Disabled Bus Passes

Debate between Tom Gordon and Julian Lewis

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon]

Many of those opportunities start before 9 am. Disabled people can still board a bus earlier if they pay, but we have just established that disabled people already face much higher daily living costs. Those on low or no income are therefore disproportionately affected by this decision and their opportunities impacted. That financial barrier makes travel during peak hours a burden that many cannot afford, limiting their opportunities before they have even begun the day.

Bernie, a blind bus user living in one of the few areas with 24/7 concessionary travel, described that access as a lifeline. Living rurally, he relies on buses from as early as 7.30 am to get to work, and says it would be near-impossible without free travel. There are unique challenges faced by disabled people that many without that lived experience find hard to understand. For example, as a blind person, Bernie feels at risk counting money on the roadside. Similarly, another respondent with vision and hearing loss said her conditions worsen later in the day, making early travel essential. Yet in her village, the first concessionary service does not arrive until after 10 am. Those examples highlight why disabled people need consistent, unrestricted access to transport, and why a postcode lottery simply does not work and is not fair.

The previous Government’s approach to supporting disabled people amounted to a patchwork of short-term fixes and empty promises. The current Government’s rhetoric on personal independence payments—although that has changed recently—and disability support continues to fall short. If the recent wave of dissent from Government Back Benchers over these issues is not evidence enough of the need for urgent change, I am not sure what is. The Government have made it clear that they want to encourage disabled people into work. The Minister here has a perfect opportunity to dismantle one of the many barriers they face. I urge him to do that.

The solution here is not just achievable; it is affordable. Research by Whizz Kidz suggests that removing time restrictions would cost £8.8 million, reflecting only 1% of the annual spend on concessionary travel across England. That does not even include companion passes. If we are serious about improving opportunities for disabled people—the Government have said repeatedly they are—then this is a logical, low-cost place to start. It is a matter of fairness and equality.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I have been waiting with bated breath to see if the hon. Gentleman would come on to companion bus passes. I thank him for the leadership he has shown on this issue and for co-tabling—with me, the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and the inimitable hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who sadly is on his way to Northern Ireland this evening—early-day motion 1638 specifically on companion bus passes for the disabled. This is where a disabled person cannot use a bus alone. We have the strange situation where in two-thirds of authorities his or her disabled bus pass is allowed to cover a companion to go with them, but in one-third of local authorities it is not. I cannot think of anything more futile than giving a free pass to somebody to use a bus service which they cannot use without a companion for whom they have to pay.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He speaks very eloquently on a situation that I agree is entirely futile. We should not give people companion bus passes which are, to all intents and purposes, useless. That is a fair place to start. As part of this issue, we need to do more to ensure that people who require a bus companion have access to the services they deserve.

I anticipate that the Minister is likely to inform me that this is a matter to discuss with local transport authorities, which have discretionary powers to offer free travel at peak times. Yet we must confront the reality that local decision making alone is not delivering fairness for disabled bus users across the country. I commend East Sussex council, which has used bus service improvement plan funding to extend concessionary travel to disabled people throughout the day. Similarly, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has announced a pilot to offer round-the-clock free bus travel to older and disabled people. I hope that colleagues across the country, but especially the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire will follow suit. Let us be clear, however: that is a temporary solution.

Without national leadership and ringfenced funding specifically for disabled travel concessions, we cannot expect consistent provision across the country. Despite previous recommendations for local authorities to fund discretionary changes to the restrictions through funds such as the BSIP, the reality is that many simply cannot afford to.

Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Debate between Tom Gordon and Julian Lewis

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon]

Does the right hon. Member agree that we cannot put a price on justice?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I do indeed. Of course, in any event, the women realise that they will not get anything like full compensation, but they want the symbolic acceptance and acknowledgement of the injustice that they have received. As we have heard from those on both sides of the House, this resistance puts at stake the credibility of the ombudsman system itself. Undermining that will have a knock-on effect: in many future cases, the bill for implementing an ombudsman’s recommendations and findings will not be anything like as large, but people and institutions will be emboldened to defy the ombudsman.

One of the best short summaries of the case was put forward in a previous Labour manifesto, which said:

“a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans—with sometimes devastating personal consequences.

Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered.”

Admittedly, that was the 2019 manifesto, and Labour at that time was led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but that does not mean that the manifesto was wrong in what it said. It was absolutely right in its summary and its recognition that something must be done.

Indeed, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in opposition in the last Parliament, she was cautious in what she said about the ombudsman’s report, but she did acknowledge the following:

“we will take time to give the report proper consideration too, and continue to listen respectfully to those involved, as we have done from the start.”

She added:

“we won’t be able to right every wrong overnight.”

That would have been the basis for at least an attempt to give the symbolic redress and acknowledgement that I think most fair-minded people agree is due.

If the Government had come back and said, “We can’t implement the ombudsman’s recommendations in full at the moment, but we shall try and do it in stages, or over a period, or will at least go some way towards a symbolic acceptance of the wrong that has been done,” I think most reasonable people would have understood the situation and have been willing to at least consider some sort of compromise.