability and co-operation for decades. We see aggressive challenges to democratic values from authoritarian powers and polarisation and disinformation amplified through social media, and we are witnessing co-ordinated attacks on the rights of women and girls. This matters to us directly at home. As the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service warned in December, the “frontline is everywhere”. Hostile states are using cyber-tools, online manipulation and financial influence to distort debate and undermine trust in democratic institutions. The response to that threat cannot rest with security agencies alone; it must include strengthening democratic resilience. For decades, the United States was the largest funder of democracy support worldwide. Much of that funding has now been withdrawn, with civil society and democracy programmes described as being against the US national interest. This is not an abstract debate; this is about hardheaded UK security and prosperity. Democracy builds what military budgets cannot buy. Our long-term security and prosperity depend on accountable institutions, trusted Governments, transparency and inclusion. We need partners around the world who share our commitment to rights and the rule of law. Those are the countries in which we can invest with confidence. They are the partners on whom we rely to reduce conflict, tackle climate change and manage the pressures of energy costs and economic instability. If we do not step forward in this space, others will, and they will do so on their terms, not ours. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy is part of that effort. With an FCDO grant of just £8.5 million, we work with partners in more than 50 countries. Through these programmes, we support more than 1,600 parliamentarians, 2,400 parliamentary staff and 1,750 political party officials. Half of all our participants in work are women. Through the WFD, I have seen at first hand how the UK’s credibility, experience and pragmatism can make a real difference to democratic reformers across the world. Crucially, this work is not about lecturing others; it is about partnership. Often we have as much to learn from others as they do from us. Today’s challenges are serious, but they are also an opportunity. The UK’s democratic traditions, our commitment to accountability and our global reputation for pragmatic politics remain powerful assets. Defending democracy at home must include investing in democracy abroad. I hope the Government will continue to recognise the value of this work and ensure that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy has the support it needs to continue strengthening democratic institutions around the world. Before I finish, I wish to place on record my sincere thanks to all our diplomatic staff across the world. Having been an MP for the past 16 years, a member of the NATO Assembly and the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for Egypt, North Africa and Algeria, I have seen how brilliant our diplomatic staff are across the world. It is very important that they should remain in their post and that there should not be any cuts in the staffing budget of the Foreign Office.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard this language before, with military intervention dressed up as necessity or as being done out of humanitarian concern: Libya, Iraq—the list goes on. All those interventions led to devastating consequences for the people who lived there: hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, countries and regions destabilised, and the creation of a refugee crisis. I hope all those who are chomping at the bit for this war will welcome the extra refugees who will be coming on to our shores as a consequence. Article 51 of the UN charter does not allow for regime change, and I am so grateful to our Prime Minister for not joining in this illegal war by the US and Israel. I ask him, please, to continue with this direction, so that we do not get involved in another illegal war in the middle east.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. After 14 years of Conservative austerity, councils are finally getting the support that they need to deliver for residents. In my constituency of Bolton South and Walkden, under the leadership of Councillor Nick Peel in Bolton and Mayor Paul Dennett in Salford, increased funding has been turned into the restoration of frontline services, investment in town centres and support for families. Does the Prime Minister agree that councils needs serious leadership and long-term funding certainty to deliver, not short-term protest politics that put services at risk? Will he commit to continue that support?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  24. What steps her Department is taking to help ensure the continued delivery of aid in Gaza and the west bank.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  Even during the ceasefire, Israel is blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza while pushing ahead with illegal settlements in the E1 area, which the UK Government have described as a “flagrant breach of international law”. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, by these actions, Israel is essentially trying to bury the idea of a state of Palestine? Apart from good words, what concrete action are we going to take to prevent that from happening?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record my appreciation of the Secretary of State for standing up to the richest man in the world. Whether it is standing up and acting, or the statement on online harm made weeks ago by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), this Government are taking the protection of children seriously. In Bolton South and Walkden, parents see the effect of social media on children. Will the Secretary of State stick to her intention to consult fully, especially with children under the age of 16?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. I offer my condolences to the families of the four people who died in the road traffic accident that occurred over the weekend in my constituency. Families in Bolton South and Walkden are already benefiting from this Labour Government’s actions—free school meals, free breakfast clubs, 30 hours of funded childcare and the scrapping of the two-child limit—which are taking nearly half a million children out of poverty. However, in Bolton South and Walkden and across the country, there is a chronic shortage of social housing and genuinely affordable homes. Will the Prime Minister now show the same ambition on housing, and commit to a major expansion of social housing?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  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.