Home-to-School Transport

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dr Allin-Khan, and to open this debate on the enforcement of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

Like many Members across this House, I welcomed the introduction of the Water (Special Measures) Act last year. After years of public anger over pollution, rising bills and declining services in the sector, the Act promised a tougher approach to a failing water industry. It pledged to ban bonuses for failing bosses, bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers, impose meaningful fines and introduce independent monitoring of every sewer overflow. On paper, that sounded like progress. In practice, the Act has proved to be little more than a drop in the ocean.

The Water (Special Measures) Act was meant to turn the tide, but right now the sewage is still flowing and so are the excuses from water bosses. The Act was intended to strengthen regulation and restore public trust, yet in the months since its introduction we have seen companies complying with the letter of the law while confidence continues to drain away. When regulation is drafted so narrowly it can be complied with but the purpose is undermined, it is quite clearly not fit for purpose and not strong enough. That brings me to a central question of this debate: how do we ensure that the principles of the Act are properly enforced, and that water companies are genuinely held to account?

Nowhere is the failure of the current system clearer than the performance of Yorkshire Water, which supplies water to my constituents in Harrogate and Knaresborough. The problems they face mirror those across the country, from poor customer services to rising bills and the persistent sewage pollution we see in our rivers.

Yorkshire Water was classified by Ofwat as “lagging behind” but my constituents are having to pay that price upfront. In October 2025, the Environment Agency gave Yorkshire Water a red rating for serious pollution incidents. Those incidents had almost tripled in 2024, leaving the company with one of the worst pollution records in the country. Despite this performance, customers have repeatedly been asked to pay more while receiving less. One constituent described their experience as:

“Probably the worst consumer experience I have had in my life”.

Against that backdrop, many were rightly shocked by comments from the Yorkshire Water chief executive when she suggested criticism of the company reflected

“a level of expectation from customers that’s much higher”

than it had been. With water bills expected to rise by as much as 41% over the next five years, and a hosepipe ban that was imposed from July to December, my constituents are entitled to ask how low does she think their expectations should be? If expectations are too high, then perhaps the problem is not the public but the leadership of Yorkshire Water.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Liberal Democratic party for all they do on water issues. That cannot be taken away from them: they are to the fore. Other parties may be a wee bit annoyed at that, but they are so active it is incredible. Well done.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the private companies do not appear to be tied to doing the right thing for the public as a whole, but to doing more for their investors? The ability to freeze bonus payments as a penalty should be used, and the consultation with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must allow this measure to be implemented in a quick and cost-effective manner, as a matter of urgency. Does he agree that is one thing that could be done?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It is a pleasure to take an intervention from him, as always. I completely agree with what he has outlined and the characterisation of the way that the water sector is, frankly, morally bankrupt. There is no interest in the public good. That is why my party has long been calling to see these companies reformed, where they have to put public benefit interest first rather than corporate shareholder responsibilities.

Long-term Medical Conditions

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Thursday 12th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing the debate and, like the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), I thank him for his service. I did not know he was a surgeon —I thought he was a GP—but whatever it was, I thank him. We are all indebted to him for his contribution.

It is great to speak in this debate as the Democratic Unionist party health spokesperson, and as an MP who has many constituents suffering from long-term health conditions. I frequently meet them to discuss the issues they face and, more often than not, the issue is benefits and help to fill in their benefit forms—I have a staff member who does nothing else but that. We are, then, face to face with those with complex and chronic long-term conditions. It is important to come here and make the case for them.

I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. Believe it or not, this thin young man—he is not young no more, by the way—used to be 17 stone. He is now down to just over 13 stone. Whenever I was told I was diabetic, the doctor was very clear that I really had to do something. A sweet trolley was going by the table—I remember that well; it has stuck in my mind all these years—and he phoned up to tell me. I went to see him because I thought there was something wrong, and there was something wrong, but thank goodness it was not what I thought it was at the time. He said, “You’re diabetic. The one good thing is that you’ve got a heart like an ox.” That was perhaps the one good thing out of it all.

I lost weight and was able to control my diabetes for four years or thereabouts, but then it got worse. I am now surviving with nine tablets in the morning and five at night. That keeps the condition subtle and manageable. This is not about me, but I wanted to tell that story because many people who are diabetic do not know they are. We always talk about early diagnosis, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and others will know.

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

It is an honour to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes and I want to emphasise the point about early detection. A family recently got in touch with me who tragically lost their daughter because she had not been identified as a type 1 diabetic and ended up in diabetic ketoacidosis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to do more to identify people and screen them for chronic, lifelong conditions?

[Jim Shannon]

If I could ask for one thing in this debate, it would be that—it is important.

I should have welcomed the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen) to her position; apologies for not doing that at the beginning of my speech. It is a real joy to see her there. It is better than whipping, I am sure she knows. This is two debates in two days running in which we have had Parliamentary Private Secretaries and, in this case, a Whip in the place of Ministers. I wish her well in her role today.

Many of the people I meet every day have diabetes, dementia, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, osteoporosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. COPD has been more prevalent this last while than it has been in the past. It is an accumulative disease, of course—it comes at the end of a person’s life, unfortunately —and it catches up with people, in many cases. It is not just about the long-term physical conditions; it is the depression, the anxiety and the mental health effects, as well as the pressure of life. The physical pressures are part of it, but the mental pressures come off the back that. Many of the people I speak to have complex needs, and might have one, two or perhaps three of those conditions, which adds to the issue.

Ahead of the debate I met representatives from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and spoke to them about the effect of cystic fibrosis on people. This week, I celebrate the people, like the trust, who have responded to cystic fibrosis by trying to find a cure. CF is a chronic, life-limiting genetic condition without a cure. It affects more than 11,000 people across the UK, with approximately 500 of those diagnosed back in Northern Ireland. I meet some of them regularly in my constituency. For those living with the condition, medication and general health must be considered when planning the simplest of projects or activities—even getting out of bed, for goodness’ sake, or going down the stairs or making breakfast. Going shopping is a no-no for most of them, and interaction with family is another issue. Being unwell can interfere with work and education every day. Research has highlighted the intense financial costs of the condition, which causes an average loss in income of nearly £6,800 a year.

This is not a direct attack on the Minister, but I have to make a point about the potential changes to the guidance on welfare and personal independent payments. I have raised before how the changes will impact people with certain health conditions who are on benefits such as PIP. I know that the Government are trying to get people who want to work back into work. Some people with these conditions cannot work, of course, but for people with other conditions there are days that they feel good, and days that they do not. They cannot regulate themselves and say, “I’m going to work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week,” because the fact is that they do not know how they will feel next week. They may not be able to get out of bed. The Government need to look at flexibility in the PIP process. That probably means that a person cannot do every job that they would like to do, and is restricted. It might be that they have to do some of their work from home. When they look at changes, the Government need to consider that.

The Government must commit—this is my absolute red line in the sand—to scrap the four-point rule for personal independence payments, which disproportionately harms people with conditions such as Parkinson’s and CF by failing to account for conditions that tend to fluctuate. That is the very issue I am trying to put forward. As I said, the cost of some of these conditions is financially challenging for many. Aside from the loss of PIP payments, it is also important that a safety net is provided by increasing the age of transition for young people who are currently eligible for disability living allowance but transferring to PIP. These are not issues that the acting Minister will understand, or respond to positively, in a focused way, but it is important to feed these issues into the process so that when Labour comes up with a way forward, it understands the issues.

I wish to speak briefly about the Government’s national cancer plan, which is extremely important for people living with cancer and the care they receive. The plan states that more care will be shifted from hospitals to local communities. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) asked the Minister for Secondary Care a question on the health and social care statement, and expressed disappointment at not hearing anything about cancer in the statement. The Government need to focus on cancer, including the early diagnosis of the disease and how quickly the process can move forward to ensure that people get treatment.

Back home in Northern Ireland, general practitioners are referring people for cancer treatment, and only 35% of those people have been seen. What a disappointment. That is not the Minister’s fault—it is a devolved matter, so it is the responsibility of the Minister back home—but if 65% of people who are diagnosed with cancer are not getting treatment, my goodness me! That comes to the point that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) made about his constituent who had to wait two and a half years—how long are people waiting to get treated? Sometimes the delay in treatment means that the person does not survive and passes away. What a tragedy that they did not get the response they needed at the time that they needed it. We need to be ever mindful that the care of people who require long-term cancer care is tailored to them and structured in a way that suits them and makes them as comfortable as possible.

It is wonderful how the NHS has advanced, and how the cures for cancer have advanced. Although 50% of the people in this room will get cancer, 70% of us will hopefully survive. Is it not marvellous how the NHS has progressed and how the research into finding the cure for diseases has marched on?

One in two people with a serious disability or other long-term condition, such as diabetes or heart disease, say that it is now harder than ever to get a diagnosis, and some people may have the complex issues I referred to earlier as well as cancer. Too many opportunities to support people are being missed. I look to the Minister for a response, and for her to say that the Government will do what they can, through the legislature, to provide support for people with long-term health conditions.

So many people across this nation are suffering and we must do more to ensure that their lives are made as easy as possible. I look to the Minister for a very positive answer. I hope that I have not given her a difficult time; that was not my intention. I try to do things in a respectful way, and hope my questions have not been too hard to answer. They are straight from the heart, and from the heart of us all, because we are here to work on behalf of our constituents. The stories that I bring to this Chamber are those of my constituents, and the hon. Member for Eastbourne brings the stories of his constituents. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) told us three or four different stories about vision, which is not something we hear about often, but those are the true, everyday experiences of his constituents. We need something in response to that.

When it comes to the answers, perhaps we could have a better working relationship with the devolved Administrations. I am ever mindful that health is devolved in all three of them, but there could be concerted plans. Whenever I first came to this place, we had a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland diabetes plan that was agreed by this Parliament and by all the regions and all the Administrations. Sometimes, we need to do things collectively. I always put forward the advantages, and this great nation—this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is great because of all the people who make up the component parts: the Scots, the Welsh, the Northern Irish and, of course, the English.

Accountability for Daesh Crimes

Debate between Tom Gordon and Jim Shannon

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Throughout our discussion, our deliberations and the formulation of the report, the Committee talked extensively about that. A number of issues pertain to the rights of a child, and one of the key structural points of the report is the deprivation of citizenship. We tried to avoid talking about specific individuals, but the report clearly sets out what we think the appropriate mechanisms are for the Government: namely, that the power should not be used as a tool routinely and that, where it is used, there should be review, accountability and scrutiny.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The violence against and the murder and rape of Yazidi women has been truly horrendous. Way back in 2010 or 2012, I had a chance to meet some of them. Yazidi women who survived have a story to tell against their Daesh perpetrators. Has every effort been made to collate the evidence and pursue the perpetrators? The testimonies of the victims must be used to condemn the perpetrators to a long and very, very painful time in prison.

[Tom Gordon]

The Government could do more to look at, collate and document that information, so that we have something that we can refer back to for similar situations that may, sadly, occur in the future. The evidence sessions were carried out in the last Parliament, before my election, but I have read some of the transcripts, and they were truly harrowing. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for people who had to listen to that evidence, or for the people themselves giving it. We owe it to them, and to all victims of such crimes, to ensure that we never allow their words to be forgotten.