Westminster Hall

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

Monday 5 January 2026

[David Mundell in the Chair]

Free Bus Travel: Over-60s

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

00:00

[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.

16:45

[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.

16:51

[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.

16:53

[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?

17:01

[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.

17:05

[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.

17:13

[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.

17:21

[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.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

17:33

[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.

17:36

Sitting suspended.

Length of the School Week

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse in the Chair]

18:00

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 727514 relating to the length of the school week.

It is a pleasure to take part in a debate in which you are presiding, Mrs Hobhouse, and to move this motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee, especially because I was a secondary school teacher for almost a decade before I came to this place. The petition calls on the Government to reduce the school week from five days to four, while making each of the remaining school days one hour longer.

Ahead of these debates, I always try to speak with the petition’s creator to get a sense of why they started it, and I spoke with the creator of this petition before the Christmas break. He joins us in the Gallery with his mother, who is a teacher herself, and that is a central part of the reason why he began the petition. He had learned in school that almost a third of teachers leave the profession within five years. He hoped that a four-day school week would give teachers more time to spend with their families and encourage them to stay in the classroom—where we all want our best teachers to be—and he thinks that pupils could use their day out of school to do volunteering or other positive things in their local community

The proposal attracted significant interest; the petition has been signed by more than 126,000 people. Unfortunately, I do not have a breakdown of the ages of those signatories—[Laughter.] However, I suspect—and the laughter tells me that colleagues do too—that, given that this issue affects so many young people, many of the people who signed the petition may well be of school age. I think it is important that we bring their views into this debate.

Last month, I had the privilege of meeting secondary school pupils visiting Parliament, who were constituents of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), and hearing their thoughts about this idea. I spoke to some Back Benchers before going, and they said, “Well, of course they’re going to support it; it’s another day off school,” but yet again, adults overlooked how seriously young people would take it. Before we dismiss their enthusiasm out of hand, there are some really important things to consider that underpinned their interest. Yes, they liked the idea, but more than 15% said that they thought it would reduce school absences, and more than a quarter thought that it would improve their mental health.

That is a really serious point. The most recent NHS children and young people’s mental health survey found that one in five children aged eight to 16 had a probable mental health condition. We know that mental health concerns among young people have risen since the covid-19 pandemic, when many were so isolated. Factors such as climate change, extremism in politics and the cost of housing leave many young people feeling pessimistic about the future.

The pupils I spoke to also had some serious questions about the proposal, and went straight for the logistics of how it would work. Three big worries came through. The main argument against the idea, particularly among the pupils we polled, was that a longer day would be too tiring and that, by the time people got to what I referred to as period 6 when I was in school and when I was teaching—the sixth hour of the day—brains would be overused and they would not be quite as productive. Some thought that they would get more homework, that it would be harder to do it on top of longer school days, and that that would mean a reduction in the face-to-face time they got with their teachers.

Other pupils had questions about where the new periods would be added. Would they get extra breaks? Would the period go at the start or the end of the day? Older pupils, in particular, were concerned about the impact on their exams. Their school had six 50-minute lessons a day, and they were worried about where the lost hours would come from if they got 200 minutes back in four additional 50-minute lessons.

The final concern that came through strongly, which is easy to overlook but is vital when we consider this issue, was safety. Many pupils pointed out that, despite attending a school on the edge of a major city and having much better access to street lighting than some in rural areas such as the one I represent, a longer school day would mean that they would go home or to school in the dark, especially in the winter. It would be even worse if they wanted to do an extracurricular activity for an hour after school, in which case it could well be 5.30 pm or close to 6 pm by the time they went home. As we see outside today, it can be very dark at 6.05 pm. A number of pupils expressed real concern about whether they would be safe walking home in the dark if the proposed change were made.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

This is a devolved issue, but I did post about it on my Facebook page, because it is an interesting question—I think the post had about 100,000 views and just under 400 comments. One of the challenges that people brought up, which I think my hon. Friend missed from his list, was the impact of longer days on kids with additional support needs, and how their learning might be supported in the classroom as well as on the day off. We have to acknowledge the impact on students and their learning, but does he agree that we also have to think about the impact on children with additional support needs and their families?

[Dave Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. So often the system has been designed in one way and within it there is huge complexity, particularly when it comes to pupils with additional needs or special educational needs and disabilities. Redesigning the entire school week would obviously mean redesigning many of the other support factors that go around it. That point could easily be missed if we looked at this issue without the required detail. My hon. Friend’s level of social media engagement shames me; I shall have a drink with him later to ask how he is getting on with it.

In addition to meeting pupils from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North, I spoke to the National Association of Head Teachers. It shared some of their concerns, especially around mental health, but ultimately did not think that this proposal was the answer. In the NAHT’s view, the best way to ease the strain on pupils would be to reduce course content and the number of exams at the end of courses.

The NAHT had a number of other issues with the proposal. One was the impact it would have on extracurricular activities, which I have already mentioned. That is especially important, because pupils cited that as one of the main reasons for supporting the proposal: they wanted more time away from school to do volunteering or non-curricular stuff from which they get some value. The NAHT worried that the school day running later could mean fewer clubs for sports, music and similar things at the end of the day, and ultimately a less rich offer for pupils. A wealth of educational evidence shows that access to extracurricular activities is one of the things that helps to close attainment gaps right across the country.

The NAHT also worried that an earlier start to the school day would have a bad impact on secondary pupils. Studies show that teenagers’ sleep patterns mean they are best prepared to learn when they have slightly later starts, not earlier ones. Overall, like the pupils who opposed the petition, the NAHT was concerned that a longer school day would be too tiring, especially for primary school pupils, who need breaks and shorter spells of concentration to learn at their best.

Importantly, the NAHT recognised the impact on parents. For someone who works five days a week, suddenly needing to provide childcare on one of those days would be a huge challenge. I am a former teacher, and one of the things that always used to wind me up about debates like this was hearing people say, “But what about childcare?” I used to lose my mind, because teachers do so much more than childcare. However, it is a fact that if the kids are in school, their childcare is taken care of, and that taking kids out of school for one day a week would leave a huge void to be filled. Access to childcare is one of the major issues that affects young families, and this proposal would exacerbate that rather than solve it.

However, the NAHT did agree with the petitioners, as I do, that there is a significant problem with teacher retention. Britain has the youngest teaching workforce in the OECD. Not only are teachers leaving the profession, but many are unwilling to take on leadership roles, because the work is just so heavy, especially in primary schools. The NAHT favours a four-day teaching week—five days of classes, but a day a week for teachers to focus on lesson prep and administration, which we used to call PPA back in my day—and making the job more sustainable.

Before I conclude, I want to say something from my personal experience as a classroom teacher for almost a decade. I had the great privilege of working at the largest school in the country. We had a 15-form entry, so we had 15 classes in each year group; we had 2,500 kids on site every day and more than 300 staff. I was the school’s principal union rep during my time there. In 2015, we trialled something very similar to this proposal as a way of trying to push attainment up, to make sure that every kid who could just get over that grade got over that grade. We cancelled all staff meetings, we cancelled all staff time with other staff, and we did everything for contact. We put on a period 6—an additional hour at the end of every day. All of my members said, “You know what? If this is for the good of the kids and the school, let’s try it. Let’s give it a go and see what happens.”

We all went for it, and it was such hard work to put on valuable sessions for that sixth hour of the day. When we came to do an analysis in the September, we could not find that it had made any difference, positive or negative. What we found from doing it—having to move all this stuff around and the additional workload that came with it—was that the reason why the school day is six hours long, and has been six hours long for so long, is that that is what brains are designed to learn in. Adding that sixth hour had almost no impact—certainly no measurable impact—on pupil outcomes, and we had a big enough sample size to give at least some credence to the conclusion.

It is clear from the Government’s written response to the petition that they do not support the proposal, and there are clear reasons for that, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on some of the themes that underpin the petition, because it is also clear that there were reasons for starting it that relate to children’s mental health, opportunities for hobbies and volunteering, and retention of experienced teachers in order to give our children the best start possible.

18:10

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I have to declare an interest: my children asked me to do so. I think one of them actually signed the petition; I am not sure what the age limit is, but he is certainly very interested in the debate.

I will leave the education questions to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who has just spoken so eloquently, and to other people who know so much about education. My background is in health, so I come at the debate from that point of view, and I absolutely hear and reiterate the points about mental health conditions for young people, particularly post pandemic. That is a serious issue, and I know that the schools in my constituency have serious concerns about absenteeism and providing the best support that they can for pupils.

In terms of health issues, I want to draw some parallels with research that has been done on a four-day working week. My hon. Friend mentioned that if we did go to a four-day school week, that would obviously have implications for parents, who would need to be able to ensure that their children were safe and cared for on the fifth day. Some good research has been done on four-day working weeks, and it showed—this is within my remit—that in companies that offered one, there was a significant improvement in mental and physical health for workers. The before-and-after data shows that 39% of employees were less stressed and 71% had reduced levels of burnout at the end of the trial, which is very significant and a serious consideration given what we have heard about the enormous number of teachers who are leaving with burnout.

Of the 61 companies participating in the research, 56—that is 92%—are continuing with the four-day week, with 18 confirming that the policy is a permanent change. I wonder whether this debate, specific as it is to a four-day week for schools, is part of a wider consideration, and perhaps a wider cultural change, as to how we reorientate the work-life balance, which I think most of us would say is not optimal for a good number of people in this country and perhaps globally.

I would like the Minister to consider a couple of things and I am sure he will. The petition says that the teaching time per week would stay the same. I know that there has already been a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield about the curriculum’s shape and size and the exam stresses that our children face. Again, I will leave that to people who know much more about education, but does this need to be the case? If the teaching time remained the same on the four days and, as has been said, the fifth day was for teachers to plan, would we be able to right-size and right-shape the curriculum to allow our children to be ready, post 18, to do whatever they wanted to in this world? I do not know the answer, and I would be interested to hear others’ thoughts.

This question has also been talked about: if we did move to a four-day week, should that be for all ages? I am a mum of two children who are now in high school, having been through pre-school and primary school. Pre-school—nursery—was mornings. There was no way my two little boys would have been able to cope for longer than that in pre-school. Similarly, having watched them coming out of primary school, I think a longer day there would have been a lot to deal with. But as they get older, I take the point about starting later—getting my 14-year-old out of bed is increasingly difficult. Is a longer day more viable for older children than for younger children? Should this be looked at more flexibly? I understand that in some schools around the country it is already happening—not just a four-day working week, but perhaps four and a half days or a nine-day fortnight. I understand that the Government have good reasons for not planning to introduce such a policy right now, but I do think this is part of a broader conversation. I welcome young people coming into the conversation and I look forward to the conversation continuing.

18:14

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I wish you a very happy new year. I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening the debate. He obviously has a lot of experience in the classroom and has taken the themes behind the petition very seriously. I start by sending out heartfelt thanks to teachers up and down the country; I hope they have all had a lovely Christmas break and I recognise how hard they are working, in increasingly challenging circumstances.

Having looked into the reasons behind the petition, it seems that one of the sentiments was that we need to do what we can to keep our teachers in the profession. Teachers are the most important asset in our education system, and with every year of experience gained they become more valuable. We want to see world-class teachers in our classrooms, with the appropriate training and support to deliver the best education to all our children.

However, we currently face a serious teacher retention problem. Heavy workloads created by unnecessary bureaucracy and increasingly challenging pupil behaviour are driving teachers to leave the profession. Although new teachers keep coming in, we are trying to fill a leaky bucket as more experienced teachers leave in droves.

The most recent Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders survey found that 68% of teachers and school leaders did not think they had an acceptable workload and 55% felt they did not have sufficient control over their workload. In the same survey, more than six in 10 teachers who responded said that they felt at least half their working time was spent on tasks other than teaching. Those findings highlight teachers’ growing frustration with an increasingly unmanageable workload, being swamped by administrative work when they just want to get on with actually teaching the kids.

The Education Select Committee, on which I sit, heard recently about the dire situation we are now in with teacher retention. We were told that 9% leave the profession within a year, a quarter leave within three years and a third within five years. Those figures are far too high and are deeply worrying. It is clear that unless we tackle the reasons for teachers leaving, we will not have a stable, effective and consistent workforce. It does not matter how many teachers we recruit, if we cannot hold on to them after just a few years.

It is therefore important to address the issue of retention, and to note that it is exacerbated in schools in deprived areas. The Public Accounts Committee found that

“34% of teachers in the most disadvantaged schools had less than five years of experience, compared to 20% in the least disadvantaged”,

a figure that highlights how it is even harder to keep teachers in disadvantaged schools, something that has a knock-on effect on the future life chances of students in those schools, who risk

“being locked out of particular careers due to a lack of trained teachers”.

For example,

“31% of schools in the most disadvantaged areas do not offer Computer Science A-level (compared to 11% in the least disadvantaged areas)”.

Those are imbalances that we absolutely must iron out.

On the proposal made in the petition, the Liberal Democrats do not believe that switching to a four-day school week is the answer to the recruitment and retention problem. Reducing the school week would create additional challenges for families, as has already been mentioned, but particularly in relation to—and I apologise to the hon. Member for Lichfield—childcare. It would be not only logistically challenging, but financially punishing: parents would need to find extra childcare or reduce their working hours, which would make it harder for them to pay household bills and create even more pressure in a relentless cost of living crisis, and would have a damaging effect on the wider economy.

The impact of a four-day week on children’s mental health has been mentioned—but, while many younger people would love an extra day in bed, would it not be better for us to look at the mental health of our young people in a much broader sense? How can we design schools and the curriculum to improve, rather than harm, the mental health of our young people? How can we have more variety, less pressure, and more creativity, music and sport? We could even look at draconian uniform policies and their impact on children’s mental health. Let us design a system that is so great that children want to be there five days a week, not less than they already are.

Although it might sound as though a four-day week for teachers would resolve the retention crisis in our schools, it is not a practical solution for the economy at large. Instead, the Liberal Democrats believe the Government should consider offering greater access to flexible working arrangements for teachers while maintaining the five-day school week. We should follow a balanced approach that seeks to reduce teacher workload and improve retention, while ensuring that pupils continue to receive a complete and varied education. Giving teachers the support they need in the classroom, with enough teaching assistants, has to be part of that too.

The Public Accounts Committee found that, disappointingly, the Department for Education does not seem to understand the root causes of

“why and where workload is high”,

despite workload being the top reason for teachers leaving. We are calling on the Government to take a serious look at teachers’ working conditions, ensuring that they fully understand teacher workload, better to address the issue of teacher retention.

Furthermore, while the only real action from the Government on this issue has been to pledge 6,500 additional teachers over the course of this Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee found that it is unclear how that pledge will be delivered or how progress measured, or

“what achieving it will mean for existing and forecast teacher shortages.”

The Department for Education could not give the Committee a clear explanation of how the pledge was calculated or how it will fill existing gaps, with an estimated need for up to 12,500 more teachers in colleges alone by 2028.

Considering that the last teacher recruitment and retention strategy was published in 2019 by a failing Conservative Government, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive teacher workforce strategy to properly address teacher recruitment and retention. Such a strategy would include reforming the School Teachers Review Body to make it genuinely independent of Government and able to recommend fair pay rises for teachers, fully funded every year, with the aim of ensuring that every secondary school child is taught by a specialist teacher in their subject.

We would also ensure that teacher training is properly funded so that all trainee posts in school are paid. Finally, we would introduce a clear and properly funded programme of high-quality professional development for all teachers, including training on effective parental engagement. By focusing on retention, flexibility and proper support for the profession, we believe we can create the conditions teachers deserve and need to thrive, not only for their benefit, but for pupils and families as well.

18:21

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I wish you, Mrs Hobhouse, all Members, Clerks and staff of Parliament, and our visitors today a happy new year. I am pleased to respond to the debate on the length of the school week.

I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for leading the debate and I congratulate the young people behind the petition who have brought us together to discuss it here. I confess I have not told my own children what I am doing this evening; I hope they are not watching the Parliament channel for the first time in their lives, because my job tonight is to complete the party consensus and disappoint the signatories. While we have heard some valid arguments about teacher recruitment and retention and how the reality of school works for many children, the challenges that we have heard about are probably best met with solutions other than shortening the school week.

Broadly speaking, we have more knowledge and data about what works in education that ever before, which gives us some confidence in saying we know how to make education work best for young people. Success obviously depends on rewarding excellence and raising standards, and the research shows that reducing the length of the school week would mean fewer opportunities to learn and improve. Less time spent with teachers in the classroom would lead to fewer activities and teaching hours, especially for the most deprived children, who might lack alternatives to those activities away from their schools. If anything, we need children to spend more time at school so they can enjoy the greatest possible benefit from full-time education.

Of course, there should be a balance: schools create opportunities for children to learn social skills, make friends, explore new interests and be active, and no one here wants children to be constantly working without rest or support, especially when they are struggling. However, our schools would be unbalanced by the loss of an entire school day. It is not credible that five days of learning and activity could be realistically compressed into four. Cutting lesson times would harm children, especially those who are struggling the most and need more help.

Not only children, but families would suffer. A four-day week would see more than a month’s worth of school time lost over a year. That is 39 days gone—much more than people’s total holiday entitlement. The loss of a whole day would force many working parents to find alternative childcare arrangements at huge personal expense. The cost of childcare, already incredibly high, would go up even further because of the spike in demand, while many other parents would simply work fewer hours or leave their jobs to look after children when they were not in school.

Campaigners for a shorter week believe that those problems can be made up for by extending the length of the remaining four days. The petition we are debating today proposed that we add an extra hour to each school day, but that would still mean two and a half hours being lost every week. Even if we extended the school day to a full eight hours under a four-day week schedule, children would be left with fewer hours of education each week.

Under the Conservatives, the minimum length of the school week was extended to 32 and a half hours, which helped children to master their subjects, discover new ones, get catch-up support, receive personalised tutoring and enjoy more extracurricular activities. Schools in Wales, where education is not run by the Conservatives, have also trialled longer school days. A four-day week would leave us a global outlier, with English children having less school time than their peers in other developed countries.

We know that more time spent in school leads to better outcomes. The Education Policy Institute has reviewed a series of global studies, and found

“a more pronounced impact on the academic outcomes of pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds”.

The Education Endowment Foundation has also reviewed studies from multiple countries, and concluded that extended school time can deliver an average gain of three months’ additional progress for children—four months for children in primary schools, and two months for children in secondary schools.

There is significant evidence of this working in England. The DFE’s 2003 to 2010 extended schools and services programme, covering 1,500 schools, featured longer school days as part of its pilot scheme. That contributed towards 74% of schools seeing higher pupil engagement in learning and 82% higher pupil engagement in school, as well as a 54% reduction in discipline problems.

Research shows that the most deprived schools benefited: nearly six in 10 children on free school meals thought the scheme made an impact on schools with more than 20% of pupils on free school meals, but that falls to four in 10 children for schools with less than 20% of children on free school meals. Parents also agreed: surveys showed that 35% of parents believed their child’s grades improved as a result, 56% observed their child enjoying learning more and 58% saw their child demonstrating better language skills and being better socialised.

Longer school days are an important part of delivering more and better enrichment. Thanks to the academies and free schools revolution, that insight has been put into practice, with impressive results. Star Academies’ Eden Girls’ school delivers extra enrichment and learning through additional time between 3 pm and 3.45 pm. It is rated outstanding. Teachers play their part in that extra time, but the school has innovated by working with charities and community groups to give extra activities to its pupils, which means that teachers are enablers rather than being overburdened.

Extended school days have been introduced at St Martin’s academy, from 8.30 am to 4 pm, alongside full wraparound care to help parents. The school was rated outstanding last year. All Saints Catholic college, another outstanding school, piloted two non-compulsory extended school days for year 7 and year 8 pupils. The summer term pilot saw a 12% drop in missed homework sanctions and a 16% increase in good behaviour.

Academies at the Inspiration Trust in East Anglia have also proved that the approach works. They extended their school days for children in year 7 to year 11, providing an extra 500 days of teaching, or 20 more weeks of learning. Inspiration Trust has also ensured that teacher meetings are more efficiently organised, and that professional development opportunities are available. The results speak for themselves: 66% of pupils at Inspiration Trust primaries meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, which is higher than the 62% England average; 50% achieve grade 5 or above in English and maths GCSEs, compared with 45.9% across all state-funded schools; and 83% of all A-level results were between A* and C last year.

Lengthening the school week creates the space for schools to decide how they can best use their time and improve outcomes. Many school reformers rightly believe that that can be done with strong discipline, a knowledge-rich curriculum and teacher-led instruction. That was the insight that shaped the Conservative education reform that made English children the best readers in the world and saw England rise through the programme for international student assessment rankings. However, education reform is never over; it is a constant fight to keep schools in good shape so that children can get the best education possible.

I congratulate the young people who made this debate happen, and I recognise the good faith of all those who support the proposal. However, it is the position of my party, like that of the Government and the Liberal Democrats—the boring grown-ups that we are—that a shorter school week would weaken our schools and end up letting children down. Instead, we need to ensure that more time is spent at school and focus on giving every child the best chance to succeed in life.

18:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Happy new year to one and all. I congratulate the young person who started this petition for securing this debate; it is always good to see pupils actively involved in thinking about the world around them and campaigning for the change that they want to see. I started my career as a secondary school citizenship teacher, so I welcome seeing young people using the instruments of their democracy in such a way. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening the debate.

High and rising standards are at the heart of this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage. Schools in England have made excellent progress in recent years and our brilliant teachers provide high-quality education to millions of children. The success of new freedoms and responsibilities for schools, starting with the city academies programme in the 2000s, our new-found discipline in the pursuit of evidence in the education system in England and the professional development that means we now have the most expert teaching workforce ever have all been hard fought for and are now delivering real results for children.

Although I understand why a four-day school week would appeal to some, it is essential that we do not compromise the great progress that has been made over recent years by reducing the amount of time that pupils spend at school, either in total or spread over a five-day week. Evidence, including research by the Education Policy Institute published in 2024, has shown that additional time in school, when used effectively, can have a positive impact on pupil attainment, particularly for the most vulnerable. Schools need enough time to deliver the curriculum to a high standard while ensuring appropriate breaks and opportunities for wider enrichment. Shortening the school week would upset that balance, making it harder for pupils to secure the knowledge and skills they need to go on to lead rich and fulfilling lives. Compressing more hours into fewer days would squeeze out valuable time for school clubs, sport or homework.

For those reasons, the Government have recently restated our commitment to all state-funded mainstream schools delivering a minimum school week of 32.5 hours. Meeting that expectation is essential to delivering fairness and high standards for every child. Our published guidance encourages schools to consider extending their hours beyond the minimum and focus on how that time can best support pupil development and deliver school priorities. Reducing time spent in school risks having the opposite effect.

High-quality time in school is about far more than being in lessons: it is also about creating opportunities for social interaction, enrichment and personal growth. As well as supporting academic achievement, a broad and balanced education plays a vital role in supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people; being in school across the working week ensures that they benefit from the full range of support that a high-quality education offers to help them thrive.

Insisting on schools being open and educating pupils five days a week should not negate the importance of testing new approaches to embedding flexible working practices for teachers. In fact, expanding and promoting flexible working opportunities in schools can help to recruit, retain and motivate teachers, as a number of Members have mentioned. There are many positive examples of schools embracing flexible working policies for teachers and the freedom that comes with that. Dixons Academies Trust offers a nine-day fortnight for all teachers without impacting pupil contact time; it achieves that through innovative methods in large group teaching and by using its senior leadership team in different ways. The results look very encouraging.

My Department is also backing 10 ambassador schools across the country to test and share the best flexible working approaches and solutions. Teacher workloads have been a challenge for schools, too often leading to high rates of teacher turnover. That is why it is so positive to see teachers working fewer hours now than in recent years according to the most recent working lives survey, which was published in November. There is certainly more work to do to ensure that teaching is a balanced and achievable long-term career, but positive progress is being made, as it is on retention and recruitment. However, that is probably a subject for a longer and separate Westminster Hall debate.

To conclude, reducing the school week would undermine pupil learning and development, and place unnecessary strain on working families. High standards, equal access and sufficient time in school are essential if we are to deliver on our commitment to give every child the opportunity to achieve and thrive. That is why this Government stand firmly by the principle of a minimum 32.5-hour school week delivered across five days, which ensures consistency, fairness and opportunity for every child in this country. Considering the wider benefits of time in school, I am afraid to say that the Government therefore have no plans to reduce the school week from five to four days, but I thank all the petitioners for engaging in this process so fully, and thank my colleagues from across the House for contributing to the debate.

18:38

[Dave Robertson]

Again, I thank the petitioners and the petition creator for making sure could discuss this issue. I also thank all those who contributed to this debate: my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who showed his support for pupils with additional educational needs; my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who gave her views on the health and wider implications of how such a change might function and its place within the larger debate; and the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who raised the important issue of teacher retention. The median length of a teaching career has been decreasing for years. When the treadmill is that short, it does not matter how fast people are shuffled on to it if they fall off the back just as fast. However, I caution her on one point: we have world-class teachers in our classrooms up and down the country.

I also thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for sharing a rare moment of policy agreement across all the major parties. I am sure normal service will be resumed very soon. We may have to agree to disagree on the simple idea that more education means better outcomes, because I am not entirely certain that it is linear—I think that a maximum can be reached, but I am sure that we can have that debate at length another time. I am also not sure that any robust evidence links school structures, academies and free schools to better outcomes on their own. It is teachers who make excellent education, not school structures.

Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, who has first-hand experience as a teacher, for raising the importance of extracurricular activities as well as the impact that inflexible working has on retention and the ways that we can work around that to support teachers in the classroom. He may, however, have missed an opportunity to flag up Labour’s excellent Employment Rights Act 2025 as part of that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 727514 relating to the length of the school week.

18:38

Sitting adjourned.