Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Tom Gordon.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I will start by speaking to new clause 2, which stands in my name and is supported by over 70 colleagues from across the House. It calls for the removal of time restrictions imposed on disabled bus passes.

Under the English national concessionary travel scheme, eligible disabled people are entitled to free local bus travel. The policy rightly recognises that, for a variety of reasons, disabled people rely on public transport to access healthcare, work and education, as well as for family and community purposes. The policy also recognises that disabled people are more likely to require financial support, as they face disproportionately higher costs of living. Yet from 11 pm to 9.30 am on weekdays, that entitlement becomes void, dependent instead on whether travel authorities choose—or even can afford—to extend the benefit. Disability Action Yorkshire, a charity in my constituency, first highlighted the absurdity of the restriction to me last year. Since that meeting, I have been campaigning to have the time restrictions removed. I have met and received support from a number of charities that work with disabled people, including Transport for All, Whizz Kidz, Bus Users UK and the RNIB. The consensus is clear: the current restrictions have huge impacts on the everyday lives of disabled people. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to remove the time restrictions imposed by the ENCTS, allowing disabled passengers to travel for free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of their postcode.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that in East Sussex, where I am lucky enough to be an MP, the county council has already removed the restriction on timings. Indeed, he has met my former Liberal Democrat council colleague Sean Macleod to discuss that. Does my hon. Friend agree that that creates a postcode lottery across the country, where some people are fortunate to live in places that have removed the restriction and others are not so lucky?

[Tom Gordon]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I highlight the work that Liberal Democrat councillors, including him, have done over the years to ensure that such provision is made. That postcode lottery is completely unfair.

Economically, the argument is equally strong. We know that disabled people already face higher living costs. Removing the 9.30 am restriction would open up work and training opportunities that begin before that cut-off, and crucially, the cost of doing so is modest. Research by Whizz Kidz showed that it would cost about 1% of the current annual spend on concessionary travel, and we know that for each pound spent on concessionary bus passes, it is thought that over £3 is brought back in economic benefit.

Ending the restriction would deliver more than just transport access. It would promote independence, reduce isolation, improve health outcomes and encourage greater use of sustainable public transport. Charities such as Whizz Kidz have shown that young disabled people overwhelmingly support 24/7 access, with many saying it would help them build confidence, friendship and skills.

The amendment has support from leading disability charities such as the RNIB, as well as cross-party support in this House. Now is the time for this Labour Government to show their commitment to improving access and tearing down barriers to inequality by supporting the amendment. The Minister and I have had many interactions on this subject and I am sure he is not surprised to see me pushing for it again today. I urge him to consider it, whether through the Bill or further down the line in different possible measures and arrangements.

It is high time that disabled people had the same freedom to travel, the same independence and the same opportunity as everyone else. That is what the amendment would deliver and I urge all Members across this House to support it. Disabilities do not start at 9.30 am, so disabled bus passes should not either.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British buses.

Today’s debate is so important to the people of Shrewsbury, as we have lost over two thirds of our bus routes in the past 10 years. We are one of the largest towns in the UK, with over 65,000 residents, yet we have not seen a Sunday bus for over a decade. We also have very few evening bus services, which is holding back our nighttime economy, despite being a glorious tourist destination.

The new bus powers for franchising will be a game changer for local councils such as ours in Shropshire. They will give us the opportunity to introduce new bus routes if they are considered to be socially necessary, such as that all-important Sunday service or some additional stops to widen access to our current hospital bus route and the new health clinic facilities coming down the track. It is our belief that these social routes could eventually build up their passenger numbers and ultimately become economically viable in their own right.

To that end, I wish to speak in support of the Bill and new clause 45, which seeks to bring forward requirements on transport authorities to deliver the minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services. That could transform access to employment for many of the residents in my constituency. We have only a handful of bus services after 6 o’clock and only one single bus at 8 o’clock, yet we are the county town and host to the county’s health, governance, economic and education services, as well as being a major employer for a county of 350,000 residents. Shift workers, NHS staff and those working in hospitality—as well as those of us who enjoy hospitality—need those buses to run beyond 8 o’clock.

The Shropshire bus services users group has consistently campaigned on the need for evening and the all-important Sunday bus services. Until now, no commercial company would take the risk, but within the last year, bus routes added by my local authority using Government bus service improvement plan money have led to increased passenger numbers and become embedded in our network. To overcome the reticence of private companies to widen their routes at economic risk, the local authority is ready to do that, where legislation allows and where passenger data indicates that all-important demand and socially necessary routes. The new clause would support Shropshire council by underpinning the need to re-establish evening and Sunday bus services, giving the impetus to widen those routes.

To conclude, I wish to remind the Minister, as I do in every speech, that my beautiful town of Shrewsbury lost its Sunday service a decade ago under the last Government, and that it is in both our hands to ensure that we reinstate it under this Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I stand corrected, in the sense that I have listened to the hon. Member and, on reflection, I accept that I was making perhaps too legalistic a point. If by adding “sustained antisocial auditory disturbance” to the definition of nuisance we can make what is an implied power an express one, I am happy to support that. As for the jeering, perhaps my hon. Friends were cheering—who knows?

[Tom Gordon]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

On that point, I will give way.

[Tom Gordon]

The shadow Minister mentioned how the Conservative party came to change its view on my hon. Friend’s amendment on audible noises. One thing that has not come up during the debate is his party’s position on new clause 2, which would extend concessionary bus passes. Given that the argument is an economic one and his party wants to see disabled people getting to work, will he support that tonight?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful, although I am not sure whether that was an intervention on jeering or cheering and the difference between them. I will go so far as to say that I am not in a position to make economic spending commitments at the Dispatch Box. Although we are supportive of the principle, that is why we will not vote for something that writes a blank cheque for the future, because at least the Conservatives are trying to be economically responsible.

Without amendment, the Bill is a missed opportunity in relation to bus stop design and disability access. It is a missed opportunity in relation to antisocial behaviour on buses and bringing that in line with the protections already enjoyed by rail passengers. It is also a missed opportunity not to focus on passengers as the primary object of all actions undertaken as a result of the Bill, particularly in relation to rural areas.

The Bill is not just a missed opportunity; it is also, in its current drafting, damaging for the future prospects of the provision of bus services, because it risks exposing local transport authorities to potential bankruptcy without support from the Secretary of State. That is, in the first instance, in terms of oversight of plans for franchising—particularly for small local transport authorities—and giving them the all-clear. Secondly, if franchise systems are set up and then they fail to provide over a prolonged period, the Secretary of State must surely be able to step in and provide those services—if we are interested in the experience of passengers as opposed to the organisation. I have raised those two issues consistently throughout Committee and earlier on today. They are significant, genuine concerns that prevent the Opposition from supporting the Bill in its current form.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

The Minister made an interesting point earlier about allowing local transport authorities and mayors to make decisions when it comes to buses. Why does he think that a national mandatory bus fare cap should apply but not a national mandate allowing access for disability passes? Why is it that some decisions should be taken locally and others nationally, and how does he reconcile those differences?