Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1141299

	registered interest
	date	23/07/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Beer and Public Houses: Taxation
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has plans to undertake a review of the level of taxation on (a) beer and (b) pubs.
	tabling member constituency	Hyndburn
	tabling member printed	Graham P Jones
	uin	280975
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/09/2019 answer text <p>All taxes are kept under review and the impact of a change to beer duty or other taxes is considered at each fiscal event, including their effect on pubs and the wider economy.</p> answering member constituency Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland answering member printed Mr Simon Clarke question first answered 03/09/2019 08:06:07 answering member 4655 label Biography information for Sir Simon Clarke
	tabling member	3999 label Biography information for Graham P Jones

1141425

	registered interest
	date	23/07/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Cash Dispensing: Sutton
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what information the Treasury holds on the number of (a) free-to-use and (b) fee-charging ATMs in the London Borough of Sutton in each year since 2015.
	tabling member constituency	Carshalton and Wallington
	tabling member printed	Tom Brake
	uin	280901
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/09/2019 answer text <p>The Government does not hold information on the number of ATMs in the London Borough of Sutton. Data on the annual total number of ATMs in the UK since 1998 – including the split between free-to-use and pay-to-use ATMs – is publicly available on the LINK website. LINK also publish information on ATM numbers by Parliamentary Constituency for recent periods. Furthermore, LINK publish monthly data on their Financial Inclusion Programme.</p><p> </p><p>The Government-established Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) continues to monitor developments in ATM provision. The PSR has used its powers to hold LINK to account over its commitments to preserve the broad geographic spread of the ATM network.</p> answering member constituency Salisbury answering member printed John Glen question first answered 03/09/2019 07:03:01 answering member 4051 label Biography information for John Glen
	tabling member	151 label Biography information for Tom Brake

1141472

	registered interest
	date	23/07/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Gift Aid
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of reforming Gift Aid so that the value of additional and higher-rate tax reliefs is automatically directed to charities, unless donors choose to opt out.
	tabling member constituency	Newcastle-under-Lyme
	tabling member printed	Paul Farrelly
	uin	280956
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/09/2019 answer text The Government recognises that charities are a vital part of our society and continues to provide support to the charitable sector worth over £5 billion per year, with Gift Aid being one of the most generous tax reliefs available – worth over £1.3 billion per year to charities and £520 million to their donors (through higher rate relief). The Government has made no assessment of the merits of reforming Gift Aid to allow the additional and higher rate tax reliefs to be automatically directed to charities unless donors opt out. answering member constituency Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland answering member printed Mr Simon Clarke question first answered 03/09/2019 08:04:42 answering member 4655 label Biography information for Sir Simon Clarke
	tabling member	1436 label Biography information for Paul Farrelly

1141474

	registered interest
	date	23/07/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Financial Institutions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government plans to bring forward a review of legislation for Co-op societies, Credit Unions and Community Benefit Societies as proposed by the Financial Conduct Authority in its 22 July 2019 report Alternatives to high-cost credit.
	tabling member constituency	Harrow West
	tabling member printed	Gareth Thomas
	uin	280908
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/09/2019 answer text <p>In 2014, the Government undertook a call for evidence to understand the appropriate steps that could be taken to support the credit union sector. Subsequently, the maximum interest a credit union can charge on loans was raised from 2% to 3% per month, and the upper limit on the geographical common bond was raised from 2 to 3 million people.</p><p> </p><p>The Government continues to be open to considering the case for further reform. ABCUL, the sector’s largest trade body, is currently carrying out a sector-wide consultation which is due to conclude later this year. HMT will consider its conclusions in the development of future credit union policy.</p><p> </p><p>At Autumn Budget 2018, the Government also announced a package of measures to support the availability of affordable credit, including:</p><p>o A £2 million affordable credit challenge fund, harnessing the UK’s FinTech sector to address challenges faced by social and community lenders, including credit unions.</p><p>o A change in the regulatory boundary of credit broking to make it easier for registered social landlords such as housing associations to refer their tenants to social and community lenders.</p><p>o A prize-linked savings pilot scheme, to encourage the growth of the credit union sector and encourage consumers to build up their personal savings. We hope credit unions will be able to use the deposits gained from their participation in the scheme to increase their overall lending.</p><p>o A feasibility study to design a pilot for a UK No-Interest Loans Scheme.</p> answering member constituency Salisbury answering member printed John Glen question first answered 03/09/2019 08:11:12 answering member 4051 label Biography information for John Glen
	tabling member	177 label Biography information for Gareth Thomas

1141613

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Customs
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answers of 11 June 2019 to Questions 258889 and 258888, what steps his Department is taking to tackle delays on customs house clearance times for packages sent from EU member states.
	tabling member constituency	Carshalton and Wallington
	tabling member printed	Tom Brake
	uin	281546
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/09/2019 answer text <p>In a no deal Brexit, the Government’s priority is to avoid delays at the border and keep goods flowing, whilst protecting security and revenue. HM Revenue and Customs is working closely with businesses involved in importing goods into the UK as parcels and packages to support their preparations for exiting the EU.</p> answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire answering member printed Jesse Norman question first answered 03/09/2019 15:03:37 answering member 3991 label Biography information for Jesse Norman
	tabling member	151 label Biography information for Tom Brake

1141657

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Bingo: Excise Duties
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the financial effect on the bingo industry of the change to bingo duty in 2014.
	tabling member constituency	Gateshead
	tabling member printed	Ian Mearns
	uin	281720
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/09/2019 answer text <p>No assessment has been made. Bingo Duty was reduced to 10% at Budget 2014 in recognition of bingo halls’ benefits to local community life.</p> answering member constituency Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland answering member printed Mr Simon Clarke question first answered 05/09/2019 15:54:41 answering member 4655 label Biography information for Sir Simon Clarke
	tabling member	4000 label Biography information for Ian Mearns

1141659

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Bookmakers and Football Pools: Taxation
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent estimate he has made of the rate of gross profit tax levied from (a) the Football Pools and (b) bookmakers; what the rationale is for applying the same rate of duty to the Football Pools and bookmakers; and what recent assessment he has made of reducing the reducing the rate of the Pools Betting Duty to 10 per cent.
	tabling member constituency	Gateshead
	tabling member printed	Ian Mearns
	uin	281721
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/09/2019 answer text <p>No recent estimate has been made. Pool Betting Duty raises around £5m and General Betting Duty raises around £600m in revenue for the Exchequer per annum.</p><p> </p><p>The rate of duty on the Football Pools and Bookmakers was set by the previous Government. Reducing Pool Betting Duty to 10% is likely to have a negligible effect on the Football Pools, but could put revenue at risk particularly through incentivising switching of products from fixed odds bets to pooled bets. HM Treasury however keeps all taxes under active review.</p> answering member constituency Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland answering member printed Mr Simon Clarke question first answered 05/09/2019 15:52:39 answering member 4655 label Biography information for Sir Simon Clarke
	tabling member	4000 label Biography information for Ian Mearns

1141667

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Occupational Health
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the findings of the John Lewis Partnership Working Well report, published on 11 June 2019 on the benefits to public services of greater workplace health prevention and early intervention; and what steps he plans to take ensure that taxation incentivises early intervention from employers.
	tabling member constituency	Filton and Bradley Stoke
	tabling member printed	Jack Lopresti
	uin	281709
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 answer text <p>The Government recognises the valuable work of employers such as the John Lewis Partnership in providing for the health of their staff.</p><p> </p><p>Employers have a critical role to play in helping disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to remain in work. Keeping more people in work is good for them. But it is good for the economy too, and it reduces spending on out-of-work benefits, and potentially also demand on the NHS. For employers, investing in employee health and wellbeing can lead to increased workforce productivity and help retain key talent in an organisation.</p><p> </p><p>Employers normally incur expenditure on employee healthcare for a business purpose and can already deduct this in full when calculating their taxable profits under the longstanding general rules for business expenses. This means employers already receive full tax relief for these costs. The Government therefore does not believe that the existing tax system for business expenses incurred by employers provides a barrier to those wishing to support employees at work.</p><p> </p><p>The tax system also ensures employees do not pay income tax or National Insurance Contributions (NICs) on several employer-provided, health-related benefits and there is no corresponding Class 1A NICs liability for employers when there is an exemption for income tax. This includes recommended medical treatment of up to £500 intended to help employees return to work.</p><p> </p><p>This particular exemption is targeted at supporting individuals who are expected to reach or who have already reached four weeks of sickness absence. This is because evidence suggests there is an increased likelihood of employees moving on to benefits after an absence lasting four weeks or longer. The £500 cap is in line with the estimated annual cost of the medical treatment that would typically be recommended to help employees return to work.</p><p> </p><p>In July, the Government launched a consultation on measures to reduce ill health-related job loss. The broad focus of this consultation chimes with recommendations in the John Lewis report, including potential financial incentives to encourage more employers to access occupational health services, driving early and supportive employer action and spreading best practice. However, it also notes that there is limited evidence that making the tax treatment more generous is the most effective lever to incentivise more employers to start offering occupational health provision, if the initial cost is the main barrier for them.</p><p> </p><p>The Government will use the evidence and views gathered during this consultation to develop its proposals further, considering an approach which offers the best value for money and is affordable in the context of the next Spending Review.</p> answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire answering member printed Jesse Norman grouped question UIN 281710 281711 281712 281713 281714 281715 question first answered 09/09/2019 13:08:28 answering member 3991 label Biography information for Jesse Norman
	tabling member	3989 label Biography information for Jack Lopresti

1141668

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Occupational Health: Cost Effectiveness
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential benefit to the public purse of workers receiving workplace medical treatment at work instead of after 28 consecutive days of absence.
	tabling member constituency	Filton and Bradley Stoke
	tabling member printed	Jack Lopresti
	uin	281710
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 answer text <p>The Government recognises the valuable work of employers such as the John Lewis Partnership in providing for the health of their staff.</p><p> </p><p>Employers have a critical role to play in helping disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to remain in work. Keeping more people in work is good for them. But it is good for the economy too, and it reduces spending on out-of-work benefits, and potentially also demand on the NHS. For employers, investing in employee health and wellbeing can lead to increased workforce productivity and help retain key talent in an organisation.</p><p> </p><p>Employers normally incur expenditure on employee healthcare for a business purpose and can already deduct this in full when calculating their taxable profits under the longstanding general rules for business expenses. This means employers already receive full tax relief for these costs. The Government therefore does not believe that the existing tax system for business expenses incurred by employers provides a barrier to those wishing to support employees at work.</p><p> </p><p>The tax system also ensures employees do not pay income tax or National Insurance Contributions (NICs) on several employer-provided, health-related benefits and there is no corresponding Class 1A NICs liability for employers when there is an exemption for income tax. This includes recommended medical treatment of up to £500 intended to help employees return to work.</p><p> </p><p>This particular exemption is targeted at supporting individuals who are expected to reach or who have already reached four weeks of sickness absence. This is because evidence suggests there is an increased likelihood of employees moving on to benefits after an absence lasting four weeks or longer. The £500 cap is in line with the estimated annual cost of the medical treatment that would typically be recommended to help employees return to work.</p><p> </p><p>In July, the Government launched a consultation on measures to reduce ill health-related job loss. The broad focus of this consultation chimes with recommendations in the John Lewis report, including potential financial incentives to encourage more employers to access occupational health services, driving early and supportive employer action and spreading best practice. However, it also notes that there is limited evidence that making the tax treatment more generous is the most effective lever to incentivise more employers to start offering occupational health provision, if the initial cost is the main barrier for them.</p><p> </p><p>The Government will use the evidence and views gathered during this consultation to develop its proposals further, considering an approach which offers the best value for money and is affordable in the context of the next Spending Review.</p> answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire answering member printed Jesse Norman grouped question UIN 281709 281711 281712 281713 281714 281715 question first answered 09/09/2019 13:08:28 answering member 3991 label Biography information for Jesse Norman
	tabling member	3989 label Biography information for Jack Lopresti

1141669

	registered interest
	date	24/07/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Occupational Health: Taxation
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the effect of the taxation of employees with occupational health support on the take-up of those services by low paid workers.
	tabling member constituency	Filton and Bradley Stoke
	tabling member printed	Jack Lopresti
	uin	281711
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 answer text <p>The Government recognises the valuable work of employers such as the John Lewis Partnership in providing for the health of their staff.</p><p> </p><p>Employers have a critical role to play in helping disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to remain in work. Keeping more people in work is good for them. But it is good for the economy too, and it reduces spending on out-of-work benefits, and potentially also demand on the NHS. For employers, investing in employee health and wellbeing can lead to increased workforce productivity and help retain key talent in an organisation.</p><p> </p><p>Employers normally incur expenditure on employee healthcare for a business purpose and can already deduct this in full when calculating their taxable profits under the longstanding general rules for business expenses. This means employers already receive full tax relief for these costs. The Government therefore does not believe that the existing tax system for business expenses incurred by employers provides a barrier to those wishing to support employees at work.</p><p> </p><p>The tax system also ensures employees do not pay income tax or National Insurance Contributions (NICs) on several employer-provided, health-related benefits and there is no corresponding Class 1A NICs liability for employers when there is an exemption for income tax. This includes recommended medical treatment of up to £500 intended to help employees return to work.</p><p> </p><p>This particular exemption is targeted at supporting individuals who are expected to reach or who have already reached four weeks of sickness absence. This is because evidence suggests there is an increased likelihood of employees moving on to benefits after an absence lasting four weeks or longer. The £500 cap is in line with the estimated annual cost of the medical treatment that would typically be recommended to help employees return to work.</p><p> </p><p>In July, the Government launched a consultation on measures to reduce ill health-related job loss. The broad focus of this consultation chimes with recommendations in the John Lewis report, including potential financial incentives to encourage more employers to access occupational health services, driving early and supportive employer action and spreading best practice. However, it also notes that there is limited evidence that making the tax treatment more generous is the most effective lever to incentivise more employers to start offering occupational health provision, if the initial cost is the main barrier for them.</p><p> </p><p>The Government will use the evidence and views gathered during this consultation to develop its proposals further, considering an approach which offers the best value for money and is affordable in the context of the next Spending Review.</p> answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire answering member printed Jesse Norman grouped question UIN 281709 281710 281712 281713 281714 281715 question first answered 09/09/2019 13:08:28 answering member 3991 label Biography information for Jesse Norman
	tabling member	3989 label Biography information for Jack Lopresti