wash your hands poster

Rise in the number of Isle of Wight lab-confirmed Covid-19 cases

The number of confirmed Isle of Wight Coronavirus (Covid-19) cases has increased from 189 to 194.

Anecdotally there have been more cases of Coronavirus in the community, with Island residents who are showing symptoms self-isolating.

The statistics
A total of 36 people have sadly died at St Mary’s Hospital after being tested for Covid-19. In addition, there have been 22 deaths outside the hospital setting.

As of 5th May, 25 people admitted to St Mary’s Hospital to have tested positive for Covid-19 have recovered and been discharged.

Find out more
A breakdown of national figures can be found on the Covid-19 Dashboard.

See OnTheWight’s explainer article on understanding the Covid-19 figures that are released by NHS England and Public Health England.

Residents continue to be urged to remain at home in order to stay safe and help the NHS save lives.


Government Covid-19 guidance: Stay alert and stay safe
Wash your hands thoroughly and frequently (video tips).

Social distancing
It is recommended that you maintain at least a two metre gap (about 6.5ft) from people who are not from your household.

Seeking advice
Use the NHS 111 online coronavirus service that can tell if you need medical help and advise you what to do.

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
1 Comment
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
wont get a reply
6, February 2012 2:20 pm

does anyone else suspect the councils only response will be: “sorry, we cannot discuss terms of employment between the council and private individuals” or possibly, if they manage not to get all flustered: “sorry, we cannot discuss contractual arrangements for reasons of a)privacy, b)contractual law, or c)because it would embarrass the council. Please select the answer you prefer, even though they all mean roughly the same” I… Read more »

Old Knobby
Reply to  wont get a reply
6, February 2012 3:41 pm

Ah, but they can’t use the old “sorry, we cannot discuss terms of employment between the council and private individuals” one as the contract is between the council and an individual, it’s with Dave Burbage Consulting Ltd, so they can’t have it both ways.

Because Dave Burbage and Dave Burbage Consulting Ltd are in no way one and the same, are they?

Old Knobby
Reply to  Old Knobby
6, February 2012 3:42 pm

Make that ‘the contract is NOT between the council and an individual’!

Island Monkey
Reply to  Old Knobby
6, February 2012 6:21 pm

They may try the ‘commercially sensitive’ defence. This is because it is a commercial contract with a business – even thou no-one else bid for the NI and tax dodging contract.

Asite2c
6, February 2012 2:32 pm

I would like to know how much a year is being taken from my council tax to pay for these dodgy contracts?

I feel extremely angry about the way money I’ve earned is being taken from my council tax to pay consultants with their snouts in trough when it should be going towards protecting and improving public services such as social care.

Mike Starke
6, February 2012 2:36 pm

Retired Hack and VB are in exalted company. The Daily Telegraph today reports the not-inconsiderable weight of Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has been thrown behind the call for councils to reveal details of high-earning staff. Undoubtedly to sighs of relief from County Hall here, the Torygraph reveals: “Council chiefs said they had so many well-paid staff the cost of liosting them and their responsibilities would run into… Read more »

exasperated
Reply to  Mike Starke
6, February 2012 3:15 pm

Let me say, right from the off, I’m not supporting these arrangements whatsoever. However, I’m not sure what is actually being avoided in these arrangements and by whom. There are *new* proposals by HMRC which I cannot get a date for implementation for but…. it’s clear that for the Local Authority, there is the savings of around 14% of salary in NIC’s (National Insurance Contributions) which the… Read more »

Island Monkey
Reply to  exasperated
6, February 2012 6:25 pm

I think you overlook (perhaps deliberately?) the useful ‘perk’ that means the Director of such a Limited Company can take his ‘pay’ as a shareholder dividend – paying a fraction of the tax that would be due under the proper PAYE scheme.

Avoiding a reduction in his former employers pension is a not inconsiderable benefit too.

exasperated
Reply to  Island Monkey
6, February 2012 10:22 pm

Not in these cases they cannot. According to my understanding of the HMRC rules (or proposals, at least) the entire money paid into a limited company used as a vehicle for *consultancy* job or main employment remuneration is considered as personal income of the company employee/director and must be charged tax and NIC’s at the appropriate rates… regardless of whether or not the employee/director withdraws the money… Read more »

biggmarket
Reply to  Mike Starke
6, February 2012 3:22 pm

I very much doubt that the Council would have sanctioned this “arrangement” without HMRC approval. HMRC has powers to cahrge both Interest and Penalties on Employers who breach the rules.

Mike Starke
6, February 2012 2:46 pm

(Continued: Sorry, a gremlin cut me off) …”They also said staff safety would be at risk if the public knew how much they earned.” If you know where to look (http://www.iwight.com/council/transparency/director_hos_responsibilities.pdf) you can see what the so-called Corporate Management Board of 32 grand panjandrums here pay themselves. I make it a total of nearly £3 million, with eight on more than £100,000 and seven on £80,000-plus. The… Read more »

exasperated
Reply to  Mike Starke
6, February 2012 10:16 pm

Right…… but is it the level of remuneration that concerns or the way that remuneration is paid via a limited company..?
I suggest the two things are not necessarily linked.

JS

James P
Reply to  Mike Starke
7, February 2012 1:26 pm

“If you know where to look” Confirmation, if it were needed, that our beloved council inhabits a parallel universe. Don’t you love the lack of precision (the pay bandings are accurate to ‘within £5000′) and the delightful open-endedness of the bands for the CEO and the PFI director, both of which are from £140k-ish to ‘actual’, i.e. whatever-we-thought-we-could-award-ourselves-without-attracting-too-much-attention. I see the Head of Learning and (lack of)… Read more »

James P
Reply to  James P
7, February 2012 1:26 pm

‘just off to check..’

Meursault
6, February 2012 3:26 pm

Surely their only response can be… ‘We are immediately terminating the contract with Dave Burbage Consulting Ltd’ and any other employees with similar financial arrangements. As a part of this process we will be seeking Dave Burbage Consulting Lts to pay in full any outstanding tax & NI that is owed from his period of full-time employment at the IWC’. There really is no other option for… Read more »

exasperated
Reply to  Meursault
6, February 2012 3:36 pm

QUOTE: Meursault says: Today at 3:26 pm (5 minutes ago) Surely their only response can be… ‘We are immediately terminating the contract with Dave Burbage Consulting Ltd’ and any other employees with similar financial arrangements. As a part of this process we will be seeking Dave Burbage Consulting Lts to pay in full any outstanding tax & NI that is owed from his period of full-time employment… Read more »

lester piggott
Reply to  exasperated
6, February 2012 4:05 pm

Of course tax has been avoided else why would they sign on to the scheme.

As a company they can pay themselves just below the tax threshold, and loose monies as expenses. Any profits left at the end of the year are then taxed at the lower corporation tax rate.

exasperated
Reply to  lester piggott
6, February 2012 4:41 pm

QUOTE: lester piggott says: Today at 4:05 pm (28 minutes ago) Of course tax has been avoided else why would they sign on to the scheme. END QUOTE: Then you have not read the HMRC website notes I posted before. The proposal is that ALL money paid into intermediate company will be deemed to be paid in salary to the *employee* whether it is taken or not.… Read more »

Meursault
Reply to  exasperated
6, February 2012 4:38 pm

If you run your own company you pay yourself about £7.5k a year in tax free salary then everything else on top as a dividend. The dividend pays 29% tax. If you were to employ yourself and pay yourself a full salary you would be subject to 29%, 49% & 59% tax & NI respectively as you hit those bands respectively. If you are earning £100k+ then… Read more »

exasperated
Reply to  Meursault
6, February 2012 4:48 pm

QUOTE: Meursault says: Today at 4:38 pm (2 minutes ago) If you run your own company you pay yourself about £7.5k a year in tax free salary then everything else on top as a dividend. The dividend pays 29% tax. END QUOTE: Look, the info I posted from HMRC website clearly states that ALL money paid to the intermediate company will be deemed as income to the… Read more »

Meursault
Reply to  exasperated
6, February 2012 5:05 pm

I guess it may be a case of the regs not being implemented. The Newsnight report def said the ‘tax efficient’ arrangement had benefited the guy to around £40k in tax saving – why else would he be doing it. I am guessing DB and the others are benefiting in the same way and HRMC is failing to act upon it.

Meursault
Reply to  exasperated
6, February 2012 4:40 pm

If you run your own company you pay yourself about £7.5k a year in tax free salary then everything else on top as a dividend. The dividend pays 29% tax. If you were to employ yourself and pay yourself a full salary you would be subject to 29%, 49% & 59% tax & NI respectively as you hit those bands respectively. If you are earning £100k+ then… Read more »

exasperated
Reply to  Meursault
6, February 2012 5:25 pm

QUOTE: Meursault says: Today at 5:05 pm (4 minutes ago) I guess it may be a case of the regs not being implemented. END QUOTE: This is a very serious matter indeed, if found out. Firstly, the Ed Lester case will probably result in HMRC claiming unpaid tax and NIC’s. Not declaring salary paid but instead claiming a dividend under the rules amounts to fraud on the… Read more »

Asite2c
6, February 2012 3:52 pm

Before taken our money and giving it to [part of comment removed by moderator] consultant companies without our say, the council could at least have the decency to ask council tax payers whether we prefer to pay a percentage of our money to consultants or towards preserving and improving public services.

allan
6, February 2012 4:09 pm

biggest saving seem to me to be the fact of being able to draw pension from previous employment in full

exasperated
Reply to  allan
6, February 2012 4:54 pm

QUOTE: allan says: Today at 4:09 pm (39 minutes ago) biggest saving seem to me to be the fact of being able to draw pension from previous employment in full END QUOTE: Right. I also read that. What I am struggling with is how is that a ‘saving’…? However the pension *pot* was collated – usually both employer and employee contributions up to a maximum percentage of… Read more »

The Auditor
6, February 2012 5:12 pm

There must be fiscal advantages for the “consultant” who is employed on a PAYE basis by a limited company (which he owns) and is a separate legal person from the employee. If there was no financial advantage to the individual concerned, then he or she would not have gone to the expense of setting up a limited company and paying an accountant to prepare the annual accounts… Read more »

exasperated
Reply to  The Auditor
6, February 2012 5:33 pm

Right. You and others keep saying there is, or must be, financial incentives for the *consultant*. Can you explain what you think these might be…? It seems from HMRC guidance there cannot be. Perhaps I have misunderstood those guidance rules…? Setting up a ‘vehicle’ or company for this purpose can be done online, in about 15 minutes and costs less than £50. Employing an accountant would be… Read more »

playingthenumbers
6, February 2012 6:23 pm

No, one cannot have it both ways. A fortnight ago, RBS boss had his contract of employment shredded after the personal intervention of the PM, why? Not because he hadn’t performed his job, (very well by all accounts), but because it was an outrage in light of where we are as a country. Danny Alexander having developed a taste for cutting fat cat pay, has saved a… Read more »

exasperated
Reply to  playingthenumbers
6, February 2012 7:10 pm

What is it exactly you are objecting to….? The discussion, for the moment, was about the ‘scheme’ being employed to pay certain Council employees as ‘consultants’ via a limited company. In spite of many people seemingly objecting to it, it is not at all clear that there is much, if any, financial benefit to the recipient (unless the HMRC guidance rules are being misinterpreted….). I have asked… Read more »

playingthenumbers
Reply to  exasperated
6, February 2012 9:54 pm

Exasperated, the research is great BTW, but it appears from the time-line (over a year) of this story that DB Ltd has satisfied HRMC that he is a client not an employee. During which time the IWC CX has written to confirm the arrangements. Where does that leave IR35? Besides, I may be barking up the wrong tree, but as I understand it, the article says that… Read more »

kevin murphy
6, February 2012 7:16 pm

Private eye anyone?

James P
Reply to  kevin murphy
7, February 2012 10:29 am

The last time the IWC was in ‘Rotten Boroughs’ it was on the same subject, as I recall. Time for another airing, perhaps…

Asite2c
Reply to  James P
7, February 2012 11:29 am

I think we should be fair to the council by congratulating them for getting into the “Rotten Boroughs” league table. At least they have achieved something.

retired hack
6, February 2012 11:15 pm

A couple of points.

1. The Student Loans Company was successfully FOI`d. That`s why we are asking these questions.

2. Local authority early retirement pensions cannot be paid where the individual takes up employment with another LA. When a consultancy company is employed instead, this hurdle is overcome.

exasperated
Reply to  retired hack
7, February 2012 7:55 am

Quote: 1. The Student Loans Company was successfully FOI`d. That`s why we are asking these questions. END QUOTE: …..but what questions are being asked..? All I’m seeing here is disdain and displeasure at a *scheme* that pays remuneration via a limited company. That ‘arrangement’ serves to save the Local Authority (in this case..) employer contributions (13.8%) normally paid. I’m struggling to see how this affects the recipient… Read more »

retired hack
Reply to  exasperated
7, February 2012 4:00 pm

Exasperated: the questions being asked are those at the end of the VB story. Their purpose is to discover whether DB and others, with IW Council help, are avoiding taxes which right-thinking people might think they should pay. We aim to discover whether HMRC fully understands DB`s employment status and is taxing him accordingly. DB`s pension was paid early, on generous terms (ie with public money as… Read more »

James P
Reply to  retired hack
7, February 2012 9:17 am

[comment removed by moderator]

an accountant
7, February 2012 1:33 pm

Bit late to this, I’ve skimmed most of it. Arrangements like this are common place, and I deal with accounting for a lot of similar individuals / companies over many sectors. ~ NI savings to Local Authority – normally none, as the value of the NI is added on to the contract. EG if you are advertising a role at £100k salary, then you would normally contract… Read more »

Simon Perry
Admin
Reply to  an accountant
7, February 2012 2:30 pm

Fantastic quality, informed comment. Thanks for laying out the detail.

Stephen
7, February 2012 1:38 pm

Was the requirement for a business to provide ‘Burbage Services’ ever put out to tender?
If YES where are the tender documents?

If Mr Burbage was appointed as an employee what process occurred to translate an employee into a supply company? Can any IWC employee opt for this?

Stewart Blackmore
7, February 2012 2:36 pm

Exasparated seems to be going to great lengths to defend the Council and Mr Burbage’s arrangement and doesn’t seem to be overly concerned that s/he is being abused as a tax payer. If this arrangement is good enough for Mr Burbage when he obviously works full-time as a Council employee, then why cannot the same arrangement apply to any working person, let alone those underpaid employees at… Read more »

Cynic
7, February 2012 6:15 pm

VB is being a little unfair. Beynon’s full statement in CP will reach far more Islanders that it would in VB. As somebody liable for IR35 in the past, I could find little to argue with the details of the information contained in the statement regarding how Burbage’s tax and NI liabilities are discharged. However, three questions still need answering: (1) Are all Council contracts with private… Read more »

Cath
7, February 2012 7:15 pm

Having read through the statement concerning this published on the CP site, I assume the reference to a ‘media blog’ is VB (and some text from a comment left on the blog is quoted)? Given the robustness of the statement from the Council, perhaps VB should be a bit more careful in what it publishes online – in the editorial and the subsequent comments? I’m pleased to… Read more »

The Auditor
Reply to  Cath
7, February 2012 7:46 pm

A robust statement without doubt. In order to lighten the tone of this a little may I invite you to read the following? Manure: In the 16th and 17th centuries, everything had to be transported by ship and it was also before the invention of commercial fertilizers, so large shipments of manure were quite common. It was shipped dry, because in dry form it weighed a lot… Read more »

Pedant
Reply to  The Auditor
7, February 2012 8:44 pm

So it does not actually come from the Old English word “scitte” or purging or Proto-Germanic “skit-” or separate? :-))

Or perhaps the story is just bull-S.H.I.T? :-))

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Cath
8, February 2012 12:45 pm

Cath: fortunately our (officially rated 2 star only, barely adequate) council doesn’t have a monopoly on robustness. The Rotten Boroughs section of the latest Private Eye (No. 1307) briefly tells the tale of Burbage & Edwardson. As the Eye shares our concerns, perhaps they also deserve your attention. You should, however, be prepared for a robust response (they may well refer you to the reply given in… Read more »

Asite2c
7, February 2012 7:22 pm

Despite which party had the majority, how is it, councils of the past functioned perfectly well without the need for chief executives, directors, top officials and consultants?

If the leading councillors are too incompetant to do the work of these unelected and overpaid top officials, then in my opinion they should not be leading councillors.

Stephen
Reply to  Asite2c
7, February 2012 7:38 pm

Councillors can not be expected to be professionally competent in all the disciplines and work areas for which Councils have legal responsibilities. I for one would not be happy with lay councillors producing, for example, regulations for the licencing of lasers in places of entertainment or determining matters of highway engineering or drafting development plans in response to Government legislation or interpreting Trading Standards legislation. I am… Read more »

DH
7, February 2012 7:56 pm

I see the Isle of Wight Council Press has the responses to the questions posed but I have a question too. Dave is able to claim his pension because he’s not directly employed by the Council but through his limited company which employs one person. So he is recieving a pension plus the salary he draws from his company? If Dave was directly employed by the Isle… Read more »

The Auditor
Reply to  DH
7, February 2012 11:18 pm

Possibly not. See earlier comments on this thread.

Stephen
Reply to  DH
8, February 2012 9:11 am

My understanding of local government pensions is that once a pension is being taken, the recipient may return to Local government work as long as
pension + new salary does NOT exceeed salary received at time of retirement with suitable ‘weightings’ being applied for inflation and national salary increments and awards.

Real Isle of Wighter
7, February 2012 8:28 pm

The County Press, as the Island’s leading source of news, has had the statement from the council on its website for about 4 hours yet Ventnor Blog chooses not to publish it. As Cath says the statement is robust and it clearly demonstrates that Burbage is complying with IR35 and paying the proper tax and NI. I appreciate this was not what Ventnor Blog and most of… Read more »

concerned of IW
Reply to  Real Isle of Wighter
7, February 2012 8:49 pm

It is not necessarily unfair to blame the Council for stuff, they make everyone tear their hair out sometimes but I think naming individuals and pillorying them mercilessly is OTT.

The response on this issue is balanced and hopefully VB will publish it soon as taking up a stance of mock offence at not getting the exclusive does no credit to their mostly very informative site.

Simon Perry
Admin
Reply to  concerned of IW
7, February 2012 8:57 pm

Just published as we’ve been out since just after 5pm, then eating.

Of course, if we’d have received it at the same time as the CP, we could have published it before we went out ;)

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined