Tag: George Howarth

  • 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 2016-09-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the CLIC Sargent report of 1 September 2016, entitled Cancer costs: financial impact of childhood cancer revealed, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of cancer on young people and their families.

    David Mowat

    We know that cancer can affect all areas of a person’s life, including finances – 83% of people say they are financially impacted by cancer. People require holistic support from diagnosis onwards, encompassing their physical, financial, psychosocial, and information and support needs, throughout their entire cancer journey.

    Children and teenagers with serious or critical illnesses such as cancer are also entitled to apply for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) (or a Personal Independence Payment if over 16). This is a tax free allowance, which contributes to the extra costs incurred by families in caring for children with additional needs and includes a mobility component. Children in receipt of DLA can receive up to £139.75 a week, and people who are terminally ill can have their claim fast tracked to access benefits sooner. Families and carers can also qualify for Carer’s Allowance and receive £62.10 a week if they meet the eligibility criteria, and some councils run Council Tax Reductions schemes for people on low incomes or who claim benefits.

    We do not have any plans to review the hospital travel costs scheme – which provides financial assistance to those patients who do not have a medical need for ambulance transport, but who require assistance with their travel costs. This is part of the well-established NHS Low Income Scheme, in which patients on low incomes or receiving specific qualifying benefits or allowances can be reimbursed in part or in full for costs incurred in travelling to receive treatment at hospitals and this would include cancer treatment. It also can be claimed where the appointment has been made for a child or other dependent.

  • 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 2015-12-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he has taken to replace the CAMHS strategy and framework; and when he plans to publish that document.

    Alistair Burt

    Children and young people’s mental health is a priority area for this Government and we are committed to delivering the vision set out in Future in mind, the report published jointly by the Department and NHS England in March 2015. Future in mind forms the basis of the Government’s plans for system wide transformation in children and young people’s mental health and is supported by an additional investment of £1.4 billion over the course of this Parliament. There are no plans to publish any further strategy or framework plans in addition to Future in mind.

  • 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 2016-09-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the importance of direct long-haul air links with a hub airport for international trade.

    Mr John Hayes

    Evidence on the links between long-haul air connections and international trade was presented by the Airports Commission in its Final Report and supporting documents. The Government is considering all of this evidence very carefully before reaching a view on its preferred scheme. The Government is not providing a running commentary on this work before an announcement on its preference.

  • 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 2015-12-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether he plans to collect data on the needs of (a) looked after children, (b) children in need, (c) victims of abuse and (d) children living in poverty in the prevalence survey on children and young people’s mental health.

    Alistair Burt

    The aim of the survey is to estimate the prevalence of mental health disorders in the general population aged two to 19 years. The survey will use a similar methodology to the last survey from 2004 to ensure comparability. A representative sample will be drawn from households in England (and Scotland). None of the specific groups listed in the question have been excluded from the survey.

    The number of looked after children and children in need in the general population are relatively low. This may limit the amount of data the survey can collect on these groups.

    We anticipate the final report of the survey will include some analysis of mental health disorders by characteristics including socio-economic factors. The contractor has also been asked to consider how to improve questions around the impact of abuse on children and young people’s mental health.

  • 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 assessment he has made of the number of cancelled elective operations in 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 in the last six months.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    NHS England publishes information each quarter on the number of last minute elective operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons. The following table shows this information for the specified trusts in the two most recent quarters. A last minute cancellation is defined as when a patient’s operation is cancelled by the hospital on or after the day of admission, including the day of surgery, for non-clinical reasons.

    Number of last minute elective operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons for specified trusts, Quarter 4 2015/16 and Quarter 1 2016/17

    Quarter 4 2015/16

    Quarter 1 2016/17

    Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

    113

    93

    St Helens and Knowsley Hospital Services NHS Trust

    161

    102

    Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    67

    39

    Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    55

    61

    Southport And Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust

    77

    27

    Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

    0

    31

    Source: Cancelled elective operations, NHS England

    Note:

    Quarter 2 data will be published on 11 November 2016.

  • 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 the cost to the NHS was of treating patients with diabetic retinopathy in (a) 2012, (b) 2013 and (c) 2014.

    Jane Ellison

    We do not hold this information in the format requested.

  • 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.