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

1141615

registered interest
date	24/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Special Educational Needs: Hearing Impairment
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of a central bursary fund to train teachers specialising in teaching children with a hearing impairment; and what plans he has to address the shortage of specialised teachers in this area.
tabling member constituency	Carshalton and Wallington
tabling member printed	Tom Brake
uin	281547
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/09/2019 answer text <p>The department received a proposal from the National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) for a central bursary scheme to fund trainee teachers of the hearing impaired. After consideration the department found that it did not provide strong enough evidence that a bursary is the solution to the declining numbers of trained teachers of the deaf.</p><p>Officials are working with NDCS and other organisations in the sensory impairment sector to identify non-bursary solutions to support teachers wishing to train as teachers of the deaf, or teachers for the sensory impaired more widely.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Saffron Walden answering member printed Mrs Kemi Badenoch grouped question UIN 281548 question first answered 05/09/2019 07:44:20 answering member 4597 label Biography information for Kemi Badenoch
tabling member	151 label Biography information for Tom Brake

1141622

registered interest
date	24/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Social Security Benefits: Appeals
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of people who appealed benefits decisions in Doncaster in the last 12 months were successful.
tabling member constituency	Doncaster North
tabling member printed	Edward Miliband
uin	281662
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 answer text <p>Information about the outcomes of appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) is published at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics</p><p> </p><p>Decisions on benefit, typically on a person’s entitlement to benefit, or its rate of payment, can be overturned on appeal for a variety of reasons. For instance, further evidence, including oral testimony, may be provided at the hearing. HM Courts &amp; Tribunals Service cannot comment on decisions made by the independent tribunal judiciary.</p><p> </p><p>Latest figures (to March 2019) indicate that since Personal Independence Payment was introduced, 4.1 million decisions have been made, and of these, 10% have been appealed and 5% have been overturned at Tribunals.</p><p> </p><p>Between April 2014 and December 2018, 4.1 million Employment and Support Allowance (post Work Capability Assessment) decisions have been made. Of these, 8% have been appealed and 4% have been overturned.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar grouped question UIN 281663 281664 question first answered 09/09/2019 08:45:59 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
tabling member	1510 label Biography information for Edward Miliband

1141623

registered interest
date	24/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Social Security Benefits: Appeals
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of people who appealed benefits decisions were successful in their appeal in the last 12 months.
tabling member constituency	Doncaster North
tabling member printed	Edward Miliband
uin	281663
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 answer text <p>Information about the outcomes of appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) is published at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics</p><p> </p><p>Decisions on benefit, typically on a person’s entitlement to benefit, or its rate of payment, can be overturned on appeal for a variety of reasons. For instance, further evidence, including oral testimony, may be provided at the hearing. HM Courts &amp; Tribunals Service cannot comment on decisions made by the independent tribunal judiciary.</p><p> </p><p>Latest figures (to March 2019) indicate that since Personal Independence Payment was introduced, 4.1 million decisions have been made, and of these, 10% have been appealed and 5% have been overturned at Tribunals.</p><p> </p><p>Between April 2014 and December 2018, 4.1 million Employment and Support Allowance (post Work Capability Assessment) decisions have been made. Of these, 8% have been appealed and 4% have been overturned.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar grouped question UIN 281662 281664 question first answered 09/09/2019 08:45:59 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
tabling member	1510 label Biography information for Edward Miliband

1141624

registered interest
date	24/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Social Security Benefits: Appeals
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of benefits appeals resulted in a decision being overturned in each Government region in the last 12 months.
tabling member constituency	Doncaster North
tabling member printed	Edward Miliband
uin	281664
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 answer text <p>Information about the outcomes of appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) is published at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics</p><p> </p><p>Decisions on benefit, typically on a person’s entitlement to benefit, or its rate of payment, can be overturned on appeal for a variety of reasons. For instance, further evidence, including oral testimony, may be provided at the hearing. HM Courts &amp; Tribunals Service cannot comment on decisions made by the independent tribunal judiciary.</p><p> </p><p>Latest figures (to March 2019) indicate that since Personal Independence Payment was introduced, 4.1 million decisions have been made, and of these, 10% have been appealed and 5% have been overturned at Tribunals.</p><p> </p><p>Between April 2014 and December 2018, 4.1 million Employment and Support Allowance (post Work Capability Assessment) decisions have been made. Of these, 8% have been appealed and 4% have been overturned.</p> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar grouped question UIN 281662 281663 question first answered 09/09/2019 08:45:59 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
tabling member	1510 label Biography information for Edward Miliband

1141638

registered interest
date	24/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name	Housing, Communities and Local Government
answering dept sort name	Housing, Communities and Local Government
hansard heading	Housing: Health
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the effect of frequent house moves on the well-being of (a) adults and (b) children.
tabling member constituency	Vale of Clwyd
tabling member printed	Chris Ruane
uin	281625
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/09/2019 answer text <p>Our consultation on <em>Overcoming the barriers to longer tenancies</em> sought views on the potential benefits of longer tenancies in the private rented sector. A number of people responded that increased security would improve tenants’ mental health and well-being. In particular, respondents mentioned that fewer house moves could help tenants have better access to local amenities, such as schools and GP clinics, and feel more integrated into their communities.</p><p>Earlier this year, the Government announced its commitment to improve security for renters, and intends to introduce a new, fairer deal for both tenants and landlords.</p><p>As part of this new deal, we will put an end to ‘no-fault’ evictions by repealing section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. Under the new framework, a tenant cannot be evicted from their home without good reason, providing tenants with more stability, and enabling them to put down roots and plan for the future.</p><p>On the 21<sup>st</sup> July we launched a 12 week consultation on the details of our proposals. The Government will collaborate with and listen to tenants, landlords and others in the sector to develop a more effective system that works for everybody.</p> answering member constituency Tatton answering member printed Esther McVey question first answered 04/09/2019 12:46:25 answering member 4084 label Biography information for Esther McVey
tabling member	534 label Biography information for Chris Ruane

1141660

registered interest
date	24/07/2019
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Money Laundering: EU Law
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for what reason the UK has not opted into EU Directive 2018/1673 on combating money laundering by criminal law.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	281754
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/09/2019 answer text <p>As set out in the Eighth Annual Report to Parliament on the Application of Protocols 19 and 21 to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (TFEU) in Relation to EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Matters (1 December 2016 – 30 November 2017) (Cm 9580), the UK Government decided not to opt into the EU Directive on combating money laundering by criminal law as our domestic legislation is already largely compliant with the Directive’s measures, and in relation to the offences and sentences set out in the Directive, the UK already goes much further. Therefore, it was not considered that opting in would enhance the UK’s approach to tackling money laundering.</p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis question first answered 03/09/2019 16:12:02 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

1141661

registered interest
date	24/07/2019
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Money Laundering: EU Law
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment her Department has made of the equivalence of the UK's corporate liability regime achieve with article 7 (the liability of legal persons) of EU Directive 2018/1673 on combating money laundering by criminal law.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne North
tabling member printed	Catherine McKinnell
uin	281755
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/09/2019 answer text <p>As set out in the Eighth Annual Report to Parliament on the Application of Protocols 19 and 21 to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (TFEU) in Relation to EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Matters (1 December 2016 – 30 November 2017) (Cm 9580), the UK Government decided not to opt into the EU Directive on combating money laundering by criminal law as our domestic legislation is already largely compliant with the Directive’s measures, and in relation to the offences and sentences set out in the Directive, the UK already goes much further. Therefore, it was not considered that opting in would enhance the UK’s approach to tackling money laundering.</p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis question first answered 03/09/2019 16:14:03 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
tabling member	4125 label Biography information for Catherine McKinnell

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