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

1141617

registered interest
date	24/07/2019
answering body	Department for Transport
answering dept id	27
answering dept short name	Transport
answering dept sort name	Transport
hansard heading	Transport: Coastal Areas
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the Government has plans to allocate funding to local transport and connectivity projects in seaside towns.
tabling member constituency	Swansea East
tabling member printed	Carolyn Harris
uin	281770
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 answer text <p>We want to unlock the potential of every corner of the UK. Local transport funding decisions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are devolved to the Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government and Northern Ireland Executive, respectively. For England, we welcome proposals from Local Enterprise Partnerships, Sub-national Transport Bodies, local authorities and others on transport investment. These bodies are best placed to prioritise investments in their local areas, including to support coastal towns. When the Department for Transport considers proposals, investment decisions are made based on a rigorous and fair appraisal process that ensures spending goes to the projects and programmes where it is most needed and delivers greatest value-for-money for both taxpayers and passengers.</p><p> </p><p>The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Coastal Communities Fund also supports improvements in productivity in the coastal economy through projects promoting investment in innovation, infrastructure or skills provision.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Mid Norfolk answering member printed George Freeman question first answered 09/09/2019 12:45:26 answering member 4020 label Biography information for George Freeman
tabling member	4480 label Biography information for Carolyn Harris

1141645

registered interest
date	24/07/2019
answering body	Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
answering dept id	201
answering dept short name	Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
answering dept sort name	Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
hansard heading	Mental Health Services: Research
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many applications for research into mindfulness-based therapies were (a) accepted and (b) rejected by the Medical Research Council in each of the last three years.
tabling member constituency	Vale of Clwyd
tabling member printed	Chris Ruane
uin	281632
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 answer text <p>In the last three years the Medical Research Council has funded one project relevant to mindfulness-based therapies. £149k was awarded in 2018 to researchers based at the University of Bristol for two years to evaluate a multi-stage intervention to improve foster carers mental health and well-being.</p><p> </p><p>The number of applications and success rates for projects relevant to mindfulness-based therapies cannot be provided. All applications to UK Research and Innovation are submitted in confidence and when research topics are specialised in nature, releasing information on the number of applications may result in Research Organisations and applicants potentially being identified.</p> answering member constituency Stratford-on-Avon answering member printed Nadhim Zahawi question first answered 09/09/2019 13:35:36 answering member 4113 label Biography information for Nadhim Zahawi
tabling member	534 label Biography information for Chris Ruane

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

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