Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Angela Rayner

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement and the Government’s response to the phase 2 report?

I echo the Deputy Prime Minister’s sentiments, which are shared across the House. The tragedy of Grenfell, which claimed 72 innocent lives—54 adults and 18 children—will always remain a scar on our national conscience. I thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his team for their work. I join the Deputy Prime Minister in offering my deepest apologies to the bereaved, the survivors and the Grenfell community for the failures that led to that horrific night in June 2017—we all remember where we were that night. I also thank them for their constant and constructive campaigning.

The inquiry’s findings—decades of systemic failure, dishonesty and negligence—are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and industry. The Government’s response, with its acceptance of all 58 recommendations, is a step forward, and I welcome the commitment to action. The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one Department are long overdue reforms. So too is the focus on professionalising fire engineers and reforming the construction products sector, which the inquiry exposed as riddled with systemic dishonesty from firms such as Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex.

The Green Paper on construction products reform is a promising start, but it must deliver real accountability. Unlimited fines and prison sentences for rogue executives and, where appropriate, Government officials, cannot remain mere rhetoric. Ambition must be matched by urgency and scrutiny. Nearly eight years have passed since Grenfell, yet thousands still live in buildings with unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects. Although I welcome the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has accepted the majority of the recommendations, why has she not accepted the inquiry’s recommendation for a single regulator to oversee the testing and certification of construction products, leaving that instead with conformity assessment bodies? I remind her that the Building Research Establishment, which is itself a conformity assessment body, was strongly criticised for its conflicts of interest.

The remediation acceleration plan is welcome, but its targets of assessing all buildings by July 2025 and completing works by 2027 relies heavily on developers stepping up voluntarily. What actions will the Deputy Prime Minister take if they do not comply? Will she work to deliver solutions for non-qualifying leaseholders and those at risk as a consequence of other fire safety defects? This House needs concrete assurances that no resident will be left behind. I question the phased approach to implementation stretching beyond 2028. Justice delayed is justice denied. The Grenfell community has waited long enough for change. Why must they potentially wait another parliamentary term for full delivery?

What discussions has the Leader of the House had with parliamentary colleagues on the establishment of a public inquiries Joint Committee to monitor the implementation of public inquiry recommendations? What is the timetable for the new publicly available record on all public inquiry recommendations since 2024? On social housing, the extension of Awaab’s law and new standards are positive, but the Government must go further to address the inquiry’s wider lesson. Residents’ voices were ignored. Tenant empowerment must be more than a panel or a campaign; it needs legal teeth to ensure landlords act on concerns swiftly.

Justice demands accountability. The Metropolitan police investigation has our full support, but the pace must quicken. Those who profited from cutting comers or were criminally negligent must face consequences—not just fines but criminal charges where evidence allows. Grenfell must be a watershed—a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. I make our clear commitment to work with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government, on a cross-party basis, to meet that promise.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his comments and the way in which he makes them. I hope genuinely that we can work together to continue this piece of work. I recognised in my statement the work of the previous Government, through the Building Safety Act and other measures, and we will continue to work in that vein.

I hope that the shadow Secretary of State recognises some of the work that we are already doing. We have brought forward a significant amount of legislation on social tenancy, on empowering tenants through the Renters’ Rights Bill, on protecting leaseholders, and on our remediation acceleration plan. The Government will deliver those legislative changes as soon as parliamentary time allows. The legislation commitments are detailed in the plan. That includes creating certainty on buildings that need remediation and on who is responsible for remediating them; making obligations for assessing and completing regulation remediation clearer, with severe consequences for non-compliance; and giving residents greater control in situations of acute harm where landlords have neglected their responsibilities.

The shadow Secretary of State asks about a single construction regulator. We accepted that recommendation in principle, but the single regulator will deliver the functions recommended by the inquiry, with two exceptions to avoid conflicts of interest: setting the rules for construction products and policing its own compliance. We will consult on the design of the regulator in the autumn.

English Devolution and Local Government

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Angela Rayner

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for giving me advance sight of it.

Although we support the principle of devolving power to local areas, we are totally against the Secretary of State’s plans to abolish every county council and district council in England, and we are against the unprecedented mass postponement of local elections for at least one year. Today is a very worrying day for democracy in this country.

The Secretary of State is making local government less accountable to the people and more accountable to her. Contrary to her statement, she is not doing away with a two-tier system; she is simply creating a new tier of Orwellian-sounding strategic authorities that are closer to her and closer to Whitehall, for her to use as a pawn to implement this Government’s deeply unpopular socialist agenda.

The reality is that this is delegation, not devolution—not devolution but a clear centralisation. As Dr Andy Mycock of Leeds University set out in his recent paper on the Secretary of State’s plans, there are clear concerns about the potential

“power drain of back-bench local councillors if local government is seen increasingly as a delivery agent.”

Let us be clear that this announcement is a huge upheaval of local government right across the country. This was not a Government manifesto commitment, and the Secretary of State has no mandate for it. These are her choices, and she has put a gun to the head of local councils to force them into a decision with little regard for local people. This is not the invitation she claims in her statement; it is an instruction. No council should be bullied or blackmailed into local government restructuring.

Local government should be local to residents and respect local identities. We have a proud record of supporting devolution and, rather than this top-down approach, we have worked with local people to deliver devolution from the ground up. The Government have tried to claim that they are taking a bottom-up approach—indeed, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution said exactly that on the Floor of the House on 20 January—yet the Secretary of State admits in her statement that

“all two-tier areas should be making plans to move to simpler structures”.

Imposing Whitehall diktat on local people, rather than the locally led approach we followed, is prone to problems, especially when rushed.

How exactly will this restructuring put more money into people’s pockets, as the Secretary of State claims? What evidence does she have that it will mean lower bills for taxpayers? How is this consistent with the Prime Minister’s claim in March 2023 that council tax would not increase by a “single penny” under a Labour Government?

Does the Secretary of State accept that she has no electoral mandate for this huge upheaval? Does she also accept that these changes, which will mean that every single council employee in two-tier areas has to reapply for their job, will have an impact on local services, including planning delays? How will this impact on her plans to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament—a 50% increase on the 50-year record levels delivered by the previous Government?

Councils in areas of the country included in this announcement are carrying very high levels of debt—Woking and Thurrock, to name but two. What support will the Secretary of State give to authorities facing eye-watering levels of debt, and will this debt be written off? What is she doing to ensure that, as a result of today’s announcement, authorities do not embark on reckless asset disposal programmes and spending sprees? Can she confirm that elections will be delayed for a maximum of a year, or is it the case, as we have heard, that elections could be delayed by up to three years?

[Angela Rayner]

I have been very clear that Labour is embarking on a once-in-a-generation project to unlock growth in our regions, and to shift power out of Westminster and into local communities. From the shadow Secretary of State’s response, I cannot quite figure out whether the Conservatives agree or disagree with it.

First, this project will unlock billions of pounds to spend on frontline services, which is why councils have come forward and want to work with us to ensure that we deliver. It will be for local areas to decide whether they apply to the priority programme and respond to the statutory invitation to all two-tier areas. We have made no bones about the fact that we want to see reorganisation so that money and funding go into the public services that need it most.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman talks about money. We have put £69 billion into local authorities, which is a 6.8% real-terms increase. In contrast, there were 23% cuts in the last decade under the Conservatives. He talks about council debt, but it was his Government who pushed councils to the brink. He talks about the impact on local services, and we are working with councils to inject the money and resources they need so that they can deliver for local people. It was his Government who brought them to the brink.

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about housing targets, because his Government failed to meet their housing targets every single year, leaving us with a housing crisis. He should be apologising for his Government’s record on housing.

We are proud of the work we are doing on devolution. We are proud that we are working with councils. We are proud that we are bigging up the work of our local authorities and, unlike the Conservatives, we will continue to support them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Angela Rayner

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The increase in housing delivery that the Secretary of State is committed to requires a 50% uplift across the board in housing numbers, yet according to the House of Commons Library, urban and major conurbations have seen an increase of 17% while mainly rural areas are seeing an average increase of 115%. How is that fair?

[Angela Rayner]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that our mandatory housing targets were based on affordability and were introduced to ensure that people are able to get the houses they desperately need. His Government removed the mandatory housing targets, we saw speculative development, and they failed, year on year, to deliver the housing that this country desperately needs. We are going to deliver the houses where they failed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that everyone should be treated equally and be seen to be treated equally before the law, including planning law?

[Angela Rayner]

I do not know where the shadow Secretary of State is going with this, but yes, I think people should be treated equally.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Great. Why, then, is it that the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all intervened in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy, overriding the wishes and concerns of local residents, the local planning authority, the Metropolitan police, the security services and, most likely, the incoming US President?

[Angela Rayner]

These are live issues, but the security of our country and nation always comes foremost, and that is always what this Government think of first.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Angela Rayner

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

At whose request did the Secretary of State call in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy?

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Despite him being on the Opposition Benches, we seem to have a lot in common: we both came to Parliament in the 2015 intake, represent constituencies in the north and think the Tories deserved to lose the last general election. We take planning decisions in the normal way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I used to have ginger hair as well! May I give the right hon. Lady the answer to my question? It was the Foreign Secretary. In opposition, the now Home Secretary warned that the Chinese Government are “attempting to influence Parliament”, and trying

“to interfere in our democracy and undermine our security.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 667.]

Those risks are all heightened by this development. Are this Government so desperate to counteract the disastrous Budget and their own growth-wrecking trade union Bill that they are now willing to override national security, national interests and the sensible concerns of their Home Secretary by kowtowing to the Chinese Government?

[Angela Rayner]

We have got record investment into the UK through our international business summit. I am proud of our Employment Rights Bill, which is pro-worker and pro-employer. It will reward good employers and put money back into the high street. This Government take national security very seriously and will continue to do so.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Angela Rayner

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make some progress.

We clearly want to resolve these disputes, but we must do it in an affordable way. An inflation-matching pay increase of 11% for all public sector workers would cost £28 billion, which would put just under £1,000 on to the bills of every household in all our constituencies. That is on top of the Opposition’s spending plans, which would add £50 billion of recurrent costs annually on to our economy, where we are already running a £175 billion deficit. As we have seen in recent months, we cannot take the market for granted, so that level of borrowing is absolutely unsustainable.

The disputes are already costing our economy and threatening businesses and livelihoods. The estimated cost to the economy so far is £6 billion, including £2.5 billion to the already challenged hospitality sector. I will conclude my comments there. I am happy to hear contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I will listen with interest and look forward to responding later.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I continue to be a proud trade unionist and I am proud to represent my constituents in the Chamber when I speak today.

We are in an absurd situation: we are back to debate the Conservatives’ sacking nurses Bill—[Interruption.]— not just nurses, but millions of other key workers. The Bill is controversial and divisive, and as irrational as it is impractical. It is strongly condemned by all Opposition parties.

Some 110 amendments and new clauses have been selected for consideration today, including more than 35 tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team. Given that we have had just a few days to draft and table them, that is quite some feat. We will have only five hours to debate those amendments, however, with no reasonable timetable; there would have been more if we had had that. We have had no line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and we are unable to hear any evidence. The Government have simply prevented the House from doing its job, so it will be left to the other place to scrutinise the legislation properly, which should be a major concern to us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think we all have an interest in ensuring that we have good, valuable public services. Like our other key workers, firefighters put in place local agreements to ensure that services continue if life is at risk or there are major incidents. There is not a single firefighter who would not attend a major incident. These are our brave heroes who run towards danger when the rest of us run away. There are also already legal obligations on fire services to provide contingency plans for strike days, dating back to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Yet again, we have a Government fixated on creating a problem and trying to fix a problem that does not actually exist, instead of dealing with the problem that they have created—penalising and causing great hardship for our key workers, such as the firemen and women who protect our lives every single day.

Can the Minister promise that we will get separate assessments of the impacts of this legislation on all six of the sectors named? Can he guarantee that there will not be any impact on workforce numbers? Can he guarantee that work notices will not put undue burdens on overworked, under-resourced employers? Can he guarantee that equalities law will be upheld and that these new measures will not be used to discriminate against workers with protected characteristics? I fear we already know the answer to that question.

That brings me to our biggest concern with this Bill: the “sacking key workers” clause—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Nonsense.

[Angela Rayner]

I gave the Minister the opportunity to back our amendment. I give him the opportunity to intervene now and say that he will back the amendment and that he does not want to sack those nurses or key workers, as is set out in the current Government proposal. I will happily stop again and allow the Minister to confirm that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated dissent.

[Angela Rayner]

No. Thought not. The “sacking key workers” clause will give the Secretary of State the power to threaten every nurse, firefighter, health worker, rail worker or paramedic with the sack—on his whim. These are the workers who got us through the pandemic; the workers who run towards the danger as the rest of us run away; the workers who have been pushed to exhaustion by austerity. And how does the Secretary of State pay them back—by ripping up their protections against unfair dismissal, with no regard for our NHS, schools, or transport lines that cannot cope with mass sackings. How can he seriously think that sacking thousands of key workers will not just plunge our public services further into crisis?

One hundred and thirty-three thousand and four hundred—that is the latest vacancy number in our NHS. One thousand six hundred—that is the latest number of teaching vacancies. One hundred and twenty thousand—that is the number of new vacancies that City & Guilds estimates the rail sector will see in the next five years. We all know that we have a national staffing recruitment and retention crisis and that business groups from the Confederation of British Industry to the British Chambers of Commerce are crying out for vacancies to be filled. How is this a rational and proportionate response? Labour Members are not the only ones asking that question. Has the Secretary of State listened to the right hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) who said earlier this month:

“I will vote against this shameful Bill…It does nothing to stop strikes—but individual NHS Staff, teachers & workers can be targeted & sacked if they don’t betray their mates.”

The right hon. Gentleman understands the Bill, but the Minister clearly does not understand his own Bill. I know that many Conservative Members will share the feelings of the right hon. Member for Stevenage, and that they will be uncomfortable with this awful attack on individuals and with taking away workers’ basic freedoms and removing hard-won basic rights and protections.

Economic Crime: Law Enforcement

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Angela Rayner

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This has been an excellent debate. I thank all Members across the House for supporting the application for the debate and for their contributions, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I have learned an awful lot in addition to what I know from having looked at this issue for some time. “Coalitions” is perhaps a bit of a dirty word in the Conservative party, but I am a big fan of them, actually. I invite everyone who has spoken in the debate and anybody else interested in this issue to work with our all-party groups on this agenda, because we are not going away—we will make sure that future legislation is fit for purpose.

It is fair to say that, for whatever reason, we have turned a blind eye to this issue for too long. Ukraine has been an eye-opener because we have suddenly realised what it means and facilitates. I welcome the economic crime Bill mark 1, but mark 2 is coming along, with the reforms that will come from it. I urge the Government to look at the economic crime manifesto and include what they can in there, and also make provision in other areas, particularly on failure to prevent, whistleblowers, and beefing up, co-ordinating and strategising our resources.

It is great to see so much cross-party agreement on this. With all the work of the Justice Committee, the Treasury Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and our all-party groups, it involves MPs and peers across the political spectrum. It is time we opened our eyes. We have been a world leader in facilitating economic crime; we now want to be a world leader in fighting economic crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

“That this House notes that economic crime costs the UK economy at least £290 billion per year; recognises that law enforcement agencies are significantly under-resourced to deal with the scale of the problem and can be unwilling to properly enforce existing laws; is concerned at the fragmented nature of the enforcement landscape; and calls on the Government to bring forward an economic crime enforcement strategy that allows for a significant increase in resource to expand and restructure the fight against economic crime, including money laundering and fraud.”

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that I have informed the Minister concerned. I hope you will be able to advise me on how to shed light on a series of confused and potentially misleading comments made by the Prime Minister and his Minister regarding Alexander Lebedev. During his appearance at the Liaison Committee yesterday, referring to a meeting in April 2018 in which he met Alexander Lebedev, the Prime Minister stated:

“I have certainly met him without officials.”

This is a significant revelation and something no Government Minister has ever commented on under questioning. But during the urgent question earlier today, the Minister appeared to contradict the Prime Minister’s claim that officials were not involved, saying that the Prime Minister did involve his officials. Later in the session, she received word from the Prime Minister that he thinks he told officials. We must get to the facts.

This is not just a question of integrity but demonstrates a complete disregard for British national security. What action can be taken from the Chair or by Members of the House to ensure that Ministers keep their promises to us, to the Crown and to the British people to allow us to get to the facts of this whole murky business?

Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Angela Rayner

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I absolutely agree. All our nations and regions —the whole of Great Britain—have to come together, because this virus is a challenge for us all. We cannot treat people in different parts of the country and in our nations disproportionately and disgracefully.

In Greater Manchester, we were promised a powerhouse, but what we have at the moment is a power grab. Even here in London, just this week, the Government have threatened to seize control of the tube. We now have a Prime Minister so determined to punish a Labour Mayor that he wants to whack a transport tax on his own constituents, yet the Government still refuse to take the decisive national action that is needed. Instead, they have tried to play people off against each other—divide and misrule.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s aunt.

Will the hon. Lady she be straight and honest with British citizens when she talks about a national lockdown? Is it not the reality that the SAGE paper says that it might take multiple circuit breakers to keep this virus at low levels? Will she be clear about the impact that that would have on jobs and businesses in this country?

Higher Education (England) Regulations

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Angela Rayner

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), and it was an even greater pleasure to listen to the fine maiden speech from the new hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill). She spoke of some touching and superb family values, which we all look for in our families. Her parents, whom she spoke of, must be very proud of her performance in the House today. I welcome her to the Chamber.

There are many spending commitments that we might wish for, and free tuition would be a wonderful commitment if we could afford to make it. That would be wonderful for me, because I have four children, all of whom may at some point enter the realms of higher education. But there are many other competing pressures, such as the pension system, the police forces, our armed forces, help for disabled people, the NHS and public sector pay. During the general election campaign when I talked to voters on the doorstep about some of the Opposition’s spending promises, the key question that I was asked many times was, “How are they going to pay for it?” The reality is that if students do not pay for tuition, the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill.

Of course, the Opposition will say that they have a fully costed manifesto to deal with the problem, but it is right that we look at the detail of that manifesto. [Interruption.] I am very happy to take an intervention if Labour Members would like me to. The reality is that there was £250 billion of extra spending commitments in that manifesto, on top of the fact that this country already spends about £50 billion a year more than it receives in taxes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that there was a £45 billion hole in Labour’s extra spending commitments, which included £125 billion in extra infrastructure spending, roughly £125 billion to nationalise our utilities and railways, and £100 billion to wipe off past student tuition fees—that was a commitment, whether or not it was a manifesto promise.

The reality is that spending commitments can only be made in a strategic way. We cannot simply use cheap party politics and a short-term, kneejerk approach to funding the finances of this country.

[Angela Rayner]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he actually read our manifesto and looked at our costings, and where in his party’s manifesto the DUP deal was?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are talking about tuition fees, on which the Leader of the Opposition made a clear commitment to deal with past debt as well as future fees. The reality is that we have to find the money to pay for the commitments that we make, and there was a huge gaping hole in the funding for the Opposition’s commitments. Such a gaping hole was why this country ended up £1.7 trillion in debt, and the Conservative party had to deal with inheriting a £153 billion deficit on the back of uncosted spending commitments. Of the 13 years for which Labour was in power, it did not balance the books in nine of them. Its public spending was greater than its tax receipts. We need an end to this short-term party politicking and gesture politics. We need properly costed manifestos and properly costed public spending. We simply cannot wipe out tuition fees without finding the money to pay for it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chair of the Education Committee, made some good points about how we should look at reforming tuition fees by making sure that they are performance-related so that universities are held to account for providing a good education that provides a return on investment for students. We also need a more flexible approach so that students can have lower debt by taking modular courses, for example.

School Funding

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Angela Rayner

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the reason the debate has been over-subscribed is that many hon. Members from both sides of the House have realised that the national funding formula and the cuts faced by our schools are taking them over the edge and building a crisis in our school system.

The Conservative party’s promise was not to spend more on schools; it was to spend more on each pupil, in real terms. Yet the Government will cut per-pupil spending. Under Labour Governments, education spending increased by 4.7% per year. The fact of the matter is quite simple: the Secretary of State and her party entered government on a manifesto that pledged to protect per-pupil funding. That promise is being broken.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I have noticed over the past two years that the Opposition seem to have an awful lot of money to spend, and the hon. Lady is obviously suggesting spending more. Does she accept the analysis performed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies of the Labour and Conservative manifestos, which effectively said that the two parties’ commitments to investment in education came to exactly the same figure?

[Angela Rayner]

The difference between the Labour and Conservative manifestos is that when Labour was in power, in 1997, 2001 and 2005, our manifesto pledged to increase spending on education, and we delivered on that. It is the Conservative Government who are not delivering on their promises. Government Members should hold them to account.

Instead of proper funding for our schools and investment in our future, we have seen years of regressive tax giveaways to the wealthiest, and now the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have threatened to turn Britain into an offshore tax haven for billionaires—a bargain- basement economy that loses billions of pounds in tax revenues each and every year. The Government are faced with choices, and time and again they make the wrong decision.

I know that every Member, on both sides of the House, will want every child in their constituency and in our country to get the best possible start in life, but if the Government do not change their course, that simply will not be possible. So today is the chance for the Secretary of State to tell us whether she will keep her manifesto pledge and commit to provide the real-term increase in school budgets that was promised. If she will not, I call on all Members of the House to send a clear message today: that we will accept nothing but the best possible start in life for every child in our country.