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 60 of 127.
“The advanced manufacturing park on the edge of Rotherham would not be there without support from European funding, and the nuclear advanced manufacturing research centre and the knowledge transfer centre in Rotherham would not be there without £15 million from the ERDF. We have plans for the future. We can put the money to good use, and that will include support for the city deal and for 4,000 extra apprenticeships throughout South Yorkshire. However, whereas our current seven-year programme of funding from the European Union is worth is worth more than €400 million in South Yorkshire alone, the new seven-year funding programme will provide €203 million, not just for South Yorkshire but for the five north Nottingham and north Derbyshire districts as part of the Sheffield city region. As was pointed out by my hon.”
“I welcome the inclusion of transition region status for ERDF purposes, although the Government held out against it until the final agreement. I welcome, in particular, the Minister’s commitment in his statement on 27 June to a local rather than a central programme, with decision-making powers in local areas. I also welcome the decision to enable European funds to take their place as part of the strategic plans of the local enterprise partnerships. We know how to use European funding in South Yorkshire, we know how to use it well, and we have firm plans for its use in the future.”
“Over the last year, my hon. Friend and I have campaigned for special transition region status for the purposes of the new European funding programme, and have tried to persuade the Minister of the case. My hon. Friend has anticipated some of the points that I shall be making later, which lie at the heart of the problem. I want to deal with the facts, the fix and the future. I want the Minister to confirm the facts, explain the fix, and pledge to make good the funding of our areas for the future. Let me begin with the facts. As the Minister knows, I welcome the commitment to the European regional development fund and the European social fund as part of a European budget settlement that represents the first-ever real-terms cut overall.”
“It has a GDP of 84%, like South Yorkshire. It will have transition region status, like South Yorkshire, but unlike South Yorkshire its funding will not be €117 per head. It will not even be €147 per head, as in Merseyside. It will be €741 per head. Its economic status is similar but it will have over six times more funding for every man, woman and child in the highlands and islands. The Chief Secretary has clearly been doing his job for his area. What has the Deputy Prime Minister been doing for our area? This is Forgemasters mark II. There has been no evidence of concern, and certainly no evidence of influence from the Deputy Prime Minister when this critical decision for Sheffield city region was taken. He is standing up while the Government blatantly make bad and damaging decisions for our area in South Yorkshire.”
“This decision means that each Administration is only subject to an equal percentage cut of around 5 per cent in funding compared to 2007-13 levels.” It seems that no one in government was there to speak up for England when these deals were done for the devolved regions. There is one pot of European funding for the period, so England must pay to protect the other UK nations. Ministers are ripping funds away from South Yorkshire and from Merseyside to top up Scotland and Northern Ireland, where GDP is higher, and Wales, where GDP is at a similar level. Let me illustrate the point about the deep flaws and unfairnesses of this decision with the highlands and islands of Scotland. The highlands and islands is an ex-objective 1 area, like South Yorkshire. It is a current phasing status area, like South Yorkshire.”
“My right hon. Friend makes a full point. He is right. This decision is unfair and unjustifiable and undermines the very purpose of the European funds. To develop my right hon. Friend’s point, let me turn from the facts to the fix. Three months ago, out of the blue, the Minister announced on 26 March: “EU Structural Funds are important for supporting economic activity. The EU formula would have seen several areas in most need of funds lose out, so we have taken the decision to correct that.” He also said that “the UK government has decided to re-allocate EU Structural Funds to minimise the impact of sudden and significant cutbacks in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.”
“We are asking not for special treatment, but just for the same treatment as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and certainly not to be singled out for such special and swingeing cutbacks. This is not an argument about a one-off annual grant. The Minister’s decisions now will stand for the whole of the next Parliament and Government, and beyond. That is why what he has to say to the House and the action he takes following this debate are so important.”
“Although I say to the Minister that we have no wish to hold up the allocation of these funds, as all our areas can put these funds to very good use, we have to fight for funding that treats all our areas equally and that directs the most support to those areas with the greatest need and the greatest potential. The Minister told me in his letter and in our meeting: “Unfortunately, very little flexibility remains here.” Well, he has been painted into a corner by his colleagues in Government making special provision for the devolved regions and making that an early announcement. Tonight we want him to make good this wrong and to balance this deeply flawed decision by reviewing the allocations to South Yorkshire and Merseyside and making a commitment to use other funding routes to rectify the shortfall.”
“9WS.] I have to say to the Minister that seeing UK regions with a level of prosperity so much higher than ours getting so much more than ours seems to me to ride roughshod over the purpose of the EU budget agreement. That is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North have written to Commissioner Hahn asking him to take a hard look at the UK’s decisions and whether they breach the intention of the EU’s allocation policy and formula, and our MEPs, Linda McAvan and Arlene McCarthy, have done the same. There must be a strong case for a judicial review, which I know is also being seriously considered.”
“I hate making the case in those terms because I want to talk about the new businesses, the jobs programmes, the skills base, the investment plans and the economic potential of our area, but that is the argument that the Government are using, so that is the argument that I must counter. Finally, let me turn to the written ministerial statement confirming these allocations for England issued on 27 June. At the end of the statement, it says: “All allocations are subject to final agreement on the EU regulations and the EU 2014-2020 Budget in the European Parliament. The European Commission will also need to agree the UK Government’s specific proposals.” —[ Official Report , 27 June 2013; Vol. 565, c.”
“First, the relative rise in prosperity in South Yorkshire anticipated at the start of the period has not happened as we were hit harder than many other areas by the global financial crisis and the austerity-driven downturn after 2010. Secondly, the profile of the spend each year during the seven-year period has been broadly equal and not sharply declining towards the end of the period. Thirdly, unfortunately, it remains the case that only three regions in the UK are poorer than Merseyside and only four regions, including Merseyside, are poorer than South Yorkshire.”
“If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have been generous in giving way and I am running out of time. I turn to the Minister’s position on this matter. He kindly wrote to me a couple of weeks ago to try to justify the anticipated announcement of the deep cuts in South Yorkshire. He said in the letter on 19 June: “In the case of Merseyside and South Yorkshire, current EU Structural Funds are gradually reducing from 2007 to 2011, due to their relative rise in prosperity…Their funding has been a taper…For 2014-20 it is therefore not envisaged that either of these regions will enjoy special status…especially as these two regions are no longer amongst the poorest of the English Transition regions.” I want to say three things to the Minister.”
“As I said, it is patently incorrect to say that the planned profile reflects the reality of how the money has been spent over the period. May I ask the Minister either to confirm or correct any of the facts I gave the House in my speech in a letter to me afterwards? As he clearly may not get to this, given the sort of technical detail he is keen to read out to the House, will he also confirm what, if anything, he proposes to do to try to rebalance this very significant shortfall of funding for South Yorkshire and for Merseyside?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that the Minister was suggesting that I had misled the House, when in fact what I had told him was that the patterns of actual spend in the European regional development fund funding for the final years of this current programme are broadly similar right across the range and have not sharply dropped as the original plan envisaged.”
“Friend agree that, as a follow-up to the debate, something the Minister might usefully do is ensure that attention is drawn to other Departments that use the numbers but do not appear to know that they should be gaining a financial benefit—at a cost to many of the poorest, who pay the extra charges?”
“I welcome the success that my hon. Friend has had in securing the debate, and also the fact that he is campaigning hard on the matter, as am I. It is important to expose the rip-off rates that some people have to pay to access essential public services and information. My hon. Friend mentions the revenue sharing, which is part of the deal for 084 numbers. Both he and I have tabled parliamentary questions, and I have had seven Departments say to me that they do not get any financial or non-financial benefit from the lines. That, however, contradicts what Ofcom believes to be the case, and I have, therefore, had to write to those seven Departments. Does my hon.”
“I invite him to tell the Chamber how he intends, from the centre of Government, to respond to that NAO report and the findings that it may have.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he is responding to this debate. I am intervening before he returns to his brief, because his response so far has been genuine, open and welcome. He recognises that there is a significant problem, which is very welcome. He says that the Government are now reviewing the area, which is also welcome. He talks about a problem of timing. May I perhaps help him with that? The NAO has indeed now agreed to carry out a cross-Government review of the use of non-geographic numbers, some of which have these rip-off rates. The Comptroller and Auditor General tells me that he expects that report to be completed next month, in July, so the Minister may not have to wait long before he considers action.”
“The Minister’s words were subdued. Is he not shocked to see this increasingly modern, secular and economically successful country arresting young people for using Twitter, blocking trade union demonstrations with riot police and now threatening to use the army on the streets against its own citizens? Will he and the Foreign Secretary now publicly urge the Turkish Government to respect people’s basic rights and freedoms of assembly and expression?”
“What a waste of everybody’s time. Why should anyone believe that the new review process will be better than the last one or that the Secretary of State will make decisions at the end of it? Will he apologise now to the parents, the families and the staff for allowing this flawed and failing process to go on for so long and for the anguish that they have suffered during it?”
“The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) is right that the Leeds unit has been subject to greater scrutiny than any other unit, and the decisions in its case have been more seriously flawed than in the case of any other unit. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give those families across Yorkshire who depend on this major, life-changing surgery that the unit will not simply be removed from our county and put beyond their reach, taking away this vital service for them and their families?”
“They also spoke of friends of theirs with similar problems who had been forbidden from eating or going to the toilet during lessons when they needed to because of their condition. I pledged my support to Emma Smith and her campaign, as I did to the ten-minute rule Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), which he introduced around that time. I thought that my hon. Friend could not be here today, which is why I am in his place, but I am glad to see that he has come into the Chamber.”
“Four years ago, I met an inspiring young woman called Emma Smith. She was 12 years old, from Dalton in Rotherham, and I was her MP. She was on a lobby for Diabetes UK to the House. I met her here, and met her and her family at home. I also met a couple of other young children and students at school in Rotherham who were suffering from diabetes. They described a lack of recognition and appreciation by staff at school of their condition and a lack of knowledge about what they had to do to manage it for themselves. They described a suspicion, sometimes, of the needles they had to use to inject insulin. Occasionally there was nowhere for them to do those injections during the school day.”
“It is good to follow the Chair of the Select Committee. I hope the constructive and cross-party description that he has given of the passage of the Bill so far means that, as the Bill goes into the other House, many of the amendments that we have discussed today, which clearly need to be made, will be made. Before he spoke, we heard two strong—including one long—speeches on special educational needs. I am not going to speak up for children with special educational needs. Instead I would like to speak up for children with specific health conditions and, in particular, to lend my support to new clause 8, which was first tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and now stands in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders).”
“My good and hon. Friend knows exactly what he is talking about and he is right. This is not simply about staff; it is about other students and pupils understanding better the conditions and health problems that some children have to cope with and, often, being supportive as a result. I know my hon. Friend speaks from direct experience of such things.”
“Is it beneficial? Yes, and if the Minister continues to resist it, he will have to demonstrate that it is unnecessary, disproportionate and either detrimental or not beneficial. I want our children who have special health conditions to be able to enjoy school to the full, to fulfil their potential and to feel confident that those around them know what to do because they understand their conditions. Finally, I want to leave the House with the words that I always remember Emma Smith saying to me: “I would feel a lot happier if people at school knew what to do if for any reason I was unable to treat myself.” That seems to be the very least that this House and this legislation should provide.”
“We are talking about a policy developed in schools, for schools and by schools, with the support of health bodies and local authorities behind them. I have addressed whether the proposed change is necessary and proportionate, but is it beneficial? It would be beneficial if children could go to school confident in the knowledge that those around them understood their conditions. It would be likely to make managing their conditions easier, allow them to play a much fuller part in the life of the school and fulfil more of their potential, reduce the requirement on parents to give up or reduce their work—and, arguably therefore, to step up their dependence on the state to support their kids in school—and reduce the demands on the NHS, so the proposal is beneficial as well. Is this change necessary? Yes. Is it proportionate? Yes.”
“That is disproportionate. New clause 8 does not propose a new policy obligation or new standards for national Government, nor would it require local authorities to act. It would not even require health bodies to act, other than to support schools. What new clause 8 proposes is that a school should have “a duty to produce and implement a medical conditions policy that defines how it plans to support the needs of children with specified health conditions”— no more, no less. In other words, schools should have well-judged, proportionate policies, pitched at where the challenge is greatest and the potential gain most important—that is, in the culture, understanding, practice and sympathy found in schools.”
“I backed my hon. Friend’s Bill and I remember it. Essentially, it aimed to set standards of support that all schools should have in place and, as I recall, to require Ofsted to monitor and inspect whether they were being met. Finally on the question of whether an amendment is necessary, the framework of legislation and guidance already in place—the “Managing medicines in school” guidance, the Equality Act 2010 or even the Children Act 1989—is often said to be sufficient, but these problems are so widespread for so many children that clearly the system as it stands is not working and something else is necessary. That brings me to my second point: is the proposed change proportionate? It is simply indefensible to argue that parents should have recourse to invoke the 2010 Act or the 1989 Act to get support for their kids at school.”
“It is humiliating for the Leader of the House to have to defend such a light legislative programme and a coalition Government who have all but run out of road on which they can agree to travel together. He will know that for more than a year I have highlighted a problem for the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which does not have the same powers as other professional regulators to review and revise its disciplinary decisions. Given that there is so little legislation before the House this year, will he help find time for a small but important legal change to deal with that problem?”
“As a Labour Back Bencher, I, too, welcome my hon. Friend’s decision and the decision of the shadow Cabinet to use this Opposition day for a debate on Northern Ireland. That is a strong sign of the continuing Labour concern and commitment to a lasting peace and lasting prosperity in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that, more than anything, we need more jobs and stronger growth? Does he also agree that, at the moment, Northern Ireland is held back by a failing UK economic policy from a failing and feeble Chancellor?”
“People remember the massive improvements in cancer care services under Labour. Now, more and more people are having to wait longer and longer for those crucial diagnostic cancer tests, when they might be worried sick about what they will have to face. Is the Minister happy that more people are waiting longer and what is she doing now to cut those waiting times?”
“The Lords amendment tabled by Baroness Hayter simply extended the estate agents system of regulation, which has been in place for more than 30 years, to letting and managing agents. It includes a redress scheme, but goes wider, including to cover some of the concerns that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has raised. Why do the Government not simply accept that amendment?”
“I am somewhat disturbed by that response and the suggestion that the homes that people buy are somehow more important than other people’s homes. We are dealing with people’s homes. Almost 9 million households now rent in the private sector, which includes 1 million families with children. They require some assurance—some security and basic rights in the market that they do not have at the moment—which a redress scheme on its own will not provide.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that slight qualification, but he may be in danger of overstating the extent of the U-turn. There are growing problems of unjustified, unfair, upfront fees, misleading advertisements, repairs not being done and visits not being made. This is a step in the right direction, but it is a small step, and will prove insufficient to deal with a market that is not functioning properly and fairly in the interests of tenants or landlords.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). He has become something of a regular fixture on the first day of the Budget debates during the years I have been in the House. I shall start by agreeing with him about the importance of certain exemptions from the climate change levy. I have the honour of representing a steel area in Rotherham. Steel is one of this country’s strategic industries, and the Chancellor’s announcement today will be very welcome in my constituency. It will help to secure the industry for the future, and I hope that it will also help to secure extra investment from Tata Steel.”
“It will indeed. This is a result of strong cross-party campaigning by Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and me. I also welcome the Chancellor’s decision to axe the beer duty escalator. I pay particular tribute to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for his hand in that. In fact, the escalator was introduced in 2008 for a four-year term. It should have ended last year, but instead of ending it, the Chancellor extended it. I am glad that he has seen sense and realised that we have hit the revenue maximisation point at which the tax rate had gone up, but the tax take had started to go down. I welcome that: it will be a boost for the brewing industry, which is a great British industry, and it will be a boost for the pubs, too.”
“So, our economy is smaller, weaker, making less, earning less and contributing less in revenues to the public finances. Other major countries such as Germany or the US have made up the ground they lost during that global financial crisis—we have failed.”
“When the Chancellor first took office nearly three years ago, unemployment was falling, the economy was recovering and we had had growth of 1.9% in the final year of the last Labour Government. That is the baseline from which the Chancellor has now given us four Budgets, four fiscal reports, four economic forecasts—with each one worse than the last. Since his first Budget plan in June 2010, debt is up, borrowing is up, we have lost our triple A credit rating, the economy has flatlined and we have had the first double-dip recession for 40 years. Five years after the recklessness of bankers brought the global financial system close to collapse and drove a worldwide downturn and three years after this Chancellor took control, our UK gross domestic product is still 3% lower than it was at the start of that global crisis.”
“That was exactly the case that I, the hon. Gentleman and others were making—that the escalator was damaging investment, damaging jobs, damaging pubs, damaging the British brewing industry and that it had even started to damage tax revenues. This afternoon’s decision is therefore sensible and welcome. The right hon. Member for Wokingham made an important point in the middle of his speech, when he said that the problem of tax revenues was at the heart of the Chancellor’s fiscal problem. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that it was partly about growth. It certainly is, and I would argue that he underestimates the extent to which it is about growth. The big gap in the Chancellor’s record to date—and, to an extent, the Budget announcements today—remains that we have a growth crisis without having a growth plan.”
“It is good if it is for investment to improve infrastructure or the productive capacity of the economy or if it is to create jobs, revive growth and generate the tax revenue that is so sorely lacking. Companies would borrow to take advantage of an opportunity to increase their earnings and profitability. Companies would never say, “We can borrow to invest only if we can cover the cost entirely by cutting the cost of our operations.” Households would do the same thing if, for example, borrowing to buy a car meant that it was possible to take up better-paid work, or if taking out a mortgage was cheaper than paying a private rent. In those circumstances, households would be daft not to borrow.”
“The IMF has recently changed its estimates—up from 0.5% to a range between 0.9% and 1.7%. In other words, the impact of fiscal policy, the potential of the fiscal multiplier and of Government action and Government investment might be much greater than we have been led to believe. At a time when consumer and business confidence is rock bottom and companies and households are cutting back and not spending, the Government must be ready to do more. They must be ready to invest alongside the private sector and they must, yes, be ready to borrow to help the country through tough times. Borrowing is bad when the repayments are not affordable or if it is done to cover day-to-day spending or indeed a shortfall between income and expenditure. That is why the Government’s planned borrowing bill has been ballooning, but borrowing can be good.”
“The independent Office for Budget Responsibility, he told us, is “absolutely clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible; in fact, quite the opposite.” Next day, a letter from the chairman of the OBR indeed confirmed the opposite, saying “for the avoidance of doubt” that the OBR operates “the widely held assumption that tax increases and spending cuts reduce economic growth.” In other words, the Chancellor has cut too far, too fast, killed the recovery and choked off growth. There is good reason to believe that the OBR has underestimated and is underestimating the impact of fiscal policy on growth—the fiscal multipliers. Its estimates to date have been based on the International Monetary Fund figures, which estimate a 0.5% fiscal multiplier, 0.3% for changes in personal taxation and 1% for infrastructure and capital spending.”
“I have to say to my hon. Friend that there is sometimes a case for changing the historical land use, but that is a decision that very much needs to be taken locally. It will certainly not work if it is dictated by the Department for Communities and Local Government. To deal with a deficit, which is what we face—whether it be for a country or a family—we must control spending, as the Chancellor said, but if we cut income at the same time, that makes it much harder to close that gap. That is why growth is so vital to a proper balanced plan for the country’s finances. That is why the Chancellor is now further from his fiscal targets than he was before the Budget. The Prime Minister has tried to claim that the depressed growth has nothing to do with the Government.”
“I would argue that, after three years of economic policy failure, the balance of economic advantage lies decisively in Government borrowing to invest and build. Borrowing for those purposes can be good borrowing. There is a difference: not all borrowing is bad borrowing. Interest rates on public debt are at an historic low, so now is exactly the right time for government, both national and local, to borrow for that investment. An open advocacy of the means, not just the ends, is overdue. The Chancellor has confirmed in his Budget that his economic plan is failing, but he has also confirmed that he is sticking to that plan. We need a change. We need a change of policy, we need a change of Chancellor, and yes, we need a change of Government.”
“If we want to move the dial on GDP growth when the economy is weak, it is Government investment—not simply private sector investment—that is needed. When the economy is weak, we need more public investment; yes, it will increase debt, but it will also increase output and growth. Even the Chancellor recognised, when he delivered his first Budget, that the last Tory Government had cut capital investment too far, yet the Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that for the first three years of this Parliament, capital spending fell year on year—it is now £12.8 billion lower than Labour planned. Even the £3.5 billion of extra investment that the Chancellor has announced today will not be for this year or next year, but in three years’ time—too little, too late.”
“There is an interesting example of a proposal, which I have backed, to allow local government to borrow more by removing the cap from the newly localised housing revenue account. We have heard about families borrowing prudently, but local government does borrow prudently, as its average level of debt is less than 5%. The Chancellor told us that the national Government’s net debt is 75%. We are talking about £7 billion, loosening the cap, and 15,000 new council homes—not just for this year, as the Chancellor has announced, but every year for the next five years. That is the sort of borrowing we could do to invest, to promote jobs, to promote growth and to bring in tax revenues, helping to deal with the deficit in a proper and balanced way.”
“The hon. Gentleman has said that he welcomes a single pot. Is that not exactly what the regional development agencies had, including the south-west RDA? They had a single pot with no strings attached from the centre, and decisions on the spending of that pot were made in the regions, for the regions. Was it not a mistake to abolish the RDAs and then to wait three years before reintroducing that important flexible funding arrangement?”
“While my hon. Friend is still on the question of all-party consensus and before he strays away from it to the abolition of the RDAs, does he acknowledge that the Heseltine review, which has a good deal of support across the parties, recognises the importance of EU funds such as the ERDF as a boost to economic growth and structural change?”
“My hon. Friend will forgive me if he plans to move on to this, but it is critical to know how the now-secured ERDF funding will be spent and the degree of local discretion, decision-making and flexibility, particularly at the LEP level or, in our case, the Sheffield city region level. I hope that he will encourage the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to give us maximum localist discretion.”