I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, the productivity gap is core to levelling up.
Speaking of gaps, I have to declare an interest before moving on to the next important section of my speech: I am a councillor. The next section includes the perennial election-winning issue of potholes. The Chancellor has announced additional funding—£2.5 billion over the next five years—to fill millions of potholes across the country, which will make a huge difference for the many
people who spend hours each week travelling on poorly maintained roads. That will speed up journey times, reduce vehicle damage and make our roads safer.
The Government are investing record amounts in improving and expanding our transport infrastructure—triple the average of the past 60 years. The Chancellor has announced £640 billion of capital investment in roads, railways, communications, schools, hospitals and power networks over this Parliament. I know that many of my colleagues will join me in welcoming this investment not just for the large national infrastructure projects, but for local roads, regional railways and urban transport. We will be increasing bus journeys. We will be reducing the cost of transport for young people, workers and those in retirement. We will have a modern and well-maintained road network.
I am a big fan of this Budget, as Members have probably noticed, but there is one piece that I was surprised to see in there. It is my single criticism of the Budget, so please bear with me. The small print of the supporting documents for the Budget contained an allocation of £94.6 million for a housing infrastructure bid to build 5,000 homes east of the M1 in Milton Keynes. That housing infrastructure bid is an indicative commitment to fund, subject to continuing local commitment, which is how the bidding process works for housing infrastructure fund bids. “A continuing local commitment” is news to me. Anyone who looked at my postbag and my inbox would not find a continuing local commitment; they would find quite the opposite.
That is not to say that people in my constituency are anti-growth. Far from it: Milton Keynes is a growing place. It is growing because it is a great place in which to live and work, in which to grow a family and grow a business. However, we must have the right houses in the right place at the right time. There is a balance to be struck. We need to get this right. We have a choice between growing local jobs and becoming a dormitory. If we get the right houses in the right place at the right time, we will incentivise pure economic growth—local, productive growth—but if we get it wrong and build too many houses, Milton Keynes will be cursed by the very benefit of being only 32 minutes away from London on the train. If we build too many houses too quickly we will become a dormitory for jobs elsewhere, and that is not what we need.