Cobbler Timpson will face millions in losses after Chancellor's National Insurance tax raid
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
COBBLERS chain Timpson has warned it will face a multi-million-pound hit from the Chancellor's tax raid — just months after its boss quit to join the Government.
The family-owned firm, known for its history of hiring former offenders, saw CEO James Timpson step down to become Prisons Minister in July to work on reforming jails.
2
Timpson has warned it will face a multi-million-pound hit from the Chancellor's tax raid
Credit: Alamy
2
James Timpson stepped down as CEO to become Prisons Minister in July to work on reforming jails
Credit: Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing St
In the company's first set of accounts since the General Election, it says: 'His time in Government will be a loss to the business.'
Timpson reported sales rose by 4.5 per cent last year to £347million, while profits jumped by 26 per cent to £48million.
But the company said its record year would be difficult to match in the face of big increases in the minimum wage and 'a swinging increase in our contribution to National Insurance'.
The firm, which already pays above the Living Wage rate, said it would face £12million of extra costs from Rachel Reeves' changes to NI.
The admission is awkward given Lord Timpson's ministerial role.
The Labour peer did not return a request for comment.
Timpson is often held up as an example of a good employer.
It has 17 holiday lodges for staff to take breaks, and it spent £711,000 last year on training recruits with a criminal record.
Ex-offenders make up 12 per cent of its workforce.
Accounts show it paid the Treasury £108.2million last year in VAT, employment taxes and business rates on its shops.
Martin Lewis issues warning for 700,000 workers as National Insurance hikes have 'direct impact' on take home pay
RIVAL DOC BID
A TUSSLE for NHS doctor surgery landlord Assura has taken a fresh twist after healthcare investor Primary Health Properties made a £1.68billion offer yesterday.
It is higher than the £1.61billion accepted from private equity firms KKR and Stonepeak Partners.
Assura will consider the new offer.
RICH TAX PUSH
THE UK's richest are paying less tax than they should, a watchdog says.
The National Audit Office said HMRC had earned £5.2billion from tackling 'non-compliance' from well-off taxpayers in 2023/24.
That was more than £1billion higher than projections — confirming more avoidance than expected.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Summer job rules every parent needs to know this summer for their child
MoneyMagpie Editor and financial expert Vicky Parry explores employment law for under-18s considering a summer job Working a summer job is a great way for teenagers to earn some extra cash, gain some work experience, and have some independence. But there are some important laws that parents – and teens – should know about to make sure their employer is sticking to the rules. How long can an under-18 work each week? Children from the age of 14 can work part-time hours (in some areas, this is lowered to 13 – check your local council's education department). Those under 14 may be able to work in exceptional circumstances, such as if they are a performer in TV, theatre, or as a model, and will need a performance licence. Children over school leaving age can work full-time up to 40 hours a week. This is the age of 16 in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In England, children must be in part-time education or training until the age of 18, so can only work part-time hours. How much can under-18s earn? Young people aged 16 and above may be paid through PAYE systems, and once they turn 18 adult employment rights apply. National Minimum Wage rates apply regardless of a person's age. This means employment must meet the minimum hourly rate for their age bracket. For under-18s, that is £7.55 an hour (rising to £10 an hour when they turn 18). So, if you get a job earning £7.55 an hour for twenty hours a week, that would be a gross pay of £151 a week. This would not be enough to qualify for National Insurance or tax contributions, so £151 would be the take-home in most cases. Over-16s need to pay National Insurance if they earn more than £242 a week. They would pay tax when they earn more than the annual Personal Allowance (currently £12,570). Sometimes, for full-time or highly paid summer jobs, this means they may be taxed at first but can claim a refund when the job ends. Can under-18s be self-employed? Yes! Technically, a company director can be appointed to a Limited Company from the age of 16, however it is advisable they are not the sole director. This is because they are legally responsible for company activities, including filing with Companies House and tax returns. Under-18s also don't have legal capacity to enter into certain contracts such as with suppliers, and will not be able to apply for financial business support or business bank accounts. Under-18s can operate as sole traders, and will need to register with HMRC for Self Assessment if they will earn more than £1000 (the Trading Allowance). They will need to submit a tax return every year to HMRC, and keep accurate accounting records to do so. They won't pay tax on their income if it is below the Personal Allowance of £12,570 each year, after business expenses. They may be required to pay National Insurance contributions. Safe work environment awareness If a job requires operating heavy machinery or toxic chemicals, the workplace must provide relevant training and supervision. There may be some parts of the job that an under-18 cannot do, such as operating dangerous machinery. They cannot be discriminated against for their age in the work environment. An employer must provide relevant health and safety training to every employee, regardless of their age. This includes a responsibility to work within reasonable hours. For most employment for under-18s, this means no scheduled work between 10pm – 6am, with some exceptions such as creative work (like being a theatre actor), healthcare, or retail. This only applies if there are no adult workers available to do the work. It is illegal for any under-18 to work between midnight and 4am, regardless of their job or industry type. There must be a 12-hour rest break in any 24-hour period in which they work, and any shift over 4.5 hours must include a half hour break (paid or unpaid). Each week must also include a continuous 48-hr (two-day) rest break. When working late, an employer has a duty of care to under-18s to ensure they have the supervision of an adult employee where possible and necessary. They shouldn't be left alone unless there is nobody else to do the job. Under-18s working on alcohol licenced premises Local councils set their own rules about under-18s working in pubs, cafes, restaurants and event venues that serve alcohol. Usually, they are permitted to serve alcohol but this may be restricted to only bottled or canned drinks. Make sure teens know HR policies Summer jobs are often the first time young people will come into regular contact with hierarchies and colleagues and customers of all ages. This can mean they are unsure how to handle difficult situations where they feel uncomfortable. It might be that they feel a colleague or customer is being inappropriate with them. Or, they may not realise that someone is acting inappropriately, such as using a managerial position to pressure them into social engagements outside of work which they don't want to attend. Make sure your teen knows the policies of the company they work for, including grievance policies. You should also ensure they are aware of creating boundaries between work and personal life, and that it is OK to have them. Create a safe space for your teen to talk about work, and pay attention to anything they say which sounds like a senior colleague is being inappropriate or they are put into unsafe situations with customers. Saving summer job cash Under-18s can access savings accounts for children, so if they already have a Junior ISA it's a great idea to encourage them to save some of their summer job earnings into it. If they don't yet have an ISA or savings account, now is the time to talk to them about the importance of creating a financial safety net early on, and to help them find a bank account that suits them. Some parents also choose to use their teen's first earning opportunity as a way to teach them about life skills. Take some time to explain what their payslip means, how National Insurance works, and tax basics. You might also help them learn about budgeting, breaking down their weekly or monthly earnings into savings and spending pots based on their expenses. Some of the brands and websites we mention may be, or may have been, a partner of However, we only ever mention brands we believe in and trust, so it never influences who we prioritise and link to.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
The wait of the law: justice delayed is an injustice in itself
Eight hundred and ten years ago, the writers of Magna Carta slipped a crucial word into the document they forced King John to sign. The monarch had to promise not to 'deny or delay' justice to his subjects. The law must decide — and, crucially, it must do so promptly. Today we report that the average wait for a case to come to trial at magistrates' courts has reached 346 days. For some people it extends to three years. The price of this indefensible delay is paid by the innocent. First, the victims, who after being traumatised by crime are left in limbo, with that trauma unresolved; second, those who are wrongly accused, living with an unjustified stain on their reputation and a shadow over their future. After eight centuries Magna Carta has no legal force, but its moral authority remains. The government should recognise that, and act accordingly. Justice delayed is not only justice denied: it is an injustice in itself.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
The Bayoh inquiry is at a crossroads – the Crown Office must decide
On May 3, 2015 in Kirkcaldy, Sheku Bayoh was restrained on the ground by six police officers. He died. In November 2019, Humza Yousaf announced a full judicial inquiry into the circumstances of Bayoh's death, including an investigation into what role, if any, race played in these events and their aftermath. Lord Bracadale was appointed to lead the inquiry by the Scottish Government, with Angela Grahame KC as its main lawyer. Core participants were identified, including the Bayoh family, Police Scotland, the Crown Office, and the individual police officers involved in the incident giving rise to Bayoh's death. Remarkably, the Equality and Human Rights Commission declined to get involved in the most significant official investigation into race and policing in Scotland in decades. To date, the inquiry has heard almost 125 days of evidence and legal argument over the better part of six years. Until Lord Bracadale recalled the participants to the oral hearing at Capital House this month, we thought the evidential parts of the Bayoh inquiry were basically over and awaited Bracadale's formal conclusions. READ MORE: Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood election Now, his investigation may be fatally compromised before a single conclusion has been published. Last week, lawyers for the Scottish Police Federation lodged a formal recusal application, arguing that the inquiry was tainted by apparent bias and that officers under investigation by it had 'lost confidence' in the independence of the chair. It isn't unheard of for public inquiries to shed their chair before reaching conclusions and if this happens early enough in their progress, it need not fatally compromise their work. Because inquiry chairs tend to have grey hairs, human frailty being what it is can also have an impact, as age and illness catch up with very long-running inquiry processes. Lady Poole did a bunk from the Scottish Covid inquiry for reasons still unexplained, leaving Lord Brailsford to step in. Child abuse inquiries across the UK have burned through a number of chairs during their long and painfully slow progress. But if Bracadale steps down in response to this pressure, it is difficult to see how the inquiry could meaningfully recover. The Bayoh family's solicitor Aamer Anwar has described the move as an '11th hour,' 'desperate and pathetic attempt to sabotage the inquiry' by 'the Federation and those hanging on to their coat tails'. But the legal arguments involved are serious and if Bracadale decides not to recuse himself, we can expect further litigation in judicial review at the Court of Session. One of the tricky things here is the nature of public inquiries. Public inquiries aren't courts – though given the plantations of lawyers who have sat through the Bayoh inquiry hearings, you could be forgiven for mistaking them for one. Unlike courts, core participants aren't free to choose what evidence they'd like to lead. The lawyers in the room can apply to the chair to ask questions of witnesses, but they don't have the absolute right to cross-examine as they or their clients might like. The process is inquisitorial, and counsel for the inquiry takes the lead. But like all public decision-makers, there's an overriding requirement for public inquiries to adopt a fair procedure. What fairness requires depends on the circumstances, but one aspect of fairness deals with bias – actual or apparent. Some biases are easy to identify. If one of the core participants is best friends with the inquiry chair, we have a problem. If the judge in charge is on the board of trustees of one of the organisations involved in the scrutiny, the fair-minded observer might have their doubts about their independence. Legally, the question is 'whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased' in the circumstances. The case for Bracadale's recusal is based on a range of critical observations about how Bracadale and his lawyers have handled the investigation, but focus primarily on five private meetings they held with the Bayoh family and their legal representatives without any of the other core participants being present, aware of the meetings or given comprehensive information about what precisely was discussed. 'Mindful of how long the inquiry has lasted and the attendant effort and time that has been invested,' Scotland's prosecuting authorities have also concluded 'with great regret' that the inquiry appears biased in favour of Bayoh's surviving relatives. While repeatedly stressing 'there is no basis for assuming anything other than good intentions on the part of the Chair,' the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) told the judge they share the Police Federation's disquiet and have submitted supporting arguments, arguing that the inquiry has been actually biased in its language and approach to the evidence. Explaining these meetings, the inquiry has stressed 'the engagement of the families with the inquiry is crucial to the effectiveness of the inquiry in fulfilling its terms of reference. If the inquiry failed to obtain and retain the confidence of the families its effectiveness would be prejudiced'. READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action 'Over the years from 2015, the families lost confidence in the various state institutions with which they had dealings – Police Scotland, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, and the Crown Office. There was a real prospect that they would not engage at all with the inquiry process or at some point would cease to engage with it,' they said. For these aspirations, Bracadale is also criticised by the Crown Office, who maintains 'the fair-minded observer would question whether that was consistent with a stated intention to proceed in a way that was entirely impartial and independent of any person'. But their argument stretches a long way beyond this. They suggest, for example, that the inquiry's approach to witnesses has tended to focus on evidence that met aspects of counsel's 'case theory' which 'usually appeared to align with the position of the family.' Cherry-picking, essentially, with a mind made up, determined to extract answers from witnesses that fit the theory rather than reflect a perhaps more muddled and messy reality. This suggestion stretches a good way beyond suggestions of apparent bias. Reflecting on how some witnesses were examined, COPFS also complained that this 'case theory was at times pursued with notable vigour, creating the impression that the purpose was to validate rather than test the theory'. The prosecuting authorities – themselves the subject of criticism in evidence before the inquiry, remember – don't set out what precisely they understand the inquiry's 'case theory' to be – so the innuendo reading of these complaints is all we're left with. At least the Police Federation are more uncompromisingly direct about the legal consequences of their recusal application. They insist that comments from Bracadale – including suggestions he was 'profoundly moved' by Bayoh's sister's description of the impact of her brother's death on their family – 'suggest or create the appearance' that the inquiry has 'pre-judged, or evinced a closed mind to, material issues' at stake, including the relative blameworthiness of the dead man. Objection was also taken to a human impact video which opened the inquiry, with Roddy Dunlop KC suggesting that 'arranging and paying for a video tribute to the life of one core participant when it was known that other core participants did not accept the description of Mr Bayoh as the 'victim' is again problematic – all the more so when the chair had indicated in advance (privately) that this would 'be a very strong start to the hearings''. Although the Crown Office stresses they aren't questioning the motives or intentions of the chair, their submission argues the inquiry's approach to the questioning of witnesses was actually biased and biased in favour of Bayoh's family – a remarkable allegation meriting much more critical comment than it has received. If the Solicitor General is right, then as a matter of law, Bracadale must resign. If they are confident in their legal analysis, the Crown Office should say so. At the hearing last week, Scotland's prosecutors limply argued it was a 'matter for the inquiry' how to respond to their full-frontal attack on how the inquiry has discharged its duties investing this death in custody. Given the startling breadth of the Crown Office's attack on its work, this isn't legal politesse but pure cowardice.
