Free Bus Travel: Over-60s

Debate between Scott Arthur and David Mundell

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs

Debate between Scott Arthur and David Mundell

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate, which gives us an opportunity to consider some of the important issues facing Scotland. As a Member of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, I was very disappointed not to have the opportunity to take part in the debate reflecting on 25 years of devolution, because I wanted to pay tribute to three colleagues whom we lost over the summer. The first is Sir George Reid, who was the second Presiding Officer. Although an SNP Member, Sir George always put the Parliament ahead of politics. Indeed, I voted for him in the 1999 election for Presiding Officer against party advice, which was to support Lord Steel. I have never regretted that decision.

I also pay tribute to my colleague Jamie McGrigor, who was one of the great characters of the Scottish Parliament. Many a night was spent—after parliamentary proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker—with his guitar and several drinks consumed. Finally, I pay tribute to my constituent, the late Ian Jenkins, who was the first Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, a Liberal Democrat Member of the Parliament and a very well-respected figure. Even when he left the Scottish Parliament, he played an enormous part in the community across the Borders, and he is greatly missed by all who knew him.

It may surprise Members to hear that for my constituents, this is not the single most important debate taking place at the moment, or the one that will most affect them, because at this very moment, SNP-led Dumfries and Galloway council is proposing that £68 million be invested in a flood prevention scheme in Dumfries. Only a few months ago, that scheme was to cost £25 million. The cost of the scheme has ballooned, with no proper explanation, to £68 million. There may be a few moments left in which to influence councillors, if I have any influence at all with them, so I urge them to reject that proposal, which, in my view, would be a criminal waste of money for a council that is closing rural schools and struggling to provide basic services, such as maintaining our roads. I hope that my plea makes it across the ether to Dumfries.

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

In my previous life as an academic, I got a little bit involved in that project, but that was many, many years ago, so I am really surprised that it has not yet been delivered in some shape or form. I am sure that the local authority is working hard on it, but surely if the work had taken place much sooner, it would have been much more cost-effective, and would have delivered benefits to people well before now.

[David Mundell]

I am sure that we do not want to go down the blind alley of a long discussion about this flood prevention scheme, but it was the subject of a public inquiry, because—this is one of the most important parts of the issue—it does not command public support. That, in my view, is the reason why there have been numerous delays and it has not been progressed. Today is the opportunity to end all the uncertainty and say, “No, this project is not going ahead.” But of course, in our democracy, it will be for councillors to decide, and we will respect their decision.

As all of us representing constituencies in Scotland know only too well, the story of the past two decades of SNP government has been one of stagnation, mismanagement and, in many cases, outright failure in stewardship of our public services. Education standards in Scotland’s schools are on the slide. We have fewer police on the streets, and those streets and roads are in a poor state of repair, as vital transport infrastructure does not receive the investment that it needs. But of all Scotland’s public services, few are under such intolerable strain as our NHS.

Just a few weeks ago, the SNP’s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care was boasting of cutting NHS waiting times, while ignoring the fact that there are now 86,000 cases of patients who have been stuck for more than a year on waiting lists. That is higher than in 2022, when the Scottish Government pledged to “eradicate” the problem by September 2024. More than a year on from that broken promise, SNP Ministers are claiming that they will wipe out waits of over 12 months, this time by March next year—conveniently, just in time for May’s election.