Official Report 739KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-14155, in the name of Pam Gosal, on repairing potholes on Scotland’s roads. The debate will be concluded without any question being put, and I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the degrading state of Scotland’s roads, due to potholes; understands that, between April 2023 and February 2024, 108,256 potholes were recorded in 29 out of 32 Scottish local authorities, including 2,463 potholes in East Dunbartonshire and 1,867 potholes in West Dunbartonshire; further understands that the number of potholes recorded by local authorities has increased by 15% since the fiscal year 2021-22; acknowledges the findings of a report from the RAC, which has shown that the state of roads was the main concern of six in 10 drivers across the UK, and that pothole damage costs drivers an average of £460, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to take meaningful action to repair Scotland’s roads by providing local authorities with the funding that they need to repair potholes.
13:16
I am delighted to bring chamber business to a close today. I thank all the organisations that have provided briefings for my members’ business debate and all the MSPs who have chosen to speak in it, as well as those who have kindly stayed behind. I am sure that we are all wanting to get out of here and enjoy our Christmas holidays, so I will try my best to keep my remarks short.
The presence of potholes is one of the most frustrating parts of driving, and I know that because I have been driving for more than 30 years. I can say that, like many others in the chamber, I have been cursed with potholes many times.
Potholes, as we all know, are often caused by weather conditions such as heavy rain and freezing temperatures, which Scotland is no stranger to. Potholes can cause excessive damage to cars through tyre, exhaust, suspension and wheel damage, bent rims and much more.
Potholes are more than capable of causing car accidents, whether people are going through the pothole or avoiding it—especially when having to veer to the other side of the road, which is not only dangerous but illegal. That means that drivers are often left to decide whether to break the law or damage their vehicle.
Research by the Scottish Conservatives has shown that, from fiscal years 2021-22 to 2023-24, the number of potholes that were reported to councils increased by 15 per cent—from 94,356 to 108,256. In my area of East and West Dunbartonshire, drivers reported 2,463 potholes and 1,875 potholes respectively for 2023-24. In fact, Great Western Road, which partially crosses through my area, was found to be one of the worst roads in Scotland for potholes. The frustration with potholes often comes up through constituent correspondence and surgeries, and at the doors when I am speaking to constituents in East and West Dunbartonshire who have expressed their anger at the lack of action.
It is estimated that it could cost a total of £2.6 billion to fix the potholes in Scotland’s roads, and more than £4 million has been paid out to fix pothole damage by local authorities since 2019.
Does Pam Gosal agree that the situation will get worse because of the additional weight of electric vehicles—cars, buses, vans and other vehicles—which will just exacerbate the problem?
I absolutely agree with my colleague that things are going to get worse. We are having this debate today so that the Scottish Government can let us know what its plans are in this regard.
I recently read the story of Leesa Mckay. Leesa is a bilateral amputee who was crossing a road in Paisley in the rain and, as she approached a dropped kerb, her wheelchair clipped a pothole that was filled with water. As a result, Leesa came right off her chair, landed with full impact on her right stump and passed out. She was taken to the Royal Alexandra hospital, where she was treated for fractures to her leg. That shows that potholes and bad road conditions affect not only drivers but pedestrians—particularly those in wheelchairs.
As I mentioned earlier, bad weather can lead to the creation of potholes. As we go through the winter months, we can only expect road conditions to get worse. Unfortunately, our local authorities do not always have the necessary resources to repair their roads. Research undertaken by the Scottish Parliament information centre shows that the percentage of local government allocation as a percentage of total Scottish Government spending dropped from 29 per cent in 2014-15 to 23 per cent in 2023-24 and, more recently, to 21.4 per cent in the latest Scottish budget for 2025-26.
Will Pam Gosal take an intervention?
Will I get any extra time, Presiding Officer?
Yes.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Pam Gosal says that local government needs more money, so will she perhaps explain whether that money should come off, say, the national health service budget or whether it should come from higher taxes, which her party opposes?
Pam Gosal, I will give you the time back.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
To respond to John Mason, I note that it is important to understand that we are sitting over here in Opposition. It is your Government that is in the position to tell us what you are doing. If you stop wasting money—
Speak through the chair, please.
To be honest, I think that we can spend more money on our local authorities.
Let us talk about the Scottish National Party Government’s track record when it comes to neglecting drivers, starting with the disastrous Bute house agreement. By going into coalition in 2021 with the Greens—an anti-driver and anti-road party—Nicola Sturgeon chose to put support for independence above the needs of motorists, particularly those in rural areas.
The Greens are so radical on this issue, with Lorna Slater once saying that cars are not safe for people or for the planet. She has even called for a ban on car advertisements. Just yesterday, Lorna Slater held a members’ business debate on banning cars from Holyrood park. Her co-leader, Patrick Harvie, pledged in this parliamentary session to shift billions of pounds away from road building. The only good thing that Humza Yousaf did as First Minister was to get rid of the Greens from Government.
A few months ago, we found out that the Government had spent £16 million on consultancy fees for the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, yet the road has mostly been closed to two-way traffic since August 2020. The A83 crosses through my region, and many of my constituents have expressed their frustration about the delay.
The Scottish Conservatives are the only party standing up for motorists, whether on repairing potholes or upgrading key trunk roads. Many times in the chamber, we have called on the Government to stop dragging its feet and get on with the job of upgrading key roads, including the A96, A9, A75, A77 and A83.
Here is hoping that SNP ministers will listen to motorists rather than looking at their own crazy proposals, such as charging drivers £15 a day to drive cars into towns and cities.
13:24
I thank Pam Gosal for securing this afternoon’s debate on potholes, which is the final debate of the year. Thinking of Christmas, I am sure that the Christmas wish of many drivers across Scotland will be for all the potholes in the country to be repaired. As I cannot comment on the council roads in East Dunbartonshire, which Pam Gosal mentioned in her motion, I will focus on the trunk roads in my constituency.
During the pandemic, Amey took over the maintenance of the south-west trunk roads maintenance contract for the A8 and the A78. Amey has been a breath of fresh air. I say that not only because of the greater investment that has been put into the network over the past three years, but because of the engagement that I and my staff have had with Amey. As I highlighted at general question time earlier today, most of the almost 5 miles of trunk road between Parklea in Port Glasgow and the bullring roundabout in Greenock has been resurfaced—in both directions—over the past two years. There have also been resurfacing projects on the A78. That has been welcomed by my constituents.
However, when significant stretches of roads are resurfaced, whether in my area or anywhere else in the country, road works will be unavoidable, and that can sometimes cause frustration among drivers. That was certainly the case in my local area, as some people felt that there were too many road works at one time. However, that was not always the fault of Amey. It was a result of a mix of factors: the situation that it inherited and the work as part of the year-long Scottish Water flood investment project along the A8. As I led the campaign for that project, I was delighted to see investment going into the road infrastructure and the flooding prevention infrastructure in my constituency.
I will not suggest that there are no potholes in Inverclyde. On the contrary, there are. However, the reality is that I receive more complaints about the length of time that it takes to drive from Wemyss Bay to Port Glasgow than I do about potholes. That was not always the case. Inverclyde has two trunk roads—the A78 and the A8—which are the main arteries of my area.
On the local aspect, only a few months ago, I held a round-table meeting on the road and pavement infrastructure. Inverclyde Council, Amey, bus operators and folk from ScotRail and Network Rail were all in attendance. I held that meeting to discuss how disabled constituents were affected by the state of that infrastructure, an example of which Pam Gosal gave in her speech. Specific points had been raised with me, so I wanted to get folk around the table to have a dialogue with a view to making things better and improving the outcomes for all my constituents.
My challenge to Amey and other organisations that are in charge of maintaining the roads is to keep on top of the maintenance. My office staff and I regularly report some of the smaller defects to Amey. Inverclyde Council used to have an app that was a great tool for highlighting such issues. The council has stopped that app, but it is looking at providing something else. It has been proven that, if people report defects timeously to Amey, it will fix those very quickly. I warmly welcome that.
Pam Gosal’s motion addresses the aspect of local authority roads. I note her challenge to the Scottish Government. Obviously, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity will respond on behalf of the Scottish Government, but I gently say to Pam Gosal that, in the budget, the Scottish Government proposes to provide local authorities with an extra £1 billion. I urge Pam Gosal to support the budget and to lobby local authorities in the West Scotland region to spend more money on roads.
I am sure that we all agree that we would like more to be invested in roads and in many other policy areas, but this Parliament has limited financial powers and a limited budget, so it must make political choices. I am not sure whether Pam Gosal lobbied the previous United Kingdom Conservative Government for additional resources for this Parliament to spend on roads. However, if we did not need to wait for the block grant every year, our situation would be somewhat different.
I put on record my thanks to all the staff who work on the trunk roads and local authority roads daily. They will be out over the festive period, in all weather conditions, working to keep our roads safe. I wish them and everyone in the chamber today, and all my constituents, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
13:29
I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the debate to the chamber and for allowing us all to speak in the last debate of 2024.
It is fair to say that many of our constituents raise with us the issue of potholes on Scotland’s roads. If we knock on doors, do street surgeries or go into our local Co-op, people stop us to say that we should be dealing with potholes. Constituents definitely put the issue at or near the top of the list of improvements that they would like to see in their local community. That anecdotal evidence is backed up by other evidence, some of which we have heard today.
I pay tribute to my colleague Alex Rowley for his work earlier in the year. Following a freedom of information request, he obtained figures on the estimated cost of fixing the country’s local roads in 2024, which had risen to at least £2.5 billion, despite four councils not providing data. For my home council—East Ayrshire Council—the bill totalled £67,000, and the bill for neighbouring South Ayrshire Council totalled £42,500. That money is for pothole repairs. I argue that that is not investment in our transport infrastructure: it is more about patching things up and hoping that there will be a quick fix. That is why constituents are frustrated.
People are frustrated not only because of potholes but because of the time that it takes to repair them. For example, in South Ayrshire, it reportedly took 295 days to complete a work instruction for repairing a local pothole. Members of the public tell me that they are fed up with reporting issues, because it feels as though nothing is ever done and, if something is done, it is a temporary fix that breaks down quite quickly. It feels as though there is no preventative maintenance of drains and verges, with water staying on the surfaces of roads. There is nothing to ensure the longer-term functioning of our road network. That definitely frustrates members of the public.
I want to mention pavements. There are ever-increasing complaints about the safety of pavements because of deterioration and potholes in them. Potholes are very dangerous for users of wheelchairs and people with visual impairments. That adds to the sense of disappointment in communities about the way in which politicians view the look and safety of our roads and streets.
Reports from organisations such as the RAC show that motorists have put fixing potholes at the top of their priority list. I think that that is the first time that the issue has been at the top of that list.
I am conscious of the time, but I want to make two points in closing. First, when researching for the debate, I found that the Scottish Government’s standard line is, “It’s the responsibility of local government.” However, if we are absolutely honest, we know that local government is on its knees in terms of funding so, understandably, it is prioritising front-line services. The Government needs to recognise the impact that potholes have on our constituents, and there needs to be some honesty about how we might help local government. That will be helped by Opposition parties continuing to put pressure on and scrutinising the Government.
Secondly, in truth, we need to think about the debate more in relation to sustainable transport. Transport is part of the community health that we often talk about. We must seek solutions that lessen the load on our roads and that lead to a future in which we have connected travel, with trains and buses, good paths to walk on and opportunities to be less reliant on cars. At the moment, some journeys are almost impossible without having a car. It is important to think about that when we are considering the ways in which we invest in transport infrastructure, including roads, in Scotland.
I thank members for taking part in the debate and, like others, I wish everyone, including our constituents, a really good festive period.
13:34
Many Scots will be driving to visit family and friends over Christmas. The RAC has warned that the next few days will be the busiest festive travel period in a decade. With such a high volume of motorists on the road network, I thank Pam Gosal for securing the time to debate the pothole emergency this afternoon—and it is an emergency.
It is one of those topics about which people say, “What are you talking about?” If someone asks what our last debate was about and you say, “Potholes”, they will ask, “Potholes?” but, actually, at the moment, everybody has a pothole story, either from their own experience or their family’s. Therefore, it is an issue, and it is an emergency right now. Constituents across the north-east raise the issue consistently.
Potholes are a menace. They are costing cash-strapped councils millions of pounds and they are costing drivers hundreds of pounds in repairs. This is during a cost of living crisis, so people feel that cost even more. Potholes can cause burst tyres, engine issues and even collisions. They can affect lives and livelihoods. This week, when I said that I was going to make a speech on potholes, one constituent told me that her son had written off his car, driving from Carnoustie to Arbroath, after going over a pothole at night, that she said he could not see. Fortunately, he was lucky and he survived, but too many other drivers and cyclists have been badly injured because of road defects.
Unfortunately, councils are trying to make up for shortfalls in funding, and they are having to magic up money that they simply do not have for repairs.
Tess White will be well aware that the SNP administration of Aberdeen City Council is trashing the city centre by implementing bus gates and low-emission zones. Does the member agree that the money that the council is raising—by penalising drivers who are just trying to get into the city centre—could be used to repair the roads?
I will give Tess White the time back.
I will give a quick response to that question. Yes, the council could do that but, as my colleague will know, motorists do not want to feel badly let down by having to pay millions of pounds in parking fines and such things. They feel extremely concerned about the matter, so a balance needs to be struck. Yes, councils need to find funds, but I would say that they need support. There is a pothole fund, but they need more support from the Scottish Government.
Local government has been chronically underfunded by the SNP Government. My colleague mentioned Aberdeen City Council. Aberdeenshire Council manages and maintains a whopping 3,467 miles of road, and it is forking out huge sums for bridge maintenance, including for the Aboyne, Dinnet and Banff bridges. I have been told that the repair costs are in the millions of pounds, which is just not sustainable. Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks has proposed a megapylon pathway in the north-east, which will also affect our roads. Heavy machinery and lorries will do enormous damage to ageing road assets. Who is going to cover the bill? Who is actually thinking about that?
Storms and heavy rainfall will only make matters worse, and will lead to further deterioration in the condition of the roads. The road at Marykirk completely fell away in storm Babet, and that took several months to fix. The road between Marykirk and Montrose and the bridge between St Cyrus and Montrose were out for months.
The SNP Government says that it is up to local authorities to decide how to spend their budgets, but they cannot be expected to do more with less. How far can we stretch an elastic band? The massive backlog in road repairs could cost billions to remedy, and motorists, motorcyclists and cyclists are paying the price of the SNP’s contempt for drivers.
Although funding is a huge problem, we also need to look at the process for repairing potholes. A quick patch might be cost effective, but it is not long lasting.
Finally, response times after a pothole is reported are also key. It can take days, months and sometimes years for the necessary repairs to be completed, which means that drivers must swerve or go slow to avoid them. Such changes in driver behaviour cause accidents. With lives at risk, councils must have the resources to properly repair roads.
13:40
I commend Pam Gosal for bringing this important issue to the chamber. It is an issue across the UK, and the research from the RAC that is cited in Pam Gosal’s motion is about roads across the UK. All the parties that have contributed so far in this debate have been in power in one form or another in different parts of the UK. This is a collective issue, and here is an MSP from the SNP on their feet speaking about motorists, which I hope gives some reassurance.
I want to speak about urban roads, given that I represent Edinburgh Northern and Leith, which is the most densely populated urban area of Scotland. In the Parliament, there is rightly much discussion about our national roads—our important A roads and motorways. Urban roads are primarily the responsibility of local authorities, and others have spoken about rural roads. However, it is important that, in representing our constituencies, we are able to talk about the issues for motorists in our area. For example, Lower Granton Road, which goes along Wardie bay in my constituency, handles more traffic in a year than the A9 does, and I have argued to the council that I should be able to advocate on behalf of my constituents for appropriate investment in that area. The issue in our capital city is of relevance to the Scottish Government as well, even though it is not fully responsible for it.
The challenge of the quality, maintenance and integrity of our urban roads is a challenge across the UK. As highlighted in the motion, the challenge of potholes is partly about repair. The reason that potholes occur is partly to do with the weather, but a lot of the time it is because the integrity of the road has been weakened by utility companies doing the various works that they need to do.
After the financial crisis, the Conservative Cameron Government considered whether to create a duty on energy and other utility companies across the UK to better co-ordinate their works. The then UK Government backed away from that idea because utility companies opposed it and said that they would simply pass on the cost to consumers. Of course, during the financial crisis, people were impacted by the recession, as they are now with the cost of living crisis.
The carrying out of utility works is the main reason why we get potholes in urban Scotland. My constituents regularly write to me because they are sick of seeing roads, including roads near this Parliament, dug up one month by one company, dug up the next month by another and then dug up a few months later by another company. That causes inconvenience for drivers and it weakens the road.
I completely agree about the utility companies—they are probably not doing the repairs that they are meant to do after their work. When I was a councillor, one big issue was that there were not enough road inspectors to inspect the works after the utility companies had done what they wanted to do. Stripping back on the number of inspectors almost felt like a false economy. Does Ben Macpherson agree that we should maintain that role as much as possible to ensure that utility companies fix the roads properly once they have done their work?
Ben Macpherson, I can give you the time back.
That is an important point. There is a general duty to co-ordinate road works, as set out in section 118 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, the Scottish road works commissioner has been given more powers to issue a compliance notice if they think that there is a breach of that general duty.
However—and I say this to be constructive for the Government, as the issue is UK-wide, particularly because many utility companies are regulated by reserved legislation—until we get on top of the co-ordination issue, we will really struggle and will always be patching our roads. We want to get to a position where, as in other countries, utility companies that want to do works must do those together and where there is a duty on them to relay the whole road, so that its integrity is maintained.
Lastly, and luckily—and I will send this information to the minister, in case it is helpful—Scotland has a software company called ProceMX, which manages the co-ordination of utility works in New York City. This summer, I met the chief executive officer—I think that is the correct title—Iain Ritchie. That company already has the software, but we need politics, leadership, permits and penalties, because utility companies do not want to co-ordinate as that is inconvenient for them. If we can pull together some engagement with that Scottish company and some collective determination, perhaps we can get to a better position with fewer potholes to repair in future.
13:46
I congratulate Pam Gosal on lodging the motion and on her excellent speech in opening today’s debate. Moray Council, like many others, suffers from potholes in our roads. I know that the council always seeks to fill those as quickly as possible but, as one is filled, another is created.
I will pick up on Ben Macpherson’s point about utility companies, because I had complaints last month about the number of roadworks across the Moray area. I contacted the council to ask how many roadworks incidents had occurred in Moray this year and was told that, from 1 January to 14 November this year, when the council responded to me, almost 5,000 roadworks had been registered with the council. Of those 5,000, 3,500 were caused by work done by utility companies and, although that work is needed, it causes disruption to local roads. A further 1,350 were local council works, causing a huge amount of disruption for travellers in the area. We need more joined-up working by utility companies and councils to minimise disruption for our constituents.
Other members have mentioned trunk roads. I am keen to get on the right side of the Deputy Presiding Officer and note that a line in the motion shows that the debate is not only about potholes, so I will spend the rest of my time today talking about the A96 and particularly about issues at the Union bridge in Keith. I mean absolutely no disrespect to the minister, but I had hoped that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport would be responding to this transport debate. I do mean no disrespect to the minister, but we know that Fiona Hyslop was in the chamber for First Minister’s questions and then left before this debate. My points are for the cabinet secretary, and I hope that the minister will pass them on.
I have raised the issue of traffic lights on the A96, which is the trunk road between Inverness and Aberdeen. They have caused huge disruption for constituents and businesses in Keith. I asked Fiona Hyslop to come to Keith to hear the concerns of local businesses, but she refused. Perhaps that was personal and she just did not want to accept my invitation, but last night I was copied into an email by Linda Gorn, the chair of the United Keith group, who had written to Fiona Hyslop in similar terms, asking her to come to Keith to see the impact that roadworks are having on the area.
Linda Gorn sent that letter on 22 October and she finally got a response on 18 December. That did not come from Fiona Hyslop, despite the letter being sent to her. It came from her permanent secretary, a civil servant who took two months to respond and whose response was that Fiona Hyslop is too busy and that diary pressures mean that she cannot come to the north of Scotland to hear about those impacts. That is not acceptable and I am urging in this debate, as I will in a follow-up letter, that Fiona Hyslop should finally get out of the central belt, come to Moray, visit Keith and see the impact on the area.
I cannot answer the individual point that the member made about Keith, but I would strongly and strenuously defend Fiona Hyslop’s responsibility and her actions in getting around the country. She has been all over Scotland to look into many transport issues, and I do not think that the member represented her properly in that last statement.
I add that, although Mr Ross has attempted to address the fact that I might have concerns about relevance, those concerns are growing. The motion is largely about potholes, so, Mr Ross, if you could use your creativity to link what you are saying to the substance of the motion, that would be helpful. I can give you the time back.
I will make that link, because another line in the motion is that the Scottish Government has
“to take meaningful action to repair Scotland’s roads”,
which include the A96 at the Union bridge in Keith.
On the point that the minister has just made, I believe that I am backed up by facts. I lodged a written parliamentary question to Fiona Hyslop asking when she last travelled on the A96, and the response showed that it was more than six months ago. I think that the time has come for her to travel on the A96 again and to come to Keith to visit those businesses.
Today, after the debate, I will present to the minister the petition in my hand, which has been signed by more than 350 local people and businesses, that urges urgent action on that road to get the repairs completed and the traffic lights removed. People are avoiding the area, and there is a concern that the situation is costing businesses in Keith £50,000 to £60,000 every month. That needs the urgent attention of Amey as the operating company, but it also has to be taken on board by the Government. On behalf of local people, I will present this petition to the minister, and I hope that he will hand it on to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport later today.
Once again, I urge Fiona Hyslop to come and meet the people of Keith who are suffering because of those on-going works.
I remind members about the use of props. You might have got away with it once, Mr Ross, but waving it for a second time was probably stretching it.
I call on the minister to wind up the debate.
13:51
In the spirit of the season of good will, Presiding Officer, I very much wish a merry and peaceful Christmas and a happy and healthy new year to you and your family. I also put on record my sincere thanks to all the people in this place who get things done, make this place work and allow us—who are absolutely privileged to be here to represent our constituents—to get on with the job that we are here to do. I extend that to everyone.
I thank Pam Gosal for bringing this important debate to the chamber—and it is indeed an important debate. The facts that she mentioned about one of her constituents outline why it is important, and I would in no way minimise that in my contribution.
I make it clear that we absolutely appreciate that road maintenance for both trunk and local roads faces challenges across the network. We acknowledge the importance of safe, well-performing roads; indeed, they are absolutely essential, not just to the health of our people, but to the health of Scotland’s economy.
As members are aware, Scottish ministers are responsible for the management and maintenance of the strategic trunk road network, while, in accordance with the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, local roads clearly fall under the responsibility of the relevant local authority. I know that members do not like to hear that, but those are the facts. It is important to make that distinction, because only the funding for the maintenance of the trunk road network, which makes up around 6 per cent of Scotland’s overall road network, is directly controlled by the Scottish Government.
The vast majority of funding to local authorities from the Scottish Government is provided via the block grant. We do not stipulate how local authorities should utilise their individual allocations, nor do I think that any member on any side of the chamber would be comfortable with the Scottish Government doing so. As I have said, the vast majority of local authority funding comes from the block grant, and it is the responsibility of each local authority to manage its own budget and to allocate the financial resources that are available to it on the basis of local needs and priorities, having first fulfilled its statutory obligations and the jointly agreed set of national and local priorities.
With regard to the maintenance of our trunk road network, the operating companies that maintain the trunk road network on behalf of the Scottish Government have a contractual obligation to inspect the network at least weekly and to make any necessary repairs within a strict timescale. The Scottish Government fully funds the inspection and repair of all serious defects that could present a hazard to road users on the motorway and trunk road network.
To support that work, we have increased total investment in the safety, operation and maintenance of the trunk road network by more than 30 per cent, to a record level of more than £683 million in 2024-25, and in 2025-26, that is planned to increase by a further 4.5 per cent to more than £714 million. The increased budget for the trunk road network’s safety, adaptation, operation and maintenance enables the Scottish Government to meet all of its contractual and legal commitments, as well as supporting its wider commitments on road safety, air quality and climate adaptation.
As I stated earlier, local road maintenance is the responsibility of local authorities, which allocate resources based on their priorities. The Scottish Government is providing more than £15 billion in 2025-26 to the local government settlement; that is a £1 billion increase in the resources available to local government, which is equivalent to a 7.2 per cent cash-terms increase and a 4.7 per cent increase in real terms. Indeed, the independent Accounts Commission recently confirmed that the Scottish Government provided a real-terms increase to local governments in 2023-24 and 2022-23.
Again, I emphasise that it is for the local representatives to decide how to best deliver for their communities. There is no dedicated pothole fund. It is important to note that any Barnett consequentials arising from Westminster spending are added to the Scottish block grant as a whole, and Scottish ministers will decide how best to allocate those resources. As part of that process, consideration is given to what support can be provided to help improve road conditions where required.
I would be grateful if the minister would address the issues raised by Ben Macpherson and Douglas Ross about what is weakening the integrity of our roads. I would also raise with him the point that I raised with Pam Gosal. Given that the impact of the increased use of electric vehicles is only going to make the problem worse, does he expect that we will have to continue to increase the amount of money that we are spending on road repairs as a result?
I take on board the points that Stephen Kerr made. I was interested to hear the points that Ben Macpherson made, too, and I look forward to hearing about ProceMX and what it does. I am more than happy to engage on that matter.
The point about the utility companies is correct. In my constituency, gas, electricity and telephone communications works were being done at different times, all of which reduced the integrity of the road. There needs to be a conversation about what can be done to ensure that such works do not damage the integrity of the road and that there is a responsibility to repair those roads to the standard that they should be in.
I am grateful to the minister for taking my intervention and for the points that he has just made. If the minister and the Scottish Government can use their convening power together with the commissioner and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and if improvements can be made as a result, that would be warmly welcomed by all representatives and all the citizens of Scotland.
I take that on board. I will write to the member and we can have a conversation about next steps.
We have a long history of working with local authorities and bodies such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that council finances are sustainable and that resources are available to meet their commitments. However, this is not just about money; Ben Macpherson and others were absolutely correct to highlight that this is about whether we are doing the right thing at the right time. Let us have a conversation about what that looks like.
The Scottish Government will always seek to ensure that Scotland continues to receive the high-quality public services that we all expect, but I have to say—[Interruption.] No, I am going to keep the politics out of it. It is the season of good will, so I will leave it there.
I conclude by saying that I take the points on board that have been made by Pam Gosal and other members of the chamber, and I am more than happy to have a conversation with Ben Macpherson. I thank Carol Mochan and everybody else for spending time on the last day of term—just before Christmas—taking part in this very good and constructive debate, and I wish everyone a happy festive season.
Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate. I, too, congratulate all those who have shown the stamina to make it all the way through to the final debate of 2024.
I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy and healthy 2025. With that, I close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 13:59.Air ais
Decision Time