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, with reference to his Department’s press release of 28 December 2015, Insurers vow to pass on whiplash reform saving, what the evidential basis is for the Government’s statement that whiplash claims cost the country £2 billion a year.

    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 recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the introduction of tolls on the Mersey Gateway and Silver Jubilee bridges; and whether a decision has been taken on discounts for use of those bridges for local businesses and residents.

    Andrew Jones

    The Secretary of State has not discussed this issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A final decision on whether to fund further discounts to users of the bridges has yet to be taken.

  • 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 2015-11-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the extent of gambling addiction in young people in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    Tracey Crouch

    The Gambling Commission recently published the findings from a 2015 survey of gambling participation and problem gambling amongst 11-15 year olds. It found that 0.6% of 11-15 year olds being classified as problem gamblers. More information can be found here:

    http://www.natlotcomm.gov.uk/publications-and-research/research-programme/underage-play/ipsos-mori-young-people-omnibus-2015.html

  • 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 – 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 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 representations his Department has received from Ofcom on that body’s powers to mandate a gaining provider-led 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 and we will do all we can to move towards a system of gaining provider-led (GPL) switching across the board. Ofcom is currently consulting on process reforms for switching mobile services, including proposals for a GPL model. Under its existing powers, it has already introduced GPL processes for customers switching broadband and fixed-line services. It is apparent from my officials’ ongoing discussions with Ofcom – and from its recent work and current proposals to improve switching processes – that Ofcom has powers to introduce a GPL switching regime for mobile services, should it determine following its consultation that such a reform would be proportionate.

  • 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.