Sometimes politicians say something that cuts through all the technical language and gets straight to the heart of an issue.
Andy Burnham did exactly that in December 2025.
Speaking as Mayor of Greater Manchester about the 09:30 restriction on concessionary bus passes, he said:
“The 09.30am restriction is unfair, if not discriminatory.”
He then made the argument even clearer.
People’s lives do not begin at 09:30.
Older people have health appointments.
They look after grandchildren.
Disabled people need to travel to work.
Greater Manchester therefore decided to remove the restriction for both older and disabled concessionary pass holders.
I agreed with him then.
I still agree with him now.
Which is why this week’s Government announcement leaves me with one very obvious question.
If the rule was unfair for older people then, why isn't it unfair for them now?
The Government has announced that from 1 April 2027, eligible disabled concessionary bus pass holders across England will be able to travel free all day, every day.
I have already said publicly that I wholeheartedly welcome this.
It is a tremendous step forward.
Disabled people should not have their working lives, education, hospital appointments, caring responsibilities or independence dictated by an arbitrary time on a ticket machine.
The Government has got that right.
But the national announcement only deals with disabled concessionary passes.
Older pass holders remain behind.
And that seems increasingly difficult to square with the argument Andy Burnham himself made when Greater Manchester abolished the restriction.
Let's compare the arguments
When Greater Manchester acted, the case wasn't simply:
“Disabled people need to travel earlier.”
The policy was explicitly about older and disabled people.
The formal Greater Manchester decision said removing the restriction would allow concessionary pass holders to travel when it suited them, including for work, training and medical appointments.
It also said it would spread concessionary journeys more evenly through the morning and reduce crowded conditions on the first buses after 09:30.
And Burnham himself specifically spoke about older people.
Health appointments.
Looking after grandchildren.
Living ordinary lives before half past nine.
Those weren't incidental remarks.
They were part of the justification for removing the restriction.
Now look at the Government's national argument.
We are told that buses are a lifeline.
That people need them for work.
Education.
Healthcare.
That disabled people should be able to travel whenever they need to.
That arbitrary local differences create a postcode lottery.
Again, I agree.
But every one of those principles raises the same question:
Why do they cease to matter when somebody's concessionary pass is based upon age?
A 72-year-old can have an 8.30am hospital appointment.
An older person can still be working.
They can be caring for a husband or wife.
They can be taking grandchildren to school so their son or daughter can get to work.
They can volunteer.
They can have an appointment at the other side of the county.
They can live in a rural village where the bus before 09:30 is the only practical connection available for hours.
Their lives have not somehow become less real because they reached pension age.
I'm not saying the Government's decision discriminates unlawfully
There is an important distinction here.
I am not making a legal finding that the new policy constitutes unlawful age discrimination. That is a different question requiring proper legal analysis.
What I am questioning is the policy consistency.
Andy Burnham himself previously described the restriction affecting older and disabled people as “unfair, if not discriminatory”.
Greater Manchester removed it for both.
The national Government now accepts the fairness argument for one group but stops short of applying it to the other.
I think the public is entitled to ask why.
Greater Manchester didn't just make assumptions — it tested the policy
There is another part of the Greater Manchester experience which matters enormously.
Opponents of removing the restriction often raise the traditional morning-peak argument.
The concern is understandable.
Older passengers travel before 09:30, buses fill up, commuters cannot board and services become overloaded.
That was certainly one of the historical rationales for restricting concessionary travel during the morning peak.
But Greater Manchester didn't simply argue about it.
They tested it.
There were trials.
And what happened?
No widespread overcrowding disaster.
No collapse of the morning bus network.
Drivers reportedly saw no negative effects.
In fact, Greater Manchester's evaluation found that many concessionary passengers travelled between 09:00 and 09:30, helping them avoid the most pressured part of the traditional morning peak.
It also helped reduce something bus drivers know only too well:
The 09:30 rush.
This is something I have been raising from my own experience as a bus driver.
Forcing thousands of concessionary passengers to wait until exactly the same artificial point in the morning does not necessarily remove demand.
It moves and concentrates it.
People wait.
09:30 arrives.
Then they travel.
Drivers know those journeys.
Several concessionary passengers waiting at stops.
More boarding time.
Passengers who understandably need additional time to reach their seats safely.
Walking sticks.
Frames.
Shopping trolleys.
Mobility needs.
More dwell time.
The bus loses a minute.
Then another.
And once you're late, it can be extremely difficult to recover that time safely.
What is particularly interesting is that Greater Manchester's own evidence appears to support what drivers have been saying.
Allowing people to travel naturally can help spread demand, rather than creating an artificial surge immediately after 09:30.
That should be a major part of the national discussion.
The world of work has changed too
There is another reason the historical argument deserves reviewing.
The morning peak of 2026 is not necessarily the morning peak of 2006.
Covid fundamentally altered working patterns.
Homeworking.
Hybrid working.
Flexible working.
Staggered starts.
Not everybody is travelling into a city centre at the same time five mornings a week anymore.
That doesn't mean peak demand has disappeared.
Of course it hasn't.
Some routes remain extremely busy.
Some school journeys remain busy.
Some commuter corridors remain under significant pressure.
But the answer should be evidence, not assumptions inherited from another era.
Greater Manchester tested it.
Why shouldn't the rest of England?
There is also the conversation drivers shouldn't have to have
Then there is the human side.
A passenger gets onto my bus at 09:25.
They present their concessionary pass.
And the system says no.
What do I do?
I have to tell them:
“I'm sorry, you're too early.”
Drivers don't enjoy doing that.
We didn't create the policy.
We didn't choose the time.
We didn't programme the ticket machine.
But we are the people who have to enforce it face-to-face.
And sometimes the passenger isn't trying to get into town for a leisurely coffee.
They have an appointment.
They need to make a connection.
They're caring for someone.
Or the next bus doesn't come for another hour.
The passenger doesn't like the situation.
The driver doesn't like the situation.
The policy created it.
For disabled pass holders nationally, that conversation will finally disappear from April 2027.
That's excellent.
But drivers may still have to have essentially the same conversation with an older passenger standing in exactly the same place.
Why?
Andy Burnham's own words deserve revisiting
This is what makes the present position so striking.
As Mayor, Burnham didn't say:
“The restriction is unfair only for disabled people.”
He spoke about older and disabled people.
He spoke about older people's healthcare.
He spoke about grandparents.
And he described the rule itself as unfair and discriminatory.
Greater Manchester followed that principle through and removed the restriction for both groups.
Now Burnham is in a position nationally to take that principle much further.
The Government has already taken the first step.
So my challenge to the Prime Minister is straightforward:
Apply your own Greater Manchester principle nationally.
You were right then.
People's lives don't start at 09:30.
That applies to disabled people.
And it applies to older people.
This also matters here in the East Midlands
National change does not prevent regional leadership.
Mayor Claire Ward has welcomed the Government's announcement extending all-day travel to disabled pass holders.
So have I.
But EMCCA also has discretionary powers and is already supposed to be reviewing concessionary travel across Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire.
My own correspondence with EMCCA began back in January.
Through Freedom of Information work, I subsequently uncovered that EMCCA had already commissioned detailed independent work on concessionary fare harmonisation in 2025.
Pre-09:30 travel was modelled.
Costs were examined.
Options were considered.
The work is there.
The next question is what EMCCA intends to do with it.
And the Government's national announcement should make that review more urgent, not less.
There is now a strange position developing
From April 2027 we could have this situation:
A disabled passenger boards at 08:45.
Their national concessionary pass works.
An older passenger boards behind them.
Their pass may not.
Same bus.
Same journey.
Perhaps even the same hospital appointment.
Different entitlement because one qualification is disability and the other is age.
The Government may have perfectly legitimate funding or policy reasons for taking the reform in stages.
If so, explain them.
But don't pretend there isn't now an obvious inconsistency which deserves addressing.
This isn't about taking anything away from disabled people
I want to make that absolutely clear.
This week's announcement is progress.
Campaigners who fought for it deserve enormous credit.
Disabled passengers deserve the freedom it will bring.
My argument is not:
“Don't give them this unless pensioners get it too.”
My argument is:
You've shown that change is possible. Now extend the principle.
Progress for one group should become the platform for progress for another.
We now have a precedent, evidence and political momentum
Greater Manchester has demonstrated that all-day concessionary travel for older and disabled passengers can operate.
Its pilots generated substantial numbers of early journeys.
Its formal assessment found no reported overcrowding crisis.
Drivers reported no negative effects.
Demand could be spread more evenly.
Passengers gained easier access to appointments, work and volunteering.
The Government has now accepted the principle nationally for disabled passengers.
So the debate about older people's passes is no longer starting at square one.
We have evidence.
We have a working regional precedent.
We have political momentum.
And we have Andy Burnham's own words.
“The 09.30am restriction is unfair, if not discriminatory.”
Those words mattered in Greater Manchester.
They should matter nationally too.
Because if the rule was unfair when an older person stood at a Greater Manchester bus stop in 2025, I struggle to understand why the same rule suddenly becomes fair when an older person stands at a bus stop in Nottingham, Derby, Lincoln, Bristol or anywhere else in England in 2027.
That's the question I now think Government needs to answer.
And locally, it's the question Claire Ward and EMCCA should be asking as they review concessionary travel.
The national announcement is a tremendous step forward.
Celebrate it.
Implement it.
Make it work.
And then:
Finish the job.
Extend all-day concessionary travel to older pass holders as well.
Because Andy Burnham was right the first time.
People's lives don't start at 09:30.
And age doesn't change that.
---
About the author
Lee Odams is a Nottinghamshire bus driver with nearly 20 years' frontline experience and campaigns on public transport, accessibility, bus safety and passenger welfare.
He is Branch Secretary of the RMT Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch and Secretary of the RMT National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers.
His campaign against the 09:30 concessionary travel restriction has included correspondence with transport authorities, Freedom of Information requests, trade-union resolutions and engagement with local and national media.
---
Disclaimer
This article is written by Lee Odams in a personal capacity.
The views and analysis 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 formally adopted union policy or resolutions are specifically identified.
References to comments made by Andy Burnham, Government announcements and transport-authority decisions are based on publicly available material at the time of writing.
The use of terms such as “unfair”, “discriminatory” or “age-based inconsistency” within this article concerns political and policy arguments unless expressly stated otherwise. This article does not make a legal finding of unlawful discrimination.
---
09:30 Bus Pass Restriction, Andy Burnham, Concessionary Travel, Older People, Disabled Passengers, Bus Passes, Public Transport, Accessibility, Transport Equality, Age Equality, Greater Manchester, Bee Network, East Midlands, EMCCA, Claire Ward, Bus Drivers, RMT, ENCTS, Transport Policy, Freedom of Information
Source: https://leeodams.blogspot.com/2026/08/unfair-if-not-discriminatory-andy.html
Auto-imported from Lee Odam's blog.
Andy Burnham did exactly that in December 2025.
Speaking as Mayor of Greater Manchester about the 09:30 restriction on concessionary bus passes, he said:
“The 09.30am restriction is unfair, if not discriminatory.”
He then made the argument even clearer.
People’s lives do not begin at 09:30.
Older people have health appointments.
They look after grandchildren.
Disabled people need to travel to work.
Greater Manchester therefore decided to remove the restriction for both older and disabled concessionary pass holders.
I agreed with him then.
I still agree with him now.
Which is why this week’s Government announcement leaves me with one very obvious question.
If the rule was unfair for older people then, why isn't it unfair for them now?
The Government has announced that from 1 April 2027, eligible disabled concessionary bus pass holders across England will be able to travel free all day, every day.
I have already said publicly that I wholeheartedly welcome this.
It is a tremendous step forward.
Disabled people should not have their working lives, education, hospital appointments, caring responsibilities or independence dictated by an arbitrary time on a ticket machine.
The Government has got that right.
But the national announcement only deals with disabled concessionary passes.
Older pass holders remain behind.
And that seems increasingly difficult to square with the argument Andy Burnham himself made when Greater Manchester abolished the restriction.
Let's compare the arguments
When Greater Manchester acted, the case wasn't simply:
“Disabled people need to travel earlier.”
The policy was explicitly about older and disabled people.
The formal Greater Manchester decision said removing the restriction would allow concessionary pass holders to travel when it suited them, including for work, training and medical appointments.
It also said it would spread concessionary journeys more evenly through the morning and reduce crowded conditions on the first buses after 09:30.
And Burnham himself specifically spoke about older people.
Health appointments.
Looking after grandchildren.
Living ordinary lives before half past nine.
Those weren't incidental remarks.
They were part of the justification for removing the restriction.
Now look at the Government's national argument.
We are told that buses are a lifeline.
That people need them for work.
Education.
Healthcare.
That disabled people should be able to travel whenever they need to.
That arbitrary local differences create a postcode lottery.
Again, I agree.
But every one of those principles raises the same question:
Why do they cease to matter when somebody's concessionary pass is based upon age?
A 72-year-old can have an 8.30am hospital appointment.
An older person can still be working.
They can be caring for a husband or wife.
They can be taking grandchildren to school so their son or daughter can get to work.
They can volunteer.
They can have an appointment at the other side of the county.
They can live in a rural village where the bus before 09:30 is the only practical connection available for hours.
Their lives have not somehow become less real because they reached pension age.
I'm not saying the Government's decision discriminates unlawfully
There is an important distinction here.
I am not making a legal finding that the new policy constitutes unlawful age discrimination. That is a different question requiring proper legal analysis.
What I am questioning is the policy consistency.
Andy Burnham himself previously described the restriction affecting older and disabled people as “unfair, if not discriminatory”.
Greater Manchester removed it for both.
The national Government now accepts the fairness argument for one group but stops short of applying it to the other.
I think the public is entitled to ask why.
Greater Manchester didn't just make assumptions — it tested the policy
There is another part of the Greater Manchester experience which matters enormously.
Opponents of removing the restriction often raise the traditional morning-peak argument.
The concern is understandable.
Older passengers travel before 09:30, buses fill up, commuters cannot board and services become overloaded.
That was certainly one of the historical rationales for restricting concessionary travel during the morning peak.
But Greater Manchester didn't simply argue about it.
They tested it.
There were trials.
And what happened?
No widespread overcrowding disaster.
No collapse of the morning bus network.
Drivers reportedly saw no negative effects.
In fact, Greater Manchester's evaluation found that many concessionary passengers travelled between 09:00 and 09:30, helping them avoid the most pressured part of the traditional morning peak.
It also helped reduce something bus drivers know only too well:
The 09:30 rush.
This is something I have been raising from my own experience as a bus driver.
Forcing thousands of concessionary passengers to wait until exactly the same artificial point in the morning does not necessarily remove demand.
It moves and concentrates it.
People wait.
09:30 arrives.
Then they travel.
Drivers know those journeys.
Several concessionary passengers waiting at stops.
More boarding time.
Passengers who understandably need additional time to reach their seats safely.
Walking sticks.
Frames.
Shopping trolleys.
Mobility needs.
More dwell time.
The bus loses a minute.
Then another.
And once you're late, it can be extremely difficult to recover that time safely.
What is particularly interesting is that Greater Manchester's own evidence appears to support what drivers have been saying.
Allowing people to travel naturally can help spread demand, rather than creating an artificial surge immediately after 09:30.
That should be a major part of the national discussion.
The world of work has changed too
There is another reason the historical argument deserves reviewing.
The morning peak of 2026 is not necessarily the morning peak of 2006.
Covid fundamentally altered working patterns.
Homeworking.
Hybrid working.
Flexible working.
Staggered starts.
Not everybody is travelling into a city centre at the same time five mornings a week anymore.
That doesn't mean peak demand has disappeared.
Of course it hasn't.
Some routes remain extremely busy.
Some school journeys remain busy.
Some commuter corridors remain under significant pressure.
But the answer should be evidence, not assumptions inherited from another era.
Greater Manchester tested it.
Why shouldn't the rest of England?
There is also the conversation drivers shouldn't have to have
Then there is the human side.
A passenger gets onto my bus at 09:25.
They present their concessionary pass.
And the system says no.
What do I do?
I have to tell them:
“I'm sorry, you're too early.”
Drivers don't enjoy doing that.
We didn't create the policy.
We didn't choose the time.
We didn't programme the ticket machine.
But we are the people who have to enforce it face-to-face.
And sometimes the passenger isn't trying to get into town for a leisurely coffee.
They have an appointment.
They need to make a connection.
They're caring for someone.
Or the next bus doesn't come for another hour.
The passenger doesn't like the situation.
The driver doesn't like the situation.
The policy created it.
For disabled pass holders nationally, that conversation will finally disappear from April 2027.
That's excellent.
But drivers may still have to have essentially the same conversation with an older passenger standing in exactly the same place.
Why?
Andy Burnham's own words deserve revisiting
This is what makes the present position so striking.
As Mayor, Burnham didn't say:
“The restriction is unfair only for disabled people.”
He spoke about older and disabled people.
He spoke about older people's healthcare.
He spoke about grandparents.
And he described the rule itself as unfair and discriminatory.
Greater Manchester followed that principle through and removed the restriction for both groups.
Now Burnham is in a position nationally to take that principle much further.
The Government has already taken the first step.
So my challenge to the Prime Minister is straightforward:
Apply your own Greater Manchester principle nationally.
You were right then.
People's lives don't start at 09:30.
That applies to disabled people.
And it applies to older people.
This also matters here in the East Midlands
National change does not prevent regional leadership.
Mayor Claire Ward has welcomed the Government's announcement extending all-day travel to disabled pass holders.
So have I.
But EMCCA also has discretionary powers and is already supposed to be reviewing concessionary travel across Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire.
My own correspondence with EMCCA began back in January.
Through Freedom of Information work, I subsequently uncovered that EMCCA had already commissioned detailed independent work on concessionary fare harmonisation in 2025.
Pre-09:30 travel was modelled.
Costs were examined.
Options were considered.
The work is there.
The next question is what EMCCA intends to do with it.
And the Government's national announcement should make that review more urgent, not less.
There is now a strange position developing
From April 2027 we could have this situation:
A disabled passenger boards at 08:45.
Their national concessionary pass works.
An older passenger boards behind them.
Their pass may not.
Same bus.
Same journey.
Perhaps even the same hospital appointment.
Different entitlement because one qualification is disability and the other is age.
The Government may have perfectly legitimate funding or policy reasons for taking the reform in stages.
If so, explain them.
But don't pretend there isn't now an obvious inconsistency which deserves addressing.
This isn't about taking anything away from disabled people
I want to make that absolutely clear.
This week's announcement is progress.
Campaigners who fought for it deserve enormous credit.
Disabled passengers deserve the freedom it will bring.
My argument is not:
“Don't give them this unless pensioners get it too.”
My argument is:
You've shown that change is possible. Now extend the principle.
Progress for one group should become the platform for progress for another.
We now have a precedent, evidence and political momentum
Greater Manchester has demonstrated that all-day concessionary travel for older and disabled passengers can operate.
Its pilots generated substantial numbers of early journeys.
Its formal assessment found no reported overcrowding crisis.
Drivers reported no negative effects.
Demand could be spread more evenly.
Passengers gained easier access to appointments, work and volunteering.
The Government has now accepted the principle nationally for disabled passengers.
So the debate about older people's passes is no longer starting at square one.
We have evidence.
We have a working regional precedent.
We have political momentum.
And we have Andy Burnham's own words.
“The 09.30am restriction is unfair, if not discriminatory.”
Those words mattered in Greater Manchester.
They should matter nationally too.
Because if the rule was unfair when an older person stood at a Greater Manchester bus stop in 2025, I struggle to understand why the same rule suddenly becomes fair when an older person stands at a bus stop in Nottingham, Derby, Lincoln, Bristol or anywhere else in England in 2027.
That's the question I now think Government needs to answer.
And locally, it's the question Claire Ward and EMCCA should be asking as they review concessionary travel.
The national announcement is a tremendous step forward.
Celebrate it.
Implement it.
Make it work.
And then:
Finish the job.
Extend all-day concessionary travel to older pass holders as well.
Because Andy Burnham was right the first time.
People's lives don't start at 09:30.
And age doesn't change that.
---
About the author
Lee Odams is a Nottinghamshire bus driver with nearly 20 years' frontline experience and campaigns on public transport, accessibility, bus safety and passenger welfare.
He is Branch Secretary of the RMT Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch and Secretary of the RMT National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers.
His campaign against the 09:30 concessionary travel restriction has included correspondence with transport authorities, Freedom of Information requests, trade-union resolutions and engagement with local and national media.
---
Disclaimer
This article is written by Lee Odams in a personal capacity.
The views and analysis 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 formally adopted union policy or resolutions are specifically identified.
References to comments made by Andy Burnham, Government announcements and transport-authority decisions are based on publicly available material at the time of writing.
The use of terms such as “unfair”, “discriminatory” or “age-based inconsistency” within this article concerns political and policy arguments unless expressly stated otherwise. This article does not make a legal finding of unlawful discrimination.
---
09:30 Bus Pass Restriction, Andy Burnham, Concessionary Travel, Older People, Disabled Passengers, Bus Passes, Public Transport, Accessibility, Transport Equality, Age Equality, Greater Manchester, Bee Network, East Midlands, EMCCA, Claire Ward, Bus Drivers, RMT, ENCTS, Transport Policy, Freedom of Information
Source: https://leeodams.blogspot.com/2026/08/unfair-if-not-discriminatory-andy.html
Auto-imported from Lee Odam's blog.