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

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

1141671

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 compatibility of the conditions on tax reliefs for workplace health services with his Department's principles of tax simplification.
tabling member constituency	Filton and Bradley Stoke
tabling member printed	Jack Lopresti
uin	281713
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 281711 281712 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

1141672

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	Income Tax
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 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.
tabling member constituency	Filton and Bradley Stoke
tabling member printed	Jack Lopresti
uin	281714
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 281711 281712 281713 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

1141679

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	Medical Treatments: Tax Allowances
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of removing the requirement for a 28 consecutive day absence and £500 cap per tax year from the s320C ITEPA 2003 (EIM21774) exemption for employer-funded recommended medical treatment.
tabling member constituency	Filton and Bradley Stoke
tabling member printed	Jack Lopresti
uin	281715
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 281711 281712 281713 281714 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

1141689

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	Health Insurance
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many and what proportion of people in the UK have private medical insurance.
tabling member constituency	Bootle
tabling member printed	Peter Dowd
uin	281774
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/09/2019 answer text <p>The Government monitors the insurance market and is responsible for setting the overall legal framework of financial services regulation.</p><p> </p><p>The Government does not hold information on the amount spent on private medical cover, or on the number and proportion of people in the UK with private medical insurance.</p><p> </p><p>However, data from the Office for National Statistics reports that total expenditure on voluntary health insurance was £6 billion in 2017.</p> answering member constituency Salisbury answering member printed John Glen grouped question UIN 281775 question first answered 03/09/2019 07:04:19 answering member 4051 label Biography information for John Glen
tabling member	4397 label Biography information for Peter Dowd

1141690

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	Health Insurance: Expenditure
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much was spent on private medical health cover in the UK in 2018.
tabling member constituency	Bootle
tabling member printed	Peter Dowd
uin	281775
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/09/2019 answer text <p>The Government monitors the insurance market and is responsible for setting the overall legal framework of financial services regulation.</p><p> </p><p>The Government does not hold information on the amount spent on private medical cover, or on the number and proportion of people in the UK with private medical insurance.</p><p> </p><p>However, data from the Office for National Statistics reports that total expenditure on voluntary health insurance was £6 billion in 2017.</p> answering member constituency Salisbury answering member printed John Glen grouped question UIN 281774 question first answered 03/09/2019 07:04:19 answering member 4051 label Biography information for John Glen
tabling member	4397 label Biography information for Peter Dowd

1141712

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	Energy: Tax Allowances
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment the Government has made of the potential merits of reinstating tax relief for investors in community energy schemes.
tabling member constituency	Ealing Central and Acton
tabling member printed	Dr Rupa Huq
uin	281785
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 answer text <p>The venture capital tax reliefs are intended to incentivise investment in higher risk companies who struggle to access finance. Energy generation was excluded from these schemes in 2016 in response to evidence of such investments being used for tax planning purposes. The Government has no current plans to reinstate eligibility for community energy schemes.</p><p> </p><p>The Government offers other forms of support to community energy projects, including through five new regional Local Energy Hubs, the new Smart Export Guarantee and the £10m Rural Community Energy Fund.</p> answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire answering member printed Jesse Norman question first answered 09/09/2019 13:02:16 answering member 3991 label Biography information for Jesse Norman
tabling member	4511 label Biography information for Dr Rupa Huq

1141731

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	Help to Buy Scheme: Scotland
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people have benefited from the Help to Buy ISA in (a) north east Scotland and (b) West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine; and what the cost to the public purse was of that policy in those areas since the introduction of that scheme.
tabling member constituency	West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
tabling member printed	Andrew Bowie
uin	281795
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/09/2019 answer text We do not hold Help to Buy: ISA data specifically for the North East of Scotland or West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. However, since the introduction of the scheme, the number of First Time Buyers that have benefitted from the Help to Buy: ISA in Scotland is 20,921, with 629 being in Aberdeenshire. The value of the bonuses paid to help people onto the housing ladder in Scotland is £23,230,645 and of this, £738,986 worth of bonuses were paid in Aberdeenshire.<p> </p>This information is available in the Help to Buy: ISA accompanying tables as of March 2019 available here: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/help-to-buy-isa-scheme-quarterly-statistics-december-2015-to-march-2019" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/help-to-buy-isa-scheme-quarterly-statistics-december-2015-to-march-2019</a> answering member constituency Salisbury answering member printed John Glen question first answered 05/09/2019 10:03:31 answering member 4051 label Biography information for John Glen
tabling member	4601 label Biography information for Andrew Bowie