Jersey scaffolders dispute price-fixing claims
Mr Brenkley, who runs a St Helier-based scaffolding company, said his costs were rising for "everything from materials to insurance and training".He said complying with health and safety rules, risk assessments, and safety training for his workers meant keeping the business afloat was becoming harder.Mr Brenkley said: "We've got to send lads to the UK or get approved training providers to come to Jersey."Their wage prices are going up... there's a skills shortage as well."
JCRA said it was "not alleging that any scaffolding businesses have broken the law".However it said "some concerns" had been raised about pricing.Tim Ringsdore, CEO of the JCRA, said competition "benefits everyone" so it was "important that we act to identify and stop anti-competitive behaviours" in Jersey.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Retirees pull billions from pension pots to escape Reeves's tax raid
Middle-class Britons risk a retirement 'disaster' after a record £5bn was pulled from pension pots in the wake of Rachel Reeves's inheritance tax raid. Official figures showed 672,000 retirees, representing roughly 5pc of all pensioners, pulled £5bn from their pots in the first three months of this year. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) said the amount taken from retirement funds was 25pc higher than the same quarter a year ago, with 13pc more people withdrawing money. It means withdrawals during the period were the highest since George Osborne introduced pension freedoms a decade ago. It comes after the Chancellor announced in her maiden Budget last October that pension pots would no longer be exempt from inheritance tax from April 2027, making them subject to a levy of up to 40pc. Baroness Altmann, a former Tory pensions minister, urged the Chancellor to reverse the policy, warning that many more people would choose to withdraw money from their retirement pot as soon as possible, creating a 'pensioner poverty time bomb'. Sweeping changes mean retirees can now withdraw unlimited amounts from their pot as soon as they hit 55. The figures also revealed a 50pc increase in the number of octogenarians taking money out of their pensions over the course of last year with the amount withdrawn by those aged 81 and over up by 80pc to £360m. 'It's a disaster' The Chancellor hopes to raise £1.5bn from her decision to bring pensions within the scope of inheritance tax. Pension withdrawals from defined contribution pots above the 25pc tax-free lump sum incur an income tax charge of 20pc for basic rate taxpayers and a 40pc levy at the higher rate. The changes mean heirs will be subject to both inheritance and income tax at the marginal rate from 2027. 'It's a disaster,' Lady Altmann said, adding that she expected withdrawals to accelerate as more people became aware of the looming inheritance tax charge. She added that the 'draconian' way the policy was introduced was storing up a crisis for the future, and said she was pushing for changes in the Lords that would see beneficiaries charged a maximum 20pc 'pension recovery tax' instead on inherited pots. Lady Altmann said: 'This policy could end up being as damaging to workplace pensions as Gordon Brown's tax rate was for DB [defined benefit] pensions. 'I honestly think this is an existential threat to the long-term survival of our DC [defined contribution] pensions, because there's a clear incentive to take the money out as soon as you possibly can.' She added that this would leave many middle-class families in danger of not leaving themselves enough to fund their retirement. Lady Altmann said: 'This IHT [inheritance tax] imposition will ensure that more and more people – especially those who don't have massive amounts of money – will just say, 'Why on earth would I want to lose two thirds of my pension to the taxman? I'll just take it out as soon as I can.' 'Those who build up, say, between £200,000 and £300,000 over their working life are now in danger of having a real financial incentive not to keep money in their pensions for their later life and then end up in poverty.' 'Taking a big hit' Guy Opperman, another former pensions minister, said: 'Pensions are taking a big hit from the Government's actions. 'The consequences of this policy are clear: people will save less for their pension and will withdraw more. This will also affect the ability to pass money on. There is time for the Government to think again and they should. It is very short-term.' Jamie Jenkins, director of policy at pensions giant Royal London, which manages more than £170bn of client cash, said there was already clear evidence that people were changing their retirement planning ahead of the changes. He said: 'There is increased interest from advisers and their clients in how they can mitigate the potential inheritance tax bill.' Claire Trott, at wealth managers St James's Place, added: 'Every individual's circumstances are different, but IHT changes to pensions have certainly triggered more conversations about gifting strategies and whether it makes sense to start drawing from pensions earlier.' An HM Treasury spokesman said: 'We continue to incentivise pensions savings for their intended purpose – of funding retirement instead of them being openly used as a vehicle to transfer wealth – and more than 90pc of estates each year will continue to pay no inheritance tax after these and other changes.'
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Revealed: Yorkshire Water boss was paid extra £1.3m via offshore parent firm
The boss of Yorkshire Water, one of Britain's biggest water suppliers, has received £1.3m in previously undisclosed extra pay since 2023 via an offshore parent company, the Guardian can reveal. Nicola Shaw received £660,000 from Yorkshire Water's Jersey-registered parent company, Kelda Holdings, in the 2023-24 and the 2024-25 financial years. The size of the fees was not disclosed in the annual report of the regulated subsidiary, Yorkshire Water Services. The utility company at first refused to detail the pay Kelda Holdings had awarded Shaw, saying the parent company was a 'private entity registered in Jersey and subject to separate disclosure frameworks'. Only after the Guardian raised questions about the ability of MPs and bill payers to scrutinise the pay awarded did the company reveal the amount of the two payments. Yorkshire Water said it complied fully with the regulator Ofwat's requirements on pay disclosure and bonus payments, and that the extra payments relating to work for Kelda Holdings were paid by shareholders, not bill payers. Regulated water companies must report directors' pay in their annual accounts each year, but there is no obligation for parent companies to disclose their pay to the regulator or the public. Companies in some offshore secrecy locations, including Jersey, have no obligation to reveal executive pay. Water companies have come under intense scrutiny in recent years amid outrage over the sewage flowing into Britain's rivers and seas at the same time as significant bill increases. Politicians and campaigners have expressed their anger over the million-pound pay packages awarded to top executives, but the Guardian last week revealed that average pay for chief executives still rose by 5% in the 2024-25 financial year. The government moved in June to ban bonuses for the bosses of water companies guilty of the worst environmental breaches. Yorkshire was one of six companies caught by the bonus ban, after it agreed a £40m payment in March for excessive spills from storm overflows as a result of poor maintenance. It received another £850,000 fine on Thursday for pumping chlorinated water into a stream in 2017. Gary Carter, the national officer for GMB, a union representing water workers, said: 'This is another case of water companies not listening to the outrage and concerns of the public over the payment of unjustifiable salaries. 'The fact that this salary is hidden and not transparent just further undermines the reputation of water companies. This sort of behaviour has got to end.' Yorkshire's published accounts reported that Shaw's pay from that company had dropped by nearly a third in the 2024-25 financial year, from £1,028,000 the year before to £689,000. The accounts, however, also said that Shaw and the chief financial officer, Paul Inman, had received remuneration from Kelda Holdings, which 'is therefore disclosed in the financial statements of that company'. But Kelda Holdings has no duty to file accounts publicly because of Jersey's relatively lax laws, and Yorkshire at first declined to say what she was paid by the parent company. Singapore's government owns a third of Kelda Holdings, with the US investor Corsair Capital, Germany's DWS and the Australian pension fund SAS Trustee Corporation owning the rest. The refusal to disclose the pay did not appear to breach any rules, but it meant that MPs and bill payers had no way of knowing whether Shaw's total pay had increased since the bonus ban. The company said Shaw did not receive performance-related pay from Kelda Holdings, but did not share Kelda's accounts. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion The revelation of the extra payments means that Shaw's total pay from Kelda Group for the two years were £1.7m and £1.3m. Inman received £440,000 from Kelda Group in 2024-25, on top of a salary of £662,000. A Yorkshire Water spokesperson said: 'We do not believe that any work our chief executive does on investor-related activities should be paid for by Yorkshire Water customers. For that reason, fees in 2024-25 for work such as investor engagement, financial oversight and management of the Kelda Group were £660k and were paid for by shareholders. 'This fee reflects the critical importance of the work during this period that was led by Nicola, and as a result, shareholders directly invested £500m into Yorkshire Water to support the delivery of critical investment over the next five years, with a further commitment of £600m before the end of March 2027.' The Labour MP for York Central, Rachael Maskell, said: 'With pipes bursting and rivers contaminated, it is shocking to learn that Yorkshire Water's boss has concealed her £1.3m award. When people across Yorkshire faithfully pay their water bills, they expect better. 'This behaviour makes the case why water should return to public ownership and those at the top held accountable for every penny spent and every benefit taken. I trust that Labour's expected audit reform and corporate governance bill will ensure transparency across utility companies, when introduced.'
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The British public deserves to know what Miliband discussed with Beijing
When the Government signed a deal on net-zero co-operation with Canada, the text of the memorandum was published. So too were the texts of deals with Ireland, Norway, South Korea and Chile. Five months after the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband signed a similar memorandum with the Chinese government, however, we are still in the dark as to precisely what was agreed. Chinese media have asserted that the Energy Secretary agreed to co-operation on power grids, battery storage, offshore wind power and carbon capture, among other areas; it is understood that Chinese investment in the UK was not discussed by Mr Miliband. The role of the Chinese state in Britain's net-zero ambitions may well be an uncomfortable issue for the Labour Government to discuss. While the Defence Secretary is insisting that Britain is 'ready to fight' over the future of Taiwan and the Foreign Secretary is explicitly referring to China as a 'sophisticated and persistent threat' that requires hundreds of millions of pounds in additional funding for the intelligence services, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been courting Chinese investment, and Mr Miliband's drive to meet his net-zero targets is heavily dependent on Chinese industry. Both the switch to electric vehicles and the decarbonisation of the energy grid will make heavy use of Chinese products. One study commissioned by the German defence ministry recently warned that this position at the heart of Western energy systems could result in Beijing enjoying the power to trigger remote shut-downs as 'an instrument of economic warfare'. Such concerns are less hypothetical than we might wish. Earlier this year, undocumented communication devices were located in Chinese-made power inverters exported to the United States, triggering fears that Beijing could use compromised equipment to 'physically destroy the grid'. This would be fully in line with the current approach of the People's Liberation Army to warfare as a clash between systems, and the extensive Volt Typhoon operation carried out by Chinese state-sponsored actors. Even given the understandable desire to avoid a sudden break with China, the delicacy of the balance between trade and reliance is such that the British public deserves to know what Mr Miliband has discussed with Beijing.
