Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

1141613
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
unstar this property date remove filter
star this property answering body
Treasury remove filter
star this property answering dept id 14 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Treasury more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Treasury more like this
star this property hansard heading Customs more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
star this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property 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. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Carshalton and Wallington more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Tom Brake more like this
star this property uin 281546 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
star this property date of answer less than 2019-09-03more like thismore than 2019-09-03
star this property 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> more like this
star this property answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire more like this
star this property answering member printed Jesse Norman more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2019-09-03T15:03:37.827Zmore like thismore than 2019-09-03T15:03:37.827Z
star this property answering member
3991
star this property label Biography information for Jesse Norman more like this
star this property tabling member
151
star this property label Biography information for Tom Brake more like this
1141657
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
unstar this property date remove filter
star this property answering body
Treasury remove filter
star this property answering dept id 14 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Treasury more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Treasury more like this
star this property hansard heading Bingo: Taxation more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
star this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property 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. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Gateshead more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Ian Mearns more like this
star this property uin 281720 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
star this property date of answer less than 2019-09-05more like thismore than 2019-09-05
star this property 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> more like this
star this property answering member constituency Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Simon Clarke more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2019-09-05T15:54:41.047Zmore like thismore than 2019-09-05T15:54:41.047Z
star this property answering member
4655
star this property label Biography information for Mr Simon Clarke more like this
star this property tabling member
4000
star this property label Biography information for Ian Mearns more like this
1141659
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
unstar this property date remove filter
star this property answering body
Treasury remove filter
star this property answering dept id 14 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Treasury more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Treasury more like this
star this property hansard heading Bookmakers and Football Pools: Taxation more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
star this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property 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. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Gateshead more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Ian Mearns more like this
star this property uin 281721 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
star this property date of answer less than 2019-09-05more like thismore than 2019-09-05
star this property 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> more like this
star this property answering member constituency Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland more like this
star this property answering member printed Mr Simon Clarke more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2019-09-05T15:52:39.747Zmore like thismore than 2019-09-05T15:52:39.747Z
star this property answering member
4655
star this property label Biography information for Mr Simon Clarke more like this
star this property tabling member
4000
star this property label Biography information for Ian Mearns more like this
1141667
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
unstar this property date remove filter
star this property answering body
Treasury remove filter
star this property answering dept id 14 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Treasury more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Treasury more like this
star this property hansard heading Occupational Health more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
star this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property 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. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Filton and Bradley Stoke more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Jack Lopresti more like this
star this property uin 281709 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
star this property date of answer less than 2019-09-09more like thismore than 2019-09-09
star this property 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>
star this property answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire more like this
star this property answering member printed Jesse Norman more like this
star this property grouped question UIN
281710 more like this
281711 more like this
281712 more like this
281713 more like this
281714 more like this
281715 more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.083Zmore like thismore than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.083Z
star this property answering member
3991
star this property label Biography information for Jesse Norman more like this
star this property tabling member
3989
star this property label Biography information for Jack Lopresti more like this
1141668
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
unstar this property date remove filter
star this property answering body
Treasury remove filter
star this property answering dept id 14 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Treasury more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Treasury more like this
star this property hansard heading Occupational Health: Cost Effectiveness more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
star this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property 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. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Filton and Bradley Stoke more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Jack Lopresti more like this
star this property uin 281710 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
star this property date of answer less than 2019-09-09more like thismore than 2019-09-09
star this property 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>
star this property answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire more like this
star this property answering member printed Jesse Norman more like this
star this property grouped question UIN
281709 more like this
281711 more like this
281712 more like this
281713 more like this
281714 more like this
281715 more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.133Zmore like thismore than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.133Z
star this property answering member
3991
star this property label Biography information for Jesse Norman more like this
star this property tabling member
3989
star this property label Biography information for Jack Lopresti more like this
1141669
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
unstar this property date remove filter
star this property answering body
Treasury remove filter
star this property answering dept id 14 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Treasury more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Treasury more like this
star this property hansard heading Occupational Health: Taxation more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
star this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property 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. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Filton and Bradley Stoke more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Jack Lopresti more like this
star this property uin 281711 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
star this property date of answer less than 2019-09-09more like thismore than 2019-09-09
star this property 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>
star this property answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire more like this
star this property answering member printed Jesse Norman more like this
star this property grouped question UIN
281709 more like this
281710 more like this
281712 more like this
281713 more like this
281714 more like this
281715 more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.18Zmore like thismore than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.18Z
star this property answering member
3991
star this property label Biography information for Jesse Norman more like this
star this property tabling member
3989
star this property label Biography information for Jack Lopresti more like this
1141670
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
unstar this property date remove filter
star this property answering body
Treasury remove filter
star this property answering dept id 14 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Treasury more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Treasury more like this
star this property hansard heading Occupational Health: Taxation more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
star this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies on (a) health prevention and (b) early intervention of the (a) conditions in relation to 28 day consecutive absence and (b)requirement that a health condition must be a direct result of work in the exemption for employer-funded recommended medical treatment under section 320C of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Filton and Bradley Stoke more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Jack Lopresti more like this
star this property uin 281712 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
star this property date of answer less than 2019-09-09more like thismore than 2019-09-09
star this property 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>
star this property answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire more like this
star this property answering member printed Jesse Norman more like this
star this property grouped question UIN
281709 more like this
281710 more like this
281711 more like this
281713 more like this
281714 more like this
281715 more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.227Zmore like thismore than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.227Z
star this property answering member
3991
star this property label Biography information for Jesse Norman more like this
star this property tabling member
3989
star this property label Biography information for Jack Lopresti more like this
1141671
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
unstar this property date remove filter
star this property answering body
Treasury remove filter
star this property answering dept id 14 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Treasury more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Treasury more like this
star this property hansard heading Occupational Health: Taxation more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
star this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the conditions on tax reliefs for workplace health services with his Department's principles of tax simplification. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Filton and Bradley Stoke more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Jack Lopresti more like this
star this property uin 281713 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
star this property date of answer less than 2019-09-09more like thismore than 2019-09-09
star this property 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>
star this property answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire more like this
star this property answering member printed Jesse Norman more like this
star this property grouped question UIN
281709 more like this
281710 more like this
281711 more like this
281712 more like this
281714 more like this
281715 more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.303Zmore like thismore than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.303Z
star this property answering member
3991
star this property label Biography information for Jesse Norman more like this
star this property tabling member
3989
star this property label Biography information for Jack Lopresti more like this
1141672
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
unstar this property date remove filter
star this property answering body
Treasury remove filter
star this property answering dept id 14 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Treasury more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Treasury more like this
star this property hansard heading Income Tax more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
star this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the effect on number of additional workers that would be eligible for the exemption under section 320C of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 of removing the requirement for a 28 consecutive day absence. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Filton and Bradley Stoke more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Jack Lopresti more like this
star this property uin 281714 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
star this property date of answer less than 2019-09-09more like thismore than 2019-09-09
star this property 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>
star this property answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire more like this
star this property answering member printed Jesse Norman more like this
star this property grouped question UIN
281709 more like this
281710 more like this
281711 more like this
281712 more like this
281713 more like this
281715 more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.35Zmore like thismore than 2019-09-09T13:08:28.35Z
star this property answering member
3991
star this property label Biography information for Jesse Norman more like this
star this property tabling member
3989
star this property label Biography information for Jack Lopresti more like this
1141676
unstar this property registered interest false more like this
unstar this property date remove filter
star this property answering body
Treasury remove filter
star this property answering dept id 14 more like this
star this property answering dept short name Treasury more like this
star this property answering dept sort name Treasury more like this
star this property hansard heading NHS: Drugs more like this
star this property house id 1 more like this
star this property legislature
25259
star this property pref label House of Commons more like this
star this property question text To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Answer of 10 July 2019 to Question 272107 on Department of Heath and Social Care: Brexit, when his Department plans to publish details of the new customs procedures. more like this
star this property tabling member constituency Carshalton and Wallington more like this
star this property tabling member printed
Tom Brake more like this
star this property uin 281551 more like this
star this property answer
answer
unstar this property is ministerial correction false more like this
star this property date of answer less than 2019-09-09more like thismore than 2019-09-09
star this property answer text <p>In August 2018, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) published Technical Notices on Customs and Excise, Business VAT and Tariff procedures that would apply under no deal arrangements and impact on businesses. Up to date guidance is available on gov.uk: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/customs-procedures-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/guidance/customs-procedures-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal</a>, and this has been supported by a range of proactive stakeholder engagement. The final elements of guidance are in development and will be published in the next few weeks. HMRC continue to improve all of their guidance to ensure businesses have access to the advice they need to prepare for when the UK leaves the EU on 31st October.</p> more like this
star this property answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire more like this
star this property answering member printed Jesse Norman more like this
star this property question first answered
less than 2019-09-09T12:57:29.66Zmore like thismore than 2019-09-09T12:57:29.66Z
star this property answering member
3991
star this property label Biography information for Jesse Norman more like this
star this property tabling member
151
star this property label Biography information for Tom Brake more like this