Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for the way in which he introduced the debate. Like other Members, I must declare an interest: I am the proud owner of a cat called Millie. She is over three years old now, but she is still a baby to me. I got her from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Balerno in my constituency before I was elected. She came to me both chipped and neutered.

When I first got Millie, my friend Denise said that I should not have got a cat because it would just climb up my curtains. Millie did do that when she was a kitten and it was incredibly cute. My wife, Mrs Arthur, was less sure about the situation. She picked Millie’s name because she promised that the cat would become a millstone around our necks. The other piece of advice we got was that one day we would let the cat out and it would not return. That is the focus of this debate: so many cats are let out and do not return because they are hit by a car, crawl off under a hedge or a bush and are never found.

To millions of households across the UK, cats are deeply loved family members and constant companions. Yet, under current law, if a driver hits a cat they can simply drive away—I know that not all do. That is not the case for collisions with dogs, which must be reported; I and many other cat owners throughout the country believe that that is an outdated distinction that no longer reflects the way we live. Each year in the UK an estimated 230,000 cats are hit by cars. I find that number absolutely incredible; I had to triple-check it. It works out at roughly one cat—and one family who have lost that cat—in every constituency in the UK every day.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

On the point about families losing cats, a constituent of mine lost her cat shortly before Christmas 2024 after he was run over and killed on Alkerden Lane. The cat was a huge part of her life and she felt very lost without him. Despite an eyewitness urging the car driver to stop they did not. My constituent cannot understand why the driver was under no obligation to do so; I urge Ministers to address that. Does my hon. Friend agree that in such a situation it is simply right and proper for the driver to stop regardless of whether the law obliges them to do so?

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. A few years ago, we looked after my daughter’s cat for a short period—three years, it turned out. It was a fantastic cat, and its pastime was chasing foxes, but one day it was in the garden and then darted across the road, almost getting run over, so I get that it is not always—or even seldom—the driver’s fault. I like to think that if it happened to me, I would stop and perhaps explain what had happened.

Lost cat signs have become common on lamp posts right across the UK. They are almost so common that we hardly see them at all now. Only last month, a constituent contacted my office, deeply distressed after a driver tragically killed her two-year-old kitten. She was left searching for answers and completely bewildered as to why the police could not intervene or help clarify what had happened. This is not about criminalising drivers; it is about compassion and accountability. Leaving an injured cat on the roadside deprives it of potentially lifesaving veterinary care and leaves owners in agonising uncertainty.

I am very proud to have a People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals hospital in my constituency. I visited it a few months ago. Two cats I saw had had had operations after they had suffered some kind of trauma, and the assumption was that that was being hit by a car. That is just two cats on one day in that one hospital. I thank the PDSA for its fantastic work to support people on low incomes being able to access excellent veterinary treatment.

Updating the legislation would not place an inordinate burden on drivers or the police. With microchipping now compulsory in England—and needed in Scotland, as we heard earlier—identifying the owner and offering closure is easier and faster than ever before. The petition shows a very real public mandate for a change that people demand. At the same time, I recognise that some voices in the animal welfare sector are concerned that amending the Road Traffic Act to include cats might have the unintended consequences of imposing criminal and civil liability on owners of cats involved in collisions. Of course, it is the job of this place to consider unintended consequences and to ensure that they are absolutely minimised or, we hope, do not happen at all. I urge the Government to explore how to update the Act in a manner that will protect owners while giving the same basic duty of care to cats that we extend to dogs. We heard that Gibraltar and Jersey already have some such provisions. They are places with close connections to the UK and I am sure we can learn lots from how they approached the problem.

Finally, as a Scottish MP, I have to acknowledge that this is a devolved matter; I appreciate that in Scotland it falls under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. I very much hope for progress at a UK level, but we can also speak to colleagues in Scotland, perhaps at the same time talking about mandating chipping in Scotland and—something else I am passionate about—heavily regulating people who choose to breed cats at home for a profit, which involves at least a lot of distress for the cats. That needs to be addressed north and south of the border.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on opening the debate and setting out the various issues that have led to us considering the petition.

We have heard a great many contributions. We heard from the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon); from my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge), for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); from the right hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale); and from the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). That indicates the widespread interest in this matter across the nation.

I welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), to her place. We have worked together on a Select Committee, and I hope that, in her new role, we can continue the constructive relationship we enjoyed on the Committee.

The strength of feeling is clear. As we have heard, 189,000 people signed the petition, many because they know at first hand the distress caused when a cat is struck on the road and the family is not given any answers. A number of Members spoke with great personal knowledge and sincerity about their own situations. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about his sad experiences and about the sense of unfairness that people feel about the different treatment, which I will come to. He also rightly pointed out that the RSPCA questions whether the resources are in place to deal with what the petitioners ask for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth had a cat who lived for 20 years, which is an incredible achievement; he obviously looked after it very well. Both he and the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich spoke clearly and passionately about the question of decency. It really is a question of decency: any decent person who hit an animal on the road would not just leave it there in pain, and would try to do something about it.

It is fair to say that there are practical considerations about how easy it would be to put on a statutory footing what I think everyone in this Chamber would instinctively feel is the right thing to do. The right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings talked about his time in office and the statutory guidance issued then. He is no longer here, but I am sure he will read Hansard in the morning. That guidance remains active across the strategic road network, and there is a requirement on National Highways operators to collect, log and scan deceased domestic pets, including cats, and to make a proactive attempt to contact the owners. The microchip registration system that we now have in place will hopefully mean that, in most cases, owners are contacted when one of those sad incidents occurs.

We heard a number of other excellent contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood gave us a long list of the cats in her family. It sounds like Fanny is a local celebrity in the constituency—I am sure she will appear on some leaflets in the not-too-distant future. My hon. Friend spoke movingly about the depth of the bond between cats and their owners, which all Members have spoken about with a great deal of sincerity, and made an important point about needing clarity on who a driver should report a collision to. I understand that officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be meeting representatives from CatsMatter to discuss that issue further, because although we may not be able to change the law in this Chamber, we can certainly pick up some of the practical measures that can be taken to make this difficult situation easier.

We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, who is clearly an active campaigner in this area. She made it clear that she is a cat lover as well, and she is, of course, the most appropriately named Member of us all. She recognised that there is a difference between cats and dogs and talked about some of the alternative measures and solutions we can consider, which I will come to. She also asked about other jurisdictions, which a couple of other Members mentioned. Most of those countries were self-contained and small, but I will ask officials to look at how the laws have operated in different countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West gave an excellent speech, giving us a little insight into his cat issues. I join him in his praise of the PDSA, which does excellent work. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage spoke with great sincerity about his constituents Fern, Anthony and Leo and their sad experience of trying to find Buddy for almost a year. His comment that cats are never just pets is a statement that all Members who have spoken would recognise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has made it clear to me on many occasions that she is very much a cat lover. She also declared her work on the APPG, which I commend. She acknowledges that there are concerns with the proposals, particularly from Cats Protection. She also made a point, which I will come to, about how it is quite problematic to have an equivalence, for the reasons she outlined. I agree that that does not mean nothing can be done. We will certainly look at what can be done.

[Dr Arthur]

I am pleased to hear that a DEFRA Minister is going to meet CatsMatter to talk about this issue. I also welcome the Minister’s talk of reviewing what other jurisdictions do; will he commit to publishing that work in some shape or form, so that we can get sight of it?

[Justin Madders]

I am sure we can find a way of publishing it. I have sprung that on my officials this evening, so I do not know exactly what form it will take, but at the very least I can commit to writing to Members who have taken part in the debate to advise on what we find from that review. As I say, I am not familiar with the other jurisdictions, and it may be that the laws and requirements are different—we know that the demography and topography of those countries is different—but it is fair for us to consider that.

As Members have pointed out, the current position is that although drivers are not required to report every animal death on the road, they should, where it is safe and practicable, try to identify the owner of a domestic animal and let them know what has happened. A number of Members spoke about wanting to make that mandatory, and I understand why, but we have to have legislation that is both workable and safe. As several Members acknowledged, cats are mostly smaller than dogs, and a driver may not actually realise that a collision has occurred—that is probably more relevant given the propensity for larger vehicles nowadays. When the nights are drawing in, if it is a rural road with high-speed traffic, it is actually quite dangerous to ask people to leave their vehicle to search for a cat. That could create more danger and injury. There are also practical difficulties—we must consider locating the animal, arranging identification and ensuring that any reporting system can be enforced consistently.

I recognise the concern that owners should have the best possible chance of knowing what has happened to their pet when cats are found by the roadside. As Members have said, any decent human being would want that to happen and would try to do their best. One of my family’s cats, Ruby, was returned to us by a good-natured neighbour who had discovered her on the roadside after she was run over. It was a very sad time but, thinking of my children’s perspective, I would rather things happened in that way than for them to discover Ruby on the roadside on the walk to school the next morning. I applaud the public spiritedness of the individual who returned Ruby to us that night.

That shows that such gestures, difficult though they are, really do go a long way to providing some comfort to people who in a distressed situation, and that is the purpose behind the public campaign known as Gizmo’s Legacy, which calls for local authorities to scan microchips so that owners can be identified and informed. We support the principle that local authorities should have effective processes in place in such circumstances, and we want to encourage councils to be as helpful as they can be in those situations. As Members have acknowledged, that is why DEFRA has commissioned research into how its processes affect the reunification of owners with cats and dogs that are found dead by the roadside, with the aim of identifying both best practice and barriers. When the findings are published, they will support the development of best practice guidance for local authorities, so that more owners can be notified, where possible.

The hon. Member for Yeovil asked when the research would be published. It is fair to say that the research project is still being reviewed, but it will be published as soon as the process has concluded. I doubt very much that he was told to go away, but I assure him that both his comments and those of other Members about their desire to see that report will be transmitted to DEFRA after the debate.

Microchipping it is clearly one of the things that makes the research much more valuable than it might have been a few years ago. As the Opposition spokesperson pointed out, since June 2024 it has been compulsory for all cats over the age of 20 weeks to be microchipped and registered on a compliant database, unless they are exempt or free-living. Microchipping supports responsible pet ownership and gives owners a better chance of being reunited with their pets if they are lost or have strayed.

I have personal experience of lost cats. A few years ago, one of our cats, Trixie, went on a six-week holiday to Chester. We were very grateful to the public-spirited individual who brought her back. Trixie has never told us what she was up to for those six weeks, or how she managed to get to Chester in the first place. I think most Members recognise that cats have quite a secretive nature.

DEFRA is working with the pet-microchipping sector to make the regime more effective, including by improving the accuracy and accessibility of records, and by strengthening the oversight of microchip databases. I am pleased to report that, from the end of last month and following close work with DEFRA, the Association of Microchip Database Operators has launched a single point of search for microchip databases. This was introduced to make it faster and easier for vets and local authorities to access microchip records. We will continue to support the roll-out of cat microchipping as part of the wider work to help owners to identify and recover their pets.

As Members recognised, and as Cats Protection has acknowledged, there could be numerous unintended consequences if we were to make stopping and reporting compulsory. Instead, our priority is to prevent collisions in the first place by making roads safer for everyone. That broader approach should reduce the number of cats that are killed or injured.

A number of reasons have been put forward as to why cats and dogs are classified differently. Clearly, the origins of the distinction are historic, but there are still pertinent differences today, and the effective right to roam is something that makes it very difficult for us to put dogs and cats on an equivalent legislative footing. Making reporting mandatory would create a new criminal offence that would be difficult to enforce. On balance, then, we believe that the existing distinction should remain.

We will continue to engage with advocates in this area. We will look at the emerging research and do what we can to encourage responsible actions from the wider public. On that note, Mr Vickers, I will give the hon. Member for Newton Abbot an opportunity to respond to the debate.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

That is an intriguing idea, and I should be very glad to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further. Of course we want to promote the use of public transport to reach our airports by as many people as possible. Let me now give way to my hon. Friend from the Transport Committee.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Of course, none of us wants to see the roads approaching our airports become more congested than they already are, but I checked Gatwick airport’s website—we heard about Gatwick earlier—and it seems that for blue badge holders it is free to use the drop-off service. Irrespective of when the review takes place, or even if it takes place, I am sure the Minister agrees that no airport in the UK should apply drop-off charges to blue badge holders, and that it should be easy for those people to access airports.

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. He is, of course, right: people with disabilities are disproportionately more likely to use drop-off services at airports than other customers, so it is for airports to facilitate that whenever possible. I am pleased to say that, more often than not, robust procedures are in place to ensure that passengers with disabilities have free drop-offs at airports, but that needs to be adopted widely throughout the sector.

Railways Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I note the Minister’s words about new clause 48.

This Report stage follows 16 sittings of the Public Bill Committee, when I and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled well over 200 amendments, of which more than 120 were put to a Division. It is fair to say, therefore, that I think the Bill could do with a bit of work.

Let us start at the beginning, with the purpose, as contained in new clause 52. We began in Committee with a degree of consensus on the idea that—it is fair to say this, and I think the Minister referenced it—the Government have a golden opportunity to improve our railways by addressing one of the key challenges of the previous privatisation settlement, namely closer integration between track and train. Privatisation had some faults, but it also brought many benefits to the railway industry: a huge increase in capital investment, a new focus on what the travelling customer wanted rather than what British Rail decided to give them, innovation in service provision and increased services.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

When we previously discussed that point, I made this same observation: when we think about privatisation, we tend to think of the rolling stock companies. However, we should not forget that originally there was a privatised rail company, Network Rail, and that it cost the lives of over 40 people in the space of three years. Saying that there were some problems with privatisation really does gloss over that. We have moved from a situation where people felt it was unsafe to travel on the railways to now having one of the safest railways in the world. We should be grateful for that.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, but he will recognise that if we look at the safety record under privatisation as a whole, compared with nationalisation previously under British Rail, safety has increased enormously and I am pleased to say that, prior to nationalisation, we operate one of the safest rail systems in the world.

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have addressed that point, so I want to move on.

We have the key challenge that the division of track and train at times created some perverse incentives between the track operator and the service operator, and this too often led to some inefficiencies. This Government, however, inherited from the Conservatives a solution in the Shapps-Williams review: the creation of Great British Railways, where track and train services could be integrated to design out the problems of the earlier settlement while, importantly, retaining the efficiency and service benefits of private operators, as well as the increased access to capital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

With the leave of the House, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. While it will not be possible to address every amendment, I will try to discuss the topics raised and do my very best to do them justice.

I turn first to amendments not covered by the Bill as drafted. New clauses 11, 18 and 46 and amendments 56 and 57 focus on safety and safeguarding. It is essential that staff and passengers on the railway are safe. We recently announced the new safer railway scheme to tackle low-level crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls. GBR’s services will all be accredited by the scheme, exactly as suggested by new clause 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith). I am grateful to him for raising awareness on behalf of his charity, Railway Children, and I hope he was pleased to see the announcement that addresses his new clause.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we should do everything we can to keep staff safe. I will be monitoring how the new offence of assault against a retail worker impacts safety across the sector. I agree that her suggestion to gather more evidence—via a call for evidence, for example—would be a sensible next step if further action were warranted. For now, the strongest evidence shows that body-worn cameras and conflict-prevention training deliver the most immediate improvements in staff safety by deterring offending and providing evidence to support effective prosecution.

GBR’s success will be built on the effectiveness of its workforce, a topic addressed in amendments 35, 36 and 64 and new clauses 19, 21, 26, 27, 34 and 54. I note the related early-day motion. I confirm that provisions in the Bill already enable the transfer of staff into GBR on TUPE principles, ensuring that employment rights are protected, as they should be. It is essential that we give security to staff who may be affected by the transition. I am therefore happy to confirm to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) that we expect the railways pension scheme to continue under GBR.

On GBR’s governance, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West proposed passenger groups. I confirm that GBR will engage with customers at national and regional level. Its local business units will run station-based engagements and use panels of customer representatives to co-design products and services, while national advisory groups will support GBR on disability and other matters. Of course, the passenger watchdog will also advise GBR. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that our intentions in this space are aligned.

New clauses 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 20, 40, 41 and 44 and amendments 30, 55, 66, 72, 170 and 171 contain requirements on GBR regarding matters that the long-term rail strategy could include or align with. Amendments 4, 37, 38 and 86 seek to ensure the strategy’s longevity and transparency.

I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for her considered comments on connectivity for rural areas. I hope my comments will satisfy others who tabled similar amendments. I am happy to commit today that the strategy will explicitly reference modal shift and the need to bring more people on to the railway. The strategy will also include provisions directing GBR to work with mayoral strategic authorities and local communities to seek the best multimodal solutions for each region.

On the environment, I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for tabling his amendments. I confirm to the House that the strategy will include a specific objective relating to environmental sustainability, with which GBR will need to demonstrate alignment. I am also pleased to confirm that accessibility, socioeconomic benefits and affordability will be key objectives in the strategy, that it will be 30 years long and that it will align with the UK’s 10-year infrastructure strategy.

I hope that also reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). The Government recognise the potential of our railways to connect communities to work, leisure and economic centres. As my hon. Friend mentioned, nothing in the Bill prevents GBR from reopening disused stations or lines. GBR will be constantly guided by its duties, including requirements to consider the public interest and social factors.

New clauses 22, 23 and 38 and amendments 59 to 63 mandate specific station improvements. Step-free access is an absolute priority for the Government, but it must be deliverable. Access for All already targets funding where it has the greatest impact, and the forthcoming rolling stock strategy will set out a bold vision for accessible trains. We feel that the more rigid duty proposed in new clause 22 could limit GBR’s ability to prioritise and maximise its impact and, in many cases, staffing, accessible trains and high-quality information can be better suited to deliver significant benefits in the short and medium terms. Nevertheless, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in particular that our intentions on the matter are aligned. I hope we can discuss how we can further our mutual aims of step-free access, including for her constituents in Luton, outside this debate, and I look forward to a meeting on that and a visit to Leagrave station.

On the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the passenger watchdog will represent all passengers and maintain a clear focus on the experience of disabled passengers. I fully recognise the value that lived experience brings in that regard, and that will continue to be reflected in the make-up of the watchdog’s board, as it is today. However, I also note the points made on the matter by my hon. Friend, and I am confident that the Rail Minister will continue the discussion with her, the Transport Committee and their lordships in the other place.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the Minister for meeting me and Olivia from my office to try to find a way to implement the new clause. I also thank Simon Watkins, who is vice-chair of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, who has repeatedly raised the new clause’s objective with me. The Minister said earlier that GBR will be “owned by the British people and run in their interests”; does he agree that when we talk about the British people we mean all the British people and that, when the Bill proceeds to the Lords, our representative there, the Rail Minister, would be wise to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

19. What steps she is taking with delivery platforms to help reduce the use of illegally modified e-bikes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

E-bikes are only road-legal when they comply with the requirements of the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983. The legislation applies to all cyclists, including delivery riders. The Department has previously written to delivery platforms on this subject. A copy of that letter is in the Library of the House.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the Minister for her response and for her written statement this morning on pavement parking. The illegal use of e-bikes by delivery companies is a matter of real concern for people in Edinburgh South West. I wrote to the Just Eat delivery company this week, and it said in its reply that it could act only if I could tell them the rider’s name or the delivery order number. That is absolutely preposterous. It could proactively use its app to monitor rider behaviour. I fear that it is both exploiting the riders and exploiting the use of illegal e-bikes. If it will not act and be a responsible company, will the Government take action?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I absolutely agree that delivery companies should be working to ensure that their drivers and riders remain safe and do not pose a danger to others. The Government’s road safety charter, the first in a decade, includes plans to pilot a national work-related road safety charter for businesses that require people to drive or ride for them. I will be making a statement on the strategy in this House later today. Clearly, we encourage delivery apps to sign up to that.

Free Bus Travel: Over-60s

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing this important debate, which I welcome. I want to make clear that I strongly support e-petition 702845. The fact that more than 100,000 people signed it shows how strongly the public feel about the issue and how far it reaches into people’s everyday lives.

The petition is simple and reasonable. It calls on the Government to extend free bus travel to people over 60 in England outside London, bringing England into line with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. At present, those living outside London must wait until state pension age—currently 66—to qualify, despite the fact that mobility, confidence in driving and independence often decline well before that point.

The Government’s response recognises the value of bus services and points to welcome investment, including the funding announced in the recent Budget. I welcome that funding, but the response ultimately sidesteps the core issue. Responsibility is shifted to local authorities and devolved Governments, rather than making free bus travel a statutory entitlement across England. That matters because leaving it as a discretionary measure creates inequality and uncertainty. Local authorities are under immense financial pressure, and people’s access to free travel should not depend on where they live or how stretched their council’s budget happens to be. National problems require national solutions.

We also need to be honest about the scale of the gap that people face. It is not a short transition period. The difference between age 60 and state pension age is six years, and that gap is set to increase further as the pension age rises. It is six more years during which people might be driving less, losing confidence behind the wheel, or giving up their car altogether, but are still expected to pay rising transport costs.

For many older people, particularly in towns and areas with patchy public transport, the alternative is often taxis. That becomes harder in later life in retirement when people are more likely to live on a fixed income, watching every pound and trying to stretch their pension as far as possible. What was once an occasional expense can quickly become unaffordable.

This debate is not just about transport policy, but about mental health, dignity and independence. I have spoken many times in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber about adult mental health and the importance of prevention. One of the clearest contributors to declining mental health in later life is loss of freedom of movement. Research by the London School of Economics shows that a policy of free transport for the over-60s would deliver powerful and measurable benefits. Older bus pass holders are 37% less likely to be sedentary, improving their physical health through everyday activity like walking to and from shops. They are also one third less likely to experience social isolation, a factor strongly linked to poor mental and physical wellbeing.

The NHS increasingly recognises the importance of community mental health for all older people and the importance of staying socially connected, active and engaged. When people cannot get out to see friends, attend community groups, volunteer or even make simple, everyday journeys, isolation sets in. Loneliness, anxiety and depression are not abstract risks, but real outcomes of restricted mobility, and free bus travel for over-60s is therefore not just a concession, but an investment in wellbeing, independence and prevention.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman’s flow. I do not think anybody would disagree with what he says; we would all love free bus travel for over-60s, and perhaps for even more people than that, but it is a question of cost. He talks about investment, but how much does he estimate that this will cost?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am afraid that I do not have cost figures to hand, but the research that I referred to in preparation for this speech demonstrated the quantifiable economic benefits of the policy. I believe that any cost incurred from implementing it would be paid for many times over through reduced visits to GPs and hospitals, as well as increased economic spend by people who can get out more.

Free bus travel also supports healthier ageing, reduces isolation and helps people to remain part of their communities for longer, easing pressure on health and social care services in the long term. I urge the Government to listen to the strength of feeling behind the petition, to move beyond passing responsibility elsewhere and to consider making free bus travel for over-60s a fair national and statutory entitlement. If we are serious about equality, prevention and supporting people through later life, that is a change that we should be willing to make. Providing free bus travel for over 60s is a proven, practical and popular policy. The evidence is clear, the public support is strong and the need is urgent—the Government must act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for his introduction to the debate. His contribution, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), reminded me that I should be grateful that Edinburgh benefits from a publicly owned bus and tram service. Both are award winning nationally and compete against commercial services. In Edinburgh, the bus service runs essentially without subsidy and often returns a dividend to its owner—the people of Edinburgh—to be spent in Edinburgh, while its bus drivers are among the best paid in the country. I am sure, Mr Mundell, that you have experience of Lothian Buses, and that you will not disagree with me that the worst Lothian bus is better than the best London bus, by far. I note that you are smiling, so I will take that as agreement.

Members might be glad to hear that I want to use this debate not just to speak about Lothian Buses, but to pay tribute to my Scottish Labour colleague Sarah Boyack MSP, who is set to retire this year. I use the word retire gently, because I do not think she particularly enjoys hearing it. As you will remember, Mr Mundell, she served in Donald Dewar’s Cabinet as Scotland’s first Transport Minister. Scotland had a hotchpotch of concessionary travel delivered by local authorities across the country, but Sarah changed that in her role by taking steps to establish national minimum standards of service for all old age pensioners—that is what older people were called back then—and disabled people. To start with, that was free travel outside morning peak times, but it was soon expanded to free 24/7 travel, and more recently to include all people under 22. I do not know what Sarah would say was her greatest achievement in politics, but I feel that free bus travel for older people, disabled people and now younger people must have had the greatest impact of all her decisions.

This is not just about saving money; it is about ensuring that people can keep in touch with friends and family, thereby helping tackle social isolation that many older and disabled people face. Interestingly, when Sarah started on this journey, there were different thresholds for access to free service, because retirement ages were different back then, but over time, they have aligned to allow those aged over 60 to access free travel. Although my head tells me that it does not make sense to provide free bus travel to over-60s who are travelling to well-paid jobs in Edinburgh, many people in that age range—I am only 1,254 days away from being eligible for my free bus pass in Scotland—see that pass as a reward from the country for their contribution to the community or greater society. People hold it dearly, and it would be brave of any Scottish Government to suggest that it should be removed.

I hope that Members across all parties will listen to the experience in Scotland, and I hope that the Chair will join me in wishing Sarah well as she approaches her non-retirement.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Indeed I do join the hon. Gentleman in wishing Sarah Boyack well. She has made a huge contribution to the Scottish Parliament in the 26 years she has served there, in different capacities.

Railways Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a wonderful surprise.

I am a huge fan of rail. Every week I travel to this place via rail, and on my usual train, I am able to get to London in just four hours and 20 minutes. Since I came to the Chamber today, I have had an email from LNER saying that that time will be decreased by 10 minutes, so already this Bill is delivering for people in my constituency. The journey is only slightly longer than the equivalent flight, though it uses 14 times less carbon dioxide and is 100 times more relaxing. Most of the time, the journey runs smoothly—LNER is publicly owned—but like everyone here and across the UK, I am familiar with the delays and cancellations that regularly disrupt our wider railway. That is why I welcome the reforms that the Railways Bill brings. It is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get our railway system back on track.

The creation of Great British Railways will put passengers before profits, simplify ticket purchasing and improve passenger accessibility across the network—something we have heard about already. The Bill also respects and preserves the devolution agreements concerning rail, giving Scottish Ministers the power of guidance and direction over GBR and ensuring that those changes directly benefit my constituents and the Scottish rail sector more widely. Importantly, the Bill will trigger the integration of track and train provision across the UK. That integration has been operating in Scotland for some years and does, for the most part, work well.

It is true that there are some points of concern around provision in Scotland, including regular cancellations and delays, but by and large the system works well. I have to say that the reason that rail is in public ownership in Scotland is due to years of campaigning by both the Labour party and our brothers and sisters in the trade union movement. The relationship between Network Rail and ScotRail is one area where GBR could take note. It is an effective and joined-up relationship between track and train operators, and will be vital to a successful national rail service.

I welcome the fact that the Bill provides a basis for Scottish and UK Ministers to work together and provide efficient cross-border services, and I look forward to seeing the memorandum of understanding, which will lay out exactly how that relationship will work. I look forward to supporting the Bill. I must say, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have asked for a lot of local improvements to be delivered via this Bill, yet they do not intend to support the Bill itself. They cannot have their cake and eat it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Talking of cake, I call Dr Ben Spencer.

Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Lamb]

Although the researcher involved did not look into particular age groups, I think we all know that on balance, it is often older citizens who are far more inclined to feel the issue of headlights and problems with driving in general. When looking at the numbers, which show the scale of people who are simply staying at home because they no longer feel safe in the road, we realise that something clearly has to be done. The overwhelming majority of those who say that they are no longer driving at night, or would not drive if they had the choice, cite headlight glare as the primary reason.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing his first Westminster Hall debate. I thought this was an issue of personal annoyance until I met Alan, an old colleague from Heriot-Watt University, who said he found it difficult to go out in the evening and was not looking forward to winter. He is a young man—even younger than me—so does my hon. Friend agree that we need more research to fully understand the negative impacts of these lights?

[Peter Lamb]

Certainly, there is probably work to be done in general around how transport impacts social isolation, and particularly at different times of day. We know the impact that losing bus routes has had on rural communities, and the age brackets for which that causes huge problems. Transport for many people is an essential part of daily life; they do not have the options that those of us lucky enough—I say lucky—to live in an urban area have available to us. We have to think of the enormous impact that this issue has not only on convenience, but on someone’s ability to get through life.

There are options available to drivers to reduce headlight glare. They can try keeping their windscreen and glasses clean; they can adjust mirrors to reduce glare; and they can ensure that their own headlights are properly aligned and avoid buying SUV-type vehicles. [Interruption.] Well, they could. Although all those things would see an improvement in our roads, driving-related law in the UK should not be reliant on voluntary measures by drivers. The law relating to driving begins from the starting point that every vehicle is a lethal object and rigid rules are required to manage that risk.

The track record of accidents stemming from headlight glare is now sufficiently clear, but it is time for that to be recognised in law with a new standard to ensure that headlights in the United Kingdom do not exceed safe levels of brightness. I am glad that the Department for Transport appears to have recognised that, with the Transport Research Laboratory having been commissioned last year to study the impacts of headlight glare. I understand that research was supposed to have been completed in the spring, but it has not yet been published. Despite that, there have been positive noises, certainly in recent days, about headlight glare being addressed, in part through the new road safety strategy. I hope that hon. Members will receive assurances about that from the Minister, and I hope that this debate will help to maintain pressure for the action that our constituents deserve at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.

As the clocks go back and evenings grow darker, drivers in Devon are finding that dazzling headlights are no longer just a nuisance, but a real danger on our roads. This week, for the first time since summer, many of the people I represent are trying to get around in the dark along the dark lanes and long roads that surround Sidmouth, Honiton and Seaton. A burst of a full beam before it is dipped can leave drivers disoriented. Add in a wet road, a scattering of potholes and maybe a cyclist, and it is a recipe for a near miss. Those do not always make it into the statistics, but anybody who drives knows them, because they have been there.

Many people in Devon are saying the same thing to me: headlights feel brighter than they used to. They are right. I remember when halogen bulbs were first introduced. They cast a much longer beam than we had known before, but now those have been surpassed by LED. The RAC’s recent polling backs this up: almost every driver thinks that some headlights are too bright, and more than half have been temporarily blinded. A quarter now do not drive for fear of such temporary blinding.

[Dr Arthur]

That is an interesting point. If most drivers think there is an issue, that means their cars are probably part of the problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they should look at their own vehicles first before they start criticising other drivers?

[Richard Foord]

I honestly do not think that we can make this the responsibility of every individual driver; it is our job to come here and legislate on collective problems such as this one.

The problem is especially serious in rural areas such as the one I represent, where the population tends to be older than across the country as a whole. Age changes how the eye copes with bright light at night. A report by road safety consultants released yesterday highlighted that an older person’s eye can take around nine seconds to recover from glare, compared with about one second for a 16-year-old. That could mean not being able to see anything properly—potholes, pedestrians or cyclists—for the length of an entire football pitch.

In 2024, more than 600 people were injured on Devon and Cornwall’s roads, and sadly 56 lost their lives in road traffic collisions. Plainly, the sort of glare we are talking about will not have been responsible for all of those incidents, but I know from a constituent who came to see me in a surgery that at least one of those fatalities related to glare from sunlight. If adapting headlights to reduce glare helps to prevent even one of those tragedies, it is worth looking into it.

LED headlights give the driver a clearer, crisper view but, when they are not properly fitted or aligned, their tight, blueish beam can cause real discomfort for others on the road. Penalties for sellers peddling unsafe kits would make a difference. When the Government’s report is released in the coming weeks, it is vital that its recommendations are acted on quickly. Following the evidence could help us to save lives on the roads.

People in Seaton, Sidmouth and Honiton want to get home without feeling that they are gambling every time with a bright set of lights coming around the bend. Let us make sure that our vehicles light the way home safely, rather than blinding those who share our roads. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this issue to the fore.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

We are at the start of this process, and I am as ambitious for the whole UK as the hon. Gentleman is. We will look at the economic impact through the ANPS review. If a scheme comes forward and gets planning consent during this Parliament, all Government Departments and I are absolutely clear that we must make the most of this incredible economic opportunity.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, her leadership, her focus on growth and her commitment to fit this project within the Paris agreement. I welcome the four tests that it will be judged against, but I have a suggestion for a fifth test—people might not be surprised to hear that it focuses very much on my constituency. In recent years, Edinburgh South West has benefited from fantastic rail connections between Edinburgh and London, and from fantastic direct international flights from Edinburgh airport to overseas. Does she agree that if this project goes ahead, it cannot be to the detriment of places such as Edinburgh?

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is a fine champion for his constituency and the fantastic city of Edinburgh. An expanded Heathrow could open up more regional connectivity to cities such as Edinburgh. Improving the rail network between our two capital cities is absolutely essential as well, and we are committed to doing that.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come on to some of the technological points he made earlier, which it may surprise him to hear that I was incredibly sympathetic towards. On the timescale he asks for, I think it reasonable that, when a new Act comes into force, the Government should review it on a yearly basis at least, if not more frequently, to check that it is working. The point he makes is valid, and I thank him for it.

Last on the list of impacts covered by new clause 6 is the impact on international and domestic tourism in the UK and passenger air fares. We in this House can pass all manner of laws and schemes, and we can mandate new things, but their impact, including on the wider economy, matters. Reviews like the one proposed by new clause 6 would ensure that Governments of all political persuasions monitored real-life outcomes and, if necessary, tweaked provisions—or completely changed course. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Government would run scared of such a clause; it would help them govern better in the long run.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member will know that countries right across the world are moving towards SAF. Has he reviewed them to understand what is unique about the UK that means that we are vulnerable, while other countries are able to drive ahead? Are these countries undertaking the same bureaucratic reviews of their own legislation, and which country is he modelling his approach on?

[Greg Smith]

I think it is necessary for any Government to review the legislation they are passing to check that it actually works, does what it says on the tin, and does not negatively impact real people and businesses going about their day-to-day lives. If he has paid attention to the debates in previous stages of this Bill, he will know that I support a move to sustainable aviation fuel; I will come on to that shortly, when I speak about other amendments. I think, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) does, that some technologies are superior to others when it comes to power-to-liquid, but the move to those fuels is very important. We have to get it right. If we do not, and we do not make it affordable, it will not happen.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful, although I am not sure whether that was an intervention on jeering or cheering and the difference between them. I will go so far as to say that I am not in a position to make economic spending commitments at the Dispatch Box. Although we are supportive of the principle, that is why we will not vote for something that writes a blank cheque for the future, because at least the Conservatives are trying to be economically responsible.

Without amendment, the Bill is a missed opportunity in relation to bus stop design and disability access. It is a missed opportunity in relation to antisocial behaviour on buses and bringing that in line with the protections already enjoyed by rail passengers. It is also a missed opportunity not to focus on passengers as the primary object of all actions undertaken as a result of the Bill, particularly in relation to rural areas.

The Bill is not just a missed opportunity; it is also, in its current drafting, damaging for the future prospects of the provision of bus services, because it risks exposing local transport authorities to potential bankruptcy without support from the Secretary of State. That is, in the first instance, in terms of oversight of plans for franchising—particularly for small local transport authorities—and giving them the all-clear. Secondly, if franchise systems are set up and then they fail to provide over a prolonged period, the Secretary of State must surely be able to step in and provide those services—if we are interested in the experience of passengers as opposed to the organisation. I have raised those two issues consistently throughout Committee and earlier on today. They are significant, genuine concerns that prevent the Opposition from supporting the Bill in its current form.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he is approaching the debate. Local authorities all over England are letting contracts every single day, and all manner of contracts could go wrong. What is peculiar about this power that means there is a risk of bankruptcy?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am sorry that the hon. Member was not in his place throughout the course of the debate, as he would have heard that a franchise is not a normal contract. Under an enhanced partnership or a standard operating contract, that is exactly so: a contract is let and the commercial risk lies with the provider. The challenge with franchising is that the commercial risk is transferred 100% to the taxpayer, because the local transport authority is no longer letting a commercial contract; it is buying in services for a price, with the commercial risk lying with the taxpayer. That is the crucial difference. I am glad that the hon. Member put his finger on that, because I am as worried as he is about it.

Finally, I will mention the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We do not agree on many issues, but I do agree with her on this. She said that a lot of good amendments were tabled by Opposition parties—certainly three parties; there were sadly none from Reform, which would not know a transport policy if one got up and slapped it in the face. The hon. Lady came up with some good ideas, and even the Liberal Democrats came up with something or other. As for the Conservatives, we came up with good idea after good idea, yet until now they have all been rejected by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to his concession on all those good ideas.