Ms Marie Rimmer
MP for St Helens South and Whiston · Labour · United Kingdom
“I was thinking to myself about coming to this debate and what is going on in the world now. I was thinking about religion and belief and why people are fighting when they should not be. Every single religion is in this book and is represented with beads on this bracelet.”
“Thirdly, because the evidence before us shows that China’s repression is becoming more systematic, more legalised, more normalised and more exportable.”
“We should condemn the persecution of Uyghurs as what it is—a genocide. We should press for transparency in administrative and criminal detention, an end to secret detention practices, proper access to lawyers and families, and due process consistent with international standards.”
“It shows how the law in China is drafted in deliberately vague terms to condemn believers, vaguely accusing them of “harming national interests”, “disrupting social order”, “resisting infiltration” or “extremism.” Such phrases are not carefully bounded legal concepts; they are instruments of selective enforcement.”
“It means that every religious tradition must first be made subordinate to the ideology, priorities and authority of the Communist party. The goal is not merely to make religion Chinese, but to ensure that religion is stripped of its independence and made to serve the party’s political project.”
“The so-called Three-Self Patriotic Movement, a state-sponsored form of Chinese Christianity, is presented by the authorities as the legitimate framework for Protestant worship. This is not simply a matter of registration; it is a matter of subordination.”
The complete record
Every one of 606 lines we hold for Ms Marie Rimmer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethno-religious persecution in China today, and as chair of the all-party group on Uyghurs, this topic is very close to my heart. Since 2016, the Xinjiang region has been transformed into one of the most heavily policed areas in the world, under a so-called counter-extremism campaign, marked by pervasive surveillance, forced interrogation and mass incarceration. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim and that non-Muslim Uyghurs are also persecuted.”
“Then, when the full weight of the justice system is brought down upon a believer, the defendant themselves becomes subject to serious procedural abuses. Lawyers are denied access to defendants, cases are shrouded in secrecy, and detainees can be isolated from family and counsel for prolonged periods, placed in legal black holes where torture and coercion become far more likely. The case of the Linfen community church tells us a great deal. It tells us that family church life can be raided; it tells us that children are not shielded from the machinery of repression; it tells us that secret detention and torture remain live concerns; and it tells us that “fraud” is being used not as an honest response to dishonesty, but as a legal fiction to criminalise churches that refuse to submit to state control.”
“It shows how the law in China is drafted in deliberately vague terms to condemn believers, vaguely accusing them of “harming national interests”, “disrupting social order”, “resisting infiltration” or “extremism.” Such phrases are not carefully bounded legal concepts; they are instruments of selective enforcement. They create uncertainty by design and allow ordinary religious life to be reclassified as a threat. As we saw with the Linfen community church, the vagueness of the rules means that donation to an unregistered church can be reframed as fraud. Similarly, a Bible study can become an illegal gathering; publishing or sharing religious materials can become an illegal business operation; and a sermon can become incitement to subversion. This is not neutral law enforcement; it is ideological criminalisation.”
“All online or in-person religious activity requires a permit from Government. No child can be given religious education. Furthermore, the sad story of the Linfen community church, which I referred to in my opening remarks, demonstrates that in China the law is always secondary to the will of the Chinese Communist party. China’s constitution appears to protect so-called normal religious activities, but in practice that protection is a joke. The same is true of China’s legal system. The party retains overriding authority over state institutions, including the courts and legislature. In other words, rights exist only to the extent that the party permits them to exist. Evidence gathered by Christian Solidarity Worldwide takes us deeper.”
“It means that every religious tradition must first be made subordinate to the ideology, priorities and authority of the Communist party. The goal is not merely to make religion Chinese, but to ensure that religion is stripped of its independence and made to serve the party’s political project. Sacred texts can be reinterpreted, clergy can be screened and managed, venues can be monitored, publications can be censored, foreign links can be severed, and anything that escapes that framework can be branded illegal, extremist, fraudulent, subversive, or labelled as a cult. Religion must not simply co-exist with the party; it must be remade in the party’s image. Recent Sinicisation policies mean that all clergy must support the leadership of the Communist party, and must be evaluated and ideologically disciplined.”
“What is taking place in China is not merely the sporadic mistreatment of a few isolated believers, nor is it the meddling of local officials. What we are seeing is the rolling out of a sophisticated system of repression, in which law, administration, surveillance, propaganda and coercion are all being weaponised to subordinate religion to the Chinese Communist party. The issue before us is not only persecution; it is the construction of an entire architecture designed to make genuine freedom of religion or belief impossible. China’s persecution of religion comes under the broad policy initiative of Sinicisation. That term is made to sound mild, as if it refers only to making religion compatible with Chinese culture, but that is not the case; instead, it is political domestication.”
“Pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were each sentenced to three years and eight months in prison and fined heavily, while church member Wang Qiang received a sentence of one year and 11 months. The community church insists that the three men had committed no crime, and that they had suffered simply because of their faith. We have all come here today because we believe that freedom of religion or belief is not a secondary liberty; it goes to the heart of human dignity. It concerns the right to hold beliefs, to change beliefs, to have no belief, to worship in public and private, to teach and to live according to conscience without fear of intimidation, criminalisation, imprisonment or torture. That is why Parliament cannot look away, and why the situation in China requires ongoing and determined scrutiny.”
“In the months that followed, pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were arrested and reportedly subjected to harsh interrogation, including sleep deprivation, humiliation and torture. Church member Wang Qiang was later detained and tortured for weeks after refusing to renounce his faith or fabricate testimony against the church leaders. It took three years for the court to process that case, but justice was nowhere to be found. Prosecutors did not accuse the pastors of violence or any threat to society—they could not. Instead, they charged them with fraud, arguing that the voluntary offerings given by members of their unregistered church were somehow illegal.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate on freedom of religion or belief in China. I would like to open with a tragic story. On a hot August day in 2022, in Shanxi, northern China, more than 100 police officers descended on a Christian family summer camp, surrounding the gathering, forcibly searching and detaining dozens of believers—over 30 adults and 40 children. The police were breaking up not a dangerous gathering or insurgency, but a family day out. The camp was organised by an unregistered church called the Linfen Covenant House Church, and was a harmless event aimed at building church community.”
“China’s believers are not asking this House to solve every problem in one debate, but they are entitled to expect a democratic legislature to tell the truth.”
“We should condemn the persecution of Uyghurs as what it is—a genocide. We should press for transparency in administrative and criminal detention, an end to secret detention practices, proper access to lawyers and families, and due process consistent with international standards. We should support international efforts to establish a robust, independent UN mechanism capable of investigating China’s serious human rights violations, including against freedom of religion or belief. We should work with international partners on targeted sanctions against those responsible for gross abuse. We should ensure that UK trade engagement does not proceed as though forced labour, religious persecution, cultural erasure and ideological criminalisation are somehow separate from the overall character of the state with which we are dealing.”
“Thirdly, because the evidence before us shows that China’s repression is becoming more systematic, more legalised, more normalised and more exportable. A model in which freedom of religion or belief is hollowed out through licensing, digital surveillance, patriotic indoctrination, vague criminal law and selective prosecution is not only a domestic tragedy for China’s believers, but a profound challenge to international human rights norms. Let me conclude with several clear points. The United Kingdom should state plainly that China’s Sinicisation programme is incompatible with genuine freedom of religion or belief. We should call for the release of prisoners of conscience who are detained on account of religion or belief, including Christian leaders, Uyghur and Hui Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and others.”
“What binds all these examples together is not a single denomination or doctrine, but the party’s insistence that no independent moral, spiritual, communal or transnational authority may exist outside its control. Why should the United Kingdom care? First, because freedom of religion or belief is universal. It is not diminished by geography, and it does not become negotiable because the offending state is economically powerful. Secondly, because the United Kingdom has long claimed a role as a defender of human rights and the international rules-based order. That claim rings hollow if, when confronted with a sophisticated system of ideological repression by a major power, we choose caution over candour.”
“While local government officials might be able to turn a blind eye to small house church gatherings, they can crack down in a flash on congregations that risk growing too large, too noticeable or too direct in their political messaging. Unregistered churches are pressured to join the state system, and refusal can trigger raids, detention and prosecution. Even the smallest acts of worship, such as organising a bible study in a home, can be labelled as illegal gatherings, leading to detention and imprisonment. When preaching is treated as a political crime, and when ordinary worship becomes a criminal offence, freedom of religion or belief is not merely restricted, but effectively denied.”
“The so-called Three-Self Patriotic Movement, a state-sponsored form of Chinese Christianity, is presented by the authorities as the legitimate framework for Protestant worship. This is not simply a matter of registration; it is a matter of subordination. In regulating the churches, the state claims the right to decide which churches may legally exist, which pastors may lawfully preach, which cameras are installed above the doors, what theology may be taught and what children may hear. Registration does not guarantee safety; even registered churches have still been raided. That shows that the issue is not merely whether a church is registered, but whether it remains sufficiently obedient to party priorities. Secondly, we see the outright repression of all those who refuse to conform to that limited model.”
“A mounting body of evidence presented in 2019 at the China tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC—the same person who chaired the Uyghur tribunal—pointed to the conclusion that Falun Gong practitioners have been the victims of a state-run programme of forced organ harvesting. It is unbelievable what went on there. It is clear now that religious persecution in China has two aspects: the careful controlling of a narrow, politicised form of religion, and the outright repression of all other expressions of that faith. We see that clearly in the systemic persecution of Chinese Christians. First, we see the careful controlling of a narrow and highly politicised form of Christianity.”
“That finding was echoed by the UK Parliament, which voted to recognise the atrocities as a genocide in April 2021. Evidence from human rights organisations describes the regulations governing Tibetan Buddhist temples, reincarnation and monastic education, including the prohibition on allowing children of compulsory school age to study scriptures in temples. Ordinary religious expression is recast as a threat to state security. Falun Gong practitioners have also faced extreme persecution, including arrests, torture and deaths in custody, with figures suggesting that more than 2,800 were arrested in 2024 alone.”
“Coercive labour transfer programmes have expanded across multiple sectors, with significant global implications for supply chains. The trajectory is now being further entrenched through new legislation, including the 2026 ethnic unity law, which promotes a single national identity, expands ideological control over religion and culture, and introduces broad penalties for behaviour that is deemed to undermine ethnic unity, effectively formalising a system that has already devastated the Uyghurs’ religious and cultural life. Thanks to many hard-working advocates —such as Rahima Mahmut, Benedict Rodgers and Lord Alton, to name a few—the Uyghur tribunal has concluded that a genocide is taking place in China, including through the sterilisation of Uyghur women.”
“Alongside that, Uyghur imams, scholars and religious leaders have been systematically targeted, with many detained in prisons for decades or dying in custody, underscoring the deliberate dismantling of religious leadership and community life. Uyghurs have been punished for everyday religious practice, including praying, fasting during Ramadan, teaching the Quran or even using traditional greetings, while mosques and shrines have been demolished and altered, children separated into state-run schools, and homes subjected to constant monitoring. At the same time, ordinary expressions of the Islamic faith have been criminalised, and the wider system of repression has expanded beyond detention into forced labour, cultural destruction and enforced assimilation.”
“I do agree, and I will come to that later. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said more than I was going to say—I thought I was saying too much. Yes, he is absolutely right, and it is dangerous for us all. The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethnoreligious persecution in China. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim, and not all Muslim Uyghurs are persecuted. Independent estimates suggest that between 1 million and 2 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been detained in camps and prisons, with many later transferred into long-term sentences.”
“I have to say that I did not hear everything that the hon. Member said, but I think we should do whatever we can to bring the issue to a head, one way or another. We cannot just leave it as it is. I urge the Government to make freedom of religion or belief in China a sustained priority in our diplomacy, multilateral engagement, sanctions policy and trade posture, because if freedom of conscience means anything, it must mean something when it is hardest to defend.”
“I am sorry that I could not hear all of his interventions to answer them. I thank them all very much, and the Minister for his responses. We will keep on at the Government. We are not going to go away. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.”
“Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who put so much effort into the cause of freedom of religion or belief, and human rights. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) speaks out very often about it. I did not know of the interest in and passion for the cause of the Uyghurs that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) has, but certainly in his speech he was well involved in capturing that. He spoke about organ harvesting and about Xinjiang. It was wonderful to hear his commitment and his depth of understanding of what was going on. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) is just wonderful. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) has gone out of the Chamber.”
“I was thinking to myself about coming to this debate and what is going on in the world now. I was thinking about religion and belief and why people are fighting when they should not be. Every single religion is in this book and is represented with beads on this bracelet. It tells you what they are looking for and the peace message: treat others as you would like them to treat you. Everything comes down to the same thing, in different words. The children were pointing this out to me and saying, “We should all have a religion. Some people don’t, but they still believe in being kind to each other,” and I thought, “If only they could grow up and carry on through the world like that—keeping peace.” If only we could do that. We have been focusing on the profoundly important issue of freedom of religion or belief. I thank my friends the hon.”
“There are few of us here today, but the speeches in this debate have been absolutely from the heart, sincere, and very detailed indeed. Members have not just come in and written out a speech; they are here because they have been living with this issue for years. They really believe in what they are saying, and we really want to see an outcome. I was invited this morning to 1 Parliament Street and Room B with a group of children from a Manchester school; I think they were about seven or eight. They made me the bracelet that I am wearing. They taught me how to make it, but they had to do that because I could not thread the thread through the beads. Each bead represents a religion, and there are two of each colour all the way round. The booklet that comes with it tells us about religion.”
“Gracie’s story is a happy one, but too many others end in tragedy. We have the opportunity to prevent this, to detect the disease earlier, to protect children sooner and to spare families the trauma that Gracie’s parents endured. We must act now to ensure that Gracie’s story is remembered as a warning, not repeated as a tragedy. I do not think the country can afford not to go ahead.”
“It is right to recognise that the Government have not ignored this challenge. NHS England has established a national task and finish group bringing together leading clinicians, researchers and experts to assess the opportunities and challenges for a national diabetes screening programme. The early surveillance for autoimmune diabetes or ELSA study is exploring the feasibility and the benefits of screening for type 1 diabetes, from newborns all the way to late teenagers. The recent findings of the first half of the study reveal that a type 1 diabetes autoantibody childhood screening programme is workable in the real world. I welcome that work and thank those involved in getting this far. However, I hope that evidence from studies like ELSA will reinforce the lesson from Gracie’s story: that early detection saves lives.”
“A quick finger-prick test in the hospital revealed the truth: undiagnosed type 1 diabetes and diabetic ketoacidosis. Doctors later told her parents that Gracie had been just 15 minutes away from dying, just like that. Thankfully, Gracie survived, and today she is thriving, but her family’s story had not ended there. They had to fight to access the life-changing diabetes technology that helps to keep little children like Gracie safe. They are still fighting hard to change the law so that access to this technology is no longer determined by postcode but is available to all who need it. Gracie’s story has a happy ending, but many families are not so fortunate. That is why I join colleagues today in calling for funding so that infants can be offered routine testing for type 1 diabetes.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Sir Alec—for the first time as well. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this important debate. Let me tell the Chamber about Gracie, a little girl from the historic village of Newton-le-Willows in St Helens, in the north-west of England. In November 2018, Gracie was only one year old when she was rushed to hospital. Only days earlier, she had been excited about her first Halloween party, dressed as cowgirl Jessie—a very enjoyable day was had by all. Gracie’s parents thought that she simply had a cough and cold, but within hours she became desperately ill. By the time her parents got to her GP the next morning, Gracie was lethargic, vomiting and soon became unresponsive.”
“Many people want that at home, and as I know, it can be provided at home, but without sustainable funding and a coherent national approach, such a service cannot continue to do the extraordinary work that so many families depend on and that the staff in nursing homes and hospices provide.”
“It is not good enough to finance existing hospices, although such finance is needed, because a holistic infrastructure must be developed. Hospices are established only where individuals have developed them; they are not equally distributed everywhere. That means we need a clear national strategy for end-of-life and palliative care, including a national service framework; better data to understand where care is needed most; clear goals for improvement; and proper palliative training and resources for health and palliative care staff. Hospices such as Willowbrook show what compassion and end-of-life care can look like.”
“Patients who are medically fit for discharge, but who have no care package available at home, will be told that they do not meet the criteria for residing in a hospital, which is there for patients receiving treatment. Not many people know this until they get to that stage. There is no ready solution for people at the end of their lives if they are not receiving treatment in hospital or at home. We need funding for Willowbrook because it cannot meet the NHS nursing pay awards and is losing staff to NHS employers that can offer higher salaries, yet it is delivering NHS-commissioned care. The funding must reflect that reality, and it should pay NHS rates for hospice staff. However, we also need wider reform. The Government must get down to facing our end-of-life care crisis.”
“It costs £3.8 million each year to run the in-patient unit alone. In a community that is not particularly affluent, raising that level of funding year after year is incredibly challenging. The hospice is currently facing a large deficit. If this pattern continues, it could be forced to close within five years. The annual increase from the ICB was 2.2% last year and is 2.3% this year, but it is dependent on efficiency savings. The increases do not keep pace with inflation and are confirmed to the hospice partway through the year, which is very late, forcing it to set its budget without certainty. In truth, it is operating on a knife edge. The solution must be fairer funding.”
“The hospice has supported more than 10,000 patients since opening its doors, and it now receives over 1,000 referrals each year. Hospices exist to care for the individual person and their family. They give people a choice about where and how they spend the final part of their lives. They allow people to be treated not simply as patients, but as people—surrounded by family and friends, supported with compassion and dignity, and cared for in a way that recognises the humanity of those at the end of life. However, the reality is that, as charities, hospices are under enormous financial pressure. At Willowbrook, around 30% of funding comes from the ICB; the remaining 70% must be raised locally. That comes from 10 charity shops in St Helens and Knowsley, donations, the occasional legacy gift and, of course, sponsored walks.”
“Some people reach the end of life alone, and we have a duty as a society to care for them too. That is one of the reasons I helped to establish the Willowbrook hospice in St Helens. Like many hospices, Willowbrook was created by the community itself. It was founded in 1993 by people who, like me, believed that families in our area deserved the same compassionate end-of-life care as those anywhere else. Today it is a wonderful place, with beautiful surroundings and gardens, and care that focuses on comfort, dignity, compassion, and people’s family and friends. It is rated outstanding by the Cheshire and Merseyside ICB, and provides short-term in-patient care for people with complex needs, alongside outreach, outpatient care, therapy and education services.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for securing this vital debate. Her knowledge, understanding and compassion for people are outstanding and cannot be matched. Most people, when they are seriously ill, want to be at home, surrounded by the people who love them and whom they love. I know this personally from my own family’s experience. When my mother was dying, we were told that she had only a short time to live. She lived for another 22 days. During those 22 days, her hand was never left unheld by one of her children. Not once was she left alone. We laughed and talked, and we were able to be there with her. That experience stayed with me and all my family, and we treasure it. However, not everyone has that support.”
“We must ensure that UK-held funds linked to sanctioned individuals, including proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club and recovered assets from oligarch Petr Aven, are released swiftly and directed towards Ukrainian survivors. We must ensure that Ukrainian people receive justice. If we are serious about justice—and I know we are—we have to make sure that our word is kept and our actions deliver justice and peace for those people, who we are all so proud of and owe so much to. I am sure that they appreciate it.”
“Those steps are welcome, but sanctions must be adequately enforced, co-ordinated and relentless. If they are not effective, they do not deter aggression, but embolden it, yet the UK lacks a clear strategy for ensuring that frozen Russian assets serve that purpose. I am pleased about what has been said in the debate today. Billions could remain immobilised for years, losing value, while sufferers wait without support—something that Iryna spoke about last night. Working with our European partners, we should move decisively to seize and repurpose frozen Russian assets, including up to £30 billion held in the UK, and direct them towards humanitarian, financial and military support for Ukraine.”
“The human cost, not only in lives lost, but in futures stolen, is staggering. People in my constituency—and, I am sure, in all hon. Members’ constituencies—from churches to veterans groups, are banding together to do their bit for Ukraine. For example, No Duff UK, a veteran-led organisation, is deploying volunteer teams to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground. Its work truly demonstrates the love we have for our brothers and sisters in Ukraine. Our Government and our Parliament also demonstrate iron-clad support for Ukraine. Only yesterday, the Government announced a significant package of 300 new sanctions, aimed at cutting off the Kremlin’s revenue and weakening its capacity to wage this illegal war, including measures targeting Russia’s energy sector and key oil infrastructure.”
“She begged us last night to ensure that reparations get to the women and children who have been so terribly, terribly abused, and that they do not have to wait for years. Thousands of Ukrainians have endured similar horrors, first in 2014 and again since the full-scale invasion began four years ago. Since 24 February 2022, communities across Ukraine have been scarred by violence. Homes have been destroyed; families hav been separated; and civilians have been subjected to torture, sexual violence and unlawful detention. Towns once full of life have been reduced to rubble. Children have been uprooted from their families and taken across the border—they are speaking Russian now; it is just horrendous what is going on—but people are working on that, and some children have been rescued.”
“It was a brutal escalation of a conflict that has brought immense suffering to millions, and that continues to threaten the foundations of international law, human dignity and, according to some, the start of world war three. Yesterday I met Iryna Dovgan, a Ukrainian woman whose quiet courage speaks louder than any statistic. During Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea, she was detained, brutally abused and ultimately forced to flee her home in Donetsk. Only now, years later, has she finally received reparations. That support has transformed her life, enabling her to access vital medical treatment and begin rebuilding what was taken from her, yet her case is the exception, not the rule.”
“May I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his excellent opening speech? It gave us all the details. I also pay tribute to the Opposition, although on this one thing, they are not the opposition. I am so proud that we have all stayed together, right the way through, and there is nothing between us. Our support is not symbolic; we do what we do because we love these people, and we love Ukraine. As I said at the beginning of all this, Ukraine is fighting our war, because if Russia gets through Ukraine, it will be in Europe, and then here. In this solemn debate, we remember all those whose lives have been shattered by war. Yesterday marked four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.”
“UK Export Finance still lacks those protections, but amendment 1 would fix that inconsistency. If we are increasing the financial limits available to UK Export Finance, we should ensure that British support for business abroad is never tied to exploitation. It would make the protection much bigger by covering everything across Government. We tried something like that with the Great British Energy Bill, and I was told I was right that this would not have been covered, but the Bill then went to the Lords and came back pretty quick. I thank the right hon. Member for tabling his amendment.”
“I rise to speak in support of amendment 1, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). The Bill is narrow, but it gives us an opportunity to raise this matter. Thanks to the work of this House, public bodies such as the Department of Health and Social Care are legally required to eradicate slavery in their supply chains under the Health and Care Act 2022 and the National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025. We also strengthened the safeguards to ensure that public money is free from forced labour in last year’s Great British Energy Act 2025. There was a little bit of fuss about that at the time, but no slavery or human trafficking is present in any part of Great British Energy’s supply chain.”
“I have been in local government and Parliament for 48 years, so I know what I am talking about—I see what I am talking about—and it is not made up. I will support this measure tonight, but that does not mean an end to the lobbying; we will obviously start again. I am sure that Ministers will listen to what other people have said. Maybe there needs to be flexing here and there, but we need to recognise the needs of each area. We cannot leave them to deprivation and deny their needs.”
“I pay tribute to Ministers for the work that has gone on, as well as local authorities, chambers and finance departments. I also pay tribute to MPs and councillors for the work that they have done. It cannot have been pleasant for them to see what they saw. Having looked at this matter, I know that they have recognised things, but we will need to look again at fair funding in the future. I sincerely thank all those who have been involved in coming to help for some of the worst affected boroughs in the country. I can assure hon. Members that this has not been party political. We do not think like that—I certainly do not, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) do not either. Our Benches are full of former council leaders from our area who have done this for many years.”
“No one can criticise the people who have this extra funding now, but it will not be there forever. Following sustained lobbying, we have 90% off our high-needs deficit. That is the deficit that we have on SEND provision. Knowsley’s high-needs deficit is tremendous—far greater than that of St Helens—so that will and does help. What goes on is just wonderful. We will get £14.7 million through the recovery grant over the three years, but that does not resolve the problem, because it is not part of the formula. We will have to commence straight away looking at what we are going to do, because we would have been much worse off than we were already. That is just one council; I know that there will be others like it, so we need to look at that issue.”
“That is where our money went; it went down from the first figure that we were consulted on just like that. St Helens would have been high and dry, but I will not go into the details. I have got the figures on what the impact would be for Knowsley, which are the same figures as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley. I knew that St Helens would be bad, but I could not get the figures. My hon. Friend went off and started the work, and we did what we could to get this going. Although this is called “fair funding”, it is not fair funding, because we are all different. I have listened to what Members said about people living in rural districts, and I have sympathy. We need to have a system that really looks at what costs are the highest and what is needed.”
“Due to the deprivation of our area and the lack of assets that can be sold, which other councils have, we can raise only a fraction of the amount that councils in the south-east, London and the cities can raise. There is very little we can raise, so everything depends on council tax and our ability to be more efficient in new and different ways—what the council manages to do is ingenious. The settlement that we were first presented with, which we consulted on, seemed fair and good, but I have to say that when the provisional announcement was made just before Christmas, I was horrified. Housing had been included in the index of multiple deprivation, but we are not suffering from that deprivation in Knowsley and St Helens. I am not saying that it should not be there, but it should certainly not be there with the weighting that it has.”
“I have always said that we need a settlement that addresses the real pressures on health and disability, and provides care, attention, safeguarding and protection for the vulnerable, the aged, the abused and children in need. The council gets very little income from the Government now, so money has to be raised from council tax. More and more efficiencies have had to be made, but we could not get more efficient councils than those in Knowsley and St Helens. I go to the council meetings—I have been a councillor at St Helens for 39 years and I praise what I see in Knowsley. Those councils are so efficient and so focused on the people of the area. They are good employers, but they are not focused on the people who work for the councils but on how they can serve and care for local people.”