John Healey
MP for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Mr Spock, I think some would say, Mr Speaker! My hon. Friend is right. Despite global conflicts, trade tensions and rising threats in the world, which are pushing up inflation, bearing down on growth and pushing up borrowing costs, the UK economy is demonstrating huge resilience.”
“The Prime Minister and I have been clear that we must cut the costs of welfare. On levels of taxation, we had a period of Conservative Government, with low growth and high debt. They crashed the economy with the mini-Budget, and we had levels of taxation that were putting pressure on business, adding to the cost of living.”
“The hon. Lady is talking to the person who led the work to establish a defence and security partnership with the European Union and bilateral agreements with other countries, on which we now build both our economic strength and our national security strength. On the question of the Budget, I ask the hon.”
“Since day one in the job, the Prime Minister and I have been in lockstep in our determination to meet Britain’s fiscal rules. This is the bedrock on which we build good growth and help give a bit of breathing space to families and businesses.”
“May I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves)? I am proud to have been a member of a Government with the first female Chancellor in 700 years.”
“My hon. Friend speaks up very strongly for his local area. He is right about the importance of pubs, social clubs and live venues, and about the importance of the 20% cut that we announced in July. These are the things that make the places where we live the places that we also love.”
The complete record
Every one of 6,340 lines we hold for John Healey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 57 of 127.
“I do agree. What is interesting about the way in which the debate has progressed in the seven months since the House last discussed the issue is that the Commission has become much clearer in saying that the stance of its negotiating team will be not to lower consumer, environmental or labour standards. I will suggest later that that should be one of four central tests that we or anyone else should be able to level at the quality of the negotiations and the agreement struck. My central point at this stage is to say that, for the first time—because of the level of interest and the level of mistrust in the establishment, politicians and big business—this cannot be a traditional backroom trade deal done by the elites in Brussels and Washington. Like justice, good trade policy must not only be done but must now be seen to be done.”
“Not only were there deep cuts in public spending; there was also a sharp rise in protectionism and a decline in multilateral trade. Therefore, part of the reason why deals such as the TTIP and, indeed, the EU’s recent agreements with Canada and Korea are so important is that they avoid that default to beggar-my-neighbour economic policies and instead look to increase global trade through international co-operation. The UK has a particular need for the economic benefits and boost of trade.”
“I had not heard that statement and I am surprised that the financial services industry has the detailed text of what is on the table, because we are not yet at that stage of the negotiations. I want to do two things: first, I want to spell out a progressive economic case for trade and for the TTIP, and secondly, I want to set out four tests that I think a good TTIP deal and the Governments and negotiators involved must meet. On the economic case and why it is so important to the UK at present, I think that the great depression of the 1930s was the last economic crisis that was in any way comparable to what we suffered in 2008 with the global financial crisis and downturn. The policies pursued by the UK and the US back in the ’30s are, I think, widely seen to have prolonged that slump and held back any recovery.”
“Quite simply, there would be no negotiations. Interestingly, our all-party group recently had the Canadian ambassador in to talk to us about the Canadian deal and what lessons it might have for the TTIP negotiations. When the question was put to him, “Look, we’ve got long-standing British-Canadian relations, so why haven’t we had a British-Canadian deal like this before?” in effect, he said, in his own diplomatic way, “You’re not big enough: it’s not worth our effort.” This sort of potential boost to our economy and jobs is available to us through these negotiations only by our being part of a European Union that is capable of conducting such talks and of reaching such a deal with the US as an economic equal.”
“Public investment in infrastructure and new housing, an active industrial and regional policy, and a new deal jobs programme for young people are all needed, but an ambitious trade policy will be an important part of our future economic strength.”
“At a time when we still have a domestic demand problem, trade deficits can lead to further weaknesses as income generated in the UK is spent overseas. In turn, that puts more pressure on factors such as household borrowing or inflated regional housing to fuel growth, which cannot produce a balanced or sustainable economic recovery. I must tell Government Members that, in his speech in Hong Kong earlier this month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised that the economic recovery has not so far been put on a sustainable footing. He said: “Britain is not exporting enough.” The TTIP alone will not of course produce the kind of long-term recovery that we need.”
“We are, indeed, such a trading partner, but I have to say that we are not big or significant enough to be in that position. Obama has made that clear and his staff have been even blunter—this sort of negotiation would not be available to Britain if it tried on its own to reach such a deal with the US. Let me come back to the case for why the UK needs the economic boost and benefits of trade at this time. The size of our UK economy is still 1.3% smaller than it was before the peak prior to the 2008 global financial crisis and recession. The production component of our GDP is still about 10% smaller than it was before the downturn. We also have a high trade deficit—£30 billion in 2013—which has remained high despite the large fall in the value of the pound compared with the euro or the dollar during the downturn.”
“He said: “Goods produced under conditions which do not meet a rudimentary standard to decency should be regarded as contraband and not allowed to pollute the channels of international commerce.” My argument is that that progressive pro-trade case is even more important with the TTIP than with other trade deals, because a deal between the US and the EU would, as I have said, cover a third of world trade and involve countries responsible for almost half the world’s output. The size of our combined economies and the scale of the potential deal mean that it could set standards for future agreements with other countries on consumer safeguards, workers’ rights, environmental protection, trade rules and legal process. Finally, to bring this together—”
“Member for Skipton and Ripon that it was the pioneering 1945 Labour Government who signed the first incarnation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which was of course the forerunner of the World Trade Organisation. I do not want to labour this point too strongly in a cross-party debate, but it was in the same progressive spirit that Franklin D. Roosevelt encouraged trade as a way of dragging the US out of the great depression after the protectionism of his Republican predecessor Herbert Hoover. As a pro-trade Democrat, Roosevelt wanted clear rules and clear standards—in other words, fair as well as free trade.”
“Why on earth are you making this argument about international trade and capitalism?” I have to say that I am also part of a Labour movement, which stretches back to Keir Hardie, that has a great internationalist tradition of qualified optimism about the benefits of trade. Hardie described international trade as a way of fostering shared values: “Despite the keenness of commercial struggle there comes a time when on each side there grows up a feeling that underneath the hard bargaining…there is a human element…the dykes that separate man from man are broken down, and the waters of their common humanity begin to intermix and commingle”. I can tell the hon.”
“I remember a series of very high-profile international trade trips led by Prime Minister Blair and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) as Prime Minister, but I have no idea about the figures. My point is not to offer lessons, but to make the case for the importance of trade as a part of a strengthening UK economy and of our efforts to secure a more balanced economic recovery and more sustainable growth in the future, as well as therefore to make the case for the importance of the TTIP to the UK, not just the European Union. I suppose people may say, “Look, you’re a Labour MP.”
“I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I had not appreciated that the debate is limited to three hours, rather than running until the Adjournment at 7 pm.”
“Importantly, the Commission has stated: “TTIP should explicitly state that legitimate government public policy decisions cannot be over-ridden.” I say to the Minister that it is up to the UK Government to ensure that that means nothing less than an exemption for the NHS from any deal. We did that in the Canadian deal, which states: “Health care, public education, other social services excluded”. The NHS can and must be exempted in that way from the TTIP. Finally, finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, those are the tests on which we all have a right to call negotiators, Governments and Parliaments to account. I hope that Ministers will accept them as measures of success, act to secure them in the negotiations, and account for them to the public and in Parliament at each stage of the negotiations ahead.”
“Thirdly, we need to aim for the highest possible standards of consumer, environmental and labour protection. Commissioner de Gucht’s statement in London last week was very interesting and important. He said that “no standard in Europe will be lowered because of this trade deal; not on food, not on the environment, not on social protection, not on data protection. I will make sure that TTIP does not become a ‘dumping’ agreement.” He also said that “we are happy to be scrutinised on this”. I can tell him that he will be: that is part of our role in this Parliament and part of the role of the public. Fourthly and finally, a good deal must allow sufficient leeway for Governments to act in their national interests. No trade deal should put at risk the vital democratic right of Governments to legislate in their national interests.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall resist any more interventions—I have taken plenty already—and I will rattle through my four suggested tests, about which I am happy to elaborate on other occasions. First, any good fair trade deal must deliver on jobs and growth. There is good evidence to suggest that it could do so if we get it right. As we discussed seven months ago in the previous debate, we need from the Government a very clear area-by-area analysis of where potential benefits might come in the UK. Secondly, we need a deal resulting from negotiations that are open and accountable to those that it will affect. The European Commission has taken significant steps on that, as has the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.”
“I hope that he will also see this debate as a demonstration of the House’s desire to hear more about what the Government are doing to increase public debate and understanding, to involve legitimate interest groups in the discussions and to use our leading influence in the negotiations to secure a successful deal. I am sure that the whole House will look forward to a further debate on this issue, perhaps even in Government time. Question put and agreed to . Resolved, That this House has considered the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.”
“We have had a good debate, with very good speeches from both sides. Notwithstanding the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the debate has provided confirmation of the strong cross-party support for an ambitious deal, as well as confirmation of the concerns that will need to be dealt with if we are not to risk derailing that support. The House will have been glad to hear the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), say that such cross-party support helps to strengthen our influence and the leading role that Britain can play in the negotiations.”
“I say to the Secretary of State that that is a concern to me, to my Labour colleagues, to our councils and to our business organisations in South Yorkshire and Merseyside. It will also be a concern to the European Commission, because the principle of equality is a general principle of EU law and a right conferred by it. By protecting Northern Ireland and allowing Scotland to protect the highlands and islands, the Government have completely distorted the funding purpose and the budget for the nine English transition regions, resulting in some wealthy, more developed regions receiving significantly more funding from the EU in this proposed seven-year period than the transition regions, which have a much lower GDP.”
“They show that the Government have calculated that the European Commission’s intended allocation for South Yorkshire would be €236 million—€58 million more than Ministers plan. They show Merseyside’s intended allocation from the EU to be €318 million—€116 million more than Ministers propose. I suspect the Secretary of State may say that the allocation methodology was not found by the Court to be flawed, even though the judgment found that the allocations were unlawful. They were unlawful because Ministers: failed to comply with the public sector equalities duty; failed to avoid discrimination against those in our ex-industrial areas; and failed to consider the consequences of using criteria that took no account of the respective economic needs in all UK regions—in other words, we are talking about equality of funding.”
“Two weeks ago, in the High Court, Mr Justice Stewart stated that “the decisions of 26 March 2013 and 27 June 2013 are quashed”. The Ministers were wrong. Their decisions are unfair, unjustifiable and unlawful. They take funds from South Yorkshire and from Merseyside to top up support for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to limit their losses to 5% while cutting our support by more than 50% compared with the figure for the current full EU funding period. They undermine the very purpose of EU structural funds, which of course is to boost the jobs, skills, businesses and economies of the regions lagging behind. Documents disclosed for the first time to the Court show just how far Ministers are cheating South Yorkshire and Merseyside.”
“I welcome the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to the Front Bench, and I hope that his presence will presage a more balanced approach to the decisions on the EU funding period than has been the case to date. I hope that that hope will not be dashed. Eight months ago, I led an Adjournment debate on two decisions that Ministers had made on EU regional funding. The first, announced on 26 March, was on the allocation of funds between the four UK nation states. The second, announced on 27 June, was on the allocation of funds between the English regions. I argued then that those decisions were unfair and unjustifiable. I was supported then, as now, by colleagues from South Yorkshire and from Merseyside.”
“The allocations are made to the United Kingdom, whose Government then have a degree of discretion about the distribution of those funds within the UK. What was at stake in the Court challenge and is at stake in this debate is whether those decisions were fair, whether they were justifiable and whether they were lawful. That is the point at stake and it is where things have changed since the debate I introduced about eight months ago.”
“I understand that. Northern Ireland, South Yorkshire and Merseyside all face similar problems, and under this funding period arrangement they have all been designated as transition regions. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the GDP—the wealth, product and income—in Northern Ireland is in fact higher than it is in South Yorkshire and in Merseyside, yet the decisions the Government have taken mean that Northern Ireland will be protected, with its drop in funding for these seven years compared with the previous seven years being limited to just 5%, whereas we face a funding cut of more than 50%. I think he would agree that that simply is not fair.”
“My right hon. Friend poses a bigger question than I would have imagined from the terms of this debate. Clearly, Scotland would have to become a part of the European Union and then to lay its claim for any potential structural funding support in the way that this programme is designed to deliver.”
“Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has said, they also include Cheshire and Warrington, which have a GDP not of 84% like South Yorkshire but of 119% of the European average and will get EU funding not of €117 per head like South Yorkshire but of €157 a head.”
“He rightly said: “The aim of the funds is to provide EU member states and regions with assistance to overcome structural deficiencies and to enable them to strengthen competitiveness and increase employment.” —[ Official Report , 1 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 725.] The EU funds are designed to give a boost to the economy of flagging regions. It is an outrage that areas of the UK with more jobs, wealth, businesses and prosperity are also getting more European funding in the period ahead. South Yorkshire is one of those 11 transition regions in the UK, which means that our GDP is between 75% and 90% of the European average. All the more developed regions have a GDP of at least 90% of the European average. Nine of them will receive more, not less, funding than the Sheffield city region. They include Worcestershire and Leicestershire. As my hon.”
“Our councils will take the case to the Appeal Court to ensure that the principles are taken into account by the UK Government, just as the EU does in designing and allocating the structural funds in the first place. We will also take the case to Commissioner Hahn, who has to approve UK Ministers’ plans to ensure that those principles are taken into account. The High Court judgment two weeks ago requires Ministers to review, but not necessarily to change, the funding decisions. I urge the Secretary of State to take a fresh and deep view of this set of decisions. He should revise those decisions now rather than being forced to do so later. Let me take the Secretary of State back to what his junior Minister, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), said in the first debate.”
“First, the Deputy Prime Minister was asleep on the job when the decisions were taken in government. Secondly, he is allowing the arguments that we have heard from other Ministers in this Chamber to pull the wool over his eyes. He has not been standing up for South Yorkshire, and I see this as a Forgemasters mark 2 against the card of the Deputy Prime Minister. A more measured reflection on the figures that my hon. Friend has just given allow me to continue to develop my argument, which is that the Government’s approach to date does not apply the principles of equality and proportionality. Similar regions were treated differently, and allocations were not proportionate to their needs. I say to the Secretary of State that we will not let this matter rest. We will take it all the way.”
“In other words, it is similar in economic status but will receive more than four times the European funding for the seven years ahead. The Chief Secretary was clearly doing a job for his area. The Deputy Prime Minister was clearly not doing a job for ours when the Government were blatantly making such bad and damaging decisions for South Yorkshire.”
“I do indeed. The judge at the hearing described the situation as bizarre. He rightly said that the decision to protect Northern Ireland and Scotland was what got the Government into this mess and skewed the budget for the nine English transition regions. Let me illustrate the point about the flaws and the unfairness just by looking at the highlands and islands of Scotland, which like South Yorkshire is an ex-objective 1 area and, in the current funding period, has phasing status—in other words diminishing and tapering funding during the seven years. It is a transition region in the next period and has a GDP exactly the same as that of South Yorkshire—84% of the European average. But unlike South Yorkshire it is set to get not €117 a head but €478 for every man, woman and child in the region.”
“I hope that the review that the Court judgment has forced on Ministers will mean that he will lead the Government in thinking again and making good the funding shortfall for South Yorkshire and Merseyside that the allocation decisions so far have caused.”
“My right hon. Friend is right. We know how to use funds well in South Yorkshire. We have plans to use them well in the future. The Secretary of State himself has regularly visited the Advanced Manufacturing Park. He will know what a contribution it is making to overcoming some of the structural weakness in the South Yorkshire economy. We will fight this all the way because the Government are making decisions not just for next year’s funding. These decisions set the funding for a full seven years—for the whole of the next Parliament and the next Government and beyond. That is why they are so important. The Secretary of State has agreed to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts).”
“The Secretary of State is factually correct, as I said in my remarks, but does he regard those decisions as fair and consistent with the purposes of the European structural fund?”
“How on earth can the Minister say that this settlement is fair when, three months ago, the Audit Commission, the local government expert, said that “councils in the most deprived areas have seen substantially greater reductions in government funding as a share of revenue expenditure than those in less deprived areas”? Is the Audit Commission wrong?”
“There are 33 firms doing legal aid-backed criminal work in South Yorkshire, but only one in four or five will get duty contracts in the future, which means less competition, less choice and less access to justice. Surely what we are seeing is the slow, lingering death of legal aid at the hands of the Justice Secretary.”
“I came across the case of Christina last week. She is a homeless young woman, helped by Centrepoint, the charity. She wants to finish her college course, she wants to get a job, and she wants to move on with her life, but she cannot because no private landlord will take her while she is on housing benefit. Will the Minister now admit that the housing benefit changes are locking people on low incomes, including those who are in work, out of private housing altogether?”
“Is it the case that worries about winter pressures are greatest in A and E, and that the crisis in A and E is entirely of the coalition’s own making? Ministers have been warned about cuts to elderly care and letting GPs off the hook on office hours and opening in the evenings and at weekends, and about the increasing costs of locum staff. They have been warned but they have not acted. What will the Secretary of State do now, late as it is, to ensure that A and E has enough doctors to see patients safely through the winter?”
“What a lot of waffle in response to that planted question from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). The bulletin that the Secretary of State issued last week is a clear admission that he has been hitting thousands of people illegally with the bedroom tax since April. Is he aware of the latest survey from the Northern Housing Consortium, which says that nearly half of all front-line housing workers have dealt with someone who has threatened to commit suicide, largely because of the Government’s welfare changes? Will he apologise this afternoon to those people for the concern and chaos that he is causing?”
“The Justice Secretary is almost entirely without allies and without evidence for these privatisation plans. The Minister has confirmed that he is denying the experts in some truly excellent probation trusts, such as South Yorkshire’s, the chance to tender for these contracts. If South Yorkshire’s four local authorities combine to back the trust and take out the financial risks he talks about, will he think again?”
“I refer the Chief Secretary to the graph on page 6 of his new infrastructure plan, which looks like one of those dodgy “Labour can’t win here” graphics on a Lib Dem “Focus” leaflet. The graph apparently shows, as he has boasted this morning, that annual infrastructure investment is up under the coalition, but in the footnote it says that the Treasury had “challenges” putting the graph together and that the data are “not comparable” with the rest of the document. Will he agree to submit the figures to independent scrutiny by the UK Statistics Authority or the Office for Budget Responsibility?”
“You may well be right that the Energy Secretary is doing his best, Mr Speaker, but it is simply not good enough. After today, people will still see their energy bills going up, so would they not be right to conclude that he and the Prime Minister are simply too weak and unwilling to stand up to the big energy companies?”
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am pleased to see this Bill, only three years after the Labour consultation, and I am particularly pleased that the Minister is in charge of its progress through this House. Will he admit that this is not the scheme that Labour published in February 2010, that almost all the concessions the industry sought during the consultation have been conceded by the Government and that this is a now a scheme that shows that the Government have not stood up to the interests of the big insurance companies?”
“This might help my hon. Friend. I am very impressed by the case she is making about the need for the scheme to be simple, smooth, speedy and more generous. Does she know that, in its briefing, the Association of British Insurers has said today that it would expect the scheme to run for about 40 years and therefore that any calculation of what could be afforded as a level of compensation—and to whom—should be seen in that context and not that of the short four-year term on which the Government have so far based their calculations?”
“I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) will be going to the Philippines this weekend to see the situation for himself. Perhaps he will find out how far the Secretary of State’s £5 million will stretch in helping those four cities to prepare to defend themselves in the future. The most shocking fact in the Secretary of State’s statement was that, three weeks on, three quarters of the people who need shelter do not yet have it. Will she tell the House what she is doing to overcome that disastrous situation?”
“The European Union has just agreed a trade deal with Canada that excludes health care, so will the Secretary of State ensure that the proposed EU trade and investment agreement with the US also excludes health care?”
“17. Ministers have been saying the same thing since 2010, but what this Minister has not said is that the decisions made by him and his colleagues have been hitting the poorest areas hardest with the biggest cuts in council funding. Why must five years of a Tory Secretary of State mean that the cuts in the budgets of councils in the south-east will be half the size of the cuts in inner London or in the three northern regions?”
“The second report, of July 2011, proposed six new pilots of a payment-by-results method and at the same time pledged not a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy for offenders, nor a comprehensive reoffending rates reduction strategy, but a “a comprehensive competition strategy for…probation services”. There is an obsession with the market, competition and privatisation. This is not the means to an end; it is the end. It is the purpose of the Justice Secretary’s programme—that and perhaps burnishing his credentials with the wilder right-wing of the Conservative party for the future. If the policy end was to reduce reoffending rates for short-term prisoners, the means are in place—probation trusts, which have been responsible for overseeing falling reoffending rates for those they have supervised for 13 years.”
“Despite what the Justice Secretary tried to argue at the beginning of his speech, the Bill is part of a wider programme that changes probation services as well as how the offenders with which they deal are handled. As such, it is important to understand the background of the Bill in order to understand its intent, the provisions and the wider programme. To do that, it is necessary to look at the policy routes of the consultation reports that precede the Bill. The coalition’s first criminal justice consultation—“Breaking the Cycle”—was in December 2010. It promised to open up probation services to the market.”
“I will finish my point and then give way. If the end or purpose of the policy was better value for taxpayers without compromising professional standards or public safety, the means are in place with probation trusts, which have made savings of around 20% over the past five years and helped to reduce crime rates and maintain protection for the public.”
“The Minister was in the Chamber for the Opposition day debate last week and will have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who was the Minister responsible for the 2007 Act. In July 2007, he mentioned “trusts remaining public-sector based and delivering services at a local level”. —[ Official Report , 18 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 354.] Essentially, the 2007 Act was not about abolishing local probation trusts, nor about trying to commission services from the centre from a desk in Whitehall; it was about using local partnerships and local professional expertise to secure the best mix of support that offenders needed and that the public required to keep them safe and protected from harm.”