(2 days, 22 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
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 702845 relating to free bus travel for people over 60.
Happy new year, Mr Mundell. It is, as always, a privilege to serve under your chairship.
I start by thanking the petition’s creator, Mrs Karen Hickman, and the 101,000 people who signed the petition—including 211 of my constituents in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh—for securing this debate on extending free bus travel to all over-60s across England. I also thank Transport for London, Age UK London, Independent Age and the Local Government Association, which were incredibly helpful in my preparation for this debate, which I am leading for the Petitions Committee.
There are many areas of our country where there is free bus travel for the over-60s: London, Liverpool, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Bus services are a critical form of public transport. They are a public good: they get people to work and allow them to visit friends and family, travel to health appointments and participate in social activities. Bus services support active lifestyles, reduce social isolation, and reduce car use, lower air pollution and make our environment cleaner and safer. It was a pleasure to meet Mrs Hickman. She was particularly frustrated by the regional differences that we have in this country when it comes to bus services, and she would like to see greater investment in rural bus services in her area of Lincolnshire.
In our country, there is a growing misperception that if someone is over 60, they are somehow financially blessed, with a house on which the mortgage has been paid off, and they have plenty of assets and capital washing around. Many people think that the over-60s do not need free bus travel. I challenge that narrative, as does Mrs Hickman. Based on households below average income data, 875,000 people aged 60 to 64 are living in poverty. A new report from Standard Life identifies a substantial rise in financial insecurity among people in their early 60s, after the increases in the state pension age since 2010, and highlights that there are a quarter of a million more people aged 60 to 64 in relative income poverty than there were in 2010.
In the UK, carer prevalence is greatest among adults in their 50s and early 60s, with people in that age group twice as likely as those in a younger adult group to be carers. Due to the rising pension age, many people in their 60s are seeking work. The high level of redundancy in this age group during the pandemic is one factor that has led to increased unemployment among 60 to 64-year-olds. Many people in this group are key workers: health and social care—a sector that is growing in my constituency—and retail are among the sectors with the highest proportion of older workers. In addition, over-60s with a disability or long-term health condition are more likely to face financial hardship.
There is already free bus travel for the over-60s in several parts of the UK, so this policy can work. The 60+ London Oyster photocard, operated and funded by TfL, is available to London residents over 60. There are 383,000 active users of that photocard, which I know makes a positive difference to the lives of the 24% of Londoners in that age group who live in poverty.
Residents of the Liverpool city region are eligible from age 60 for free travel on buses, trains and ferries. That is funded by the transport levy that the Merseyside local authorities pay. Looking for a moment at a younger age group in Liverpool, I commend the Liverpool city region combined authority for its recent introduction of the care leavers travel pass, giving free local travel on buses, trains and ferries to young adults leaving the care system. That is a commercially funded offer.
What most or all of these schemes have in common is that they were implemented as a result of local powers being used by local people for the benefit of local people. Is that not how our local communities should be run? In my view, it is. Local people know what the local needs are. I understand Mrs Hickman’s frustration at the regional differences that can occur when some local areas have powers that others do not, but thanks to the Bus Services Act 2025, passed by this Labour Government, all English local transport authorities now have the power to set routes and fares. In my view, it is right that each local authority now grasps the nettle and gets on with delivering the high standards of bus services that the public are entitled to.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The issue that we face in Torbay is a significant shrinkage in the number of available commercial routes, whether for bus pass users or other bus users. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we need sustained investment in bus services to drive a better service for all our communities?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree with the hon. Member. Central Government have to support local government in properly funding bus services. As I will come on to say, that is exactly what this Government have been doing, but the critical question will be whether those local authorities spend the money in a way that benefits passengers.
Mrs Hickman’s view is that this policy should be centrally administered and nationwide. According to the Local Government Association, making the policy nationwide would cost central Government roughly an additional £250 million to £400 million a year. Without that money, evening and weekend services would likely collapse. Losing more bus routes would be damaging for over-60s who rely on buses to get to work.
As the LGA suggests, many councils argue that £1 fares for apprentices and students offer a higher economic multiplier than free travel for the over-60s. That is especially important when we are desperately trying to raise our economy’s growth rate and reduce unemployment. There is also a strong argument for focusing more on getting apprentices and students to use buses, because that cohort of young people will develop the habit of getting on a bus, which will help to secure a more stable long-term revenue stream for bus operators.
As I just said, what we need is ample central Government funding for local authorities so that they can decide how best to run the bus network. The Government are backing our bus network with a £3 billion multi-year bus funding settlement for 2025 to 2029, helping to create more certainty, stability and predictability for our bus system. The aim of the funding settlement is to deliver lower fares and more frequent and reliable bus services, and the national single bus fare cap was extended to run until March ’27. The Government’s Bus Services Act empowers local authorities to take greater control of bus services, and makes them more reliable, accessible and affordable by enabling franchises, lifting bans on municipal bus companies and mandating zero emission buses.
In this debate we are rightly talking about the 60s, but it was the ’80s when it all started to go wrong for our bus network, with its reckless privatisation under the Transport Act 1985. The Bus Services Act takes a completely different approach by allowing local government to create locally and publicly operated and owned bus services.
Local authorities across the country have received significant funding boosts to improve local bus services. For example, the petitioner’s council, Reform-run Lincolnshire county council, received a boost of £11.8 million to support better bus services. In my area, Reform-run Kent county council this year received a boost of £42 million to spend on better bus services. The Government are not being partisan with funding decisions; Reform-run councils are receiving cash boosts to improve bus services from now until 2029, and the public should expect Reform to deliver in places such as Kent and Lincolnshire. We must hold them to account in ensuring that they spend the money not on political advisers, or mad adventures such as the Elon Musk-inspired DOGE 2.0 cuts programme, but on making bus services work more accessibly, reliably and affordably.
In December, I ran a bus survey to hear from my constituents how they would like the £42 million of extra bus funding to be spent. Many told me that bus services are not frequent enough and are often unreliable, with too many late and even cancelled services. Many highlighted the issue of affordability. They want Reform-run Kent county council to spend that £42 million of extra funding on protecting existing routes from private sector cuts, more frequent bus services, cheaper fares, improved evening and Sunday services, and better bus links to schools, colleges and hospitals.
One constituent suggested extending free bus travel to the over-60s, but many of my constituents talked about wanting routes that had been cut under the failed experiment of privatisation to be reinstated. They asked for changes such as frequent, direct bus services from Folkestone to the William Harvey hospital, more evening and weekend bus services across Kent, and the reinstatement of routes such as the 73, 77, 78 and 111 services in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Before I was elected, I ran mental health services, including for older adults, so I understand the importance of older people being able to access services in a way that means they do not lose their appointment. We have 47,226 over-60s in Bournemouth, and many decisions about bus routes have not been taken with their views in mind, particularly in Throop, where I am trying to reinstate a bus service, but also across Southbourne and Tuckton. It sounds like my hon. and learned Friend might agree, but does he also agree that we should be using our new bus legislation to make sure that those communities that have been disenfranchised, left behind and left out are considered by local councils when they are deciding on routes?
Tony Vaughan
The situation my hon. Friend describes is symptomatic of what I call the begging bowl approach of trying to reinstate routes, where a private company decides how it will run the service, it cuts the routes that are more difficult to make money on but which people really need, and we all go with our begging bowl, banging on the door and asking the company to sort it out for our constituents. The way that all local councils should be using the Government’s legislation, now they have the money, is by actually listening to what local people want and providing services that allow our communities to be joined up. What he describes is exactly what I have experienced in my constituency and why these changes are desperately needed.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the speech that my hon. and learned Friend is making and I thank the 237 people in my constituency who signed the petition. At the root of this debate is the issue of inequality. There are many forms of inequality around bus use. The petition draws attention to the geographical inequality, but we also see socioeconomic inequality, particularly when we look at putting resources into enabling older people to access bus services so that, instead of paying £6 for a return journey, they can access things such as health appointments on time. Is it not worth looking at people living in deprivation and putting money into supporting people from those communities to use buses?
Tony Vaughan
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is exactly why the Government introduced the Bus Services Act: to allow local authorities to be held to account for the decisions they make about how to fund bus services. I completely agree that bus services are a fundamental public good and a public service. In my constituency, they are essential to allow people living in rural areas, often in rural poverty, to reach GP surgeries or hospital appointments many miles away. It is not as if they can walk or rely on somebody to give them a lift; often, that is not available. A reliable and affordable bus service is often the difference between someone being able to access the town, with its shops and chemists and all the things that are needed to make life work, and sitting for days in pain, entirely cut off. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
One survey response that stood out for a negative reason was this one:
“Doubt Reform will take much notice frankly”.
I totally understand that hard cynicism about Reform, given its bewildering incompetence in Kent. I implore Reform to spend the money wisely. I will take my bus survey responses and put them directly to the council, because we must see accountability and competence in the way our public services are delivered in Kent.
While I am sympathetic to the arguments for extending free bus travel to all over-60s across England, I believe that our policy focus should be on encouraging and supporting more local authorities to set up municipal bus companies so that we can reverse bus privatisation, which has, like in the rail and water sectors, been a failure and meant that, all too often, the interests of the private company and the shareholder have been put above those of the passenger.
Before closing, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What action beyond what I have talked about are the Government taking to make bus travel more accessible and affordable for the over-60s? What are the Government doing to make rural bus services more accessible and reliable, especially for that age group? What measures will the Government put in place to hold to account councils such as Reform-run Kent county council and Lincolnshire county council to ensure that they spend their additional bus funding prudently and purposefully? How do the Government plan to use investment in our bus network to help to increase economic growth and lower unemployment? Finally, can the Minister explain how empowering local government can lead to improved bus services?
The answers to all those questions would be gratefully received, because my constituents constantly press me on this issue. We are a long, coastal constituency, so it is very difficult to get around unless there is reliable public transport. That is what we have to achieve over the coming years with the funding and the new powers that Kent county council has.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing this important debate, which I welcome. I want to make clear that I strongly support e-petition 702845. The fact that more than 100,000 people signed it shows how strongly the public feel about the issue and how far it reaches into people’s everyday lives.
The petition is simple and reasonable. It calls on the Government to extend free bus travel to people over 60 in England outside London, bringing England into line with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. At present, those living outside London must wait until state pension age—currently 66—to qualify, despite the fact that mobility, confidence in driving and independence often decline well before that point.
The Government’s response recognises the value of bus services and points to welcome investment, including the funding announced in the recent Budget. I welcome that funding, but the response ultimately sidesteps the core issue. Responsibility is shifted to local authorities and devolved Governments, rather than making free bus travel a statutory entitlement across England. That matters because leaving it as a discretionary measure creates inequality and uncertainty. Local authorities are under immense financial pressure, and people’s access to free travel should not depend on where they live or how stretched their council’s budget happens to be. National problems require national solutions.
We also need to be honest about the scale of the gap that people face. It is not a short transition period. The difference between age 60 and state pension age is six years, and that gap is set to increase further as the pension age rises. It is six more years during which people might be driving less, losing confidence behind the wheel, or giving up their car altogether, but are still expected to pay rising transport costs.
For many older people, particularly in towns and areas with patchy public transport, the alternative is often taxis. That becomes harder in later life in retirement when people are more likely to live on a fixed income, watching every pound and trying to stretch their pension as far as possible. What was once an occasional expense can quickly become unaffordable.
This debate is not just about transport policy, but about mental health, dignity and independence. I have spoken many times in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber about adult mental health and the importance of prevention. One of the clearest contributors to declining mental health in later life is loss of freedom of movement. Research by the London School of Economics shows that a policy of free transport for the over-60s would deliver powerful and measurable benefits. Older bus pass holders are 37% less likely to be sedentary, improving their physical health through everyday activity like walking to and from shops. They are also one third less likely to experience social isolation, a factor strongly linked to poor mental and physical wellbeing.
The NHS increasingly recognises the importance of community mental health for all older people and the importance of staying socially connected, active and engaged. When people cannot get out to see friends, attend community groups, volunteer or even make simple, everyday journeys, isolation sets in. Loneliness, anxiety and depression are not abstract risks, but real outcomes of restricted mobility, and free bus travel for over-60s is therefore not just a concession, but an investment in wellbeing, independence and prevention.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman’s flow. I do not think anybody would disagree with what he says; we would all love free bus travel for over-60s, and perhaps for even more people than that, but it is a question of cost. He talks about investment, but how much does he estimate that this will cost?
Iqbal Mohamed
I am afraid that I do not have cost figures to hand, but the research that I referred to in preparation for this speech demonstrated the quantifiable economic benefits of the policy. I believe that any cost incurred from implementing it would be paid for many times over through reduced visits to GPs and hospitals, as well as increased economic spend by people who can get out more.
Free bus travel also supports healthier ageing, reduces isolation and helps people to remain part of their communities for longer, easing pressure on health and social care services in the long term. I urge the Government to listen to the strength of feeling behind the petition, to move beyond passing responsibility elsewhere and to consider making free bus travel for over-60s a fair national and statutory entitlement. If we are serious about equality, prevention and supporting people through later life, that is a change that we should be willing to make. Providing free bus travel for over 60s is a proven, practical and popular policy. The evidence is clear, the public support is strong and the need is urgent—the Government must act.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the 148 constituents in Bedford and Kempston who signed the petition in support of the introduction of free concessionary travel for people over 60 across England.
Concessionary travel is an important issue for older residents, many of whom rely on public transport to maintain their independence and participate fully in their communities. Local authorities, including Bedford borough council, are facing unprecedented financial pressures, with some councils approaching bankruptcy. This means that, despite the clear benefits of concessionary travel, many councils simply do not have the funds to provide support at a local level. Without central Government intervention, older people risk being left without affordable transport options.
Free bus travel for over-60s would not only provide much-needed financial relief, but help to reduce social isolation, support access to healthcare and enable continued engagement in work, volunteering and community life. It is a small investment that delivers significant social value and improved quality of life for thousands of older residents. I urge the Government to back this proposal and ensure that older people across England can access free and reliable transport, regardless of the financial situation of their local councils, so that bus users in England have the same provision as those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.
London’s Freedom Pass model is the envy of older residents across England, and it has become embedded in the expectations of many that free public transport is one of the benefits of living in our capital city. However, free travel for older residents is not the only element of a successful transport policy. Regular, reliable routes, safety on and off the bus and non-polluting vehicles all add up to a successful public transport network. All the characteristics of a proper bus service are more possible now than they have been for years, as a result of both the investment put in by this Government and the Bus Services Act 2025, which gives transport authorities the powers to make bus services more affordable, more reliable and safer.
Kent county council, which commissions the buses in my part of the world, East Thanet, has 7.5 million fewer bus miles now than in 2010. That is 7.5 million fewer opportunities for people to get to work, healthcare appointments or simply go out and have fun—and that reduction did not happen by magic. It happened as a result of choices made by the Opposition, who probably rarely, if ever, take buses outside London and therefore have little or no experience of the impact of their neglect and obsession with privatisation, which have battered our buses over more than a decade. The Government have changed that. Our multi-year funding means that there is now a £3 billion boost to end the plight of bus routes being scrapped at short notice and tighter requirements for cancelling vital bus routes.
That £3 billion, however, translates to £42 million in Kent. I would and should be celebrating that investment in opportunities for our county council to improve bus services, but unfortunately the decisions by the administration in Kent mean that very little of that investment will come to Thanet. Leafy and well-heeled Tunbridge Wells will receive more than £3 million-worth of investment in its bus services. Thanet, with some of the most deprived communities, including the poorest pensioners, is receiving a mere £500,000.
We may all agree that decisions should be made by government as close as possible to the communities that they serve, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) pointed out, but the way that Kent county council has gone about that allocation is grossly unfair, and suggests that it is not interested in investing where bus services can significantly benefit the community. Thanet is effectively receiving only 2.3% of Kent’s bus subsidy funding.
The Bus Services Act gives Kent county council the power to restore vital bus services, such as the No. 9—I say that in the same way that my hon. and learned Friend mentioned several bus numbers from across his constituency. Bus numbers matter to communities; they are the difference between being able to get out and about and being locked at home. Buses need to be regular and reliable, and they also need to be affordable, safe and clean.
When I conducted my bus survey we received a number of representations, one of which was specifically about the No. 9—to put it in the context of free public transport and bus travel for all of the over 60s, there would be no point in having free bus travel for many of my East Thanet constituents trying to get to a hospital appointment in Canterbury, because there is no bus to get there. They cannot shop in Canterbury, whether the bus is free or not, because there is not a bus to take them there. When we are developing a bus service for our communities, we must ensure that it has reliable routes as well as affordable fares.
I have received representations in support of the Transport Committee’s recommendation for free bus travel for the under-22s—representations that I am extremely sympathetic to. We have young people who simply cannot get to work when they are on apprenticeship wages, or cannot get to their colleges because they do not have significant and sustained income. They are being penalised for trying to do the right thing.
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, as per usual. Just before Christmas I held an inclusive bus roundtable, to which I invited Bournemouth Gateway Club and the Cambian Wing college. The Cambian Wing college calculates that it costs around £300 a year for its students to reach the college, because it opens at a time outside the operating period of the concession pass. That is clearly bizarre, but it is particularly bizarre because the Cambian Wing supports people who have special educational needs, and we as a Government are trying to provide more workplace opportunities for people with special educational needs, and also with wider needs. Would my hon. Friend agree that, as a major part of our work and welfare programme, having not only reliable bus routes, but affordable buses is absolutely critical?
Ms Billington
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. When talking about increasing the opportunities for young people in my constituency, I find it frustrating when people say that young people need more aspiration. I remind them that, frankly, young people need a bus service that gets them to where they can fulfil the aspirations they already have.
In Thanet, our allocation will not be able to meet the needs and ambitions of our community, and that is deeply depressing. It is important, however, to put on record that the strongest message from our survey about people’s experience of the bus service in East Thanet was the friendliness and helpfulness of our bus drivers. That should not be underestimated when we talk about the experience of going on the bus. There is no point if the service is not there, and there is no point if it is grumpy. Our coastal communities in particular lack connectivity. Buses are essential, and can help us to move away from reliance on cars, but free bus travel is of little value if there are no buses. Concessionary travel for disabled people and for young people, as my hon. Friend says, are strong contenders for investment.
Finally, I ask the Minister: when will the Department for Transport acknowledge that bus journeys are as good an indicator of economic activity as car movements?
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for his introduction to the debate. His contribution, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), reminded me that I should be grateful that Edinburgh benefits from a publicly owned bus and tram service. Both are award winning nationally and compete against commercial services. In Edinburgh, the bus service runs essentially without subsidy and often returns a dividend to its owner—the people of Edinburgh—to be spent in Edinburgh, while its bus drivers are among the best paid in the country. I am sure, Mr Mundell, that you have experience of Lothian Buses, and that you will not disagree with me that the worst Lothian bus is better than the best London bus, by far. I note that you are smiling, so I will take that as agreement.
Members might be glad to hear that I want to use this debate not just to speak about Lothian Buses, but to pay tribute to my Scottish Labour colleague Sarah Boyack MSP, who is set to retire this year. I use the word retire gently, because I do not think she particularly enjoys hearing it. As you will remember, Mr Mundell, she served in Donald Dewar’s Cabinet as Scotland’s first Transport Minister. Scotland had a hotchpotch of concessionary travel delivered by local authorities across the country, but Sarah changed that in her role by taking steps to establish national minimum standards of service for all old age pensioners—that is what older people were called back then—and disabled people. To start with, that was free travel outside morning peak times, but it was soon expanded to free 24/7 travel, and more recently to include all people under 22. I do not know what Sarah would say was her greatest achievement in politics, but I feel that free bus travel for older people, disabled people and now younger people must have had the greatest impact of all her decisions.
This is not just about saving money; it is about ensuring that people can keep in touch with friends and family, thereby helping tackle social isolation that many older and disabled people face. Interestingly, when Sarah started on this journey, there were different thresholds for access to free service, because retirement ages were different back then, but over time, they have aligned to allow those aged over 60 to access free travel. Although my head tells me that it does not make sense to provide free bus travel to over-60s who are travelling to well-paid jobs in Edinburgh, many people in that age range—I am only 1,254 days away from being eligible for my free bus pass in Scotland—see that pass as a reward from the country for their contribution to the community or greater society. People hold it dearly, and it would be brave of any Scottish Government to suggest that it should be removed.
I hope that Members across all parties will listen to the experience in Scotland, and I hope that the Chair will join me in wishing Sarah well as she approaches her non-retirement.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Indeed I do join the hon. Gentleman in wishing Sarah Boyack well. She has made a huge contribution to the Scottish Parliament in the 26 years she has served there, in different capacities.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for putting the key points across so well when he opened the debate. I thank the 226 people in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough who added their name to the petition.
Free bus travel is already available to people aged 60 and over in London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The provision also exists where local authorities have chosen to finance it, such as in Merseyside. Across the rest of England, an older person’s bus pass gives access to free bus travel for people who have reached the state pension age, but that age is set to increase in due course. Over the last decade, and certainly under the last Government, we saw a stark decline in the number of bus journeys taken, with 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. Bus services have been chronically underfunded.
Everyone should have convenient, affordable options for getting around, whether to get to work or to the shops, to visit friends or family, to go to school or to hospital, or to access other vital services. That is particularly important to those aged 60 and over, who face greater odds of social isolation and who might have less access to private vehicles or active travel options.
When I speak to people in my area, and across Yorkshire as a whole, I am particularly concerned by the loss of other services that might have offered a replacement for or an alternative to bus provision. Councillor Andrew Hollyer talked to me about how City of York council failed to replace the Dial & Ride community transport service that many people who are 60 and over could have used in the two years since it folded. I recognise that the petition is trying to increase provision for people who might experience such inequality of access.
Frequent and affordable buses are important for quality of life. That is of particular concern in rural areas, where transport options are limited. Sadly, far too many parts of our country do not have a decent bus service. Under the last Conservative Government, bus services withered, isolating pensioners and breaking up friends and families. Many rural communities have been effectively cut off from the public transport that they need, and between 2015 and 2023 fares increased massively, by an average of 59%. The Liberal Democrats are campaigning to restore and expand bus services and better integrate them with other forms of public transport, so we welcome the funding and new powers introduced in the Bus Services Act, but we want the Government to go further.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) mentioned that we end up with what many describe as a postcode lottery, where different local authorities have different offers. That is a key point. Just last month, before Christmas, I held a drop-in with Whizz Kidz, and we had the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, there. He talked about Manchester’s two successful trials of removing some restrictions on certain types of bus passes, including for older persons and for disabled people. He is now looking to make those changes permanent. He said that although that is a great local decision that his powers and funding allow him to take, a national funding fix is needed. We heard the same from Bus Users UK and from Whizz Kidz: where these powers exist without the funding to go with them, there is not really a choice. I have mentioned that extensively to the Minister in debates and questions, and I am sure he is not surprised to hear me making that point again.
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank the 207 people from my constituency who signed the e-petition. Liberal Democrats run Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council. Next year it will receive £3.7 million, then £4 million the following year, £5.3 million the year following that and £6.3 million in the year following that—2030. It also gets the benefit of long-term funding certainty. Does he welcome the fact that the Labour Government are working together with the council to enable it to get on with making the funding allocations to give people the routes and fares that they are entitled to, particularly given that the Liberal Democrats tend to enjoy their time in Bournemouth whenever they hold a conference?
Tom Gordon
This is an issue where party politics can be left at the door. It is about ensuring that we have better bus routes and better access across the board. I absolutely want people to get around the table and work collaboratively where possible. I have worked with several colleagues, including the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), on access to disabled bus passes. I do not think anyone needs to be overtly partisan and tribal on this issue; it is about improving public transport, which is often a lifeline for people.
Earlier, the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) talked about her constituency and leafy Tunbridge Wells. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) well, and his constituency is rural. Obviously, the hon. Member for East Thanet has challenges in her constituency, but this is not about dividing and conquering or pitting people against each other. We want good bus services everywhere. We do not want anyone to lose out; we want to raise the bar across the board for everyone.
The Bus Services Act gained Royal Assent last year. The Liberal Democrats supported many positive measures in that Act, such as those that empower local authorities to operate bus services and implement services for socially necessary local routes. However, we want the Government to go further to fully address the needs of rural areas, tackle lack of provision and assist local authorities in the transition to net zero buses. We believe that bus services should remain affordable, and we will continue campaigning for the restoration of the £2 bus fare cap, which is vital to passengers who struggle to meet the cost of living and to deal with the effects of bus route cuts made under the Conservatives.
Last year, I went on a visit with the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes and spoke to some clinicians, who said that restrictions on bus passes and a lack of free travel mean that people miss appointments, do not turn up on time or, quite often, do not show. That frustrates me, because expanding concessionary travel to people over 60 or people with disabilities might create greater savings in other services and other parts of Government. The cost of a missed hospital appointment pales in comparison to the cost of a bus fare. We need a bigger, joined-up approach to buses to fund vital services down the line through savings. What economic assessments have the Minister and the Department made of how extending the English national concessionary travel scheme might save other Departments and services money? If that has not been done, will he look into it and assure us about it?
I fully support the aspiration to see free bus travel for people over 60. I think the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe mentioned that it would cost £250 million, which does not exactly sound affordable in this current climate, but I think it is the direction of travel in which we should be heading. Expanding disabled bus passes, which cost on average only £75,000 per year per travel concession authority, would be more affordable than free bus travel for over-60s. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Happy new year to you, Mr Mundell, and all other hon. Members. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and, through him, Mrs Karen Hickman, who created the petition we are debating, which comes from a sentiment that we can all agree with. We want bus services that serve passengers well and as cheaply as possible. Everyone who uses buses wants affordable journeys. This debate provides us with an opportunity to explore how essential buses are to our constituents and, in particular, the role they play for older people.
Maintaining and improving the existing concessionary scheme, which offers free bus passes in England to those of state pension age and disabled people, is a critical responsibility of the Government, but fundamental to its success is that it remains financially sustainable in serving those who have reached state pension age. We know how valuable the bus pass is to those who have reached pensionable age, affording the opportunity for older people to take journeys and leave their homes. We must make sure that we do not jeopardise the scheme by expanding it beyond the bounds of the Treasury’s willingness to pay for it.
The importance of the scheme is apparent when we look at the experiences of older people. Age UK data suggests that more than 2 million people in England who are over the age of 75 live alone, and more than 1 million older people have said that they go over a month without speaking to a friend, neighbour or family member, which is quite a sobering statistic.
Considering such statistics, the case for bus passes for older people becomes self-evident. Providing an incentive for old age pensioners to travel from their homes into the community clearly has extraordinary merit, but then we come to public funding. The starting point for the provision of any service is that those who benefit from the service should be the ones who pay for it. A free bus pass, after all, is not free. It is just paid for by someone else—in this case, other taxpayers—so we need to be sure that it is a sound reason for increasing taxes, which is the inevitable consequence of increasing public support.
We all know of schemes in our constituencies that seek to bring people together. In my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham, the Aylsham and District Care Trust runs a network of minibuses to bring older people to a central hub to connect them to the community. A free bus pass for pensioners continues that approach and sends a clear message that being older should not be a barrier to remaining a valuable part of the community.
However, as we all know, such schemes do not come without cost. DFT statistics show that £995 million—nearly £1 billion—in net current expenditure is spent on concessionary travel, with about £800 million of that being reimbursed to travel concession authorities. The Government’s response to the petition highlighted the importance of cost, saying that
“any changes to the statutory obligations, such as lowering the age of eligibility, would…need to be carefully considered for its impact on the scheme’s financial sustainability.”
The challenge of extending the scheme to those over 60 is not just a matter of cost; it should also consider the impact on the wider use of bus services. The profiles of the over-60s and those who have reached state pension age are very different. Look at rates of employment: the employment rate of those between 60 and 64 is 58%, but it drops to just 12.8% for those aged 65 and over. In addition, of those who have decided to retire early, the majority have taken that decision because they are in a sufficiently comfortable financial position to do so.
On the issue of available income, looking across the community as a whole, it is not at all clear that blanket taxpayer support for all those over 60 is an effective use of taxpayers’ money. We must ensure that policy decisions relating to buses create affordable trips for all. That is why the last Government’s decision on the £2 fare cap was so effective—it set a price reduction for all bus users, improving affordability for everyone and encouraging the take-up of services across society, not just for one part of it.
We should also recognise that not all parts of the country are the same. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe that where a local authority has identified a particular need in its community, it is the organisation—not central Government—that is best placed to focus appropriate support, including local bus schemes.
Numerous Conservative councils across the country have taken steps to increase bus budgets and use enhanced partnerships to increase ridership. That includes my own Norfolk county council, which since the pandemic has increased ridership by over 40% through its enhanced partnership. Just two counties away, Essex has increased its ridership by more than 50%. In passing, it is worth pointing out that this growth in bus ridership surpasses that of Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, despite his much vaunted Bee Network.
A blanket change across the whole of England is completely different from these targeted approaches that respond to local need. Extending free bus travel to an additional 4 million people, irrespective of their income and based solely on age, is likely to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds every year through increased taxes—between £250 million, as suggested by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and £400 million, as we heard from another speaker.
Ultimately, the Conservative party has made it clear that reforms to our bus services need to be realistic, and that we have to focus on passengers. I fear that the result of an expensive scheme could be increased costs for passengers more widely. We have already seen the Government encouraging local authorities to jump into franchising, which may put some local authorities at significant financial risk. We do not want to see further policies that may undermine financial stability, which would be bad for passengers in the long run, as well as for taxpayers.
I recognise that there are parts of the UK in which bus passes are available to those over the age of 60, but if we look at Scotland and Wales, which have had that policy in place for many years—led by the SNP and the Labour party—many of the same challenges present in England regarding buses remain, despite 100% subsidies. Between 2010 and 2025, the number of journeys per head decreased in Scotland and Wales by 31% and 41% respectively. Those decreases were more than, not less than, the fall in journeys per head in England, outside London. That suggests that the Conservative £2 fare cap policy was, in practice, a better solution than free bus passes to the over-60s. It is a great shame that one of the Government’s first acts was to increase that cost by 50%.
Tom Gordon
The shadow Minister seems to be saying that he disagrees with free transport for over-60s in the devolved nations. Is it his party’s position that if it were elected in the important elections in just a few months’ time, which is increasingly unlikely, it would get rid of that free transport?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for the intervention as it brings me to my next point, which is that Government funds are limited. The support provided needs to be focused exclusively on areas in which it can do the most good. A blanket increase to 100% subsidies for a cohort that is mainly in employment does not appear to pass that test. I fear that, by increasing the cost of support for older people more widely, it would risk the current levels of support for pensioners. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, and I wish all colleagues a happy new year. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for scheduling today’s debate, and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for representing so clearly the views of the petitioners who want to see free local bus travel extended to everyone aged over 60 in England.
I begin by reaffirming the Government’s commitment to the English national concessionary travel scheme, which is a cornerstone of local mobility that supports independence, tackles isolation and connects people to essential services. Under the scheme, free off-peak local bus travel is available to those of state pension age and to those with eligible disabilities from 9.30 am until 11.00 pm on weekdays, and all day on weekends and bank holidays. I am proud that this scheme exists for all residents of England as a statutory entitlement. Of the 38 member countries of the OECD, the UK is joined only by Ireland, Luxembourg and New Zealand in having a nationally run, completely free bus travel scheme for older and disabled people.
The petitioners are asking us to lower the age of eligibility for the older person’s bus pass to 60, and I understand why. For many people in their early 60s, buses are a lifeline to work, caring, volunteering and staying active in their communities. However, eligibility for an older person’s bus pass in England is set in legislation at the state pension age, which is currently 66. That link reflects changes in longevity and helps to ensure that the scheme remains equitable and affordable over time. Any change to national eligibility would therefore need to be considered carefully.
The concessionary travel scheme is a significant national entitlement. Local authority spending on concessionary travel, supported by the Government, is around £795 million a year. Changing the national statutory eligibility would carry substantial additional recurring costs. Any such proposal would have to demonstrate clear value for money, alongside other priorities for improving services for passengers.
It is important to underline that local communities already have powers to go further than the statutory minimum, where that suits local priorities and local budgets. For example, they can lower the age of eligibility or extend hours of use. Some areas already offer precisely these enhancements. For example, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe noted in his speech, the Liverpool city region combined authority has made the over-60s eligible for free travel on all local buses under the Merseytravel over-60s travel pass.
These additional discretionary concessions are designed and funded locally, allowing communities to tailor support, whether that is early eligibility, companion passes, wider modes or earlier start times, while the national statutory requirements of the concessionary travel scheme remain in place.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I apologise for not being here earlier due to the urgent question in the main Chamber.
I have previously spoken to the Minister about the concessionary travel scheme. He is talking about the ability of local authorities to institute pick-and-mix approaches, but does he not recognise that such a postcode lottery approach to concessionary bus travel is a real problem? We need a consistent approach across the country, and we particularly need wider eligibility for disabled people to use their bus passes at all times of the day. Does he recognise the need for young people to have concessionary or free bus travel? They cannot drive, and they need to get around, too.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. It comes back to affordability. The whole scheme needs to be couched in an affordable way. I will come on to a few of her other points later in my response.
Alongside safeguarding the sustainability of the concessionary travel scheme, our focus is on delivering better buses for everyone. At the end of last year, we confirmed long-term investment of more than £3 billion over the next three years to support local leaders and bus operators across the country, in order to improve local bus services for millions of passengers over the remainder of this spending period. This includes multi-year allocations for local authorities under the local authority bus grant, totalling nearly £700 million a year, ending the short-term approach to bus funding and giving councils the certainty they need to plan ahead and improve services for local communities.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about the sustainable funding model, and I think that my response addresses that point. It also addresses the affordability issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin). The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) said that funding must come with the powers. Again, I believe funding has followed the powers under the Bus Services Act.
Rachael Maskell
Would the Minister look again at the settlement he has given to the Mayor for York and North Yorkshire? There will be fewer choices available to the mayor because of the reduction in that settlement. The mayor would perhaps also like to use some of his other transport budgets to subsidise bus travel, so that he can make positive choices for buses and bus users right across York and North Yorkshire.
Simon Lightwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I continue to work closely with the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire. I know that York and North Yorkshire is one of our franchising pilot areas, and a little later in my speech I will talk about the formula—the fairer formula—that has dictated the amounts that different areas across the country have received.
The funding I mentioned is in addition to the £1 billion we are already providing in this financial year to support and improve local bus services and to keep fares affordable. It enables councils and operators to protect local routes, improve reliability, upgrade stops, enhance accessibility and support local discretionary concessions, where it is judged right to do so. These measures should help to make bus travel more accessible and affordable for all, including the over-60s.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe specifically asked about supporting improvements to rural bus services. We know that bus services in rural areas can be a lifeline for many people, providing the only means of getting around. That is why, in our multi-year funding allocations for local authorities, we have revised the formula to include a rurality element for the first time, ensuring that the additional challenges of running services in rural areas are taken into account.
My hon. and learned Friend also asked about measures to ensure that local authorities use their bus funding to truly improve services for passengers. I can assure him that this funding will be linked to an outcomes framework, which will track the impact of funding against a suite of indicators aligned with the issues that matter most to passengers. Crucially, this framework will help us to identify where local transport authorities may need additional support to deliver the improvements that their communities expect.
We know that the debate around access to free bus travel is rooted in concerns about the affordability and quality of local bus services, and we are taking steps to address those concerns. The Government introduced the £3 single bus fare cap at the beginning of last year, and announced at the spending review that it would be extended until March 2027. The cap is helping millions of passengers to save on their regular travel costs. Without it, single fares on some services on the more expensive routes could soar above £10.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe asked what further steps the Government are taking to lower the cost of bus travel. Local leaders can use the funding provided by the Government to improve bus services and to introduce their own local fare measures below £3, if they wish to do so. That is already the case in places like Greater Manchester and the north-east.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the challenge of extending travel times for disabled person bus passes. The Government are committed to improving public transport—we have had the debate often—so that it is more inclusive and enables disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. Seventy-six per cent of local concession authorities offer some form of extension to the 9.30 am start time for disabled bus pass use. That could include full or partial extensions, or discounted travel before 9.30.
Simon Lightwood
I am going to make progress. I have a lot to cover, and I want to ensure that all Members get the courtesy of a reply.
We believe that the Government’s reforms to bus services more widely will help to improve access to local bus services. Our Bus Services Act 2025 starts to do just that by giving local leaders the powers that they need to deliver better bus services for passengers and empowering them to choose the model that works best in their area, whether that be franchising, strengthened enhanced partnerships or setting up local authority bus companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) said that bus numbers matter. I quite agree, which is why I am pleased that 1 billion bus miles were travelled in the year ending March 2025—up 2% already. She also expressed concerns about her Reform-led council and ensuring that it invests that money fairly across its whole geography. The BSIP—bus service improvement plan—guidance is clear that improvements must deliver across the whole local transport authority.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe highlighted the accessibility of bus services. Our Bus Services Act also takes steps to address that, by including a new requirement for local authorities to develop a bus network accessibility plan to review the current accessibility of the networks and how they will improve them in future. The Act represents the next phase in the Government’s ambitious bus reform agenda aimed at reversing the decline in bus services, improving the passenger experience and increasing bus usage nationwide. My hon. and learned Friend also highlighted economic growth and unemployment. As part of a modern and effective transport network, bus services have a vital role to play in delivering the Government’s mission to kick-start economic growth. We believe that improved services will contribute to lower unemployment by better facilitating access to jobs and education.
Let me make it clear that the Government recognise the strength of feeling expressed through this petition and the value of concessionary travel to those who use it. We remain committed to the scheme and to ensuring that it is sustainable for the long term. We will continue to empower local leaders to go further where it is right for their areas, and we will keep working with authorities and operators to enable them to deliver better, more reliable and accessible bus services across the country.
Once again, I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for bringing the petitioners’ views before the House, and all Members who have spoken for their contributions to this important subject. I look forward to continued engagement with Members as we implement reforms and support local decision making to the ultimate benefit of passengers.
Tony Vaughan
It seems to me that everyone agrees about the importance of buses generally and to their local communities. I was glad to hear from the Minister about the addition of a rurality element to how bus funding is allocated. In areas such as mine, in Folkestone and Hythe, route after route has been cut, because we are told that not enough people use them and that it is too expensive to drive all the way out to rural and remote villages, of which we have many. That is an important factor, as are hospital appointments and GP services. We heard a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), talk about the importance of being able to get to GP and hospital appointments.
The issue, and the point of difference, seems to be about whether this proposal is a good use of money and is affordable. The Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), said that it would not be targeted at those who need it, and made arguments about the relative increase in passenger numbers in Wales and Scotland versus in England, due to free travel for over-60s versus the £2 cap. It comes down to whether we think that bus services should be run by local people, taking into account local people’s needs, or we think that there should be a top-down Government edict on how every single local authority in the country should run its system.
The Government’s approach, which I think is the right answer, is that it is for the local authority to decide how it spends that money. That does mean, however, that we must have accountability, so I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that there will be an outcomes framework to track the use of the funding, and to identify additional support where it is not being followed. I invite the Minister to look not just at support but at ways of ensuring that the money is spent in the right way, if necessary through a slightly tougher approach.
I was worried to hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) talk about being pushed down the list when it comes to the amount of money her constituency—a very socially deprived area—gets versus somewhere like Tunbridge Wells, where there is not such deprivation. One wonders why her constituency is getting so much less than areas where levels of car ownership are probably much higher. There must be accountability about how the money is being used. Substantial amounts of money are being given, so it cannot be suggested that the Government have not properly funded this. It is down to local authorities to spend the money in the right way. I will continue to do my job to hold Reform-led Kent county council to account on the way in which it is delivering its service.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 702845 relating to free bus travel for people over 60.