Jerome Mayhew

I had hoped the hon. Gentleman and I got on better than that, but I am grateful for the question. Everyone in this Chamber can point at potholes and say that more needs to be done, and we would all be correct. We have far too many potholes, and we need to build, repair and improve our network over time. I accept that it will not just be by voting Conservative that we reduce potholes overall. There is a question of prioritisation of funding, and that applies under both Labour and the Conservatives. How funding is provided is also important. The overall amount of funding for the repair of potholes is obviously crucial, but how it is provided in the long term is essential for local authorities to schedule their repairs. Long-term funding would increase their efficiency. it would not be the stop-start feast or famine that we hear so much about at the moment. Local authorities could also increase the number of potholes being repaired for the amount of money spent. It was for exactly this reason that the last Conservative Government committed to a 10-year £8.3 billion investment for the repair of potholes. That long-term approach made an enormous difference. The RAC welcomed the news and said that the plans would “give councils certainty of funding”, allowing them to “plan proper long-term maintenance”. The Asphalt Industry Alliance—I am sure you read about them often, Madam Deputy Speaker—said that there is a consensus among local authorities that “guaranteed long-term funding helps increase efficiency and provide a more resilient road network”. It said that “security of funding helps authorities to plan with more confidence and drive greater cost and environmental efficiencies through the promotion of proactive asset management techniques.” The point is that long-term, predictable funding increases the number of repairs undertaken and reduces the cost we have to pay for it.