Calls for major free bus travel change for older people across UK
A new online campaign is gaining traction, demanding a revamp of the concessionary bus travel scheme to allow pensioners to travel across the UK without charge. Currently, National Entitlement Cards are given to those over State Pension age in England and Wales, while people in Scotland can get their hands on one from 60 years old.
Campaigner Hillary Shaw has voiced concerns that older people living on the cusp of UK regions are getting a raw deal, pointing out that since bus services run across Scotland, England and Wales, it would be 'easier and fairer' if the concession card covered the whole journey.
Last year, whispers surfaced that existing UK Government laws might pave the way for concessionary bus pass holders to enjoy UK-wide travel in times to come. Back then, Guy Opperman, who was serving as Minister for Roads and Local Transport, made it clear there were no immediate intentions to "introduce such an arrangement", as reported by the Daily Record.
The 'Negotiate UK-wide recognition of older person's bus passes' petition has been posted on the official UK Government's Petitions Parliament website and states: 'I think senior citizens living close to the English, Scottish and Welsh borders are disadvantaged in how many local bus services they can use.
'Bus services run across borders and I think it would be easier and fairer if the bus pass covered the whole journey, and return, on all of these services. I think it would be fairer for all if these passes could simply be used on any bus service in the UK. This could increase pensioner independence and travel opportunities, especially for those living in border areas."
Once the petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the UK Government will be required to provide a written response, likely from the Department for Transport. At 100,000 signatures, it would be considered by the Petitions Committee for debate in Parliament - you can view it online here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Royal Navy needs to develop a completely new idea of what a warship is
For many decades, the Royal Navy's thinking and therefore its shipbuilding has remained unchanged. We have had capital ships: aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and amphibious platforms. We've also had frigates and destroyers (the backbone) to hunt submarines and provide area air defence – but more often than not to look like a warship and do warship type influence operations. Then there were an array of smaller ships for charting and patrolling the oceans and hunting both mines and maritime crooks such as fish thieves. Finally there are two types of nuclear powered submarines: attack boats and the strategic deterrent. But when you look at what we want from our navy now and the resources that are available to do it, no matter how much of a traditionalist you are, it is impossible to see how this model is sustainable. For navies to function across the huge range of tasks they need to undertake they need both balance and mass. The current Royal Navy has good balance from diplomacy to fighting but is woefully short on mass. You don't need to be a maritime historian to know how that ends when the shooting starts. I will leave the Royal Fleet Auxiliary out of it for this article as I've written about them recently. Focusing on surface vessels, there are three broad types of ships that we now need to consider adding to the traditional mix outlined above. Actually, we don't need to consider it, we need to do it. These are ships taken up from trade, medium sized low- or un-crewed vessels and autonomous small craft and weapons. Ships taken up from trade include vessels like HMS Stirling Castle (mine warfare), RFA Proteus and HMS Scott (surveillance) and HMS Protector (ice patrol). These are ships built to a commercial specification that the Navy then leases or buys for use on operations. They are not fighting ships; their lack of self-defence systems, watertight integrity and machinery plants do not permit it, but that doesn't mean they don't have tremendous utility. It's a truism of navies that they spend more of their time setting the conditions to avoid fighting than actually fighting – this is where these ships sit. And given how hard it is to fund and sustain the high end stuff, we need to get better at buying and running them. Autonomous vessels can be split into two: those that are large enough to operate on their own and those that need support from a mother ship. I'm going to focus on the former although one only needs a cursory knowledge of this subject to know that for both, the rate at which we are progressing in this field, and the rate at which we need to, are wildly different. As is so often the case, enter the US and their recently announced Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) programme. This is a fascinating programme that is set to move from concept to prototype to delivery in less than two years, the kind of pace that would make traditional ship manufacturers weep. It is still some way short of Ukraine's ability to build new systems but it's fast for a peacetime programme. The three models have been outlined with how many containers they can carry seemingly determining their size. The largest will take 'four or more' ISO containers, the middle one takes two of the same and the smallest, one half-size container. Endurance for the larger one is around the 60 day mark 'without crew intervention'. Here I have a query because in a ship roughly 60m long and with a 3m draft, unless you're going everywhere at two knots, then this is a stretch but I'll leave it for now. The larger two also have optional crewing options. In the real world they'll probably have people aboard a lot of the time, as security guards if nothing else, but the people will tend to get off once the risk level goes up. What these low- or un-crewed MASC ships will be used for is less clear at this stage, but from the work the US is doing on containerised weapons systems, and the way one of the models has its drive train configured, it looks as though they will be focussed on anti-air capabilities (traditionally conducted by destroyers) and anti-submarine (frigate). On this subject, I do find myself disagreeing with doctrine purists who always want to see ships being built in response to a carefully crafted master strategy. In reality, the things you are going to want your ships to do haven't changed at either the soft or hard power end of the continuum for a long time. Diplomacy, disaster relief, freedom of navigation, littoral operations, strike, anti-submarine and air operations remain constant no matter how potential adversaries develop methods to try to deny them. This is the eternal cat and mouse of weapons development with the only certainty being that if you wait too long for the perfect kit, or because your system is slow, or because you don't have any cash, you will fall behind. In other words, just build them, the rest will follow. From a UK perspective there are at least four uses for ships like this that are blindingly obvious. There will be others. Missile defence is one and would work equally well in far blue water or around the UK. It would be far better to have a dozen of these ships with containerised SM-6 interceptors (this has been trialled by the US) than hugely expensive systems ashore that can only do one job – or just one or two exquisite destroyers with large crews in 15 or 20 years' time. The containerised data links and ability to transmit a radar picture to these vessels exist now. If we insist on full-fat destroyers with 100+ missile tubes they will cost billions apiece and we will never have enough. We should instead conceive our destroyers as flotilla leaders for MASC-type vessels with containerised weapons to bulk up our firepower. Likewise with anti-submarine warfare (ASW) in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and beyond, low- or un-crewed ships with containerised kit could be vital. Anyone who has spent a life at sea gets nervous when tech companies start talking about deploying small short-range systems from mother ships for ASW because it is so often conducted in conditions where just walking around the ship is a challenge, much less deploying and recovering smaller craft. These larger MASC vessels avoid that problem. Another solution would be to deploy one-shot small systems: we already do this with sonobuoys. If it's cheap and numerous enough, this will work. A flotilla of medium autonomous ships with an exquisite Type 26 frigate somewhere in the vicinity running the show starts sounding a lot like balance and mass. A single Type 26, no matter how lovely, does not. And there are companies like Ocean Infinity who have already built medium sized autonomous ships. Defence should allocate resources to allow the Royal Navy to buy them now. Caveats do come to mind on unmanned ships: enemies will probably be much more willing to attack or sink them than manned ones, or even board and seize them. Certainly the bigger types need to be optionally crewed. It will probably often be worthwhile to have a highly skilled maintenance troubleshooter or two aboard, or an experienced bridge watchstander for crowded waters. But they won't always be needed, and there will certainly be no need for the large numbers of semi-skilled maintainers, sensor and weapon operators, cooks, administrators etc that make up most of today's warship crews. There is also of course the risk that unmanned ships might be hacked – though this is also becoming a risk with manned systems. Very little of this discussion is new: the Strategic Defence Review refers to much of it and Naval plans talk about uncrewed sloops (the Type 92) but that's the point – they're being discussed. We need to take a leaf out of the US playbook and just buy it. The Royal Navy has some excellent kit and people but is so short on both that its deterrent effect has been eroded. This is a quick and relatively cheap way out of this hole. Let's see if the US, whose macro fleet issues are similar – albeit much scaled up – can do any better.
BBC News
15 minutes ago
- BBC News
Norfolk and Suffolk Police merger not on cards says commissioner
A police and crime and commissioner said she doubted two forces would be merged - as she announced her job was coming to an Sarah Taylor – who won the election to become Norfolk's commissioner last year – said the role's responsibilities would be transferred to a new mayor's office in the planned mayor responsible for Norfolk and Suffolk, there has been speculation that the county's two police forces could be Taylor said her understanding was that a merger was "not on the cards at all". Last month, Conservative MP Nick Timothy said he believed a merger would take place and it would be a "disaster". Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are elected officials responsible for setting the priorities of a constabulary, appointing a chief constable and holding them to an election is set to take place in May 2026 to choose the first mayor to run a new combined authority for the the government confirmed it wanted the PCC roles to be absorbed into the work of mayors, the West Suffolk MP Timothy said he thought that would lead to one force covering two counties."It would take decision-making and accountability even further away from where people live.""We need the police really focused on local crimes, on burglaries, on street crime, and that means we need local accountability." Whilst the two forces are separate they do currently work together on some operations such as roads policing and armed said she had asked the Home Office if a merger was a said: "My understanding is that is not on the cards at all, and certainly if it is, they're not talking with us about that transition period.""As to whether that should happen I'm fairly agnostic about it. "I know that would give us a similar level of population of somewhere like North Yorkshire, or Devon and Cornwall – and certainly they seem to work well in that setup. "I don't see a particular reason why that would be detrimental to the service within Norfolk."PCCs serve four year terms in office, but with major changes being made to local government, Taylor said her's would end on 1 April 2027 – less than three years after she was elected."This will mean that I'm not only Labour's first Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk, but I will also be Norfolk's shortest serving Police and Crime Commissioner."She added that her "primary focus" was to make sure services were not affected whilst work took place transferring the role's responsibility to a mayor."I think it's fair to say the nuts and bolts of this will need to be worked through," she Home Office has been asked for comment. Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Cross-Channel migrants to be detained as France treaty comes into force
Sir Keir Starmer's 'one in, one out' deal to return Channel migrants to France will come into force on Tuesday, with detentions set to begin by the end of the week. The deal, which has now been approved by the European Commission, means the UK will be able to send people crossing the Channel in small boats back to France in exchange for asylum seekers with ties to Britain. It also means that anyone arriving in a small boat can be detained immediately, and space has been set aside at immigration removal centres in the expectation that detentions will begin within days. The Prime Minister said the ratification of the treaty will 'send a clear message – if you come here illegally on a small boat you will face being sent back to France'. But opposition parties have criticised the deal amid reports that the pilot scheme will see only 50 people a week returned to France while this year has seen a weekly average of more than 800 people make the crossing. The deal has also been criticised by refugee charities, which have urged the Government to provide more safe, legal routes for asylum seekers instead. Ministers have so far declined to say how many people could be returned under the deal, and insist that if the pilot is successful the figure will increase. Under the terms of the agreement, announced during French President Emmanuel Macron's state visit last month, adults arriving on small boats will face being returned to France if their asylum claim is inadmissible. In exchange, the same number of people will be able to come to the UK on a new legal route, provided they have not attempted a crossing before and subject to documentation and security checks. The Home Office said it had also learned from the 'lengthy legal challenges' over the previous government's Rwanda scheme and would 'robustly defend' any attempts to block removal through the courts. It is the first such deal with France, with the pilot scheme set to run until June 2026, pending a longer-term agreement. Sir Keir said the deal was 'The product of months of grown-up diplomacy delivering real results for British people'. He added: 'The days of gimmicks and broken promises are over – we will restore order to our borders with the seriousness and competence the British people deserve.' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it was 'an important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime gangs that are behind these crossings – undermining their claims that those who travel to the UK illegally can't be returned to France'. Ratification of the deal comes as both Britain and France battle to bring the small boats problem under control, with 2025 on course to be a record year for crossings. Some 25,436 people have already made the journey this year, according to PA news agency analysis of Home Office figures – 49% higher than at the same point in 2024. The issue has also sparked concern that a series of protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers could lead to public disorder similar to last year's riots. On Monday, the Home Office announced it was providing another £100 million to tackle people smuggling and would introduce new powers to seize devices from people suspected of facilitating crossings. Ministers have also launched a crackdown on illegal working in an effort to reduce the 'pull factors' said to be encouraging people to make the journey, while French authorities have changed their guidance to allow police officers to intercept boats while they are in shallow waters. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp attacked the plans, saying they would return 'just 6% of illegal arrivals' and 'make no difference whatsoever'. He added: 'The Rwanda removals deterrent, under which 100% of illegal arrivals would be removed, was ready to go last summer but Labour cancelled it just days before it was due to start with no proper replacement plan. As a result, this year so far has been the worst ever for illegal immigrants crossing the Channel. 'Only removing all illegal immigrants upon arrival will provide the necessary deterrent to stop the crossings. This is the Conservative plan, but Labour is too weak to implement it and as a result they have lost control of our borders.' While the Conservatives' Rwanda plan was in theory uncapped, it was expected to take only around 1,000 asylum seekers in its first five years of operation thanks to limited capacity in the East African nation. The plan, which Sir Keir had previously dismissed as a 'gimmick', was scrapped as one of the first acts of the incoming Labour Government last year.
