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

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

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

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

1141711

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	Young People: Carers
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what progress his Department has made in improving access to adequate support for young carers to tackle loneliness and social isolation.
tabling member constituency	Lewisham, Deptford
tabling member printed	Vicky Foxcroft
uin	281784
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 05/09/2019 answer text <p>The government is committed to supporting young carers so that they are properly protected from excessive or inappropriate caring responsibilities and supported to achieve their full potential. Consistent identification remains challenging, with many being ‘hidden’ and therefore unrecognised and/or unsupported.</p><p>Changes through the Children and Families Act 2014 simplified the legislation relating to young adult carers’ assessments, making rights and duties clearer to both young people and practitioners. This included promoting whole family approaches which triggers both children’s or young people's and adults’ support services into action – assessing why a child is caring, what needs to change and what would help the family to prevent children or young people from taking on this responsibility in the first place.</p><p>Most of the government’s work to support carers is led by the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) delivered through the Carers Action Plan. The 'Shaping our Future: Improving Assessment and Support for Young Carers Transition to Adulthood' report was published in June and is available from here:</p><p><a href="https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/young-carer_transition_report.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/young-carer_transition_report.pdf</a>.</p><p>One of the recommendations states that there is more to learn about young carers’ experiences of loneliness and how it is related to their well-being. There should be a specific focus on young adult carers being better connected in order to tackle the loneliness they experience. DHSC will be sharing the findings of the report with the appropriate government departments for them to consider the recommendations within their policies.</p><p>We have recently published the Children in Need Review conclusion, and this sets out our approach to helping schools and children’s social care improve the educational outcomes of children in need, including those young carers assessed as being in need.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Saffron Walden answering member printed Mrs Kemi Badenoch question first answered 05/09/2019 06:37:56 answering member 4597 label Biography information for Kemi Badenoch
tabling member	4491 label Biography information for Vicky Foxcroft

1141724

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	Season Tickets: Compensation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of automatically awarding season ticket rail passengers with compensation in respect of a delay to their travel.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle-under-Lyme
tabling member printed	Paul Farrelly
uin	281646
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2019 answer text <p>Since announcing ‘one-click’ compensation in October 2018, the Government has introduced a requirement for new franchises to introduce simple automated Delay Repay claims systems, available via smartphones and smartcard registration, to make it easier for passengers to claim compensation when they have suffered delays.</p><p> </p><p>Automated ‘one-click’ compensation schemes make it very quick and easy to claim compensation and have a number of advantages over automatic compensation schemes – for example, the fact that passengers know they have received compensation and also that the risk of fraud is reduced, because passengers need to ‘click’ to confirm they were on the delayed train.</p> answering member constituency Daventry answering member printed Chris Heaton-Harris question first answered 09/09/2019 11:42:12 answering member 3977 label Biography information for Chris Heaton-Harris
tabling member	1436 label Biography information for Paul Farrelly

1141756

registered interest
date	24/07/2019
answering body	Women and Equalities
answering dept id	31
answering dept short name	Women and Equalities
answering dept sort name	Women and Equalities
hansard heading	Candidates: Disability
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, what plans the Government has to encourage more candidates with disabilities to stand for elected office.
tabling member constituency	South Holland and The Deepings
tabling member printed	Sir John Hayes
uin	281591
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/10/2019 answer text <p>The Government is working with disability organisations to help political parties better support disabled candidates. In December 2018, the Government launched the £250,000 EnAble Fund, which provides grants that cover disability-related expenses people might face when seeking elected office.</p><p> </p><p>We have commissioned an independent evaluation, which will include assessments of average grants made and will be published after the Fund has closed next year.</p><p> </p><p>Furthermore, my Honourable Friend the Minister for the Constitution, passed legislation to exclude disability-related expenses from candidates’ spending limits.</p> answering member constituency Louth and Horncastle answering member printed Victoria Atkins question first answered 04/10/2019 12:36:25 answering member 4399 label Biography information for Victoria Atkins
tabling member	350 label Biography information for Sir John Hayes