Meeting of the Parliament 12 November 2025
I will make a short contribution to the debate. I recognise the fundamental importance of buses as a mode of transport and as a social and economic lifeline for many people, including many in my constituency. I recognise that, as members have mentioned and as the Labour amendment refers to, there has been a decline in the number of bus services and bus routes over the past period. That is undeniably true, and I have seen it in my area. I have had cause to raise that issue with the relevant parties, and, if time allows, I will come back to that point.
In the context of the challenges that the bus sector faces, we must do all that we can. It is clear that the concessionary travel scheme has been important in supporting individuals, but its contribution has also been important in helping to sustain and support the bus sector.
I return to the benefit to individuals. For a long time, people over the age of 60, people with eligible conditions and people with a disability have seen the benefit from being able to access the scheme and from being able to remain mobile and active in social and economic terms. I readily agree that the expansion of eligibility to under-22s has been a significant success, with more than 250 million journeys taken, which speaks to its story of success. I declare—although I do not need to declare it as an interest—that, like Mark Ruskell, I have two young people at home who qualify for free bus travel under the terms of eligibility.
Looking at the issue through a local lens—a little wider than my household but still local—I note that the scheme has been enormously supportive to many young people in my constituency in the light of a decision by North Lanarkshire Council to end school transport entitlement for a great number of young people. I absolutely recognise, and it is important to say, that the concessionary scheme should not be used to supplement or replace any removal of bus travel. As an aside, I point out that the Scottish National Party group of councillors on North Lanarkshire Council identified funding to continue school buses, but Labour and Conservative councillors still voted the cuts through. Nonetheless, it is the case that young people travelling to and from school have been able to use their free bus travel entitlement to access school.
I take Mark Ruskell’s point that young people are less likely to have disposable income; they could have just left school, they could be at the outset of their working lives on an apprenticeship or they could be continuing with their education. I spoke with a constituent who told me that her daughter used under-22 transport to get to and from university in Glasgow every day and noted how essential that is. We know that the scheme is an essential support for many young people. It is welcome that more than 80 per cent of eligible young people now access the scheme through a national entitlement card or a Young Scot national entitlement card. The Child Poverty Action Group says that it could save a child in Scotland up to £2,836 a year.
The scheme has a significant impact, and we should be doing everything that we can to nudge that 80 per cent take-up closer to 100 per cent. We should be open to further expansion of the scheme. Mark Ruskell makes a reasonable case on that, but we need to be cognisant of the circumstances that we find ourselves in. The amendment in the name of the minister makes it clear that the scheme already costs £200.5 million. We are about to head into a budget process, and we are hearing, although it is not yet confirmed, that some changes that the UK Government is making to tax could lead to a £1 billion cut to our budget. That is the reality, so, although we need to accept that case, we must look at it realistically.
I will support the amendment in the name of the minister.
16:39