How do you know if your contract is public sector

[jonnieboy]

OK - I know I'm going to get shot down in flames for this...

I've read LOTS of material but still can't find answer.

Assuming a PSC has a contract with, let's say HPE. The contractor is working on an account HPE has - the MoD (for example). Is this PSC caught by the new legislation? It seems to me they are - but since they aren't contracted directly by the MoD, I'm not so sure.

And if the same PSC does 3 days a week on their HPE contract on a MoD account and 2 days on a private-sector account...? Is the entire contracted remuneration caught? Or just 2/5 of it?

[malvolio]

It's magic, it just happens...

Actually nobody really knows but at some point in the daisy chain someone has to report back to HMRC how may contractors it is using, probably through copies of itemised invoices to the relevant engager.

Contracts are single events, if you have two, one PS and one not, the rules apply to the PS one. It has still not been explained just how we account for all the variations, such as deducted ERNICs, in our company accounts.

So don't try and apply logic, there isn't any. Simplest way out is not to take on any PS work and let them work it out.

[jamesbrown]

OK - I know I'm going to get shot down in flames for this...

I've read LOTS of material but still can't find answer.

Assuming a PSC has a contract with, let's say HPE. The contractor is working on an account HPE has - the MoD (for example). Is this PSC caught by the new legislation? It seems to me they are - but since they aren't contracted directly by the MoD, I'm not so sure.

And if the same PSC does 3 days a week on their HPE contract on a MoD account and 2 days on a private-sector account...? Is the entire contracted remuneration caught? Or just 2/5 of it?

It's based on the Freedom of Information Act. In terms of your specific question, this is unlikely to be caught, and the precise scenario you present was referred to in the consultation when justifying the exclusion of private companies that deliver a public function (i.e. public vs. private sector contracts delivered by a private company). Providing HPE are contracted to deliver a public function and not to supply BoS contractors to a public agency covered by the FOI Act, you should be fine.

[jamesbrown]

Simplest way out is not to take on any PS work and let them work it out.

Notwithstanding what I said, I agree with this as a point of principle. There are grey areas w/r to the delivery of a public function vs. supply of labour to a FOI agency.

[jonnieboy]

It's based on the Freedom of Information Act. In terms of your specific question, this is unlikely to be caught, and the precise scenario you present was referred to in the consultation when justifying the exclusion of private companies that deliver a public function (i.e. public vs. private sector contracts delivered by a private company). Providing HPE are contracted to deliver a public function and not to supply BoS contractors to a public agency covered by the FOI Act, you should be fine.

Thanks for your view, jamesbrown. I was thinking that this was likely to be the case - although will obviously have to see if the intermediaries in the chain agree...

[perplexed]

It's based on the Freedom of Information Act. In terms of your specific question, this is unlikely to be caught, and the precise scenario you present was referred to in the consultation when justifying the exclusion of private companies that deliver a public function (i.e. public vs. private sector contracts delivered by a private company). Providing HPE are contracted to deliver a public function and not to supply BoS contractors to a public agency covered by the FOI Act, you should be fine.

Excuse my poor understanding, isn't it the responsibility of the public sector org to determine the status - or is that only when contracting direct to them?

Assuming the above was fine - consultancy delivering functionality not acting as an agency to put bums on seats, aren't there going to be gray areas?

Take somewhere like DVLA. SME win the gig to deliver functionality. SME need to recruit to deliver that functionality - work to be performed on client site. SME not bound by FoI. DVLA require any consultants / SME staff / contractors at SME on site to have active SC - wouldn't DVLA then be transferring / applying for the SC in that instance, thus would consider that SME to be acting as an agent due to that?

My head hurts, which I suspect was the rationale for the changes.

[fidot]

It seems clear to me that nobody knows how all of this will work. Hence, the advice to avoid all PS work, if possible.

[northernladuk]

It seems clear to me that nobody knows how all of this will work. Hence, the advice to avoid all PS work, if possible.

I think that is just as pertinent now as it was when we said it 6 months or more ago. It's not new advice.

I was well in to all this and spent many hours discussing and reading up about it while in the PS. Now I'm out its a breath of fresh air.

[fidot]

I think that is just as pertinent now as it was when we said it 6 months or more ago. It's not new advice.

I was well in to all this and spent many hours discussing and reading up about it while in the PS. Now I'm out its a breath of fresh air.

Agree, I certainly wasn't trying to claim it as new advice.

[LondonManc]

I think that is just as pertinent now as it was when we said it 6 months or more ago. It's not new advice.

I was well in to all this and spent many hours discussing and reading up about it while in the PS. Now I'm out its a breath of fresh air.

Indeed but it's nice to see a new influx of contractors who are seeing the problem earlier than April. They need to spread the word within their teams about the issues faced; similarly Andy needs to get the discussion up and running across agencies - there's money to be made for all of us if rates have to increase.