Tag: George Howarth

  • George Howarth – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    George Howarth – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that reparations will be paid to HM Treasury as a result of damage caused by discharges in the Diego Garcia lagoon in the British Indian Overseas Territory by US vessels and those responsible for causing that damage are prosecuted.

    Mark Simmonds

    It is not clear what if any damage has been caused by the discharges by US vessels in the Diego Garcia lagoon, and the Government looks forward to the conclusions of a joint UK-US study of the lagoon water and its coral which will conclude this summer. The US have already committed to spending several million dollars over 2014-2016 to ensure that they comply with our no-discharge policy.

  • George Howarth – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    George Howarth – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by George Howarth on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what progress his Department is making on ensuring that a British-led team of experts carries out a scientific assessment of discharges by US vessels in the Diego Garcia lagoon in the British Indian Overseas Territory.

    Mark Simmonds

    The joint UK-US study of the lagoon water and its coral, which began in January 2014, is well underway and due to conclude this summer, as planned.

  • George Howarth – 2022 Speech on NHS Dentistry

    George Howarth – 2022 Speech on NHS Dentistry

    The speech made by George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, in the House of Commons on 20 October 2022.

    May I, too, express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to debate this important matter today?

    On 22 September, during a statement by the Health and Social Care Secretary, I raised these problems on behalf of the people of Knowsley and the Liverpool city region, and described the experiences they are having. I cited BBC research that showed that, to use the Secretary of State’s own term, Liverpool city region is a “dental desert”, with not one dental practice taking on NHS patients. In response, she said that she had

    “set out in the plan today what we are seeking to do with dentists. First of all, it is the role of the local NHS—the ICB—to take responsibility for such provision, and I expect it to do so.”—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 839.]

    Earlier this week, my office carried out a survey of dental practices in Knowsley to measure what, if any, progress had been made since that exchange. We found that, of the 13 dental practices in Knowsley, it is still the case that none—I repeat, none—is accepting new NHS adult patients, and only two are accepting children under the age of 18. I am therefore bound to conclude that no progress has been made in the ensuing weeks.

    Also on 22 September, I urged the Secretary of State to take measures in the short, medium and long term to address this disgraceful situation. Since then, the British Dental Association has pointed out that

    “the Government needs to show real ambition to bring NHS dentistry back from the brink.”

    Although the new Administration—goodness knows there will be another new Administration shortly—has placed dentistry as a top ABCD—ambulances, backlogs, care, doctors and dentists—priority, no new proposals have been made

    “to halt the exodus of dentists from the NHS”

    to care for patients. Moreover, the British Dental Association points out that the key issues of contract referral, chronic underfunding and growing oral inequalities have yet to be addressed. This is not just a matter of cosmetic treatment, important though that may be in many cases. As the association pointed out, this is also about how to spot oral cancer earlier, which is one of the fastest rising types of cancer and claims more lives than car accidents. That is a particular concern for Knowsley. As the British Dental Association went on to say:

    “People in the most deprived communities are significantly more likely to die from it than those in more affluent areas.”

    Our dentists are in many cases the first medical professionals to detect cases. Access to NHS dental treatment can in such cases be the difference between life and death. Knowsley is one of the most deprived boroughs in the country and it is consequently in a very vulnerable position regarding the early detection of oral cancer.

    The motion contains good points that I would happily endorse, but I am concerned that in terms of specific actions it calls for a progress report in three months’ time. My concern—I do not make this point to be at all mischievous—is that I do not know, and nobody in the House will be able to tell me, who is likely to be the next Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and whether they will have a different strategy on NHS dental care. So we need something to be done more speedily. The Government have to take responsibility for the current turmoil, but the fact is that there is so much uncertainty and such issues are simply not being dealt with.

    The motion does not address what the Government could be doing in the short term to alleviate the problems confronting people in Knowsley and elsewhere. I have two suggestions on short-term action that could and should be taken. First, I urge the Secretary of State to introduce a procedure to enable those in need of urgent NHS dental treatment to be referred to a suitable dental practice, preferably locally. My constituency office recently dealt with the case of an 18-year-old constituent who needed urgent root canal treatment on two front teeth, which she was unable to afford. The problem was exacerbating an existing mental health problem. Since she was in constant pain and probably barely able to eat and drink, I contacted NHS North West. I am grateful that it was able to make arrangements for her to receive the treatment she needed at a local dental practice. I suggest that that approach, which I just happened to stumble across, should be added as a matter of urgency for those in need of urgent dental treatment.

    Secondly, I am aware that many NHS patients have been culled by dental practices, often on the basis that they were not making use of the service on a regular enough basis. I cannot give accurate figures for Knowsley, but I suspect that thousands of people are former NHS patients. However, no appeal process is available to such patients, who have just been struck off and there is nothing that they can do about it, other than pay to be treated privately. I am aware of one case involving a Knowsley resident who, as a result of extremely debilitating, extended cancer treatment, was unable to contemplate much-needed dental treatment. When he felt strong enough to do so, however, he tried to make an appointment as an NHS patient, only to discover that he had been struck off the list.

    My second short-term suggestion is therefore to urge the Secretary of State to institute an appeal process whereby such patients could apply to NHS England in order for it to prevail on the medical practice concerned to reinstate NHS patients who had good reasons for not being able to visit the dentist during lockdown, or who could not do so for medical reasons, such as those I have referred to. On the medium term and longer term, and the national problems to which I referred, I simply urge Ministers to enter into meaningful discussions with the British Dental Association to help to resolve the issues that I are so bedevilling NHS dental services nationally.

    I hope that Ministers will accept that I have tried in my approach to deal with this important matter as constructively as I can. I sincerely hope that they will respond in a similar way and try to help to resolve the short-term problems that my constituents are experiencing in ways that can be easily implemented.

  • George Howarth – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    George Howarth – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, in the House of Commons on 10 September 2022.

    Her Majesty the Queen embodied a shining example of duty, a sympathy and understanding of the people of our country and of the Commonwealth and beyond, and exceptionally good judgment. I have to confess that I have not always felt supportive of the principle of the monarchy. As a young local councillor, I once attended a function at which the loyal toast to the Queen was proposed and, foolishly, I declined to take part, remaining firmly in my seat. My non-participation led to comment in our local paper and a strong backlash from the people I represented. I learnt two lessons from that episode: first, that the unnecessary courting of controversy was not a good thing to do; and, secondly, that the people had enormous respect and affection for our constitutional monarchy and for the Queen in particular. One question I was asked at the time was, “So what is your alternative?” and I must confess that I struggled to find an answer. By the time I was elected to this House, more than a decade later, I had come to the view that Her Majesty and the monarchy were a much-valued part of our national life. Her dedication and sense of duty in the ensuing years has served to strongly confirm me in that view.

  • George Howarth – 2022 Speech in the No Confidence in the Government Motion

    George Howarth – 2022 Speech in the No Confidence in the Government Motion

    The speech made by George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2022.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) even though I am not quite sure what his argument really was.

    Most people in this country—in fact, overwhelmingly people in this country; indeed, even in this Parliament—have no involvement in deciding who the next Prime Minister is. However, I will come back to that. It is an important issue whenever a Prime Minister is switched mid-term. At the moment, as many of my hon. Friends have said, we have a massive crisis in the national health service; we have problems with energy costs and how they will affect people’s lives; and we have problems with inflation and how it affects people’s ability to put food on the table. Those things are more important than ever, yet here we are, switching Governments with no prospect, as far as I can tell, of any realistic plan to address those problems.

    I will share a quote from Janice Turner, who wrote in Saturday’s Times:

    “For the third time in six years, who leads us is being decided by the tiniest sliver of society.”

    She refers, of course, to the 150,000 Conservative party members. Margaret from Knowsley made a similar point. She said:

    “It is like watching a criminal gang choose its leader. The rest of us have no say in the matter but have to live with the consequences daily in our lives. Except this is about our democracy and who is in charge of our country.”

    I think she put it very well.

    I have not got time to talk about how we could handle this situation better, but I refer those who are genuinely interested to an article by the noble and learned Lord Sumption that was in The Sunday Times eight days ago. He set out why, without a written constitution in a parliamentary system, this problem must be resolved before we get into this position again, because it threatens to undermine the stability of our democracy.

  • George Howarth – 2019 Speech on the Withdrawal Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, to the House of Commons on 12 March 2019.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah). He made a thoughtful, fluent and principled speech and I commend him for doing so.

    Back in January when we were debating this matter, I said that the Government had no majority, no authority, and no longer served any useful purpose. If that was debatable in January, it is now an absolute certainty. I am afraid that the debate we are having only reflects the mess that the Government have got themselves into on this issue.

    I want to be brief so I will not repeat a lot of the things that have already been said. I just want to make a couple of remarks about where the public are at and where they were at the beginning of this process, which leads on to the debate about whether a consensus is possible. I do not mean this in any critical way, but the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) called for consensus, the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) called for consensus, and—in a slightly different way—the hon. Member for East Surrey ​just made a plea for a kind of consensus. The difficulty is that they all mean something entirely different. The right hon. Member for Loughborough means a consensus around the Prime Minister’s deal, the hon. Member for East Surrey wants a pause so that we can think about whether other options could be considered, and the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood basically wants us to come out without a deal. In each case, there is no possible basis for consensus.

    When we started this process, I noticed that there were three different strands of opinion in my constituency, and Knowsley is not unique in that. The first strand was made up of people who voted to leave and wanted to leave on any basis it was possible to achieve, including without any kind of a deal. Secondly, there were those who agreed more with me than with anybody else, who felt that we had made a historic mistake in voting to leave in the referendum and were looking for a way to reverse that process. Finally, there was a group of people in the middle who simply wanted to get on with it, although they were not specific about what it was they wanted to get on with, other than the fact that they wanted to leave the European Union—and the Prime Minister has built her entire negotiating strategy around that one group.

    The difficulty is that that one group, which is also reflected in this House, cannot definitely be said to be on one side or the other when it comes to any specific deal. Yes, these people want to leave, but they do not necessarily want to leave on any terms put in front of them, and they certainly do not want to be part of a deal that makes them, their families and their communities worse off. The problem is that any solution has to involve a strategy that brings at least two of those three groups along with it, but I am afraid to say that what the Prime Minister is offering at the moment does not bring any one of those groups along fully, as we will see reflected in the Division Lobby tonight.

    It would be reasonable to challenge me on what I think should happen. All I can say is that at the beginning of this process, after we triggered article 50, I would have voted for a deal that I thought would not do too much damage to my constituents; that is where I started from. Frankly, I am now at the point where I will vote, if I get the opportunity over the coming days, for no deal because I think that it would be disastrous for my constituency and our country. [Hon. Members: “Against no deal.”] Sorry, I will vote against no deal; that was a Freudian slip. I will also vote for a second referendum if the opportunity arises, and I will certainly vote for the extension of article 50. We have to get somewhere with this. If we do not, the only option left will be to say to the people, “Is this what you really want?” And we are rapidly reaching a point where that is probably the only option left.

  • George Howarth – 2018 Speech on Cable Standards and Fires

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, in the House of Commons on 26 March 2018.

    Mr Speaker I am about to call the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). It seems to me quite inexplicable that significant numbers of Members are leaving the Chamber, but if they feel inclined to do so—[Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) chuntering that he has been here for several hours; he could stay here another half an hour and indulge the right hon. Member for Knowsley. If people wish to leave the Chamber, they should do so quickly and quietly, so that the rest of us can attend to the intellectual oratory of the right hon. Member for Knowsley.

    Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) I will try to live up to your splendid introduction, Mr Speaker.

    Last year’s Grenfell Tower tragedy was, without doubt, one of the most shocking and disturbing building safety failures in living memory. As we know, the likely cause was a shocking failure of our building control regulations, and as a result, the Government established an independent review of building regulations led by Dame Judith Hackitt. A long-overdue national debate about buildings and safety has been taking place alongside the review. In her interim report, Dame Judith rightly stated that Britain’s building regulations are “not fit for purpose”.

    I would like to place on record my thanks to the Safer Structures campaign, Electrical Safety First, the Association of British Insurers, the Fire Brigades Union and the Merseyside fire and rescue service for providing me with a briefing for the debate.

    The focus for Grenfell Tower is on the specification and installation of the cladding used on the building. This debate concerns the need to eradicate substandard cabling from the market, because there is an overwhelming argument that our existing regulation is too weak and, as a consequence, exposes structures and those who live and work in them to unacceptable levels of risk.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this salient debate. Does he agree that, with electrical fires being the cause of 20,000 fires in United Kingdom homes per year, we have a duty to ensure that people are able to check their cabling and understand how to do so to ensure that it is safe, for not only the people themselves but the councils, which have responsibility?

    Mr Howarth I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will be giving some statistics that exemplify what he just said.

    According to the Approved Cables Initiative, more than 27% of all electrical fires are attributable to faulty wire and cables, and there are serious concerns about the risks in our built environment that need to be urgently addressed.

    A related concern is that current regulation is not being sufficiently well enforced. For example, in October 2017 the BBC published evidence from an investigation it carried out which exposed the fact that a now-defunct Turkish cable manufacturer, Atlas Kablo, has sold ​11 million metres of cable to the UK that pose a deeply concerning fire risk. The Health and Safety Executive, which labours under severe resource restrictions, decided against a compulsory recall of all 11 million metres of that cable. Consequently, as far as I am able to ascertain, so far only 7 million metres has actually been recovered. That poses a real fire safety threat in cases where that cable is still being used.

    Interviewed by the BBC, Sam Gluck, the technical manager at the electrical fire consultants Tower Electrical Fire & Safety, said that this approach had

    “planted a bomb in the system”.

    Mr Gluck added that

    “if it overheats, it will ignite anything that touches it. If it’s against a plasterboard wall that will ignite”.

    Dr Maurizio Bragagni, chief executive of Tratos—it has a factory in my constituency—and a founder of the Safer Structures campaign, added that

    “it could be in any shopping centre, any venue, any building”.

    Even where cable regulation is properly enforced, the standards are too weak. By way of background—the Minister will be aware of this—on 1 July 2017, the European Union introduced the construction products regulation. As a result, all cables sold in the EU now have to adhere to common standards, which should result in safer, more consistent building regulations and much improved public safety. The EU, however, has not been prescriptive in specifying which classification of cable performance should be used for buildings and infrastructure in each country. Instead, it is the responsibility of each EU member state’s regulator to decide this, and in the UK, this is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

    At present, the Department has not specified which class of cable should be used for buildings, and instead requires all electrical installations in buildings to comply with British standard 7671—a minimum requirement equivalent to European class E. This means that flames can spread through a cable to 3 to 4 metres in under five minutes, and the fire will continue to propagate at the same rate, while at Euro class C, for example, the fire growth rate is limited to below 2 metres. On the range of Euro classes A to F, the A standard is virtually fireproof. Adoption of a higher standard at Euro class A, B1, B2 or C would lead to much greater resistance for permitted cables. In short, it would mean much improved levels of fire safety.

    The official statistics on domestic fires make for sober reading. In 2016-17, 14,821 primary fires were caused by electrical distribution, space heating appliances and other electrical appliances. These three categories resulted in 44 fatalities and 1,353 non-fatal casualties. Another cause for concern is the electrical safety of white goods such as dishwashers, tumble dryers and fridge freezers, which are a major cause of electrical fires. In 2016, 1,873 fires were caused by domestic electrical white goods.

    As you will recall, Mr Speaker, on 1 November 2017 there was an excellent Westminster Hall debate on the subject of product safety and fire risk in residential premises, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I will not go over that ground again, other than to say that this is a serious problem and it needs to be addressed urgently.​
    Analysis by the Fire Brigades Union indicates that the number of fires and fire deaths is increasing. In the year ending September 2017, there were 346 fire-related fatalities compared with 253 in the previous year, which is a 37% increase—and it was even up by 9% if the tragic deaths at Grenfell Tower are not included. An improvement in standards must, by definition, lead to reduced fire deaths, less property damage and lower demands on already overstretched fire and rescue services. We should bear in mind that, since 2010, more than 11,000 firefighter jobs have been cut across the UK, and that represents one in five frontline firefighter jobs.

    There are, as I have highlighted, genuine concerns about buildings such as Grenfell Tower and fire safety. I also have serious concerns about the growing private rented sector, which is far too lightly regulated. Electrical Safety First recommended that properties in the private rented sector should be subject to mandatory five-year checks and the fitting of residual current devices. This would enable substandard cabling to be identified, rather than, as at present, leaving it undetected until it causes serious property damage, injury or even death.

    The post-Brexit landscape for regulation and compliance must, at the minimum, maintain the current protections afforded to consumers. There should be no deregulation of the product safety standards currently implemented. Following our exit, the UK should continue working closely with European friends to ensure that products entering the UK market are safe, and dangerous products are intercepted and reported.

    One further point I want to make before I move to a conclusion concerns regional variations. Merseyside had 53% of its fires recorded as being electrical in origin, which is below the national average. During the same time, Manchester had 61%, and Norfolk, the Isle of Wight and Cornwall had in excess of 70%, of dwelling fires recorded as electrical. Of the 628 incidents defined as electrical fires on Merseyside, 133 were deemed to be “structural/fixtures/fittings”, and cables would fall into that category.

    To conclude, I ask the Minister to consider the following questions. First, Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of building regulations must inevitably go through all the evidence thoroughly, and I accept that that will take time. However, in the case of cabling, would the Minister consider introducing immediate measures to properly regulate cable standards along the lines I referred to? The evidence is already there.

    Secondly, will the Minister consider providing the resources to enable the Health and Safety Executive to identify the remaining 4 million metres of Atlas Kablo cable so that it can be recalled? Thirdly, will she undertake to see what further action can be taken on white goods to more fully identify the risks and any action that could be taken to eradicate those risks?

    Fourthly, will the Minister carry out a review of the regions most prone to electrical fires to identify the common characteristics and what more can be done to deal with the problem? Finally, following our exit from the EU, will she commit to ensuring that there is no deregulation of cable standards in the UK?

    I hope the Minister will accept that this is a very serious issue and that it is in need of urgent attention ​from her Department. I hope she will inject some energy into the work the Government need to do to combat it.