Tag: George Howarth

  • George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2016-01-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make representations to the government of China on its recent decision to land civilian planes on Fiery Cross reef in the disputed South China Sea.

    Mr Hugo Swire

    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) expressed our concerns about the situation in the South China Sea during his visit to Beijing on 5 January. He stressed the need to avoid raising tensions and underlined the importance of maintaining freedom of navigation and overflight.

  • George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the budget deficits are at the (a) Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust, (b) St Helens and Knowsley Hospital Services NHS Trust, (c) Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, (d) Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, (e) Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust and (f) Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The latest financial positions of individual National Health Service trusts are published in NHS trust Board papers, available on NHS trust websites.

  • George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-11-03.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he expects there to be an announcement on the extension of the Mersey Gateway free travel scheme to residents and businesses in Cheshire; and if he will make a statement.

    Greg Hands

    As announced at the Summer Budget, we have asked the Department for Transport to look at extending the Mersey Gateway local discount scheme to residents of Chester West & Chester and Warrington, as well as looking at help for small businesses. This work is ongoing.

  • George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2016-01-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect of the decision of China to land civilian planes on Fiery Cross reef in the disputed South China Sea on regional relationships.

    Mr Hugo Swire

    The landings of Chinese civilian aircraft on Fiery Cross Reef have prompted diplomatic protests in the region and widespread expressions of concern about heightened tensions. The UK opposes any actions likely to increase tensions in the South China Sea and threaten regional stability. We continue to call on all parties to exercise restraint.

  • George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much (a) Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust, (b) St Helens and Knowsley Hospital Services NHS Trust, (c) Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, (d) Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, (e) Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust and (f) Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust spent on agency medical staff in (i) 2014-15 and (ii) 2015-16.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The Department does not collect data on which specific area of employment provider expenditure was incurred under. Data is however collected in totality for employees under temporary or agency contracts. The total temporary and agency staff expenditure incurred by the six providers for 2014-15 and 2015-16 is shown in the table below.

    Provider body

    2014-15 £000

    2015-16 £000

    Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen

    11,652

    11,244

    St Helens and Knowsley

    8,403

    12,251

    Aintree

    14,927

    11,253

    Wirral

    6,181

    12,849

    Southport and Ormskirk

    11,115

    15.080

    Warrington and Halton

    11,562

    15,957

    In addition to payments made for medical staff, the figures in the above table include the costs of temporary and agency workers engaged in other activities, such as employees contracted for provision of other administration and support services.

  • George Howarth – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Using Hotels in Knowsley for Asylum Seekers

    George Howarth – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Using Hotels in Knowsley for Asylum Seekers

    The parliamentary question asked by Sir George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

    The right hon. Gentleman is right about one thing: the Home Office has not covered itself in glory. In January, I was informed 24 hours earlier that 150 asylum seekers would be relocated to a hotel in Knowsley. Unfortunately, the Home Office notified the wrong local authority about what was about to happen—although, to be fair, it did apologise. There are now 180 asylum seekers in that hotel. I was told that it was initially only going to be for three months. It is now over 10 months. Can the Minister give me some indication of when that arrangement will end? It has already massively exceeded the prediction of how long it would be.

    Robert Jenrick

    I would be very happy to get back to the right hon. Gentleman and set out in detail the strategy for hotels and accommodation in his constituency. My approach has been: first, to ensure that Manston is brought to a legal and decent situation as quickly as possible—I think we are broadly there—secondly, to move to good-quality engagement with local authorities while we are still in a difficult and challenging situation; and thirdly, to move to a point where we are not relying on hotels at all, or doing so very judiciously, but accommodating people in dispersal accommodation or larger sensible sites. I am afraid that will take us some time because, as I have said in previous answers, there has been a failure to plan for accommodation over a sustained period. We need to correct that now.

  • George Howarth – 2022 Speech on Employee Share Ownership

    George Howarth – 2022 Speech on Employee Share Ownership

    The speech made by George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a new employee share ownership scheme allowing preferential access for lower income workers; to reduce the Share Incentive Plan holding period from five to three years; to require companies to include declarations in annual reports about the type of employee share ownership plans that are operated and the level of employee take up; and for connected purposes.

    This Bill has broad support across the House, as the list of sponsors will demonstrate. Politically, it fits neatly with most ideological traditions. From a Conservative viewpoint, it chimes with the ambition for the UK to become a property-owning, share-owning democracy. From Labour’s perspective, it resonates with the historical commitment to co-operation, although by different means from the traditional par value model, and it provides a means by which the relationship between capital and labour can be modestly realigned.

    As I will demonstrate, the Bill has the support of nationalists and Unionists and Liberal Democrats, who see the benefits to employers and employees as being consistent with their respective political outlooks. Employee share ownership has been supported by a diverse range of organisations, including the CBI, the Social Market Foundation, the TUC and the Co-operative party. The CBI, for example, has stated:

    “The moral case for financial inclusion is a compelling one—people have a right to their dignity and financial exclusion denies them that right.”

    Similarly, the Social Market Foundation pointed out:

    “As the UK economy emerges from the Coronavirus pandemic, now is a good time for government to push for higher rates of employee share ownership.”

    The TUC has said that, subject to certain conditions—for example, a preference for collective schemes and them not being used as a substitute for collective bargaining and trade union involvement—it supports employee share ownership.

    This Bill aims to update two of the current share ownership schemes—the share incentive plan, known as SIP, and the save-as-you-earn system, known as SAYE or Sharesave—and proposes a third scheme. The reason the two existing schemes need to be updated is that, over recent years, the number of such plans has been plateauing and, in some cases, falling. The Treasury’s own data acknowledge that trend. The number of firms that granted a new SAYE option in 2021 was 260, a fall from 340 in 2007. Overall, employees were awarded or purchased shares in 400 companies, compared with 570 in 2011-12.

    There are several reasons for that decline. First, SIP and SAYE were introduced 22 and 42 years ago respectively. In the intervening years, employment practices have undergone significant changes, and the schemes no longer reflect those changes. For example, the length of time an employee spends at a company has markedly reduced. Indeed, young people are often encouraged to move jobs more frequently to secure career advancement. The Social Market Foundation has said:

    “Among the poorest half of people aged 25 to 34, typical net financial wealth among those who are not employee shareholders was just £77. But among employee shareholders, wealth stood at £750.”

    That being the case, the five-year minimum investment commitment for SIP schemes, to ensure maximum tax efficiency, is no longer realistic.

    The fact that the Government offer tax advantages to employee share ownership is, of course, welcome. The risk, however, is that without updating them, they could become increasingly obsolete. For that reason, the Bill would reduce the commitment from five years to three, to achieve maximum tax efficiency, as advocated by ProShare, the industry representative body. Moreover, many employers believe that such a change would make them more likely to offer SIP schemes.

    Another problem is that current plans apply only to those on pay-as-you-earn. There are now, however, some 4 million people who work in the so-called gig economy. A further provision in the Bill would create a new plan that does not depend on regular monthly contributions and is accessible to those in less regular forms of work. It would enable employers to give a free share award to their employees, to be held for a year, after which it could be realised at a discount value, as in SAYE schemes currently. That would be attractive to younger staff, who may not envisage staying at a company for three years, let alone five.

    The other provision in the Bill is to require the Treasury to carry out a consultation with all the relevant bodies, including those I have referred to, with the aim of modernising employee share ownership to reflect the changes that have taken place since the existing schemes were introduced. One new idea that could be consulted on is allowing employees to access the holding built up in their share incentive plan in a tax-efficient and advantageous manner that, under the current scheme, is only available after five years, with regular contributions made over the last one year, without a penalty being applied.

    Before concluding, I would like to say a few words about the benefits that such schemes bring to employees and employers. Two examples illustrate the benefits to employees. First, Pets at Home staff—mainly shop floor staff working in retail—who participated in the company’s SAYE scheme have made an average gain of £21,000. That is a healthy return on their investment and an increase in their financial resilience. Secondly, as ProShare’s annual survey shows, the average value of a participant’s shareholding at the end of 2021 was £10,295—again, a significant sum.

    Employers gain too. As the CBI and the Social Market Foundation pointed out, employees having a stake in the company they work for provides important productivity gains, as well as boosting innovation and corporate long-termism. I hope this Bill will be a good starting point in encouraging and expanding employee share ownership and enabling the potential benefits to all concerned to be realised.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Sir George Howarth, Margaret Beckett, Kirsty Blackman, Sir Graham Brady, Philip Davies, Mr Jonathan Djanogly, Dame Margaret Hodge, John McDonnell, Esther McVey, Sarah Olney, Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas present the Bill.

    Sir George Howarth accordingly presented the Bill.

  • George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the effect of changes to permitted development rights in 2013 on the roll-out of 4G mobile services; and what plans he has to assess whether further reforms of such rights would facilitate further roll-out of such services.

    Brandon Lewis

    On 10 July, the Government’s Productivity Plan set out its ambitions for mobile connectivity in England and launched the Review of ‘How the Planning System in England Can Support the Delivery of Mobile Connectivity’. We sought views on the ability of the planning system to deliver and support mobile connectivity, the effectiveness of the changes made in 2013, and evidence on technical and operational factors, which may be limiting deployment.

    We received responses from mobile network operators and associated industry, local authorities, countryside groups and others. We are considering the evidence submitted and will announce the outcome of the planning review in due course.

  • George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what representations he has received on future reform of the planning framework in order to facilitate the delivery of enhanced mobile services.

    Brandon Lewis

    On 10 July, the Government’s Productivity Plan set out its ambitions for mobile connectivity in England and launched the Review of ‘How the Planning System in England Can Support the Delivery of Mobile Connectivity’. We sought views on the ability of the planning system to deliver and support mobile connectivity, the effectiveness of the changes made in 2013, and evidence on technical and operational factors, which may be limiting deployment.

    We received responses from mobile network operators and associated industry, local authorities, countryside groups and others. We are considering the evidence submitted and will announce the outcome of the planning review in due course.

  • George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment his Department has made of the effect on vulnerable consumers of the switching regime in the mobile sector.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The Government is committed to working with Ofcom to support quick and easy switching in communications markets. In its current consultation on mobile switching, Ofcom sets out considerations of how current switching processes may lead to consumer harm. Problems that may occur include consumer difficulty with switching processes, unnecessary costs, navigating different processes, breaks in continuity of service, lack of awareness of the implications of and any liabilities arising from switching, and erroneous transfers and ‘slamming’ (where consumers are switched without their consent). Ofcom’s evidence suggests that, although existing mobile switching processes perform relatively well against those measures, they are likely to generate a degree of consumer harm.

    For those who have not switched, the perception of a difficult process can inhibit their engagement with the market and any decision to switch, which is likely to mean they are paying more. BIS research indicates that consumers who may be vulnerable by virtue of personal circumstances – for example, those who are elderly, not working and/or lack ‘self-efficacy’, confidence or trust – tend to be fairly disengaged from markets and the purchase process. Those consumers are much less likely than other groups to gather information, check whether they are on the best deal or switch supplier.

    Ofcom is currently consulting on options to improve mobile switching, with the aim of simplifying and automating the process for all consumers.