Life Doesn't Start at 9.30am: Government Has Acted for Disabled Passengers — Now Finish the Job

This week brought genuinely good news for disabled people across England.

The Government has announced that from 1 April 2027, eligible disabled concessionary bus pass holders will be able to travel free on local buses all day, every day.

The national time restriction is finally going.

I wholeheartedly welcome it.

It is a tremendous step forward for some of the most vulnerable people in our society and recognises something I have been saying throughout my campaign:

Life doesn't start at 9.30am.

Disabled people work.

They attend college and training.

They have hospital and GP appointments.

They care for relatives.

They volunteer.

They have families, responsibilities and lives to lead.

None of those things conveniently begins at 9.30am simply because that is when a concessionary bus pass traditionally becomes valid.

Removing that barrier is therefore about much more than a free bus journey.

It is about independence, dignity, equality and opportunity.

The Government deserves credit for recognising that.

But having accepted the principle, there is now an unavoidable question.

What about older people?

Imagine two people waiting at the same bus stop at 8.45am.

One is an eligible disabled concessionary pass holder.

The other is 72.

Both are travelling to hospital appointments.

Both depend on the bus.

Under the Government's new arrangements, one will ultimately be able to board and travel free.

The other could still be told:

"I'm sorry, your pass isn't valid yet."

Why?

Age doesn't make an early hospital appointment disappear.

Older people still work.

They volunteer.

They care for husbands, wives and partners.

They look after grandchildren, often enabling their own children to go to work.

They attend medical appointments.

They shop locally.

They support community organisations.

And many depend heavily on buses because they no longer drive or have no realistic alternative.

Their lives don't start at 9.30am either.

This isn't about taking anything away from disabled passengers. Quite the opposite.

We should celebrate this week's announcement.

Then we should finish the job.

Extend all-day concessionary bus travel to older pass holders nationally as well.

We shouldn't remove an arbitrary barrier for one group while leaving another behind simply because of age.

Greater Manchester has already shown it can be done

This isn't some radical experiment that nobody has attempted.

Greater Manchester already provides its older residents with free bus travel at any time within Greater Manchester.

That matters because it demonstrates that the national statutory minimum does not have to be the ceiling.

Local political leadership can go further.

Which brings me back home to the East Midlands.

Mayor Claire Ward has welcomed the Government announcement. Now I am asking her to go further.

East Midlands Mayor Claire Ward has publicly welcomed the Government's decision to remove time restrictions for disabled concessionary pass holders.

I welcome her support.

But now there is an opportunity for the East Midlands Combined County Authority to demonstrate leadership of its own.

Don't wait for Westminster to take the next step.

Use the forthcoming review of concessionary travel to examine seriously the removal of the 9.30am restriction for older pass holders across Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire.

And this is important:

We are not starting with a blank sheet of paper.

I've spent months corresponding with EMCCA and using Freedom of Information legislation to establish exactly what work has already taken place.

What I uncovered matters.

EMCCA has already commissioned the work

An independent harmonisation study commissioned for EMCCA was completed in July 2025.

It examined concessionary fares across the region and specifically considered the implications of harmonising pre-09:30 travel.

The modelling identified an estimated additional annual cost of £442,000 to £620,000 for the pre-09:30 mobility-pass enhancement it examined.

Existing estimated spending associated with that enhancement was approximately £242,000, giving an estimated total discretionary cost in the region of £684,000 to £862,000 under the scenario modelled.

Those aren't figures produced by me.

They aren't campaign estimates.

They come from independent work commissioned for EMCCA.

And an important distinction needs making.

That £442,000–£620,000 figure relates to the specific pre-09:30 mobility/disabled-pass harmonisation option modelled in that report. It should not simply be presented as the definitive cost of giving every older pass holder all-day travel.

That wider proposal needs properly costing.

So cost it.

The machinery exists.

The modelling has started.

The issue is already on EMCCA's radar.

Let's establish the figure publicly and have an informed debate about whether the social return justifies the investment.

The timeline raises legitimate questions too

When I first wrote to Mayor Claire Ward on 2 January 2026, I received a prompt and constructive response from EMCCA.

I was told that public transport responsibilities would not transfer to EMCCA until the end of January 2026, leaving insufficient time to make changes before the new financial year.

I accepted that explanation and continued engaging constructively.

But my subsequent research and FOI work established an important chronology.

The independent harmonisation work had already been completed in July 2025.

Then, on 24 November 2025, the EMCCA Board considered its Concessionary Travel Scheme for 2026/27.

The Board papers proposed replicating the existing arrangements so residents would initially be "no worse and no better off", while endorsing a wider fares and concessionary ticketing review ahead of 2027/28.

Let's be precise about what that does and doesn't mean.

EMCCA may not have formally inherited all of the relevant transport functions until the end of January 2026.

But it is equally clear that substantial preparatory work was taking place beforehand.

The issue had been studied.

Options had been examined.

Costs had been modelled.

A formal report had gone before the Board.

And an approach for 2026/27 had been determined.

That is why I will continue using Freedom of Information legislation.

Not to manufacture a row.

Not to claim wrongdoing where there is no evidence of it.

But to establish what was known, when it was known, who made the decisions and what alternatives were considered.

Public money and public transport policy deserve that level of transparency.

This is now a question of priorities

I understand perfectly well that public authorities cannot simply move money from one project to another.

Transport funding is complicated.

Some funding is capital.

Some is revenue.

Some comes with conditions attached.

Some can only be spent on particular programmes.

That is why I am also pursuing information about other EMCCA transport investments, including funding associated with electric buses.

And let me be absolutely clear:

I support investment in cleaner buses.

This is not electric buses versus pensioners.

We need modern, reliable, environmentally sustainable vehicles.

But we also need an honest conversation about transport priorities.

If we are prepared to invest substantial public money in the vehicles people travel on, it is entirely reasonable to ask what we are prepared to invest in ensuring that older and vulnerable people can actually use those vehicles when they need them.

Decarbonisation and accessibility should not be enemies.

A good transport strategy should deliver both.

What does £442,000–£620,000 actually buy?

Hundreds of thousands of pounds is real public money.

It shouldn't be casually dismissed as insignificant.

But neither should any transport investment be judged solely by the number printed at the bottom of a spreadsheet.

Ask what the investment delivers.

Greater independence.

Better access to healthcare.

Reduced social isolation.

Access to employment and volunteering.

Support for unpaid carers.

More people using buses.

Greater footfall for local businesses.

Potentially greater patronage on routes whose viability is constantly scrutinised.

Those benefits have value too.

And that is precisely why any assessment of extending all-day travel to older passengers should examine the social and economic return, not simply the reimbursement cost.

The view from behind the wheel

There is another part of this debate that I rarely hear discussed.

What does the 9.30am restriction actually look like from the driver's cab?

I've been driving buses for nearly 20 years.

I understand the historical argument for the restriction.

Before Covid in particular, the traditional concern was straightforward: allowing concessionary passengers to travel free during the morning peak could put additional pressure on buses already heavily used by commuters travelling to work.

There was logic behind that.

But we're now in 2026.

We need to ask whether a policy based partly upon yesterday's commuting patterns still reflects how people travel today.

The morning peak has changed

Covid changed working life dramatically.

Homeworking is now commonplace in many industries.

Hybrid working means thousands of people no longer commute five days a week.

Flexible working has grown.

Staggered starting times have become more common.

That doesn't mean the morning peak has disappeared.

There are routes and particular journeys where capacity remains extremely important.

But the pattern has changed.

So rather than relying upon assumptions formed years ago, let's examine today's evidence.

Look at actual passenger loadings.

Look at individual routes.

Look at ticketing data.

Look at capacity.

And ask whether a blanket 9.30am restriction remains justified across an entire region.

Because the restriction can create another problem: the 9.30 rush

Drivers see something else.

The restriction can create its own artificial passenger peak.

People understandably wait until their passes become valid.

Then the first buses after 9.30 arrive.

Suddenly several concessionary passengers may be waiting at the same stops.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with those passengers travelling.

But older passengers and people with reduced mobility can understandably require more time to board.

Some need time to present their pass.

Some use walking sticks or mobility aids.

Some need additional time to reach their seat safely before we move.

Passengers may also need additional time when leaving the bus.

That's not an inconvenience.

That's what an accessible bus service is supposed to accommodate.

But concentrate a large number of those journeys into the same artificial window and there can be an operational consequence.

Dwell times increase.

A bus loses a minute here and another minute there.

Once that happens, the driver can spend the rest of the journey trying to get the service back on time safely.

One late journey can affect the next.

And before long passengers further along the route are wondering why their bus is late.

So perhaps we need to turn the traditional argument around.

Does the 9.30am restriction genuinely protect the morning peak—or does it help create a 9.30am peak of its own?

If people could travel naturally when they needed to, journeys might be spread more evenly across the morning.

That deserves proper operational analysis.

"I'm sorry, you're too early."

Then there is the part drivers don't like.

Someone boards a bus shortly before 9.30am and presents their concessionary pass.

The rules—or the ticketing system—tell us it isn't valid.

We're then the person who has to say it.

"I'm sorry, you're too early."

How many bus drivers have had that conversation?

We don't make the rules.

We don't decide national concessionary travel policy.

We don't programme the ticket machines.

But we're the person sitting in front of the passenger when the policy becomes real.

Perhaps they've got a hospital appointment.

Perhaps they misunderstood the rules.

Perhaps it's freezing outside.

Perhaps they live somewhere where the next bus isn't ten minutes away.

It might be an hour.

And we're put in the middle.

Enforce the rule and potentially leave an older passenger waiting.

Ignore it and we're potentially disregarding the rules we're employed to follow.

Most drivers don't enjoy that conversation.

Neither the passenger nor the driver created the situation.

The policy did.

Remove the restriction and that unnecessary confrontation disappears.

The passenger boards.

They present their pass.

They get seated safely.

And we get on with doing what buses exist to do:

taking people where they need to go.

Don't forget rural communities

The consequences become even greater outside frequent urban networks.

If you live somewhere with a bus every ten minutes, waiting until after 9.30 may be inconvenient.

If you live in a village with an hourly or two-hourly service, it can fundamentally alter your day.

Miss the pre-9.30 bus and you might miss your appointment.

Or your connection.

Or your opportunity altogether.

Then we hear concerns about low patronage on rural routes.

That is another reason I believe this policy needs examining as part of the wider question of bus-network sustainability.

If we want people to use buses, let them use buses.

The postcode lottery must end

There is also an increasingly difficult national inconsistency.

Greater Manchester has demonstrated that older people can be given all-day free bus travel locally.

Different authorities elsewhere operate different discretionary enhancements.

Meanwhile, the East Midlands inherited different concessionary arrangements across Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire.

That means the practical value of a concessionary pass can depend upon where someone lives.

And people's lives don't respect administrative boundaries.

Hospitals cross boundaries.

Jobs cross boundaries.

Families cross boundaries.

Education crosses boundaries.

Bus routes cross boundaries.

The ultimate objective should therefore be a properly funded, nationally consistent concessionary travel settlement rather than an ever-growing postcode lottery.

This campaign has travelled a long way

I started pursuing this because, after nearly two decades driving buses, the restriction increasingly seemed out of step with the world I was seeing around me.

I wrote to Mayor Claire Ward.

I corresponded with EMCCA.

I submitted Freedom of Information requests.

I examined the evidence and the costings.

I drafted a resolution through the RMT Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch.

Our branch adopted it.

It progressed to the RMT National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers in Chesterfield, where it was passed.

A closely aligned resolution concerning disabled concessionary travel also progressed through the RMT Disabled Members' Advisory Conference and ultimately reached the RMT Annual General Meeting.

I was there as an AGM delegate when that resolution was carried unanimously.

The Nottingham Post has since helped bring the debate before a much wider audience.

Councillors and transport professionals have engaged with it.

And now national government itself has accepted that the existing time restriction should end for eligible disabled passengers.

The debate has moved.

My challenge to Claire Ward and EMCCA

So I have a straightforward request for Mayor Claire Ward.

You have welcomed the Government's announcement.

So have I.

Now let's build upon it.

Use EMCCA's forthcoming concessionary travel review to properly cost and assess all-day travel for older pass holders across the East Midlands.

Publish the figures.

Publish the funding options.

Examine the social value.

Examine changed passenger patterns.

Examine the 9.30am loading effect.

Examine rural accessibility.

And talk to the people who actually experience the policy.

Older passengers.

Disabled passengers.

Carers.

Rural communities.

Bus operators.

And the frontline drivers who enforce these rules every morning.

Then let the public see the evidence.

Because simply using the word "affordability" isn't enough.

Affordability is about choices.

If something isn't affordable, show us why.

If funding is restricted, explain which pots cannot be used.

If alternative funding exists, tell us what it would require.

And if it is affordable but hasn't been prioritised, then be open about that too.

That's what transparent public transport governance should look like.

And to Government: finish the job

This week's announcement deserves celebrating.

Removing the time restriction for eligible disabled people will increase independence and remove an outdated barrier.

But don't stop halfway.

Older people have lives before 9.30am too.

They have appointments.

They work.

They care.

They volunteer.

They support their families.

They contribute to their communities.

And sometimes they simply want the freedom to catch the bus that actually turns up when they need it.

So my message nationally and locally remains the same:

Life doesn't start at 9.30am.

It never did.

The Government has now accepted that principle for disabled passengers.

The next step should be clear.

Extend it to older pass holders.

No arbitrary clock.

No unnecessary confrontation at the ticket machine.

No postcode lottery.

No older passenger being told their life started twenty minutes too early.

Let's finish the job.

---

About the author

Lee Odams is a Nottinghamshire bus driver with nearly 20 years' frontline experience and a long-standing campaigner on bus safety, accessibility, passenger welfare and the future of public transport.

He is Branch Secretary of the RMT Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch and Secretary of the RMT National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers.

Lee has used Freedom of Information requests, correspondence with transport authorities, parliamentary engagement and trade-union democratic structures to scrutinise transport policy and campaign for improvements for passengers and frontline transport workers.

---

Disclaimer

This article is written by Lee Odams in a personal capacity as a bus worker and transport campaigner.

The views expressed are his own and should not be interpreted as representing the formal position of his employer, the RMT or any other organisation with which he is associated, except where an adopted RMT resolution or policy is expressly identified as such.

References to EMCCA reports, Freedom of Information material and public statements are based on documents and information obtained or published at the time of writing. Commentary and conclusions drawn from those materials are the author's own.

---

Tags

09:30 Bus Pass Restriction, Concessionary Travel, Bus Passes, Older People, Disabled Passengers, Accessibility, Public Transport, East Midlands, EMCCA, Claire Ward, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby, Derbyshire, RMT, Bus Workers, Bus Drivers, Freedom of Information, FOI, Greater Manchester, Social Isolation, Rural Buses, Bus Funding, Transport Policy, Passenger Rights, ENCTS