Autumn Statement

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

There has been no stronger backer of science and research and development than my right hon. Friend, and I will absolutely make that commitment. There are a lot of elements in the industrial strategy he put together that we can learn from and weave into what we do next. He is right: this cannot happen with Government money alone. We need to work in partnership with brilliant British innovators and make the most of the incredible opportunity we have.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Instead of shifting the cost on to local authorities and hard-pressed council tax payers, why did the Chancellor not look at the possibility of using the £10 billion that goes on buy to let, for example, to fund much-needed improvements in social care and other public policy areas?

[Jeremy Hunt]

We did not shift the burden of funding on to local authorities; it has always been a shared responsibility. As the right hon. Gentleman heard from my statement, we are putting £1 billion into social care next year and £1.7 billion the year after. Taken together, that £4.7 billion is the biggest ever increase in the social care budget. I recognise that there are big pressures and a need for reforms in that sector, but this is a very positive start.

Public Sector Pay: Proposed Strike Action

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Beth Winter]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I will come to that later.

Let me return to my speech. In education there is an unprecedented situation: two major education unions, the National Education Union and NASUWT, voting together alongside the National Association of Head Teachers. In the fire service, over 30,000 members of the Fire Brigades Union are doing the same.

Why is that? The latest statistics show average regular pay growth of 6.2% for the private sector and 2.2% for the public sector—both below inflation, but one much further below it than the other. We are now talking about a potential 1.5 million public sector workers being balloted on the Tories’ low pay agenda.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I apologise: I will not be able to stay for the entire debate as I have another commitment in the House. My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for why, in all justice, public sector workers should not be the the most penalised, and they will obviously agree with her. Another consequence is that, as the TUC recently highlighted, there will be labour shortages in vast parts of the public sector, as workers decide they can get more pay in the private sector. Who can blame them? However, in terms of public policy, that will be a real problem.

[Beth Winter]

Yes, and we all welcome the TUC coming to Parliament tomorrow for the day of action.

Early in the new year, there could be significant co-ordinated strike action, and the TUC is planning for such action. It is absolutely right to do so, because the Government are creating public sector poverty to balance their own books. We must understand why people are being forced to strike. Because of the burden of low pay in the context of the worst cost of living crisis in living memory, trade unionists in the public sector have no option but to consider industrial action. They are being forced to take action to survive. The Tories’ plan to suppress industrial action does not ease the financial burden on households.

I will briefly go through my three key points. First, the background to the current situation is the erosion of public sector pay over 12 years. When David Cameron came to power in 2010, his first speech in Downing Street referred to “difficult decisions”, and we heard the Prime Minister use the same line last week. The TUC has called the 10 subsequent years a “decade of lost pay”. Nurses and paramedics will see their pay shrink by £1,100 and £1,500 respectively this year.

It is worth reflecting on the human cost for workers on the ground, because behind all the figures are real people. One PCS member has said:

“To try and survive the cost of living crisis, I keep my lights off at home, live the vast majority of time in just one room and don’t use my central heating. I’ve already taken every conceivable cost-cutting measure I can.”

It is absolutely appalling that, in this day and age, somebody is forced to do that through no fault of their own. It is a damning indictment of the impact of 12 years of austerity that imposed pay freezes on our hard-working public sector staff. Those who sacrificed so much during the covid pandemic to keep our sectors running have been left badly exposed in the cost of living emergency.

Secondly, in this year’s pay review body consultations, unions were unequivocal in demanding an inflation-proof pay rise and stating that the Government’s offer was a significant real-terms pay cut for key workers. On teachers’ pay, the NEU was clear that Government evidence to the pay review body failed to explore the impact of pay cuts on

“teacher recruitment, retention and morale”.

On NHS pay, the RCN said that the pay announcement

“makes it harder, not easier, for them to cope with the rising cost of living.”

Unison’s Christina McAnea said:

“If there is to be a dispute in the NHS, ministers will have no one to blame but themselves.”

In a violation of the pay review body process, the civil service did not consult unions until it met the PCS union a few days before publication. The union said:

“this process was farcical and could not under any circumstances be considered a serious consultation.”

There are lots of questions to be answered.

Finally, local government workers have lost an average of 27.5% from the value of their pay when measured against the retail price index. It is unsurprising, then, that 78% of councils experience recruitment and retention difficulties. I am really pleased that we are joined today by Unison members from Barnet, who have been striking for 12 continuous days in support of a colleague regarding non-payment of sick pay. I know other Members will speak more about that in their contributions. I welcome the Unison members and thank them for joining us today.

I want to address the situation in Wales. Trade unions are balloting for strike action in Wales against the pay awards set by the Welsh pay review bodies, who have offered the same as in England. The offers are insufficient—just as much a pay cut—and need to be revised upwards. There is one significant difference: in Wales we are completely reliant on a funding settlement from the Treasury. When Conservative Ministers inflict pay cuts here, they offer little or no space for Wales to do differently.

I will quote our First Minister, Mark Drakeford, who said at the Labour party conference:

“As a point of principle I absolutely believe public sector workers should be fairly rewarded and that they shouldn’t see take-home pay eroded by inflation…they should at least match inflation.”

Rebecca Evans, the Finance Minister, said:

“we absolutely need the UK Government to undertake to provide a decent pay uplift.”

That fair funding demand has been echoed in my constituency. I undertook a cost of living survey and I delivered a petition to Parliament a couple of weeks ago for fair funding and an inflation-proofed income.

My third and final point is that there is absolutely no justification for public sector pay cuts when an inflation-proofed rise is affordable. When the human cost of more cuts is so great, we must surely explore alternatives to further cuts. If we are to give workers the inflation-proofed pay rise that they deserve and need, we have to fund a pay settlement that can match the 10.1%. That is not an unreasonable expectation. People are saying they do not wish to be poorer this year because they are key workers. We have to identify what that would cost.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies green budget from earlier this month, which the Library directed me to, makes it clear that departmental budgets were predicated on pay awards in the region of 3%. That is far below the current rate of inflation and below the pay awards of roughly 5% announced over the summer. The IFS estimates that offering an inflation-matching pay award to all public sector employees would add more like £17.8 billion. I am under no illusions—that is a significant amount of money—but we are talking about livelihoods, people’s lives, households and families, and the difference between existing and living. We therefore have to look at new ways of raising revenue to pay for it.

Vehicle Taxation Reform

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I will shortly call Wera Hobhouse to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind hon. Members that there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

The Growth Plan

George Howarth Excerpts

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. The two interventions I announced today—the energy intervention and reducing the tax burden—will have a positive impact on inflation. He is quite right that there is a risk in respect of interest rates. I regularly speak to the Governor of the Bank of England to seek his views on that. We work closely together and are focused on alleviating the burden on our constituents.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Chancellor proclaims the end of redistribution. Well, I listened very carefully to the measures he announced, and it strikes me that they are redistributive measures: they redistribute away from those in the greatest need to those in the least need. How, in that context, does he defend spending £10 billion a year on the buy-to-let scheme, which serves only to help those who do not need it to buy houses that they do not live in, and serves no purpose whatsoever for those who end up renting those houses?

Employee Share Ownership Schemes

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reform of employee share ownership schemes.

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the Chartered Governance Institute UK & Ireland for the invaluable briefing it provided to help me prepare for this debate. Despite the participation of close to 2 million people, employee share ownership plans remain remarkably low profile and poorly understood. If we are to reform employee share ownership plans, which I believe is long overdue, we need to ensure that Members of this House understand what those plans are, and the problems that they face.

Let me begin by explaining why employee share ownership schemes are unique. They bring together employees, employers and the Government into a contract, with each party making a commitment. First, employers offer their staff the opportunity to acquire shares in the company, often at a discount to the traded share price. Secondly, the Government offer tax advantages to the participant and the company, which make them more appealing. Thirdly, the employee makes a regular monthly contribution to the scheme over several years.

The arrangement is a sound one, and that is why, historically, the plans have been reasonably popular and effective. Each of the parties involved benefits. Employers gain more productive and engaged employees, the Government support businesses to perform well and encourage share ownership—a proven source of financial resilience—and employees are more aligned to the success of their employer.

The two plans I will focus on today are the share incentive plan, known as SIP, and the save-as-you-earn system, known as SAYE or Sharesave. Those are just two of the existing share ownership plans, but they are the only two that are known as all-employee share plans; that is to say, when a company offers one to its staff, it must offer one to every single employee within its company on the same terms. It is those plans that lead to participation from across the income range, and from all parts of the country. They are truly inclusive, requiring relatively modest monthly investments from participants.

However, there is a problem that has been raised with the Treasury over recent years: participation rates in the employee plans are plateauing, and in some cases falling. Rates are simply not increasing at the rate that we would hope for.

I could spend the time I have available citing the data, but I will instead point out just a few of the headline facts from the Treasury’s own data, which I am sure the Minister is familiar with. First, the number of firms in which employees were granted SAYE in 2021 was 260—a fall from 340 in 2007-08. Secondly, the number of employees granted a new SAYE option in 2020-21 was 380,000, which was a bump up from the previous two-year period of 310,000. Despite that bump, it is necessary to go back to 2011-12 to find the last time that new SAYE grant take-up was that low.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Perhaps one reason why there has been such a long period without an increase in take-up is the way that people are employed. The nature of work is changing: more and more people are in the so-called gig economy—platform workers—where they are not on pay-as-you-earn. They therefore cannot take part in such schemes. Should the Government update the schemes so that those workers, and not just workers on PAYE, can take part in them?

[Sir George Howarth]

My hon. Friend must have read my mind. I will come on to that very point shortly.

As I was saying, the number of employees granted a new SAYE option in 2021 was 380,000, which was a bump up, but the last time take-up was that low was in 2011-12. In 2020-21, employees in 480 companies were either awarded or purchased shares, a figure that has fallen steadily over the past decade. For example, in 2011-12, there were 570 such firms. There are several reasons for that, but the problem is that SIP and SAYE, which were developed 22 and 42 years ago respectively, have barely changed in all that time and no longer reflect the modern workplace. The period that employees typically spend at a company has markedly reduced. Indeed, young people are often encouraged to move jobs more frequently to secure career advancement.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I have long cared about employee share ownership schemes. I recently had the privilege that the company that I set up before I became an MP awarded shares to staff that it has had for many years—the first time that the company has done so. My experience is that all such schemes are terribly complicated. Companies have to spend a lot on accountants to get them to work, especially if they are small or medium-sized enterprises. In the submissions the right hon. Gentleman received from external groups, were there any proposals to simplify the schemes? That may help to increase uptake.

[Sir George Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. Simplicity is always the key to the success of any scheme, particularly in complicated financial matters. He makes a good point.

As I said, young people are encouraged to move jobs more frequently to secure career advancement. Expecting staff to make a long-term commitment to investing in share plans when they do not expect to stay at a firm for that long—the SIP, for example, requires a five-year minimum investment period to ensure maximum tax efficiency—is no longer realistic.

Employee share ownership plans operate particularly well when a significant number of employees at a company participate. Research demonstrates that where levels of participation are relatively high companies enjoy positive returns, including increased staff engagement and loyalty, enhanced financial resilience for participants and increased productivity. The fact that the Government offer tax advantages to employee share ownership plans is, of course, welcome. However, the risk, which grows greater by the year, is that without reform the plans could become increasingly obsolete.

I worry about being too prescriptive about which changes are required to stimulate an increase in interest and participation, but some relatively simple changes could be made. For example, reducing the commitment required from SIP participants from five years to three years to achieve maximum tax efficiency. ProShare, which is the body that represents the ESO sector, has proposed such a change. Its research shows that many people are put off by having to make a five-year commitment, but would be prepared to make a three-year investment. Employers say the same: more companies would offer the SIP to staff if it was three years not five. Those that offer SIPs say that participation levels would increase.

Employee share ownership has been more widely supported by diverse organisations such as the CBI, the Social Market Foundation, the TUC and the Co-operative party. The CBI states:

“The moral case for financial inclusion is a compelling one—people have a right to their dignity and financial exclusion denies them that right. But the business case also speaks for itself—with people living in the poverty zone producing five to six times lower quality work than their colleagues.”

The Social Market Foundation suggests:

“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. With productivity growth in the UK lagging, a shift towards ownership structures which bolster innovation, employee effort and corporate long-termism should form a key part of the economic recovery plan.”

The TUC said that it

“supports employee share ownership, subject to conditions”.

I will quote three of those conditions. First,

“shares or share revenues should be allocated free of charge and equitably to all staff to avoid share ownership reinforcing existing pay differentials and excluding the low paid (the principles expressed a preference for collective schemes)”.

Secondly,

“employee share ownership schemes are not a substitute for decent pay or collective bargaining”.

Thirdly,

“workers and their unions should be involved in the running of the scheme, which should go hand in hand with the involvement of the workforce in company decision-making”.

As we face a cost of living crisis and higher levels of inflation, we should be looking at creative solutions to support people in work. Why not free companies to support lower-income employees by allowing offers of free shares to this group only, which would relieve legitimate financial concerns?

Coming back to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) made earlier, why not create a one-off SAYE that lasts for just one year, instead of the current three or five years? That would enable people to make regular savings but allow them to take their savings back if they struggle to pay the bills. At the same time, it offers a potential return at the end of the year in the form of either interest or a share price increase.

There is a conversation to be had about how we can develop a new type of scheme that would allow the more than 4 million people who operate in the so-called gig economy to join a share plan and own a stake in the organisation they work for. As the Minister will know, the current plans are exclusively for those on PAYE but, as our workforce changes, we need to design new plans that do not depend on regular monthly contributions and are accessible to those in less regular forms of work. I therefore urge the Government to consider undertaking their own consultation on these plans.

As the Minister will be aware, the Treasury is already consulting about reforming two other discretionary share plans: enterprise management incentives, or EMIs, and company share options, or CSOPs. These plans are typically offered only to a relatively small group of people, usually in managerial positions. It seems the Government are looking at these plans to help increase participation and benefits to participants. “About time too,” some might say. The CSOP has not changed or been updated in any way since the 1990s but, at the very time as we are facing a cost of living crisis, the Government seem to be choosing to reform plans that are already popular and typically benefit only those on high incomes. SIP and SAYE, which benefit some of the poorest paid workers, must surely be a higher priority for reform.

I hope the Minister will address that point. It has been made repeatedly to the Treasury over recent months, so far without any satisfactory answer. There are many examples of people participating in share plans and achieving significant gains on their savings and investments. Employees of Pets at Home, mainly shop-floor staff working in retail, who participated in the company SAYE recently made an average gain of £21,000 each, which represents a healthy return on their investment and achieving the financial resilience that is going to be so necessary in the months and years ahead.

As for the SIP, the recently issued annual survey from ProShare shows that the average value of a participant’s SIP holding at the end of 2021 was £10,294, a vital financial lifeline that can be drawn on when times are tough. These stories of millions of ordinary people making regular contributions, getting into the habit of putting something aside each month, building up a nest egg to help support their families, which millions of people up and down the country have done over the last 40 years, must not be lost by becoming obsolete.

If these plans are to operate successfully in future, now is the time for the Treasury to act and to identify what is needed to ensure that they remain relevant and compelling, and to guard against them disappearing. It cannot do that alone; it must consult far and wide, speaking to experts such as ProShare and the CBI, yes, but also to people who participate, in order to understand why they do so. After all, those are the people the plans are intended to benefit, and I would like to see millions more do so.

Finally, in what I hope would be a Treasury-led consultation, I urge it to update the excellent 2007 research by Oxera, commissioned by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which demonstrates the productivity benefits of the plans. I know from my conversations with those in the industry that, when they make suggestions for the share plans reform, such as the reduction in the SIP-holding period from five to three years, they are asked to provide evidence of the impact on productivity. May I constructively suggest that the Treasury is best placed to make that assessment? I would like to know whether it intends to do so in the near future.

The Minister might not know her fate over the next 24 hours, and I wish her well. If she remains in this position, I hope she will give this matter serious consideration, or otherwise draw it to the attention of whoever succeeds her. I look forward to hearing from her.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) on securing today’s important debate. I have spoken to Members across the House, and there are many supporters who know the importance of this area. I know that the issue commands cross-party support, as we can see today. I, too, want employees to share in the success of the companies they work for. I want businesses to reward and retain talent, driving even more success.

I believe that through taxation policy, including reliefs, we can drive innovation. The partnership between business, employees and Government, which the right hon. Gentleman talked about, is important. A vital part of that is the support that the Government provide to employee share ownership through tax reliefs, which were recorded at £760 million of income tax and national insurance contribution relief in the financial year ending 2021.

There are four tax-advantaged share schemes, with millions of instances of awards or share options benefiting employees every year. The right hon. Member talked about SIP and save-as-you-earn, so I will mention those first. They are designed for companies to offer a tax-advantaged option or shares to all employees on the same basis. Save-as-you-earn, which has the largest aggregate value of all the schemes, is designed to help lower earners to save, by deducting salary directly at source, and adding it to a special savings account for the scheme. At the end of their savings contract, employees can use the funds to purchase shares in their employer.

Our other all-employee scheme is the share incentive plan, which was introduced in 2000, 20 years after the introduction of SAYE. It is targeted at companies that wish to help their employees to purchase shares directly in their company, or even receive them as awards. That particularly helps low to mid-range earners.

Although the right hon. Member talked about SIP and save-as-you-earn, which rightly deserve attention of their own, there are other schemes to help companies with their growth. In turn, such schemes help the growth of the wider UK economy, so it is right that we consider the wider share schemes landscape, too. Two distinct schemes give companies choices over which employees they offer tax-advantaged options to, with specific criteria and performance conditions that can be tailored to the company. The company share option plan introduced in 1984 remains popular among many companies of all sizes, which use it to motivate and reward junior and middle management. Lastly, we have the enterprise management initiative. Unlike the other three schemes, EMI is specifically targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises, with the objective of helping them to recruit and retain key employees by rewarding them with highly tax-advantaged share options with a value of up to £250,000 per employee, which can be offered at a discount.

The schemes give companies additional ways to incentivise and reward employees for their hard work by helping them to offer committed employees a direct stake in a company. As the right hon. Member said, that helps firms to achieve a more engaged and motivated workforce by aligning employer and employee interests in the growth of businesses and motivating hard work from employees, who can benefit from their input with a tax-advantaged output, helping to make a company a more attractive place to work by offering an appealing and unique remuneration package. Further, it encourages loyalty to a company among employees, fostering an environment in which the company can increase its productivity and achieve higher and faster growth compared with companies with a less engaged workforce. Lastly, the scheme can help with wider social effects, too, by encouraging savings and investing habits. In turn, it can support better financial planning on an individual level.

The right hon. Member raised an important point about the length of the investment term. To achieve the objective of incentivising employees to stay with a company as it grows, one of the SIP scheme’s rules is that the tax advantages are available on shares awarded only once a certain period of time has elapsed. That encourages employees to commit to their employer and to put hard work into the company to ensure that it succeeds, and the tax relief enhances the reward that they can gain from maximising the company’s success. Although partial tax advantages are possible for an employee after three years, full tax advantages for SIP are enabled at the five-year mark. Unlike the other schemes, SIP enables a direct purchase of shares in the company rather than other options, and the five-year holding for the full income tax and national insurance exemption is intended to encourage employees to remain invested in their employer.

[Sir George Howarth]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

If I could just continue the point.

[Sir George Howarth]

I wanted to intervene on a point that the Minister has already made.

[Lucy Frazer]

I appreciate the points that the right hon. Member has made. Stakeholders and employees may not otherwise intend to remain with their current employer for five years, which is why the tax relief is designed to encourage a long-term commitment, but I appreciate the suggestion of a one-year SAYE and less regular contributions.

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank both my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Knowsley for their interventions. I was going to say that if evidence could be presented of the impact of that on people taking up the scheme, I know that the Treasury would be very interested in looking at that. As my hon. Friend said, it is important that the schemes are as simple as possible, and I would welcome any suggestions on that point.

With its current restrictions, SIP remains popular. We see people making use of the greatly beneficial tax treatment, with a total value of £780 million in shares purchased or awarded under a SIP scheme in the financial year 2020-2021. We continue to evaluate the schemes to make sure that they are incentivising the behaviours that I have outlined. We keep these important and advantageous schemes under review to make sure that they provide value for money for the taxpayer, support the wider aims of the economy and help employers to drive commercial success.

We launched a review at Budget 2020 to ensure that the EMI provides support for high-growth companies to recruit and retain the best talent so that they can scale up effectively, and to examine whether more companies should be able to access the scheme. At the spring statement, the Government concluded that the current EMI scheme remains effective and appropriately targeted. None the less, the scope of the review was expanded to consider whether the company share option plan should be reformed to support companies as they grow beyond the scope of the specifically targeted EMI. I know that these companies might want to make use of other discretionary schemes, such as the CSOP. While our inclination is to support those companies in doing so, Members will understand that we want to build the evidence base before committing resources, which is why we have expanded our review to include CSOP.

As part of the Government’s duties to evaluate tax reliefs and their value for money on an ongoing basis, we are currently reviewing the broader share scheme landscape. We will keep these important and advantageous schemes under review.

[Sir George Howarth]

I made the point that it would be better if the Treasury carried out its own consultation exercise, rather than asking organisations to bring it forward. The Minister can reflect on that subsequently—I do not want her to answer it now, but just to take it into account.

[Lucy Frazer]

As I mentioned, the Treasury keeps these schemes under review, but of course external evidence is always welcome. We want to ensure that these schemes support the wider aims of the economy and help employers to drive commercial success. We always welcome any evidence that can be brought forward.

In closing, I reiterate that these schemes have an important place in the toolbox of taxation policies. They will help us to drive productivity—the only way to sustainably raise living standards—while fuelling economic growth.

Question put and agreed to.

Areas with Additional Public Health Restrictions: Economic Support

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend is quite right that the impact on business is not constrained to those areas most acutely affected by the virus; there is a wider displacement effect on businesses, including in neighbouring constituencies. We very much recognise that issue, which very much shaped the approach that the Chancellor set out in the winter plan, particularly in respect of the cash-flow pressures faced by those businesses. Together with the job support that he brought forward, the package recognises the very real pressures businesses face and will provide comfort as we go through the winter period.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) [V]]

In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he would be willing to work with MPs from all parties because of our concerns about the vulnerability of the hospitality, retail and live entertainment industry. In the light of that invitation, may I suggest that he agrees to meet local MPs from our city region, together with council leaders and the Metro Mayor, for a constructive discussion about how a comprehensive package for those sectors and others can be put in place as a matter of urgency?

[Steve Barclay]

As I think colleagues across the House would recognise, I have always been open to meeting MPs from all parties, and I am happy to give an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman to meet MPs to discuss these issues. On the Liverpool city region, the point I was making in response to the previous question is that the request for £700 million that has come in will equate to an additional funding commitment of £23 billion. There is a responsibility on all of us, not just on Government, to have a view of the wider value for money of schemes, because £23 billion, in addition to the other packages, is a very significant amount.

Economic Update

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend knows well how important tourism is to Wales’s economy. In fact, it may well be more reliant on tourism than any other part of the UK, from memory, so I fully understand and sympathise with his desire to get his local tourism businesses open, ready for business and ready to ensure that we can all enjoy the summer safely in Wales.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) [V]]

In response to an earlier question, the Chancellor said that everything in the garden was rosy with local government finance, but he will know that local government faces a catastrophic loss of revenue next year as a result of covid-19, and that that will have a devastating effect on jobs and services. Knowsley Council alone faces a loss of income of £90 million, and the Liverpool city region faces a loss of £112 million, so will the Chancellor give a firm commitment that councils will receive full funding for the collection fund shortfalls in 2021 and 2022?

[Rishi Sunak]

The Local Government Secretary addressed that issue just last week and unveiled a comprehensive agreement with local government to provide loss sharing on income that has been forgone during this crisis.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am a passionate believer in the net zero agenda, and I believe that it is perfectly congruent with economic growth. COP26 presents a huge opportunity for the UK and globally. We are already a leader in tackling climate change, having reduced the emissions intensity of our economy faster than any other G20 country. We will be doing more at Budget.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that, as part of the drive towards zero emissions, there was a recent announcement about bringing forward the phasing out of diesel, petrol and hybrid vehicles to 2035. What assessment has he made of the economic and fiscal impact of doing so, and in particular the loss of jobs that will happen, because the industry is in imminent danger of collapse?

[Mr Clarke]

We are consulting on the option of accelerating the phasing out of petrol and diesel cars, because the average lifespan of a vehicle is around 14 years, and if we are to hit our net zero targets by 2050, we need to be sensitive to that. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are listening carefully to the industry on this issue. Just last week, I met the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders for a productive conversation on how we can do this in a way that supports the sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the Chancellor agree with me that companies such as St Modwen that buy up town centres such as Kirkby in my constituency do nothing with them—in fact, they leave them to rot—and then simply sell them on to a pension fund? Is that the way we want to run the future of our town centres, and has he not got anything more imaginative that can be done about it?

[Mr Hammond]

The £675 million fund that I mentioned is specifically intended to allow local authorities to develop plans for responding to the transformation of the high street that is coming. Retailing is changing, and high streets have to change to reflect that. We cannot hold that tide back, but we can help to support the transition.

Eating Disorders

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse]

I will come to that. The lack of proper training is really at the heart of what my hon. Friend describes.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on giving us the opportunity to discuss this very serious issue. Does she agree that, in addition to dealing with the problems that are thrown up by having an eating disorder, the difficulty for people in that position and for their families is access to proper services? That varies from place to place, town to town and city to city. Does she believe that we need a more integrated service that is the same everywhere and that provides an effective service for young people—and older people, for that matter—who are in that situation?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman: the services are too patchy, which is why families do not really know what to do. We need to ensure that there is not a postcode lottery—I will come to that later—and that services follow on from each other and are much more holistic and integrated. There is a lot to do.

Funding for eating disorders must be properly ring-fenced, because it is just too easy for trusts to use that money to plug other funding gaps. If we fail to do that, we end up with tragic deaths such as that of Averil Hart, which prompted a Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report. She was completely failed by the system. The report not only called for parity of adult eating disorder services with child and adolescent services, but stated that:

“The General Medical Council (GMC) should conduct a review of training for all junior doctors on eating disorders”.

Research conducted by Dr Agnes Ayton in June 2018 shows that, on average,

“medical students receive less than two hours of teaching on eating disorders”

throughout the entirety of their undergraduate training. Some 20% of medical schools do not include eating disorders in their curriculum at all. Of the medical schools that do include eating disorders in their curriculum, 50% do not include in eating disorders in their examination.

In the end, it comes down to the priority that we and the medical profession place on mental health and its treatment. Making mental health a priority and giving it parity with physical health is more than a slogan; it requires understanding and some new thinking. If somebody breaks their arm, we do not sit around for a year and then put on a cast; we treat the broken arm immediately. We need to act quickly to treat eating disorders and mental health in general. If we wait too long, these illnesses can become severe and entrenched—they can last for many years and often have a massively debilitating effect on sufferers and their families. The earlier the intervention, the more likely it is that sufferers will make a full recovery.

In Bath, we have a not-for-profit social enterprise called Brighter Futures, which is funded by child and adolescent mental health services and which provides special services for children and young people. The 30-plus practitioners do an amazing job, but their funding has been cut in half. Such services are perfect opportunities for early intervention to treat eating disorders, but if they are not properly funded, young people will slip through the cracks. Charities are now trying to fill the gap. The Somerset and Wessex Eating Disorders Association is one such charity—the only charity between Cornwall and Norfolk that works in this field. It is based in Shepton Mallet and sees clients from a wide area: from Somerset to Bath, Bristol and Swindon. People self-refer to the service; they do not need a diagnosis. The association is very much pro-recovery and self-help.

There are people all over the country who do not have any access to such services. There should not be a difference in the level of service that people receive, depending on where they live—we cannot leave this to a postcode lottery. Clearly, we need to do better. It is obvious that services are patchy at best, and that people have to travel much too far for treatment and wait too long to be treated. Others really need help but fall under the threshold for treatment.

It is not the just the Government who should act to tackle eating disorders. The focus of this debate is stigma and how we can reduce it. Each and every one of us can help. Eating disorders are widespread, but they continue to be kept secret by so many sufferers, who fear being judged negatively by others. They see themselves as defective and as not meeting societal standards. They feel disgust and self-loathing about their appearance, eating or purging habits, or they worry that disclosure will result in their difficulties being trivialised. The stigma is perpetuated by general ignorance of what eating disorders are. The first step to challenging stigma is providing better education—it is not only our future doctors and health professionals who need to be better trained, but the general public. A successful strategy to reduce prejudice is for people to come forward and tell their stories. Such stories break the silence and the shame. That is why we so desperately need people such as Lorna and Hope, who are brave enough to come forward. I thank them for being here and telling their stories. Together, we can end the stigma.