Tag: George Howarth

  • 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 the Government is doing to encourage the equal treatment of mental and physical health within the NHS; and if he will introduce waiting time targets for children accessing all specialist child and adolescent mental health services.

    Alistair Burt

    The Government is committed to ensuring parity of esteem between physical and mental health which is legislated by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It also holds the NHS to account for achieving the objectives set out in the NHS Mandate, which includes ensuring that mental and physical health conditions are given equal priority.

    NHS England’s Five Year Forward View set out a clear commitment to driving towards a more equal response across mental and physical health and achieving genuine parity of esteem by 2020. NHS England’s Planning Guidance for 2015/16, Forward View into action: planning for 2015-16, sets out the expectation that clinical commissioning groups’ (CCGs) spending on mental health services in 2015/16 should increase in real terms, and grow by at least as much as each CCG’s allocation increase to support the ambition of parity between mental and physical health. Compliance with the Planning Guidance is being assured at national and Area Team level.

    The Government remains committed to a phased approach to developing further access and waiting standards across mental health. The most recent of which was the Eating Disorder Standard announced in August 2015.

  • 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 findings of the report of CLIC Sargent, Cancer costs: financial impact of childhood cancer revealed, published on 1 September 2016, how he plans to ensure that his Department’s guidance on hospital car parking is applied consistently across England.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The National Health Service patient, visitor and staff car parking principles (first published in August 2014 and then updated in October 2015), set out a nationally consistent approach to determining car parking policies, making clear the rules which NHS trusts should follow when making decisions about car parking.

  • 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 his Department’s policy is on screening of high-risk patients for liver disease.

    David Mowat

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published guidance on the diagnosis and management of a number of conditions affecting the liver including alcohol use disorders, cirrhosis, hepatitis B and C and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

  • 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 guidance his Department gives to mental health trusts on (a) reducing did not attend cases and (b) ensuring risk assessments are carried out when young people fail to attend.

    Alistair Burt

    NHS England has issued guidance through the Local Transformation Plans for Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing: Guidance and Support for local areas (published August 2015) that states that services should set out a clear plan to transform the design and delivery of a local offer of services for children and young people with mental health needs in line with the Future in mind report.

    Future in mind was clear that services should monitor attendance and actively follow up families and young people who miss appointments, and that it may be necessary to find alternative ways to engage the child, young person or family. The Local Transformation Plans present an opportunity to make a step change in how agencies support the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people, especially the most vulnerable. This includes those who – for whatever reason – find it more difficult to engage with traditional models of service delivery and would instead benefit from seeing a clinician in a less conventional setting. Missed appointments should not lead to a family or young person being discharged from services, but instead be considered as an indicator of need and actively followed up, where necessary finding alternative ways to engage the child, young person or family.

  • 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 – 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 estimate he has made of the average annual cost to the NHS of the effects of sight loss; and if he will make a statement.

    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

  • 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 assessment his Department has made of the likely effects of the ageing population on the costs of treating sight loss and eye health issues.

    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

  • 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.