Home-to-School Transport

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered home-to-school transport.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I am grateful for having secured this important debate. At its core, home-to-school transport is a simple promise: where a child cannot reasonably walk to school, transport will not be a barrier to their education. However, that promise is under serious strain.

Across the country, and acutely in North Yorkshire, families are finding that promise being broken by policy changes that are short-sighted, poorly designed and, in many cases, deeply unfair. The national picture is stark; the Public Accounts Committee published its report on home-to-school transport in March, and its conclusions make for uncomfortable reading.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and I was the spokesperson for that report when it went to the media. The report dealt specifically with the education of those with special educational needs and disabilities, and it became very clear that there is a complete drop-off at age 16, meaning that many young adults aged 16 to 19 cannot get to school. The other point I would like to make is that, in rural constituencies like my own, the local special school is not a mile down the road, so it can mean a two-hour round journey.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her diligent work as a member of the PAC, and for making that point about SEND, which I will come on to during my speech.

Local authorities in England spent £2.6 billion on home-to-school transport in 2024-25, which was a real-terms increase of 70% since 2015-16. SEND transport alone more than doubled in cost over that same period, and it now accounts for £2 billion of that total. These are enormous sums, but remarkably, the PAC found that the Department for Education does not know whether this spending is achieving value for money. It does not have the data needed to oversee the system effectively, and it cannot adequately measure the relationship between transport and school attendance.

The consequences of that failure are visible in other figures: some 1 million young people in the UK are not in education, employment or training, and one in five children of compulsory school age misses at least a day of school per fortnight, which rises to one in three at sixth-form age. The Department’s own assessment looks only at transport disruptions on the day they occur, not the wider issue of whether the system is keeping children in school. This is a serious blind spot, and one that the Government need to address.

This is not just a North Yorkshire problem; the County Councils Network has warned that three quarters of councils are expected to tighten mainstream transport eligibility in the coming years. What is happening in my constituency today, and across North Yorkshire, is a preview of what families across rural England will face if this direction of travel is not reversed. Nowhere is the picture more stark than in some of the stories that my constituents have told me, which is why I secured this debate today.

At the heart of the problem is a growing disconnect between two systems that are supposed to work together but increasingly do not. We have a school admissions system built around catchment areas and feeder school relationships, and a home-to-school transport framework that has been interpreted ever more narrowly as being for the “nearest school only”.

For many years, county councils bridged that gap pragmatically by offering transport to the nearest or catchment school. That reflects the realities of rural England, where many children live well beyond walking distance, where public transport is sparse or often non-existent, and where the geography means that the nearest school on the map is often not the most practical school to reach—sometimes there is a dale in the way, sometimes a river crossing, and sometimes a simple county boundary that bears no relation to how communities actually function.

As budgets tighten and authorities retreat towards the statutory minimum provision, councils are removing catchment transport and reverting to nearest school only. In rural areas like North Yorkshire, the consequences are severe and they are being felt right now. Within days of being elected, the issue of home-to-school transport was landing in my email inbox, and it has not stopped since. North Yorkshire council changed its transport policy to base eligibility on nearest school only, rather than the nearest or catchment school. The council says this is to address rising costs, which are now expected to exceed £52 million—one of the three largest areas of the council’s expenditure—with unsubstantiated claims of savings of up to £3 million over the next seven years.

I understand budgetary pressures, and I understand that local authorities are being squeezed from every direction, but understanding a pressure does not simply mean accepting the response to it uncritically, when the policy is clearly not working. The system that North Yorkshire council uses to calculate the nearest school is not publicly available, so families receive decisions with no ability to interrogate the methodology behind them. That opacity alone is a problem, but when we look at what the methodology is actually producing, it becomes something worse than opaque; it becomes absurd.

The council measures distance using the shortest available walked route to school, which sounds reasonable until we look at what counts as a “walked route”. That includes riverside paths, farm tracks, roads with no pavements or street lights, cliffside grass tracks and hiking paths over the dales. Campaigners have discovered that the council’s mapping tool has even been thought to include a private farm track and a ford crossing of a river as an available walking route to school. In reality, the ford is passable only by tractor and the track is on private land. One family appealed successfully against the use of the route, but it remains on the council’s mapping system, ready to be used again.

The School Transport Action Group has documented routes that children have been expected to follow, including climbing over metal barriers on the A64 and using paths that cross an active military firing range. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view of whether any of those constitute a “nearest available walked route”, in North Yorkshire council’s words. STAG, which was formed to fight the changes, has done determined and important work in documenting the human and financial cost of the policy. I pay particular tribute to Jo Foster, whose campaigning on the issue has been tireless and has helped bring the national attention that it warrants. STAG puts the situation plainly:

“North Yorkshire Council has lost the plot on home to school transport”,

and I am inclined to agree. More than 1,000 families have been affected, with more than 200 appeals and 20 ombudsman cases in the past year alone. A senior councillor who voted for this very policy has publicly admitted that it contains errors, and some families have been left as losers. This is not a rounding error; it is a clear policy failure.

STAG has completed a survey of families going through the process right now, the class of 2026. The group has 60 responses so far, and the findings are telling: nearly 59% applied to a school because it was their catchment school, more than a third already had siblings there, and 84% live in towns and villages that have a school bus going to their chosen catchment school, yet 73% will not be eligible for free transport. Nearly two thirds of those families have no back-up plan at all.

Some have told STAG what their options look like in practice. One parent said:

“My back-up plan is to leave my job so I can drive my child to school.”

Another said:

“We would have to consider driving, but we both travel with work and it wouldn’t allow us to do our current jobs.”

A single parent wrote:

“I would not be able to work. I am a single parent household.”

One parent captured the particular absurdity of sibling cases:

“I shall have to take extra overtime at work in order to pay for my second child to sit on a bus that my eldest child is already on.”

Those families who plan to buy a paid-for bus pass face a further cruelty. Those passes will not be confirmed until August. They will be subject to availability and can be withdrawn with one week’s notice. The council has made it clear that its intention is to phase out catchment routes entirely, as soon as possible. Families are therefore being asked to plan their working lives around a service that may not exist by the time that their child starts secondary school.

Those are not edge cases; they are predictable, documented consequences of a policy that has stripped the transport system away from the admissions system it is supposed to support. The costs have not disappeared; they have simply been transferred from the council to the rural families who can least afford them. Council officers have described the changes as ensuring “fairness and consistency”, but I will put some individual stories on the record and let Members judge that for themselves.

Leanne lives in a village outside Harrogate. Her daughter has been waiting three and a half years for a diagnosis, but is on the SEN register and has a PDA—pathological demand avoidance—profile with emotional-based school avoidance. There is no public bus through her village and no safe walking route. Leanne’s other child has Down’s syndrome and an education, health and care plan, and cannot travel to school safely alone. Both children need to be at school at the same time; Leanne and her husband both work full time. Under the new policy, they have been denied free transport to the nearest suitable school and are now paying £94 a month for a bus permit. She told me:

“The system is broken and does not take into account personal circumstances or rural villages’ needs.”

I agree with her entirely.

David lives in Upper Wharfedale. Every morning he drives in convoy with his neighbours, following the school bus past his house, because his neighbours qualified under the old policy, but he did not. For him, the bus goes to the nearest primary school, the only school that anyone in the local area has attended for 60 years, along the only safe route available. North Yorkshire council, however, is now saying that his children’s nearest school is Hawes, in Wensleydale. To get there, they would have to cross Fleet Moss, one of the highest and most remote routes in the country, which is treacherous in winter and frequently impassable. David and his family moved to the dales five years ago to run a farm diversification scheme, but they would never have come had this policy been in place then. He has told me that it will be

“the death of these communities, and that’s not hyperbole.”

I believe him.

Sophie, a friend I went to high school and college with, lives in one of the villages straddling multiple local authority boundaries, with a Doncaster postcode, North Yorkshire council oversight, an East Yorkshire postal address and a West Yorkshire phone number. Her children’s primary school cohort has been scattered across four secondary schools, in different local authorities and in four different directions. She made the point with her characteristic directness: it cannot possibly be more cost-effective to fund transport to four separate schools in four different directions than it would be to fund one bus to one school. The policy is not just unfair to families, but undermining the purpose that it is meant to be achieving.

There is also a wider consequence that is often not discussed. One in four small primary schools in North Yorkshire stands to lose pupils because of this policy. Small secondary schools in Settle, Whitby and Boroughbridge face an existential threat. When we hollow out the transport routes that sustain these schools, we do not just inconvenience rural families, but undermine the schools themselves and the rural communities they serve.

I also want to raise the issue facing SEND families specifically, and the additional injustice of a cliff edge at 16. I want to tell this Chamber about Noah, whose mother Catherine has shared his story with me. Noah deferred starting primary school by a year because he was unable to walk. After winning an appeal to attend St John’s, North Yorkshire council offset that deferred year and placed him in year 8. The consequence— I want colleagues to sit with this for a moment—is that Noah will now receive one fewer year of education than his peers, and four years of free transport rather than five because his transport entitlement ends at 16. He has already had more taken from him than other children, through no fault of his own, and the system’s response is to take even more.

Noah cannot walk independently and requires one-to-one support. His taxi to school has become the highlight of his day because it is the one moment where he does not feel dependent on his mum—when he can feel something like freedom. His family have one income, claim universal credit and have little to no savings; they cannot find the money needed to pay the monthly costs for school transport. When Noah turns 18, the assumption is that his mum will simply be able to drive him because she has a Motability vehicle, which will strip away his independence that took so long to build. This is not a bureaucratic edge case; the system does this to families like Noah’s without apology.

That is not an isolated experience. The Public Accounts Committee found that 40% of families with young people with SEND said that they needed to give up work because of transport provision ending when their child turned 16. Colleges report students failing to start courses because transport had not been agreed. I believe that there was an issue across the border in Leeds, where the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has already found the council at fault for its approach to post-16 SEND transport, identifying both individual injustice and systemic failure. However, families continue to report inconsistent decisions, inadequate assessments and personal travel allowances that do not cover the actual costs.

The charity Contact put it clear in evidence to PAC: the policy is simply not working post 16. The change in entitlement can feel like a cliff edge. For families who have spent years building routines and supporting a young person with complex needs, that cliff edge can be devastating for the young person and for every member of their family around them. We cannot have a system that claims to support inclusion and participation while simultaneously pulling the transport that makes participation possible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wanted to come along and support the hon. Gentleman in bringing this debate forward. He is a very assiduous MP in this House, whether it be on the Back Benches in the Chamber or leading debates in Westminster Hall, and I want to congratulate him on that. I also add my support to what he is hoping to achieve because, although this is not a responsibility for the Minister—this issue is devolved in Northern Ireland—we have similar problems when it comes to SEND issues, disabled children and road safety. In his quest to have a better system, I wish him well. I hope that, back home in Northern Ireland where it is devolved—the Minister here has no responsibility for it—we will see changes as well.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. As ever, he puts his point eloquently and passionately. I agree that, no matter where a SEND child is living in this United Kingdom, they deserve a lot better than they are getting at the moment.

I want to press the Minister on a number of specific points. The single most impactful achievable change that this Government could make is also the simplest. The statutory guidance on home-to-school transport should be updated so that the minimum provision becomes the nearest or catchment school, rather than solely the nearest suitable school. That one change would restore the alignment between admissions and transport that rural families depend on. It would give councils a clear framework and remove the incentive to reinterpret eligibility ever more narrowly. It would protect the community-school relationships that anchor rural life, and it would not even require primary legislation. I urge the Minister to give that serious consideration.

Secondly, I urge the Minister to impress on her colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government the need to reinstate the rural services delivery grant. The rural premium matters enormously for local authorities such as North Yorkshire, where distances are not a policy choice, but a geographical fact. Cutting that grant has had real consequences for the decisions that local authorities have to make, and those consequences are being borne by families in villages across the dales, across my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, and in North Yorkshire more widely.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

On that point, my first ministerial job was as Local Government Minister, and I think that the hon. Member makes an excellent point about the importance of the rural services delivery grant to councils such as North Yorkshire, which incur extra costs in delivering services in rural areas. Does he agree that that is an important aspect of local government finance that needs to be considered when MHCLG is looking at allocations, and that it is particularly important to our rural county of North Yorkshire?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. It is one of the things on which we absolutely agree. I would like to see all parties and especially the governing party put that problem right. As I said, cutting the grant has had real consequences for the decisions that councils make.

Thirdly, we need to see expansion of the statutory minimum more broadly. The current system, which involves a 2-mile walking distance for primary, 3 miles for secondary and a duty that ends at age 16, was designed for a different era and different pattern of schooling. Where school systems have been reorganised, specialist provision has been concentrated and rural bus networks have been allowed to decline, the statutory floor is no longer fit for purpose.

Fourthly, will the Minister confirm that the Government will make data collection on home-to-school transport mandatory, as the PAC recommended? We cannot improve what we do not measure. Voluntary, inconsistent data collection across more than 100 local authorities is not a sufficient basis on which to run a £2.6 billion spending commitment. The Department needs a proper baseline if it is ever to hold local authorities to account and drive genuine improvement.

Home-to-school transport is not a niche issue. It sits at the intersection of SEND, rural sustainability, school attendance, the cost of living and the long-term viability of rural communities. In rural England, school buses are not a luxury, but essential infrastructure. Families across rural communities such as those in North Yorkshire are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a system that works, keeps their children safe, keeps them in school and does not price them out of the education to which they are legally entitled. There should not be a rural tax on education. That is not too much to ask, and I hope the Minister agrees.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Smith]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. We have talked about Settle college, which is threatened by kids going outwith the constituency and is worried about its numbers, but in the upper dales, too—we heard about the Thomases and others in Oughtershaw—children have to go over the top into Richmondshire or to Settle college, which is much further away than Upper Wharfedale school. The impact is that historical links between communities and villages, and between primaries and secondaries, are being broken, and these schools are vulnerable to tiny changes in rolls from year to year. I urge the Minister to reflect on the fact that many of us have fought to keep some of these schools open, and this policy really is having a negative effect. There are issues with the siblings policy, whereby the school attended by a sibling is no longer taken into account. I hope that this and other examples will be considered as North Yorkshire completes its review and considers its post-implementation procedures.

We heard the proposal from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to look again at the definition of a local school and at the rural services grant. I think we need an emergency brake to ensure that Settle, Upper Wharfedale and other vulnerable schools are protected, and that one policy—in North Yorkshire or other counties—does not undermine schools. Parents also want to understand the opportunities for voluntary contributions. That interacts with commercial bus services; what are the options there? Above all, there is a need to look at the appeals process. Is the Department for Transport allowed to look at cases? In the case of Oughtershaw, it is just impossible to get over to the recommended school in winter; the Department had not really done an assessment of that.

[Tom Gordon]

It came to my attention that a freedom of information request to North Yorkshire council uncovered emails that suggested that the Conservative leader of the council was suggesting that there should not be more than one Liberal Democrat sitting on any of the council’s appeal panels. Does the right hon. Member agree that we need full transparency to understand what has been going on there and how the council might have been looking to fix who sits on those appeal panels?

[Sir Julian Smith]

Well, I thank the hon. Member for that point. [Laughter.] All I would say is that, knowing the personalities involved and their integrity, I think North Yorkshire council has been grappling with a difficult challenge. It accepts that there will have to be changes. It is key that we move forward, and a way to do that is to ask whether there can be a more empathetic approach to appeals and whether North Yorkshire can look at some of the points that the hon. Member and others have made about the fact that we are such a sparse area and need some changes. Ultimately, though, this falls on the Government. Although a small increase in home-to-school funding was earmarked in the previous local government funding settlement, it did not reach the need and the amount of money that North Yorkshire spends. We really need the Government to look at the specific needs of rural education, and to look again at how to assess sparsity and rural factors, in this and every other policy they have a part in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing this incredibly important debate and on setting out this deeply concerning issue eloquently and passionately. It does not affect his constituency alone; as we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, it is an issue right across the country, from Yorkshire right the way down to Kent and Sussex, and everywhere in between.

It feels a bit basic and obvious to say this, but it bears repeating: every child deserves to be able to get to school. There is a legal requirement to educate our children, and their ability to get there is a fairly basic right. They also deserve to get to school safely, efficiently and on time, yet the shocking stories that we have heard from around the country show just how hard that is for far too many children. The fact that the changes in Yorkshire mean that parents are being charged almost £900 for bus passes is, frankly, ridiculous.

Sadly, those stories are symptoms of wider failures by a number of Administrations to consider the needs of rural communities and SEND families. As a London MP and a born-and-bred London girl, both of whose children walk fewer than 10 minutes to get to their primary and secondary schools, I hesitate to talk about rural communities, but I hear from colleagues in my party and others about the real challenges of getting to school in rural communities. I have seen that when I have been on visits to Shropshire and talked to families and schoolteachers.

Under the last Conservative Government, bus services withered. Between 2015 and 2023, the number of local passenger journeys fell by a quarter—1 billion trips—and many routes were scrapped altogether. We have heard today about the Public Accounts Committee’s recent report on SEND home-to-school transport, which highlighted the ongoing decline of bus services, particularly in rural areas. It notes:

“Better local transport options…would reduce home to school transport costs”.

I will address the soaring costs that local authorities face when it comes to home-to-school transport, but I will first take a moment to focus on the fact that it is the most vulnerable in society who are impacted by poor transport provision. I find it somewhat surprising that the Department for Education seems to have little interest in what transport looks like for those who use it. As we have heard, it does not collect clear data about who receives home-to-school transport or whether it is reaching those in need.

As we have heard from Members from both sides of the House, children are being made to feel that their education does not matter because of where they live. They miss after-school clubs and activities and are made to walk on unsafe roads, often in the dark before school starts. As we have heard very clearly from some case studies today, parents are forced to sacrifice their time and income to drive their children to school, all because a computer said no—because of the rules that have been put in place by their local authorities. Grandparents or other extended family members are forced to go out of their way and step up when no one else is able to—although, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) pointed out, Cornwall to Kent seems rather extreme and pushing it somewhat.

There is, however, a larger underlying issue here. We have seen the costs of home-to-school transport soar alongside the need for SEND provision. While the Government have made the welcome move of committing to write off local authorities’ historic SEND deficits, that, sadly, does not extend to transport costs. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have been urging the Government to exempt SEND transport operators from the Government’s national insurance contribution increases to curb further cost increases.

I hope the Minister will address that issue in her response today and will set out what the DFE is doing to address it now. Pushing it into the reforms that we have seen announced, which we know are going to take years to implement, will be too slow to address this particular issue.

The cancellation of a number of planned special schools around the country does not help this situation. I strongly urge the Minister to revisit and reverse the cancellation of planned special schools. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) said, if the specialist provision was closer to home, we would not need to spend quite so much on home-to-school transport.

[Tom Gordon]

I have been campaigning since before I was elected to get the special school for autism in Bilton Woodfield reopened. The situation has now been dragging on for years. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see North Yorkshire council, the trust that has now been appointed and the DFE work together to get that open on time for this September?

[Munira Wilson]

I 100% agree that they need to crack on as soon as possible.

The challenge we had with the Government announcements before Christmas was that some local authorities were given the option to crack on with the special school or be given money instead. From talking to councillors on the ground who went for the money, I know that it is not going to be anywhere close to what they need to cover the provision that they were looking for, but they felt kind of forced to take that option.

I am really worried about what these announcements will mean for the continued ferrying of children with special educational needs and disabilities very far away from home. Parents of children with SEND battle against the system enough as it is. It seems really unfair that they are now being made to choose between the right school for their child, but not being able to get them there without further sacrificing time and income, and getting their child to a school, but not one that can actually provide the right support.

A number of hon. Members have today highlighted the cliff edge in transport provision for students over 16 both with and without SEND. Local authorities do not have a duty to provide a universal transport system after the age of 16. For young people with SEND, their access to education is at the discretion of their local authority. Given what we have heard about financial pressures, it is sadly no surprise that young people with SEND are around 80% more likely to not be in education, employment or training than the average student.

The Public Accounts Committee has said:

“the Department appears unconcerned about the clarity of offering for this age group or the impact that losing transport at 16 may have.”

My hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who cannot be here today, told me that the cost of a Stagecoach South West termrider increased in September 2025 from £238 per term to £444 per term. Sixth-form students who are not entitled to free transport are being forced to pay more than £1,300 per academic year to access education. I want to be clear with the Minister that the increase was due to the rise in national insurance contributions, which meant that, over and above all the other inflationary cost pressures faced by the company, like many others, it needed to generate an additional £3,500 per year per vehicle to make ends meet.

In the light of the Milburn report published last week and the shocking numbers of young people not in education, employment or training, it is deeply disappointing that the Government’s policy on national insurance has exacerbated the problem. Like me, the Minister is a London MP. We are very fortunate that our 16 to 18-year-olds have free transport to be able to get to college and education, so this is not an issue for our constituents, but it is shocking to read those numbers for residents in other parts of the country.

I understand that local authorities are under immense financial pressure. As was rightly said by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who is no longer in his place, home-to-school transport is a problem for all political colours, right across the country. Sadly, the policy on national insurance has made the problem worse. I hope that the Minister will consider the exemption I called for, and I echo the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for the Government to review and update national guidance on home-to-school transport. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for the passion with which he has campaigned for his constituent in the terrible case of Lewis. I urge the Government to look at safeguarding standards for home-to-school transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

This has been an involved and thoughtful discussion. I appreciate the cross-party support for this issue across the Chamber; it is one of the few areas where the right hon. Members for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) and for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) and I see relatively eye to eye. I appreciate them both turning up today to make this case to the Conservative-run North Yorkshire council.

It was, as always, fantastic to hear from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on the work she does around disabled children and SEND. She is one of the best voices I have heard in this place on those subjects. Hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) regarding the horrendous situation he outlined and Lewis being physically restrained is heart- breaking. I hope he gets a solution and the accountability that is needed.

I appreciate the Minister’s response. I would love it if she could be open to the further conversation she mentioned and make sure we can rule out things such as the nearest available walking routes to schools including river and motorway crossings and so on. There might be something in the statutory guidance that we could tease out to put some prohibitions on those things being part of those calculations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered home-to-school transport.