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

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

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