Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that residents without recourse to public funds will have financial protection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
The government has introduced a range of measures to provide financial protection for those affected by Covid-19, including those with no recourse to public funds (NRPF).
Employers will be able to apply for grants under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme for workers on the PAYE system. The government has also extended Statutory Sick Pay to be payable from Day 1 rather than Day 4 and made Contributory Employment and Support Allowance available from the first day of sickness rather than the eighth, subject to other eligibility criteria. For those who file Self-Assessment returns, the government has deferred Income Tax Self-Assessment payments from July 2020 to January 2021.
In addition, the government has announced that banks and building societies will offer a three-month ‘mortgage holiday’ for borrowers in financial difficulty, including landlords with tenants in financial difficulty, as a result of Covid-19. Alongside this, the government has legislated to prohibit tenant evictions for three months.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the proportion of (1) the male, and (2) the female, working population that earn (a) £25,600 or over, (b) £23,040 to £25,599, and (c) £20,480 to £23,039, per year.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
Estimates of the proportion of the male and female working population by income band are provided in the following table:
| ||||||||||||||||||
The proportion of the (1) male, and (2) female working population (employment and/or self-employment income only) in the tax year 2017 to 2018 | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Source: Survey of Personal Incomes, tax year 2017 to 2018
Notes on the table
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was their total spending, in constant prices, on (1) child benefit, and (2) income-related benefits, for children for each year since 2000.
Answered by Earl of Courtown - Opposition Deputy Chief Whip (Lords)
Total Child Benefit payments, in real terms at 2019/20 prices, since 2000 can be found in the Benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2019 published by the Department for Work and Pensions. This information has been presented below (Table 1) for the years for which outturn data is available.
Table 1 - Child Benefit expenditure, real terms (2019/20 prices),
| £billions |
2000-01 | 12.6 |
2001-02 | 12.6 |
2002-03 | 12.5 |
2003-04 | 12.9 |
2004-05 | 12.8 |
2005-06 | 12.7 |
2006-07 | 12.8 |
2007-08 | 13.1 |
2008-09 | 13.5 |
2009-10 | 14 |
2010-11 | 14.1 |
2011-12 | 14 |
2012-13 | 13.7 |
2013-14 | 12.6 |
2014-15 | 12.6 |
2015-16 | 12.6 |
2016-17 | 12.3 |
2017-18 | 12 |
Notes:
- Real terms, 2019/20 prices
- Figures presented are based on outturn data
Source:
- Benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-2019
2. Income-related benefits
The information requested relating to Universal Credit is not held and can only be made available at a disproportionate cost.
Expenditure in real terms is available in respect of Income Support and income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance on child elements in DWP Benefit expenditure and caseload tables. Again, to be helpful, this information has been presented below (Table 2) for the years for which outturn data is available.
Table 2 - Income Support and income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance on child elements, real terms (2019-20 prices),
| Income Support (£millions) | Jobseeker's Allowance (£millions) |
2000-01 | 4,270 | 442 |
2001-02 | 4,774 | 408 |
2002-03 | 5,121 | 406 |
2003-04* | 5,151 | 351 |
2004-05 | 4,381 | 191 |
2005-06 | 3,290 | 31 |
2006-07 | 2,593 | 15 |
2007-08 | 2,144 | - |
2008-09 | 1,749 | - |
2009-10 | 1,039 | - |
2010-11 | 737 | - |
2011-12 | 518 | - |
2012-13 | 329 | - |
2013-14 | 190 | - |
2014-15 | 130 | - |
2015-16 | 87 | - |
2016-17 | 63 | - |
2017-18 | 44 | - |
Notes:
- Real terms, 2019/20 prices
- Figures presented are based on outturn data
- *since Apr 2004, financial support for children is normally provided through Child Tax Credit
Source:
- Benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-2019
Annual expenditure on tax credits cannot be broken down between Child Tax Credits and Working Tax Credits. However, this breakdown is available for the closely related measure of annual tax credits entitlement, and provided in Table 3 below. The main difference between tax credits entitlement and tax credits payments is that entitlement figures are based on the amounts households are entitled to once awards have been finalised, whereas payments are based on provisional awards which may differ from final awards, and can include payments and repayments in respect of earlier years.
Table 3 - Annual entitlement to Child Tax Credit (introduced 2003-04), real terms (2019-20 prices),
| £millions |
2003-04 | n/a |
2004-05 | 18,128 |
2005-06 | 18,255 |
2006-07 | 18,874 |
2007-08 | 19,351 |
2008-09 | 21,653 |
2009-10 | 23,336 |
2010-11 | 23,815 |
2011-12 | 24,648 |
2012-13 | 24,405 |
2013-14 | 23,902 |
2014-15 | 23,519 |
2015-16 | 23,112 |
2016-17 | 21,935 |
2017-18 | 20,494 |
Notes:
- Figures for 2003-04 are not readily available and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Source:
- Nominal figures taken from Table 1.1 of HMRC’s Child and Working Tax Credits Statistics
- Real terms 2019-20 prices. To convert the nominal figures into real terms, the GDP deflators published in March 2019 were used.
- The estimates for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are affected by the introduction of Universal Credit.
- This table does not include entitlement to Working Tax Credit or Working Families Tax Credit as they are not considered income related benefits for children, although they do contain some child related elements.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Young of Cookham on 8 July (HL16704), whether they will carry out a cumulative impact assessment of tax and spending decisions by gendered household type, which avoids the need to make assumptions about income sharing within households.
Answered by Lord Young of Cookham
The government carefully considers the impact of its decisions on those sharing protected characteristics - including gender - in line with both its legal obligations and with its strong commitment to promoting fairness.
However, analysis of the impact of tax and spending decisions by gendered household type will present a partial picture of the impact of policy decisions on different genders as most people live in households with other people.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Baroness Buscombe on 25 June (HL Deb, col 1003), whether they will now ask the National Audit Office to examine the feasibility of implementing the cumulative social impact assessment recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights; and whether they will explain what they meant by their reservation concerning "unreasonable assumptions about income sharing" set out in paragraph 38 of the Comments by the State on the UN Special Rapporteur’s report.
Answered by Lord Young of Cookham
The Treasury regularly publishes detailed analysis on the cumulative impact of policy decisions on tax, welfare and public spending on households of different incomes. The government also carefully considers the impact of its decisions on those sharing protected characteristics - including at Budgets and other fiscal events - in line with both its legal obligations and with its strong commitment to promoting fairness.
Our statement concerning income sharing reflects our reservations about producing cumulative analysis of the impact of tax and spending decisions on vulnerable groups beneath household level (for instance, by gender). This analysis often requires unreasonable assumptions about how income is shared within households. As independent experts at the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said, “because most people live in households with others, and we don't know how incomes are shared, it is very hard to look at effects separately for many men and women.”
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current annual revenue from the Soft Drinks Industry Levy.
Answered by Lord Young of Cookham
Receipts from the Soft Drinks Industry Levy were £240m in 2018/19.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 6 March (HL13927), in how many cases there has been a failure by the claimant to pay the High Income Child Benefit Charge which the claimant had then been required to repay.
Answered by Lord Bates
High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) is part of the Self-Assessment (SA) process and is reflected in each individual’s overall SA tax charge. This HICBC charge is included in the individual’s annual SA tax return and, where HICBC is recoverable, will form part of the overall tax due by that person. It is therefore not possible to distinguish HICBC charges from other SA charges that may be included for that tax year. For SA overall, 8% of people did not pay by the due date, meaning the vast majority (92%) paid on time.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have been required to repay child benefit under the High Income Child Benefit Charge each year since that charge was introduced.
Answered by Lord Bates
Estimates of the numbers paying the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) in respect of each tax year since 2012-13 are shown in the table below.
| 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 |
Thousands | 360 | 366 | 319 | 296 | 289 | 279 |
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, what assessment they have made of the Observation by the Institute for Fiscal Studies entitled Stealthy changes mean that soon one in five families with children will be losing some Child Benefit, published on 7 January, which states that around 370,000 more families will lose some child benefit in 2019–20 than in 2013–14 because of the freezing of the £50,000 income threshold; what is their estimate of the number of non-higher rate taxpayers who will be affected by that policy as a result; and what saving this will make to the public purse.
Answered by Lord Bates
The government considered the impacts of the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) on individuals and households at Budget 2012 when the policy was announced. These were published in a Tax Information and Impact Note at the time.
The adjusted net income threshold above which an individual becomes liable for the HICBC is £50,000. The government believes this is currently the correct level for the threshold, but as with all elements of tax policy this remains under review.
Asked by: Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 29 March (HL6647), whether they will now publish the outcome of the Family Test Assessment on the policy to limit Tax Credits and Universal Credit support to two children.
Answered by Lord Bates
The government does not routinely publish the Family Test assessment of policies.
An impact assessment of the policy of providing support for a maximum of two children in Child Tax Credits and Universal Credit was published and is available here and attached:
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/ia15-006e.pdf
The impact assessment considered the impact of the policy on families and other protected groups.