Tag: George Howarth

  • George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2016-02-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on what proportion of the £2 billion cost of whiplash claims comes from (a) genuine claims and (b) fraudulent claims.

    Dominic Raab

    As noted in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, the figure of £2 billion a year is an insurance industry estimate of the cost of dealing with road traffic related personal injury claims.

    The Government will be publishing an impact assessment alongside its consultation on the whiplash reforms announced in the Autumn Statement in due course.

  • George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    George Howarth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

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

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the effect of tolls on the Mersey Gateway and Silver Jubilee bridges on the (a) finances, (b) employment levels, (c) employment choices and (d) road travel habits of residents of Knowsley.

    Andrew Jones

    The Secretary of State for Transport has not produced an assessment of the effect of tolls on the Mersey Gateway and Silver Jubilee bridges on the (a) finances, (b) employment levels, (c) employment choices and (d) road travel habits of residents of Knowsley. The Mersey Gateway Bridge scheme is being promoted by Halton Borough Council and it is for them to justify the costs for users of the new bridge. A range of discounts will be available for frequent users of the crossing.

    In approving the scheme the Government considered the case for change, the economic case, and that the scheme is viable, affordable and achievable. In line with other estuarial crossings, and as there will be improved travel across the Mersey, users are expected to part fund the infrastructure.

  • George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-12-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will introduce a standardised baseline measure for children’s fitness.

    Jane Ellison

    There are no current plans to introduce a standardised baseline measure for children’s fitness. The Government’s focus has been on raising awareness of the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Physical Activity guidelines and wider healthy lifestyle choices through a number of initiatives including, the National Child Measurement Programme, Change4Life campaigns and programmes to promote physical activity in schools such as the Primary PE and Sport Premium, School Games and Change4Life Sports Clubs.

  • 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 2016-05-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make representations to the government of Iran on the imprisonment in 2008 of seven Bahá’ í leaders in that country.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The UK regularly raises our concerns at the treatment of the Baha’i community in Iran. We call on the Iranian Government to end all persecution of individuals on the basis of their faith and to fulfil its international and domestic obligations to allow freedom of religion to all Iranians.

  • 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 2016-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to increase the provision of (a) medical and (b) nursing training in hepatology.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    It is the responsibility of the professional regulators such as the General Medical Council or the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) to set the standards and outcomes for education and training and approve training curricula to ensure newly qualified healthcare professionals are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to provide high quality patient care.

    Hepatology is a medical sub-specialty of gastroenterology. In Health Education England’s 2016/17 Workforce Plan for England, there are 450 training commissions proposed for gastroenterology, an increase from 431 in 2015/16.

    Whilst the NMC does not recognise hepatology in its standards for specialist education and practice, the Royal College of Nursing has written a comprehensive competence framework which outlines the training, skills and competence required to develop and maintain a special interest in hepatology:

    https://www2.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/641425/004-983_WEB.pdf

  • 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 of Health

    George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what projections his Department has made for the number of people who will have diabetes by 2050.

    Jane Ellison

    The Department has made no such estimate.

  • George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the cost to the NHS was of treating patients with glaucoma in (a) 2012, (b) 2013 and (c) 2014.

    Alistair Burt

    Cost information is shown in the following table from reference costs, which are the average unit cost to National Health Service trusts and foundation trusts of providing defined services in a given financial year. The table shows the costs of a surgical procedure covering one episode of care under one consultant in an admitted patient or outpatient setting and does not include other elements of the patient pathway such as general practitioner consultations or outpatient appointments. It is not possible to separately identify the costs of glaucoma in non-surgical appointments.

    Costs associated with glaucoma procedures, 2011/12 – 2013/14

    Healthcare Resource Group (HRG)

    Activity

    National average unit cost £

    Estimated total cost £million

    2011/12

    Major Glaucoma Procedures

    2,248

    £1,440

    £3.2m

    Intermediate Glaucoma Procedures

    33,842

    £387

    £13.1m

    Minor Glaucoma Procedures

    17,194

    £293

    £5.0m

    Total

    £21.3m

    2012/13

    Major Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 1+

    1,206

    £1,665

    £2.0m

    Major Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 0

    2,622

    £885

    £2.3m

    Intermediate Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 1+

    3,167

    £1,250

    £4.0m

    Intermediate Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 0

    17,410

    £451

    £7.9m

    Minor Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 1+

    2,014

    £773

    £1.6m

    Minor Glaucoma Procedures, with CC Score 0

    19,243

    £198

    £3.8m

    Total

    £21.6m

    2013/14

    Major Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 1+

    1,709

    £1,689

    £2.9m

    Major Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 0

    3,129

    £884

    £2.8m

    Intermediate Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 1+

    3,384

    £1,236

    £4.2m

    Intermediate Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 0

    9,297

    £772

    £7.2m

    Minor Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 1+

    2,142

    £680

    £1.5m

    Minor Glaucoma Procedures with CC Score 0

    24,688

    £181

    £4.5m

    Total

    £23.1m

    Source: Reference costs, Department of Health

    Notes:

    1. The HRG classification groups procedures into categories such as major, intermediate and minor, according to their complexity.
    2. Complication and comorbidity scores describe the illness severity and complexity of patients, and the additional resources required for their treatment.

  • George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    George Howarth – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2015-09-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate his Department has made of the (a) number of people with sight loss in the UK and (b) likely number of people who will have sight loss in 2050.

    Alistair Burt

    The Department has made no recent estimate of the number of people with sight loss, the likely number who will have sight loss in the future, or of the costs in treating sight loss and eye health issues.

    Information on the number of patients who are blind or have sight loss is not collected centrally. However information is available on the number of people who are registered by local authorities as blind or partially sighted. At March 2014, the number of people on the register of blind people was 143,000 and on the register of partially sighted people 147,700.

    Registration as blind or partially sighted is voluntary so the numbers registered are likely to be an underestimate of the total number of people living with sight loss. Research funded by the Royal National Institute of Blind People, published in 20091, estimated there were almost 2 million people in the United Kingdom living with sight loss and that this number would double to 4 million by 2050.

    Information is collected centrally and published on NHS expenditure on `problems of vision’ across both primary and secondary care. In the latest year for which data has been published2 for both primary and secondary care, 2012/13, primary care trust expenditure was £2.3 billion. The Department expects NHS England to commission services for eye health to meet any increased demand, as it would in any other area of healthcare. The ‘Five Year Forward View’3 sets out the vision for how services may be organised going forward.

    1 http://www.rnib.org.uk/sites/default/files/FSUK_Report.pdf

    2 http://www.england.nhs.uk/resources/resources-for-ccgs/prog-budgeting/

    3 http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5yfv-web.pdf