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

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

1141670

	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 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.
	tabling member constituency	Filton and Bradley Stoke
	tabling member printed	Jack Lopresti
	uin	281712
	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 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

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

1141676

	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	NHS: Drugs
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	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.
	tabling member constituency	Carshalton and Wallington
	tabling member printed	Tom Brake
	uin	281551
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 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> answering member constituency Hereford and South Herefordshire answering member printed Jesse Norman question first answered 09/09/2019 12:57:29 answering member 3991 label Biography information for Jesse Norman
	tabling member	151 label Biography information for Tom Brake