Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 22 May 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 915 contributions

|

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee

National Planning Framework 4 (Annual Review)

Meeting date: 7 May 2024

Gordon MacDonald

Communities’ concerns about second homes—of which there are about 24,000 in Scotland—and how to tackle them will be reflected in local place plans. Do you have any experience of local place plans being developed in your community? What impact have they had on planning decisions in your area?

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee

National Planning Framework 4 (Annual Review)

Meeting date: 7 May 2024

Gordon MacDonald

Good morning, panel. I have a number of questions I want to ask.

First I want to start with local place plans. Certainly, in my constituency, a number of the communities, including Balerno, have worked on local place plans. Has NPF4 helped the development of local place plans? Is the creation of local place plans quite widespread? Are there any examples of them having an impact on planning decisions?

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee

National Planning Framework 4 (Annual Review)

Meeting date: 7 May 2024

Gordon MacDonald

Certainly, what you have said in general terms is right, but we are sitting on 460 sites that were previously used for residential housing. Some of them have lain empty for 10 years. There has to be a mechanism to unlock those residential sites. What we are doing in Lothian—I can talk only about Lothian—is building on good arable land in a country that cannae feed its population, as is the case in the United Kingdom.

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee

National Planning Framework 4 (Annual Review)

Meeting date: 7 May 2024

Gordon MacDonald

Before I ask my question, I would like to continue the conversation. Kevin, I am keen to understand how much the naturalisation in NPF4 is holding back reusing brownfield land. The register of derelict and vacant land shows that much of it has previously been used for housing, hotels or hostel accommodation, education facilities, recreation, retail or for office space. Much of that—there are over 3,000 sites in Scotland—could easily be used for housing. What is stopping brownfield land being used? I know that some of the land will be contaminated from industrial use, but a large proportion was used for other purposes. Does NPF4 help or hinder moving forward?

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee

National Planning Framework 4 (Annual Review)

Meeting date: 7 May 2024

Gordon MacDonald

Tony Cain, I want to ask you about the number of council voids. You spoke about the housing emergency. A recent newspaper article said there are more than 10,000 voids in Scotland. Is that correct?

Meeting of the Parliament

Public Transport (Fair Fares Review)

Meeting date: 28 March 2024

Gordon MacDonald

I thank the cabinet secretary for that point. She will be aware that Lothian Buses has recently extended into East Lothian and West Lothian. It may well be that it has taken on board the issue of low volume and further distances to be travelled.

Although a low flat fare is welcome, on its own it will not deliver the modal switch that the Government seeks. It will also require investment in new buses that are dependable, comfortable, well maintained and kept clean, and which have closed-circuit television to keep passengers and drivers safe. To make journey times more attractive compared with those taken by car, there require to be park-and-ride sites to reduce car congestion in our towns and cities, bus priority lanes in order that buses can compete, and bus trackers to provide some certainty on bus times. Without such improvements in vehicles and infrastructure, commuters will not move over to public transport no matter how cheap the ticket price.

All the above features already exist in and around the Edinburgh area. The result is that, at a time when bus patronage declined by 21 per cent in the 10 years leading up to 2019-20, Lothian Buses was carrying an ever-increasing number of passengers. In 2019, it carried 119 million—a 27-year high—plus a further 5 million passengers due to the expanded network that I have mentioned. Then the pandemic hit. Last year, Lothian’s total dropped by 14 million to 110 million passengers.

Despite that drop, only last year, Lothian Buses added to its long list of transport awards when it won two prizes at the UK bus industry awards. The first was for excellence in transport accessibility, which recognised improved access to travel for disabled people, and the other was for excellence in innovation and technology. That highlights what can be achieved when a transport operator is owned by the public and can invest in its service without being concerned about ever-increasing and unsustainable shareholder dividends that are demanded by a large parent transport group.

Meeting of the Parliament

Public Transport (Fair Fares Review)

Meeting date: 28 March 2024

Gordon MacDonald

Let me finish my point first.

Lothian Buses is the largest municipal bus company in the UK. The City of Edinburgh Council owns 91 per cent and the other councils in Lothian share the remaining 9 per cent. In its last profitable year, prior to the Covid pandemic, it paid out £7.7 million in dividends to local councils.

I will take Sue Webber’s intervention.

Meeting of the Parliament

Public Transport (Fair Fares Review)

Meeting date: 28 March 2024

Gordon MacDonald

The £7.7 million that I just referred to is paid to the council, and the reinvestment in the network is made by Lothian Buses.

I also want to touch on the move towards a national integrated ticketing system. In my experience, bus companies are protective of their market shares and are reluctant to share the data that is required to allow ticket income to be properly allocated. An example of those difficulties can be seen by examining the performance of One-Ticket Ltd, which was formed here in Edinburgh in 2001. Its main objective was to increase the use of public transport and to achieve modal transfer from car to public transport in the Edinburgh and south east of Scotland transport partnership—SEStran—areas. The company brought together all the bus companies and ScotRail under the umbrella of an integrated ticketing system, but, in my experience, it has offered a very marginalised product. In 2010, it had a turnover of £1.3 million, but its annual accounts in 2017 identified total sales of only £850,000, and that figure has declined further in recent years. If a multiticket scheme is to be successful, the 20-year operations of One-Ticket in the Lothian area need to be closely examined so that lessons are learned and its difficulties are not replicated.

One mode of travel that was not mentioned in the review relates to the Edinburgh tram service, which does not qualify for the national concession scheme. Until last year, its costs were borne by Edinburgh taxpayers through their council tax payments; those costs are now being met by Lothian Buses. Although I understand that the tram service is considered a fixed-rail mode of transport and that, if it became eligible, there could be calls for other fixed-rail operators to ask for a similar subsidy via the concession scheme, it is the case that the bus company in Edinburgh is bearing the tram service’s concession costs, which not only distorts the transport market but impacts on the bus company’s profitability.

As a result of Covid, many people are still reluctant to take public transport. If we are to reduce the number of car journeys in our towns and cities, we have to reassure the public that, post-pandemic, public transport is safe and reliable. I welcome the report as a foundation from which to move towards a more affordable, reliable and accessible public transport system.

15:45  

Meeting of the Parliament

Public Transport (Fair Fares Review)

Meeting date: 28 March 2024

Gordon MacDonald

Before I make my contribution to the debate, I should make members aware that, prior to my election in 2011, I was employed by Lothian Buses for more than 20 years. Part of my responsibility was calculating route profitability across Edinburgh and submitting national concession scheme claims to Transport Scotland.

I welcome the Government’s fair fares review and its aim to support public transport to become affordable and accessible. The Campaign for Better Transport briefing highlighted that, in 2022-23, there were 301 million bus journeys in Scotland, with 146 million—or nearly half—made under the national concessionary travel scheme for over-60s and under-22s.

In the coming year, that support for the bus industry is expected to reach £370 million relating to concessions, and just under £50 million for the network support grant.

The low flat fare that is referenced in the review is the business model that my previous employer has successfully operated over many decades, based on a high volume of passengers on a low flat adult fare—currently £2—which allows travel anywhere in Edinburgh and right across Edinburgh, carried on 800 vehicles with an average age of just six years.

Meeting of the Parliament

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 27 March 2024

Gordon MacDonald

Recent major food organisations have warned that new Brexit border rules could cut the shelf life of fresh fruit from mainland Europe by a fifth and leave some deliveries from the European Union unsaleable. Does the minister share those concerns, and has the Scottish Government made any assessment of the impact of Brexit border rules on increased food waste?