…says Guyana’s debt to GDP ratio on par with Int’l standardsBy Jarryl BryanGuyana has gotten a US$35 million ‘Development Policy’ line of credit from the World Bank, but with the country already owing billions of dollars to external creditors, questions are being raised about exactly what Government is doing about lowering the debt.Finance Minister Winston JordanAccording to Finance Minister Winston Jordan, who was recently interviewed on the sidelines of Parliament, said Guyana’s public debt rate is actually nothing to worry about. Jordan contended that as the economy grows, it could actually take on more debt.“You must stop looking at debt in absolute terms. Debt must be looked at in relative terms. You look at debt to GDP (Gross Domestic Product), debt to revenue or something. As the economy grows, it can take on more debt. So it’s not a question of the absolute amount of the debt. It’s the relative amount,” Jordan told this newspaper.Pressed on exactly what the Government is doing to bring down the debt, Jordan would only allude to the international threshold of debt to GDP. The Finance Minister did not mention any steps Government was taking to mitigate the debt rate.The public external debt stock“The Government… the external debt at the moment is well below 60 per cent of GDP. It’s still below 50 per cent of GDP. So not bad… The international threshold… is 60 per cent. So don’t even bother…”The World Bank group approved the US$35 million Development Policy Credit to support Guyana’s efforts to strengthen the financial sector. The money will also go towards improving fiscal management to better prepare the country to benefit from its newly-discovered oil and gas reserves and transform its oil wealth into human capital.But during a press conference on Tuesday, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo was incredulous at the purpose of the loan. Making a point that spending millions of US dollars and bringing in foreign experts for this purpose was unnecessary, Jagdeo, an economist, challenged the Government to provide him with a legislative drafter and he would develop fiscal policies for the oil sector within a month.Public debtThe Public Debt Annual Report released by the Finance Ministry last year had highlighted that since 2015, there has been a 4.1 per cent rise in Guyana’s indebtedness to creditors. The report details that Guyana’s total debt, inclusive of external and domestic, increased to $330 billion as of December 2016.The Ministry attributed this to disbursements from the Export Import Bank of China towards the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA) expansion project, as well as monies from multilateral creditors.A breakdown of the figures shows that total external debt amounted to $240 billion, a 72.6 per cent bite out of the total public debt. On the other hand, domestic debt stood at $90.6 billion, or 27.4 per cent of the total.“At the end of December 2016, multilateral creditors continued to be the predominant creditor category, accounting for 59.7 per cent of the external debt portfolio, a slight decrease from the 2015 position of 60.6 per cent. Bilateral lenders and commercial lenders represented 38.8 per cent and 1.5 per cent of the public external debt portfolio, respectively,” the Ministry explained.“Although the nominal public debt increased, the total external public debt to GDP ratio declined from 36.1 per cent as at end-December 2015 to 33.7 per cent as at end-December 2016, as a result of GDP growth outstripping the rate of growth of public external debt stock,” the Ministry said, in justifying the increase.In 2012, the public external debt was $277.8 billion but by early 2015, that had been reduced to $236 billion. In similar manner, the domestic debt had been reduced from $93.4 billion in 2012 to $81.6 billion in 2015 before a sudden flare up in the figures after the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change took office.Who do we owe?But who does Guyana owe all this money to? The report notes that Guyana’s four main external creditors are the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), the State-owned Export-Import Bank of China (China EXIM Bank) and Venezuela State-owned oil company (PDVSA).Together, they constitute some 77.7 per cent of Guyana’s public external debt stock, as at end-December 2016, with the IDB the most dominant creditor. According to the report, the IDB has an average share of 42.0 per cent of the debt portfolio.The CDB is Guyana’s second largest creditor, accounting for 12.6 per cent of total public external debt. The Export-Import Bank of China follows closely behind the CDB with a 12.5 per cent share of external debt, while Venezuela’s PDVSA accounted for 10.6 per cent. Important to note is PDVSA has recently been declared to be in default of its debts by a Trade group in the US.There is some amount of consolation, however, with the report noting that Guyana’s total debt to GDP ratio declined by approximately two per cent – from 48.4 per cent to 46.6 per cent. This is an indicator of how well a country, in this case Guyana, can repay its debts through its GDP without incurring more.
Dates for Chinese fossils of Homo erectus have been pushed back 200,000 years to 780,000 years before the present, reported Live Science. The report is based on a paper in Nature by scientists who used cosmogenic nuclide dating methods for the first time.1 Ciochon and Bettis, in the same issue of Nature,2 said the report “prompts a rethink of the species’ distribution in both the temperate north and the equatorial south of east Asia.” Zhoukoudian Cave near Beijing has been a prime site for Homo erectus remains since 1918. “Homo erectus stood 145�180 cm tall, walked fully upright with a modern-like human footprint, and used stone tools,” Ciochon and Bettis said. “The species is easily distinguished from H. sapiens by its distinctive torso, which was much more barrel-shaped and larger in volume.” Six crania and bones of 40 individuals have been found at the site (Ciochon and Bettis count 50 individuals and 17,000 artifacts). How certain are the dates? A variety of methods have been employed since the 1970s. “A time range of ~230 to 500 kyr ago for the hominin-fossil-bearing layers has been widely accepted by palaeoanthropologists, although with a few critical comments,” the authors said. They pointed out problems, though, with previous dating methods:The age of Zhoukoudian Homo erectus, commonly known as ‘Peking Man’, has long been pursued, but has remained problematic owing to the lack of suitable dating methods.In contrast, much older ages were determined using mass spectrometric U-series dating of intercalated pure and dense calcite samples, known to be a more reliable chronometer.The suggestion that Zhoukoudian H. erectus is substantially older than previously estimated remains to be validated by independent checks.However, numerical dating beyond the upper limit of mass spectrometric U-series dating, ~600 kyr ago, is difficult in China because the lack of contemporaneous volcanic activity nearly precludes the application of 40Ar/39Ar dating.The U-series dates, being substantially older, led to their attempt to use an independent method—cosmogenic radionuclide dating. This depends on the exposure time of surface sediments to cosmic radiation. The ratio of aluminum-26 (half-life 717,000 years) and beryllium-10 (half-life 1,360,000 years) in quartz crystals is 6:8:1 when exposed to the ground surface. “Their initial concentrations depend on the mineral’s exposure time, which in turn is controlled by the erosion rate of the host rock,” they explained. “If quartz grains from the surface are deeply buried, for example by deposition in a cave, then the production of cosmogenic nuclides nearly stops.” Because the aluminum-26 decays faster than beryllium-10, the ratio decreases exponentially with a half-life of 1.52 million years. “The strengths of this method are its radiometric basis and its independence from other dating methods,” they said. Nevertheless, the method must be used with caution. “However, it must be recognized that cave sediments can have complex stratigraphy, particularly in vadose fills. If fossils are mixed with quartz sediments with a prior burial history, the resulting age will be erroneously old.” They took six samples from different levels and four quartzite samples from artifacts that directly indicate hominin presence. Three of the latter were consistent, but one gave an anomalous date of 1.6 Mya (million years ago). “This particular sample could have been taken from an older cave fill or terrace before manufacture,” they suggested, so they threw it out. Of the sediment quartz samples, three gave consistent results “slightly older than, but within error of, the weighted mean of the results from the three artefacts, indicating that some sand might have entered the cave with a previous burial signal.” One sample, though, gave a result of 2.78 Mya. How did they explain that? “This sample may possibly date to an earlier phase of cave formation, as it was collected from a thin sandy layer that is adhered to the north wall and is now out of stratigraphic contact with the main cross-section.” The other two had to be tossed, also. “The two samples from the basal fluvial sediments do not yield statistically meaningful results,” they said; “Their inherited cosmogenic nuclide concentrations are quite low due to rapid erosion in their source area, leading to large uncertainty.” In summary, they had to eliminate four out of ten measurements to arrive at a consistent result. “Taken together, we consider the weighted mean of the six meaningful measurements, 0.77 [plus or minus] 0.08 Myr, to best represent the age for layers 7�10. This is consistent with both previous U-series and palaeomagnetic data.” Future refinements of these estimates will be necessary, they said, correlating the cave sediments with the local geology and ecological history. They summarized their findings within the wider context of dating uncertainties:A reliable chronology is critical for resolving debate over the mode of Middle Pleistocene human evolution in East Asia. Previously, the chronology of Chinese sites has been largely based on the U-series and electron spin resonance dating of fossil materials, which are known to be vulnerable to post-burial U migration. 230Th/234U dating of speleothem calcite has repeatedly shown that the previous timescale for Middle�Late Pleistocene hominin sites in China may have been underestimated as a whole. The results of this paper show that such a tendency persists beyond the range of mass spectrometric U-series dating. It is foreseeable that 26Al/10Be burial dating will be applied to other hominin sites in China and elsewhere, contributing substantially to a robust chronological framework and thereby to a better understanding of human evolution.What are the consequences of the new dates? Ciochon and Bettis claim that Homo erectus arose in equatorial Africa two million years ago, then migrated to Asia 250,000 years later over a 150,000 year period, with some surviving (Solo Man in Java) till 50,000 years ago. If Homo erectus was in Asia as long ago as the new dates indicate, then the population had to endure an ice age. “Many scientists thought that the species moved north with the interglacials and south with the glacials,” the Live Science article said, but Ciochon told them the new date shows they must have hung around during colder periods. It’s not like the land was covered with ice, he explained: it was just a colder, dryer period. Presumably the caves provided some warmth. The new date also tells evolutionary paleoanthropologists there were two migrations–one to China, and one to Java. Before, they thought the Chinese population was related to the Indonesia population. Ciochon told Live Science that Homo erectus had legs: “Aside from Homo sapiens,” he said, “it’s the most widespread hominin species.” One can only wonder why such a migration-capable population took 400,000 years to do reach China when modern man spread from the Fertile Crescent in one thousandth of that time. Despite these questions, Live Science provided its readers a matter-of-fact synopsis of the human evolution saga:The Homo genus, which includes modern humans, originated in Africa with Homo habilis about 2.5 million years ago. H. erectus likely derived from some early version of H. habilis around 2 million years ago, anthropologists think. Some portion of the H. erectus population later left Africa and spread out across the Old World (the population left behind in Africa likely led to Homo heidelbergensis, from which the first early Homo sapiens likely derived, Ciochon said). Other sites of H. erectus bones show that the migration had reached Dmanisi, Georgia (in Asia), by about 1.75 million years ago and Java by about 1.6 million years ago.Filling in details will require future work, like finding more fossils along the migration route, the article said.1. Shen, Gao, Gao, and Granger, “Age of Zhoukoudian Homo erectus determined with 26Al/10Be burial dating,” Nature 458, 198-200 (12 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07741.2. Russell L. Ciochon, and Arthur Bettis III, “Palaeoanthropology: Asian Homo erectus converges in time,” Nature 458, 153-154 (12 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/458153a.It should become evident that Darwin Party hacks are engaging in another of their colossal storytelling episodes. This is akin to listening to an ancient Babylonian creation myth. The only difference is improved arcane terminology with which they con the listeners into thinking they are worthy Shamans, worthy of respect as Wise Knowers. If you think this judgment is too harsh, look at what they did. They tossed out half their samples to get the dates they wanted—dates that would match up with their predetermined myth. Well, we think they should use the outlier measurements: we propose that our ancestors emerged suddenly 2.78 million years ago, then just sat in a cave for 2,730,000 years till the last one, Solo Man, wasted away without a bride (alone again, naturally). We say the African population arose independently, or started when a few Peking Man people moved there. Why not? We have data to support that myth just as much as they have to support theirs. Pick which lie you like better. This is not science. It is storytelling with a vengeance. Aluminum and beryllium isotopes and cosmic rays have nothing to do with it. These people have a predetermined script they are following. Data are just props to make it sound convincing. For one thing, they completely eliminated from consideration any alternative script (like creation). No matter how much the evidence supports alternatives, and no matter how much data causes problems to their script, they cling to it tenaciously, even when it is absurd on the face of it. Why? Because it supports their naturalistic, materialistic world view. Consider how absurd their story is. For one thing, they invented a class of “hominins” (a word embedding evolutionary assumptions masquerading as knowledge) to describe as “other” a class of people that are, for all practical purposes, just like us. How many people today can you find on the beach with normal brain size, walking upright, using tools, but sporting a barrel-shaped chest? That description easily fits within the range of human variability. They expect us to believe that these people were smart enough to migrate long distances, endure the cold of an ice age, and make tools, but were too dumb to ride horses or make art or build cities. Smart enough to survive diverse habitats in Georgia, China and Java, they couldn’t figure out for over two million years anything better than cave life. And if you don’t believe this, well, they have the dates to prove it – provided you toss out half the samples they don’t like. These con artists make reckless drafts on the bank of time (07/02/2007), and expect us taxpayers to bail them out with our endless credulity. Picture a wise person unaccustomed to Western evolutionary mythology listening to this tale and deciding if it made any sense. “What?” he might exclaim. “Are you telling me that upright-walking, world-migrating, tool-making people were not human? And that they lived in caves for two million years – hundreds of times longer than the history of civilization? What planet are you from?” Most of us only give the myth the time of day because we were taught to respect “science” and somehow think the Darwin Party shamans have their reputations tied to that otherwise noble enterprise. The shamans perpetuate the ruse by working in science labs and knowing how to speak the right mumbo-jumbo about uranium isotopes (see association in the Baloney Detector). Occasionally they announce finds that make them “rethink the story of human evolution.” They’re not really rethinking. They’re just rearranging the cave furniture to keep the public thinking they are busy and therefore need the ongoing flow of research dollars. Like the medieval scholars who forbade the populace to read the Scriptures, because only they were capable of interpreting the blatant discrepancies between its teachings and church practice without contradiction, these shamans distract others from pointing out contradictions between the evidence and their stories by hiding behind an appearance of scholarship. Thus we allow them to explain away the contradictions, toss out the anomalies, and arrange the remaining bits into support for their schemes. If natural disasters were to bury some modern beach bums in California, South Africa, Yugoslavia and Siberia and fossilize their bones, how much would you want to bet that evolutionists would be able to concoct a story of the emergence of man, migrations and all, and support it with dating methods of their choosing? You better believe they could. Their imaginations are constrained only by their prior commitment to their over-arching world view. As long as they could use the data to teach that the universe, life, and man all arose from slow, gradual processes of evolution, a plethora of new papers would hit the journals. With a little selective sampling, a little weeding out of anomalous measurements, and a lot of imagination, they could make the new data fit. The only difference with Homo erectus is that the cave people are no longer here to explain what really happened. Finding human bones in caves should not be surprising. There are people living in caves today. There are also people living under freeways and in abandoned buses. Whoever lived in the caves of Dmanisi, Beijing and South Africa may have been outcasts, nature-lovers, temporary residents, refugees, early followers of Rousseau or the Sierra Club, or just the dumbest of the tribe with nowhere else to go. Maybe they were expelled from their tribes for not accepting the local myth. Just because they didn’t leave textbooks and iPods among their artifacts doesn’t mean they were non-human. The writer of Hebrews described men of whom the world was not worthy wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth (Hebrews 11:38). Let’s use that to start a new paradigm. It has just as much scientific and historical evidence, if not more: cavemen represent the greatest sojourners on Earth, rejected by their fellow men, but heirs by faith of the promises of God: among them Moses, Elijah, the prophets hid by Obadiah, David, and John the Baptist. On scales of wisdom and righteousness, there are some primitive individuals inhabiting modern research labs.(Visited 22 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The purpose of the conference is to ensure that South Africa communicates with one voice both domestically and internationally leading up to and beyond 2010.“We are already looking beyond 2010 to where we want to position South Africa in the next decade,” says Yvonne Johnston, the CEO of the IMC. “A major event such as the soccer World Cup attracts global attention but it has to be supported by strategies and structures to ensure a lasting legacy.”“Our objective is to establish Brand South Africa as one of the most prominent and desirable global brands,” says Johnston.Germany 2006 has shown that making the best of the opportunities offered by such an enormous event entails more than hosting soccer games successfully. The host country must brand itself at the same time, as was done so well by the Germans.Therefore one of the key-note speakers at the conference will be the man who did just that for Germany, Mike de Vries. He is the CEO of the branding company FC Deutschland GmbH.Another speaker is internationally renowned Raul Parelba from Spain, who will focus on the branding and marketing opportunities provided by a major event. He is Director Partner of Trout & Partners, the global positioning specialists.The speakers and their topics include:Minister in the Presidency, Essop Pahad, who will look at opportunities for the continent brought about by the World Cup.The CEO of the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS), Themba Maseko, who will spell out the government’s commitment to and expectations for 2010.Danny Jordaan, CEO of the Local Organising Committee, who will highlight marketing opportunities for local corporates.Thaninga Shope-Linney, NEPAD’s general manager for communications and outreach, who will add to Minister Pahad’s continental perspective on the 2010 World Cup.Wolfgang Grulke, CEO of FutureWorld will look at Africa and South Africa in the 21st century. Yvonne Johnston, CEO of the IMC, will also be speaking at the Conference – spelling out Brand South Africa’s future strategy in her address. She has very high expectations of the Conference, describing it as “a tremendous opportunity for the world view South Africa even more positively and Alive with Possibility than it does now.”This conference is being hosted in collaboration with the 2010 National Communications Task Team.
World Champion Viswanathan Anand beat Nigel Short of England to enter into joint lead with another Englishman Luke McShane, post fourth round play of London Chess Classic at the Olympia in London on Sunday.Celebrating his birthday in style, Anand threw caution to the winds against former World Championship challenger Short.Englishman McShane yet again survived some anxious moments in the tournament to draw with compatriot Michael Adams to remain in joint lead with the Indian.Magnus Carlsen of Norway and Vladimir Kramnik of Russia also secured victories at the expense of Hikaru Nakamura of the United States and David Howell of England respectively.With just three rounds to go in the eight-player roundrobin tournament, Anand and McShane have eight points each in the football-like scoring system in place at the tournament and they lead Kramnik by a point.Magnus Carlsen is on fourth position with six points while Hikaru Nakamura is sharing the fifth spot with Michael Adams. Howell is on two points, a full point clear of back- ranker Nigel Short.The game against Short saw fortunes fluctuating a few times. The Grand-Prix attack as white against the Sicilian by the English met some original play by Anand and the Indian ace was on top with some finely crafted moves leading to slightly better prospect in the ensuing middle game.Short erred and was saddled with a passive but tenable position and he continued working for counter play that Anand eventually allowed.Short may have been on top towards the end of the game but earlier mistakes had eaten a lot of time on his clock.advertisementThinking that it was winning, Short uncorked a combination with a piece sacrifice that boomeranged in no time as Anand had seen the perfect riposte. Short fell on his sword allowing a checkmate to end matters soon after.Kramnik built up a steady advantage against David Howell who employed the Grunfeld defence with black pieces. The Russian opened up the king side for his rooks to infiltrate and though wasn’t easy to make further progress, Kramnik showcased his deep understanding following a liquidation.In his final execution, Kramnik established his rook on the seventh rank and his bishop started firing too. It was all over pretty soon.McShane made a quiet opening as Adams gradually assumed the initiative. In the middle- game, Adams established his queen and rook on the seventh rank but Luke had a tactical trick to swap the queens and relieve the pressure.Further exchanges were made and the game eventually came down to an oppositecoloured bishop endgame and the draw was a just result.Carlsen opted for the English Opening and faced a sort of Dutch Defence against Hikaru Nakamura. Carlsen parted his Bishop for a knight and it looked as if Nakamura will be safe. However, as the game unfolded, Carlsen’s pressure told on both flanks and through a pretty tactical sequence he won a pawn and brought the game to an end with his immaculate technique.In the open tournament being played simultaneously, Indian International Master Sahaj Grover suffered a defeat at the hands of top seeded Boris Avrukh of Israel.The best Indian bet in the fray, former world junior champion Abhijeet Gupta won his game against Rafael Rodriguez Lopez of Spain while Saptarshi Roy Chowdhury played out a draw with lower ranked opponent.- With PTI inputs
About the authorCarlos VolcanoShare the loveHave your say New absence for Real Madrid attacker Baleby Carlos Volcano10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveGareth Bale is set to be missing for another two weeks at Real Madrid.The Welsh international suffered a calf problem in the 2-2 draw against Villarreal.First tests have revealed he will be sidelined for around two weeks, although he will undergo further tests. Therefore, Bale will miss the games against Real Sociedad, Leganes (Copa del Rey) and Real Betis, but he could re-appear for the second leg of the Copa del Rey clash with Leganes if all goes well. If he doesn’t make that on time, his objective will be to be fit again for the vital league game against Sevilla at the Santiago Bernabeu on Jan. 19.
Nacho hands Real Madrid heavy injury blowby Paul Vegas23 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveNacho has handed Real Madrid a heavy injury blow.The defender has suffered a ligament injury to his right knee during their 2-2 draw with Club Brugge last night.AS says the setback could see Nacho sidelined for three months.The defender has been played at left-back this season by coach Zinedine Zidane. About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say
Women In Entertainment (WIE) announced today that it will host its fourth annual summit in Los Angeles, on October 11, 2018, at the iconic Skirball Cultural Center.Over the course of the day, WIE will once again gather some of the most creative game-changing minds in television, film, and sports for a series of powerful keynotes, thought-provoking panel discussions, and inspirational fireside chats. Founded by two innovative leaders in the entertainment and marketing worlds Gretchen McCourt and Renee Rossi (Relativity Ventures), WIE is designed to address a range of pivotal and timely issues that affect women. Topics to include: the rise of women’s leadership, addressing our evolving world in the wake of the Me Too movement, how storytelling can impact social change, and empowering the next generation of extraordinary women creatives.This year DreamWorks Animation Television will present the “She-Ra: Evolution of a Warrior Princess” panel at WIE ahead of it’s highly anticipated Netflix Original Series release November 16th. This fascinating panel will feature a number of the incredible team behind the re-imagining of this beloved animated heroine including: executive producer Noelle Stevenson, directors Jen Bennett & Kiki Monrique, art director Liz Kresin and story editor Josie Campbell.“Our goal for the summit is to continually open conversations and in turn, open more doors for women in the entertainment world,” said Renee Rossi, co-founder of Women in Entertainment. “The women featured this year are dynamic visionaries and we are thrilled to have them share their knowledge with our audience.”WIE 2018 speakers include: Geena Davis, Actor, Producer and Founder of the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media; Raelle Tucker, an executive producer on Netflix’s “Jessica Jones,” and HBO’s “True Blood”; Kristin Campo of Chernin Entertainment; Veronica Gentilli of entertainment One; Julie McNamara of CBS; Susan Cartsonis of Resonate Entertainment; Tina Exarhos of NowThis; Natascha French of VNTANA; Bernadette McCabe of MoviePass; Claudine Cazian Britz of Instagram; Anna Holmes, the founder of Jezebel; Winnie Kemp of Super Deluxe; Michelle Kantor of Cinefemme and “RuPaul’s Drag Race”; Deadra Bastarache of Anomaly Factor; Rachel Rusch of Bad Robot; Julie Candalaria of All About the 360, Inc.; Noelle Stevenson, executive producer, Jen Bennett and Kiki Monrique, directors , Liz Kresin, art director, and Josie Campbell, story editor of DreamWorks She-Ra and the Princesses of Power among others still to be announced.This years summit will once again conclude the day with groundbreaking female led cinema with a screening of Lisa D’Apolito’s captivating and moving documentary “Love, Gilda” followed by a panel discussion for the WIE attendees. In limited release now through Magnolia Pictures, this fascinating documentary chronicles the life of beloved comedian, actress and “Saturday Night Live” icon, Gilda Radner, through diaries, audiotapes, videotapes and testimonies from her friends and colleagues offering insight into the life and career.This years WIE sponsors include: Dreamworks Animation Television, MoviePass, Starz, and CBS.This yearly event gathers women and men who are dedicated to celebrating the empowerment of women in all areas of the entertainment industry, here in Los Angeles. Tickets can be purchased in advance at the Eventbrite Link here. More information can be found at www.womeninentertainment.com.
APTN National NewsEmotions ran high at the third day of the Truth and Reconciliation hearings in Montreal Friday.As the day unfolded tears and pain gave way to hope and unity.APTN’s Danielle Rochette has the story
Citation: UK firms to reveal boss-staff pay gaps under draft law (2018, June 11) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-06-uk-firms-reveal-boss-staff-gaps.html This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. © 2018 AFP Companies listed in Britain will be required to reveal the gap between the salaries of their chief executives and employees under draft legislation introduced in parliament on Monday. All public companies with more than 250 employees will have to disclose and explain every year their “pay ratios” under legislation planned to come into effect from January 2019.”Most of the UK’s largest companies get their business practices right but we understand the anger of workers and shareholders when bosses’ pay is out of step with company performance,” Business Secretary Greg Clark said in a statement.”Requiring large companies to publish their pay gaps will build on that reputation by improving transparency and boosting accountability at the highest levels, while helping build a fairer economy that works for everyone,” he said.The move comes after years of shareholder and public outrage over the pay for top executives, including at companies that have performed poorly. There has been a series of shareholder rebellions over pay at company annual general meetings this year.Frances O’Grady, leader of Britain’s Trades Union Congress, said: “Publishing and justifying pay ratios is a first step, but more is needed.”Fat-cat bosses are masters of self-justification and shrugging off public outcry. New rules are needed to make sure they change,” she said, calling for worker representatives to be included on boardroom pay committees for added fairness.Rebecca Long Bailey, business spokeswoman for the main opposition Labour Party, said the proposals were “half-baked” and “do nothing to tackle the entrenched inequality”.The government earlier this year implemented legislation forcing all UK companies with 250 or more employees to publish details of the salary difference between male and female employees. All companies with more than 250 employees will have to disclose and explain their “pay ratios” London firm revamps pay by letting staff set salaries Explore further