Asked by: Jack Lopresti (Conservative - Filton and Bradley Stoke)
Question to the HM Treasury:
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.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Government recognises the valuable work of employers such as the John Lewis Partnership in providing for the health of their staff.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Asked by: Jack Lopresti (Conservative - Filton and Bradley Stoke)
Question to the HM Treasury:
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.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Government recognises the valuable work of employers such as the John Lewis Partnership in providing for the health of their staff.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Asked by: Jack Lopresti (Conservative - Filton and Bradley Stoke)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what progress the Government has made on reducing taxes for working families.
Answered by Mel Stride - Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
To support working families, the Government has committed to raise the income tax personal allowance to £12,500, and the higher rate threshold to £50,000 by 2020.
We have taken significant steps towards meeting these commitments: in April, the personal allowance increased to £11,850, and the higher rate threshold to £46,350.
This means a typical basic rate taxpayer will pay £1,075 less income tax this year than in 2010-11.
Increases to the personal allowance and higher rate threshold have benefitted over 31 million individuals since the start of the last parliament.
Asked by: Jack Lopresti (Conservative - Filton and Bradley Stoke)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what levels of apprenticeships are offered by his Department; and how many apprenticeship starts there were at each level in each of the last three years.
Answered by Robert Jenrick
The Treasury has recently updated its apprenticeship offer and now offers apprenticeships at levels 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Apprenticeship starts over the last three years are:
| Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Level 6 |
2015/16 | 2 | 29 | 1 | 0 |
2016/17 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 0 |
2017/18 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 1 |
2015/16 was particularly large intake of apprentices, so lower numbers since are more indicative of an annual intake for a small department. The recent approval of public policy and economics apprenticeship standards will allow Treasury to facilitate increased numbers in future years.
Asked by: Jack Lopresti (Conservative - Filton and Bradley Stoke)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much land (a) his Department, (b) its agencies, and (c) its non-departmental public bodies owns in (i) England, and (ii) the South West; and how much of that land has been identified as being surplus to requirements.
Answered by Robert Jenrick
The UK Government is a significant landowner. The current Government Estate Strategy sets out the Government's vision to create an efficient, fit-for-purpose and sustainable estate whose performance matches the best of the private sector. As a Government we are delivering this vision, ensuring that the estate is fit for purpose, is frequently reviewed and aligned to the Estate Strategy, and is managed in an efficient and effective way.
The current landholdings of HM Treasury are shown in the table below. This does not include land previously identified as surplus that has now been disposed. The information is correct at time of publication.
Land in square metres* | England | South West |
Department | 24,540.33 | 0 |
Agencies | 0 | 0 |
Non-departmental public bodies | 0 | 0 |
Total | 24,540.33 | 0 |
The core department owns property that it both occupies and sublets to agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other government departments.
Of the total land HM Treasury holds in England, zero hectares are currently declared as surplus. These figures include agencies and non-departmental public bodies.
* We have interpreted this PQ to require information regarding freehold property only. No information quantifying hectares is available as HM Treasury’s property comprises only buildings.
Asked by: Jack Lopresti (Conservative - Filton and Bradley Stoke)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department has made of the number of first-time buyers who purchased properties between 22 November 2017 and 1 January 2018 who paid no Stamp Duty in (a) England and Wales, (b) the South West, (c) South Gloucestershire local authority area and (d) Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency.
Answered by Mel Stride - Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
The number of purchases benefitting from the Stamp Duty Land Tax relief for first-time buyers between 22 November 2017 and 1 January 2018 was estimated to be 16,000. This relief means that over 80% of first-time buyer purchases do not pay SDLT. Estimates for regional, local authority and constituency level are not yet available.
Statistics on the number of first-time buyers claiming the relief are due to be published in the Quarterly Stamp Duty Statistics on 26 April 2018.
Asked by: Jack Lopresti (Conservative - Filton and Bradley Stoke)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department has made of the number of first-time buyers who purchased properties between 22 November 2017 and 1 January 2018 who paid no Stamp Duty in (a) England and Wales, (b) the South West, (c) South Gloucestershire local authority area and (d) Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency.
Answered by Mel Stride - Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
The number of purchases benefitting from the Stamp Duty Land Tax relief for first-time buyers between 22 November 2017 and 1 January 2018 was estimated to be 16,000. This relief means that over 80% of first-time buyer purchases do not pay SDLT. Estimates for regional, local authority and constituency level are not yet available.
Statistics on the number of first-time buyers claiming the relief are due to be published in the Quarterly Stamp Duty Statistics on 26 April 2018.