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 11 of 13.
“Infection rates are back to the levels we saw in April but, with the serial incompetence that we have seen, I am afraid this is hardly a surprise. Local authorities and health officials have proved far more effective at contact tracing than private companies. If the Government had trusted them and invested in them in the first place, we would not be in the situation we are in now. Like many colleagues, I have received emails asking me to oppose the restrictions. For me, health will always take priority over the economy. I understand that we need a strong economy to fund our national health service but the best way to repair the economy is to get the virus under control. The UK has had the highest number of covid-19-related deaths in Europe followed by the worst economic crisis.”
“These decisions were taken on false data owing to the Excel error. The situation in Knowsley and St Helens was worse than first thought. The infection rate is almost four times higher than that in Greater Manchester when restrictions were introduced there. I fear that, once again, the Government have acted too late. There are bigger consequences of this mistake. For the past week, thousands of people across the country should have been told to self-isolate. Instead, they have been unwittingly spreading the virus. That has put lives at risk and could lead to many more families losing their loved ones. From our £12 billion world-beating test and trace system the public deserve better. Even before this error, 35% of contacts had not been traced in Knowsley. The Government have had months to fix this.”
“Wesley McDonnell, a 35-year-old veteran, decided to take his own life in the park opposite my home. This brave man served and defended our nation for almost 20 years and, sadly, there are still many others like him. Can the Minister please commit to further improving the spirit of the armed forces covenant by tasking the MOD to develop a health and wellbeing pathway, including the assessment and diagnosis of the mental health needs of our brave men and women prior to discharge, and commissioning so that they have the treatment ready?”
“It would not force the Government to implement the regulations now; it would merely empower them and the relevant authorities to take the steps necessary to regulate on this issue, when and if they are prepared to do so. I do not intend to push my amendment to a Division today, although frankly, I should not have to: the moral and practical case is as clear as day, and the Government should accept it. It seems that they will not do so at this stage, but they should when the Bill is debated in the other place. I want to make it abundantly clear that I will not let this matter lie. A growing group of cross-party parliamentarians, both here and in the other place, are determined to stop this from happening. We now need the Government to do their bit. I will leave it there.”
“Why should we not want to make it clear that harvested organs will not find their way into this country? International checks on the system are failing, with the World Health Organisation’s assessment of the Chinese organ transplant system actually being one of self-assessment, as stated by the WHO to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Thus, the regime breaking the ethical standards is also assessing whether it meets them. The British Medical Association has called on the Government “to reconsider its position on this issue in light of the findings of the Tribunal”. My amendment would empower the Government to do just that, and to close the hole in the existing legislation. It aims not to shut down the trade in medicines between the United Kingdom and China, but to ensure that it is ethical.”
“The importing of human body tissue for medical research does not require any consent or traceability—it is only advised, not required—meaning that human tissue from countries like China can legally be imported to the UK for the purpose of medical research without traceability, documentation or consent. Imported human body tissue for use in medicines requires traceability from donor to recipient. Although technically consent documentation does not legally require consent, in reality it would be difficult to demonstrate donor selection requirements without it. Without my amendment, we have no assurance that harvested organs cannot find their way into our national health service. Although the legislation and regulations provide guidance, it is just that: guidance.”
“There are codes of practice in respect of the 2007 regulations, but section 1(4) of the 2004 Act explains that subsection (1) does not apply for a body to which subsections (5) or (6) apply: “Subsections (1) to (3) do not apply to an activity of a kind mentioned there if it is done in relation to…a body to which subsection (5) applies”— which includes a human body that has been imported— “or…relevant material to which subsection (6) applies”, and that applies to “relevant material” if it has been imported. “Relevant material” means material consisting of human cells, so imported human tissue does not require appropriate consent.”
“Further, a study by the medical journal BMJ Open has raised ethical issues on over 400 Chinese medical studies, and there is clear evidence that China is abusing the human rights, including the right to life, of Uyghurs, practitioners of Falun Gong, conscientious objectors and political prisoners. There is no reason to believe that China is not also experimenting on such prisoners without consent and then harvesting organs to examine the results of such experiments, and we must protect the UK health system from being morally compromised by this. The Minister stated in Committee that my amendment was not required as regulations are already in place under the Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) Regulations 2007 and the Human Tissue Act 2004.”
“I thank the Minister for providing us with sight of her letter to the Minister for Asia. As she committed herself to doing in Committee, she communicated it to all Committee members. I sincerely thank her for that. Amendment 19 would empower the appropriate authority to make provisions for the process of developing or manufacturing medicines in relation to the origin and treatment of human organs. This is necessary because of the actions by the Chinese Government in Beijing. The China tribunal, headed up by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, launched the first independent legal analysis of all evidence relating to organ harvesting in China and found beyond reasonable doubt that forcible organ harvesting was taking place. China was invited to provide evidence to this tribunal but failed to do so.”
“By passing this amendment, the Government will be empowered to make regulations ensuring that medicines supplied in the United Kingdom meet basic human rights standards with regard to how organs have been obtained in their development and manufacture. Any medicines that meet these standards and any other standards set by the Government will, of course, be welcomed into the United Kingdom. This amendment does not force the Government to implement these regulations now; it merely empowers the Government and the relevant authorities to take the necessary steps to regulate around this issue when they are prepared to do so. I can therefore see no moral or practical reason why members of the Committee would not wish to see this amendment added to this Bill, and urge the Committee to consider it.”
“We therefore need to take the necessary steps to protect the United Kingdom’s healthcare system from being morally compromised through an injection of Chinese medicines developed in a way that breaches some of the most basic human rights. This amendment does not aim to shut down trade in medicines between the United Kingdom and China. Leaps in progress made for preserving human rights should be readily shared and traded across the globe. However, these leaps in progress should not come at the expense of innocent human lives, and we must do all that we can to ensure that this practice cannot be profited from.”
“The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed the UK House of Lords that the World Health Organisation, which previously advised that China’s transplant system is ethical, responded: “The evidence that it uses is based on the self-assessment made by the country that is a signatory, and in this case that is China.” That comes from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The British Medical Association calls on the Government to reconsider their position on this issue in the light of the findings of the tribunal, and to use their influence with the international community to ensure that a full, proper investigation takes place.”
“The harvesting of organs from those people not only is an abhorrent act in and of itself, but often involves forced brain damage and vegetation of the person involved, of course leading to their eventual death. Those papers that I sent to all Committee members refer to a debate in the House of Lords on 2 March, which raised the issue of the tribunal on forced organ harvesting in China. On that harvesting, Lord Alton commented that the “organised butchery of living people compares to ‘the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th century’, including the gassing of Jews by the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia”.”
“The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent, and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.” There is therefore clear evidence that China is conducting medical testing on organs forcibly harvested from Uighurs, the Falun Gong, conscientious objectors and political prisoners. Indeed, a study by medical journal The BMJ raised ethical issues about more than 400 Chinese medical studies.”
“The tribunal is headed by Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC, who served as the lead prosecutor of Slobodan Milošević. It stated: “Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale”. I have forwarded copies of this document to all members of the Committee. I am trying to be as transparent as possible—this is not about trying to kid or trick on our commitment. I am sure that people in the country would agree. All members have copies, which I sent out over the weekend. I have given a short version of what the independent public tribunal said. Clearly, on the second page, it stated: “Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one—and probably the main—source of organ supply.”
“I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end, insert— “(o) the origin and treatment of human organs used in the process of developing or manufacturing medicines”. This amendment empowers the appropriate authority to make provisions on the process of developing or manufacturing medicines in relation to the origin and treatment of human organs. It is a pleasure to serve in Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The purpose of the amendment is to empower the Government to make regulations providing for the treatment of human organs in the development of the manufacturing of medicines. This is necessary due to the actions of the Chinese Government in Beijing. The China tribunal launched the first independent legal analysis of all evidence related to organ harvesting in China.”
“I have tried to get a private Member’s Bill but have not succeeded. I have tried every nook and cranny to do anything I can to stop this practice. I do not want to risk our health service or our country’s reputation, which could be tarnished by being involved. I have dear friends who are Chinese, but I do not trust the Chinese Government in any way. I urge the Minister please at least to let us meet and consider this issue before Report. I have not sat on a Bill Committee before, Mr Davies, so I am not sure of procedure and, as you know, I am profoundly deaf. I urge the Minister please not to throw out amendment 1 without us doing that and rechecking every nook and cranny.”
“I cannot in all conscience accept that the learned people who sat on the China tribunal would have not researched and challenged—people such as Lord Alton, Lord Hunt and others in the House of Lords. Indeed, many hon. Members spoke about China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims in a Westminster Hall debate that was led by a Conservative Member on 11 March. I am sure some of them would have looked and questioned. I will not and cannot withdraw the amendment, but I urge the Committee to have neutrality and meet the relevant people so that we can check. I would certainly have to check with learned people before I can begin to consider withdrawing the amendment. I cannot accept that the learned people who have engaged with this issue for so long—we have worked on it for nearly two years and, coincidentally, the Bill came along.”
“I am sorry about this—really sorry—because I understood that being a Minister was about co-operation, patience and morals. I do not disbelieve what the Minister says. However, there has been a public and independent inquiry, which found beyond all reasonable doubt. Those running the inquiry were people of stature and good regard, with a history of working for human rights. I cannot withdraw the amendment. I ask that, at the very least, the Committee considers meeting Sir Geoffrey Nice and a Chinese surgeon who was forced to carry out the removal of organs in China, and who is now a taxi driver in London. They could meet somehow—I am sure we could do it on Teams or something like that. Before we get to Report, I urge the Committee to agree to such a meeting or to listen to and read the evidence.”
“Thank you for your guidance, Mr Davies; it is much appreciated. I will not withdraw the amendment. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“For many northern towns, rugby league is more than just a sport. It is part of our identity—our culture. Most of the clubs are old enough to have survived the two world wars, but they desperately need our help and support. The sport must survive this crisis. What will the Minister do to make sure that rugby league is still around for our communities to go back to after coronavirus?”
“Friend the Member for Weaver Vale has helpfully drawn up the Bill up for the Government, and I can see no reason why they would wish to oppose it, given that it is in line with their own stated aims and is admirably written. By passing this Bill into law, the Government can take the necessary steps to limit the amount of items that must be branded. It is often this branding that increases the cost of uniforms, as families are forced to purchase from a single provider.”
“Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who have made good contributions, this guidance is not enough and is seven years out of date. It also lacks the teeth required to make schools lower the cost of uniforms, although I am aware that many schools have schemes to help. This Bill is so important because it will empower the Government to take the statutory steps necessary to alleviate the financial burden being placed on families across the county. The Government have already pledged to make their guidance statutory, as stated in in the 2015 better markets plan. My hon.”
“Some Members in this Chamber may hear “£37 for a blazer” and think, “That’s not too bad”, but as young people grow their uniform often needs replacing yearly and sometimes twice a year, so these figures become an annual cost. This leads to poorer families being unable to replace worn out or outgrown school uniforms, which leads to stigmatisation and bullying, meaning that uniforms are failing to meet their purpose of providing a baseline for all. I know that we cannot do away with the cost of uniforms altogether, and I welcome the work that Governments have done on this matter previously. The Government’s advisory guidance, for example, does emphasise the importance of cost considerations. However, as we have heard from the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), and my hon.”
“This uniformity, which was in part designed to help some of the poorest in our society, is in fact now placing an undue cost on families. In my constituency alone, the cost of a branded blazer is between £31 and £37, a tie is £6.50 and a PE top is £15. The average cost of a secondary school uniform is £340. In its 2020 update, the Children’s Society has announced that this cost is now even higher, with costs rising to £361. Some 43% of parents said that the cost of school uniform alone had affected their families in some way, and one in 10 families reported getting into debt trying to pay for uniform costs. We also need to bear in mind that this is a yearly, and sometimes twice yearly, cost.”
“It is a pleasure to speak in favour of this Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), who has truly identified a real issue faced by millions of families across the country. The Bill takes the necessary steps required to alleviate the problem. The cost of a uniform can vary dramatically across a community and across the country, with the only uniformity being that the relatively cheapest uniform is still extremely expensive. The school uniform serves a wide range of important functions. It provides a uniformity for what young people wear to school, regardless of their family’s financial situation. A young person cannot be made fun of because their family cannot afford the most up-to-date clothes, for example.”
“That is why I commend the Bill to the House and call on Back Benchers and Front Benchers to support it through all the stages required to make it law.”
“If they had not covered the costs of things like shoes and trainers, I am not sure how we would have managed it.” Paula’s daughter is currently in year 9. At the start of the current school year her school changed its uniform, which meant Paula had to buy everything new again. She said: “I bought two skirts and a blazer for £89, and then we had to add a tie and a few bits for the PE kits. It was well over £100 on those items. Then there were additional shirts, jumpers and tights—it all adds up. Many of the schools use that same shop, which means you don’t have a choice and have to buy the more expensive items. It’s not fair to those from low-income families.” This Bill can and will, if utilised effectively by the Government, make a real difference for families like the Hays.”
“I have heard the hon. Gentleman, but the Bill means that the Government would have to take the necessary steps to limit the amount of school uniform that must be branded. The Government could also use the powers contained in the Bill to ensure that schools must have a fair and open tendering process at the end of each financial year, which would increase competitiveness and help drive down costs, and the savings could then be passed on to families. One such family is Paula Hay’s. Paula has four children. Her youngest is 14 and still at school. Over the years the family have struggled to pay for uniforms, especially when the three older boys were all at secondary school at the same time. Paula said: “Having to buy three sets of everything was expensive and I would have to rely on my parents to help out.”
“We know that there is only so much that we can do in this place, but it is our moral duty to do all that we can do to help; to do any less would be to betray our morality, our history and the millions of voiceless people who are suffering and need our help.”
“Members, and the Minister for Asia, who will reply to the debate, whether they will turn their back on that tradition. Will they turn their back on Uighurs, Falun Gong and others who are crying out for their support? I therefore call on the Government to increase their diplomatic pressure on the People’s Republic of China and apply the Magnitsky Act to individuals in China who perpetrate organ-harvesting. I also call on the Government, and on right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament, to pressure the WHO to change the way that it assesses organ transplant systems, to move away from a self-assessment system and towards independent assessment.”
“However, we must ask ourselves whether will we allow the moral foundations of our nation to be sold out for economic profit, and will we allow innocent men, women and children to live and, sadly, often die in such horrific conditions in order to maintain our economic bottom line? We have a tradition in this place of standing up for the voiceless and ending abuses of human rights within our own borders and within the borders of other nations. It is on this site that we became the first nation to abolish slavery; it is on this site that we voted to fight the ideology of fascism; and it is on this site that we stood up for nations ensnared by the oppressive Soviet Union when it was the world’s second greatest superpower. I ask all right hon. and hon.”
“If I were to describe a state that was oppressing minority groups through mass surveillance, detention and re-education, and that harvested organs from living people to sell to the wealthy, people would think that I was describing a make-believe state in some dystopian novel. Sadly, that description is all too real and these practices are happening now within the borders of the People’s Republic of China. We cannot allow those practices to continue; we must take every diplomatic and judicial step we can to bring this abhorrent situation to an end. I understand that China has risen to become the second most powerful economy in the world.”
“It requires action.” Despite that, the World Health Organisation reports that China operates “an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system in accordance with international standards”. We would be right to ask how that can be, when the China Tribunal has evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that China is operating the exact opposite of an ethical and voluntary system. The answer is that under WHO rules China is able to self-assess its organ transplant system, so all we hear through WHO—a normally trusted international organisation—is the Chinese state’s party line. In a sense, we are asking the criminal to judge their own trial.”
“It found unanimously and beyond all reasonable doubt that China is operating a forced organ-harvesting programme on prisoners of conscience and on ethnic and religious minorities, such as Uighurs and Falun Gong. The organs, which are forcibly taken from healthy living people, are either given to Han Chinese or sold to wealthy tourists, who are willing to pay vast sums to extend their own lives at the expense of other human beings. Sir Geoffrey Nice QC has been quoted as saying that “It is now the responsibility of all those who interact with the Chinese government and international bodies to remember the duty every individual, and every organ of society, has to respect the entitlement of all on this planet, near or far, to the right to life. This cannot be done by wilful ‘blindness’ or ‘deafness,’ ‘pragmatic’ silence and inactivity.”
“There are restrictions on travel and their phones are monitored. The Government claim that those are preventative measures against Islamic extremism. However, the disproportionate nature of those oppressive acts shows that they are systematic, racially motivated actions by the state. It is not just limited to the Uighurs; it extends to other minority groups, such as Christians, Tibetans and Falun Gong. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination are all raising grave concerns about the Chinese Government. Even more horrifying are the findings of the independent China Tribunal, which is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, a leading war crimes prosecutor. The tribunal released its 562-page report on 1 March.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this important debate and his powerful, factual speech. The situation in the People’s Republic of China for Uighurs and other ethnic and religious minorities is beyond disgusting. It taints the meaning of humanity and compassion. In Xinjiang, we see an oppressive system that brings all the powers of the state down on a disenfranchised minority, whose culture and people have committed no crime, but the state has determined their very existence to be a crime. Across Xinjiang, we see Uighurs in their millions being imprisoned in detention centres and re-education camps. They are under constant surveillance. Their biometric data is forcibly taken by the state.”
“When we look to China, for example, we see that the evidence supplied by the independent China tribunal, which was released in full yesterday, overwhelmingly shows that organs have been harvested from unwilling political prisoners and prisoners of conscience such as members of Falun Gong and the Uyghur Muslims.”
“The experience of those patients shows the life-changing effect that medicines and medical devices can have on people if they are not thoroughly tested—a medical intervention designed to drastically improve a patient’s quality of life can, instead, leave them in a more dire situation. We not only need to be aware of, and have concern for, patients in our own nation when we look at the medicines entering our national health service; we must also ensure that due care is given to the patients involved in the development of those medicines. We cannot sacrifice the health, rights and dignity of other human beings just to gain medicines for people in our country.”
“It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and for Bosworth (Dr Evans). I agree with everything they said. I welcome this Bill and the steps that will be taken to improve patient safety and the availability of medicines and medical devices. I will keep my comments short today, as I hope to be further involved in the Bill’s later stages. There are some key points to make on Second Reading, however, as the Bill has the potential to affect so many people’s lives, both domestically and abroad. As we all know, patient safety is vital and should not be compromised. Sadly, we have seen patient safety standards disregarded in the cases of valproate, Primodos and surgical mesh, which shows a clear need for the legislation in this area to be tightened.”
“We must also better understand how the Government intend to monitor the effectiveness of those regulations and regulatory bodies, as well as the nature of their role in doing so. The NHS is one of our nation’s greatest achievements, and any attempt to make it stronger is always to be welcomed. We must make sure that the United Kingdom’s health industry and the NHS help to make the lives of our citizens and those abroad safer, healthier and more dignified.”
“In the light of this week’s stories in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph about major companies profiting from Uyghur slave labour, it seems there is no indignity, no suffering, that those poor people are not forced to endure. The trade in their organs must surely be one of the most wicked crimes against humanity of the 21st century. This Bill will provide the House with one small opportunity to strike a blow on their behalf. Domestically, we must ensure that regulators are properly equipped with the resources and financial support to take on the new responsibilities outlined in this Bill so that we do not place more stress on an already overstretched NHS system.”
“The China tribunal report was issued yesterday, and it clearly states that organ harvesting is being done in a commercial, business-like manner. It is absolutely horrendous. People are being taken into prison for nothing, and their DNA is taken. A doctor who now drives an Uber taxi in London was forced to remove the liver and kidneys of a Uyghur Muslim while he was still living, which is horrendous. I and a number of others intend to get this resolved. We must ensure that medicines entering the United Kingdom have not been tested on or developed using those organs or any other human rights abuses, and I am sure the Government are aligned with me on this issue. If appointed to the Public Bill Committee, I hope to move an amendment on this issue, on which there is cross-party support in both Houses.”
“There are signs up in Chinese airports saying “Organ transplants this way” in English; there is a clear path through. I am not saying that it is the English who are going, but the system is international. People are going out. France is already taking steps to stop organ tourism.”
“Foreign languages are even more vital to British success following Brexit. I therefore call on the Government to raise the rate of funding for 16 to 18-year-olds to a minimum of £4,760. I also call on them to refrain from innovative accounting and to ensure that the rise is in addition to existing money, rather than shifting it around and rebranding it. Let us put a stop to smoke-and-mirrors funding. Education is vital to our country, community and society. Let us give young people the tools to revolutionise their futures and the country.”
“It was through those subjects that the United Kingdom began the industrial revolution and we became a leader in so many fields, such as pharmaceuticals. Yet, because of current funding arrangements, sixth-form colleges struggle to provide those subjects, as they are less popular. We risk a generational gap in the number of people learning those vital subjects. Failing to invest in young people now is failing to invest in the future of the country. We will lose our edge in the global economy. Indeed, foreign languages are declining in sixth-form colleges. The Government has plans for a global post-Brexit Britain, in a landscape of growing economic giants such as China, Brazil, Japan, India and a resurgent Russia that will lead to more diversity in the language of business.”
“The situation is worsened by the lack of student support workers and teaching support in schools; as schools’ budgets are tightened, those immensely valuable roles are removed. Students with special educational needs get less of the support they need to be the best they can be, and young people in general are not provided with support at one of the most stressful times of their lives. We see all too often in the media how that lack of support leads to negative outcomes, which extend to young people taking their lives. When we look beyond the classroom, we see sixth-form provision that does not provide for the long-term needs of our nation. STEM subjects have long been the backbone of our economy.”
“Most colleges have reduced drastically the number of extracurricular activities they provide, including sport, music, drama, educational visits and even debating clubs, to name but a few. That has a negative effect on equality and social mobility in our nation, since such activities help to provide the well-rounded education that is essential in the modern world. Privately funded colleges such as Eton continue to offer those extremely beneficial activities, while the colleges used by the majority of the population can no longer afford to do so. Class sizes are increasing. Sadly, that is not limited to sixth-form education. The number of A-levels that young people study has reduced from four to three.”
“Friend so clearly articulated, sixth-form education is one of the most underfunded areas of our education system. Carmel’s funding issues are compounded by the fact that it is a Catholic college and therefore cannot access what extra funding—underwhelming though it is—is available to academy colleges. As my hon. Friend clearly outlined, sixth-form colleges received £1,380 less per student in real terms in 2016-17 than in 2010-11. That is a 22% decline in funding while costs in other areas have increased year on year. That is a disgrace. We should be investing more in our children’s futures, not less. That underfunding has a number of detrimental effects on our society and economy.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for securing this much-needed debate. Many of these things have been said before, but they need to be repeated until we get the answers we deserve. Education is fundamental to our country; it is the beating heart of our economy and necessary for a functioning democracy and, arguably, society itself. It is therefore beyond disappointing that sixth-form education is so woefully underfunded by this Government. I am proud of Carmel College in my constituency. The absolute commitment of its staff to serve its pupils with a good education makes it an outstanding college, despite the lack of funding from central Government; as my hon.”