Asked by: Lisa Cameron (Conservative - East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of preferential tax treatment for companies that look after the mental health of employees in work; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Government recognises the valuable work that many employers do in providing for the health of their staff. Keeping more people in work is good for the economy and reduces spending on out-of-work benefits, and potentially 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.
Improving people’s mental health and putting services on an equal footing with those for physical health remains a priority for this Government. Last year, the Government published a consultation on options to reduce ill health-related job loss. This consultation included potential incentives to encourage more employers to access occupational health services, driving earlier supportive employer action and encourage best practice. However, it also noted 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: Lisa Cameron (Conservative - East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the Treasury and the NHS working together to review the tax treatment of workplace occupational health services.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Government recognises the valuable work that many employers do in providing for the health of their staff. Keeping more people in work is good for the economy and reduces spending on out-of-work benefits, and potentially 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.
Improving people’s mental health and putting services on an equal footing with those for physical health remains a priority for this Government. Last year, the Government published a consultation on options to reduce ill health-related job loss. This consultation included potential incentives to encourage more employers to access occupational health services, driving earlier supportive employer action and encourage best practice. However, it also noted 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: Lisa Cameron (Conservative - East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much revenue accrued to the public purse from VAT on audiobooks in each of the last three years for which data is available.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The details that HM Revenue and Customs collects from taxpayers on their VAT returns are not specific enough to provide an estimate of VAT on audiobooks.
To minimise the administrative burden on businesses, they are only required to report the total VAT on all their taxable supplies of goods and services in the relevant period. It is therefore not possible to identify the types of supplies on which the VAT was charged.