Have been offered an NHS role but offered an extension in current private sector role

[centurian]

I think many FTs will ignore it and present it as getting value for money by getting better quality or lower rates in a competitive market.

Probably - lets hope so - the main danger I raise is that FT boards will think the PR backlash is too risky if they are caught ignoring this instruction, regardless of whether they have the legal right to do so. Look at how the dozens of stories have run over the past 12 months on tax matters - common sense has given way to mob mentality.

It ain't like a private sector board where people are prepared to take higher risks for higher rewards. Public sector board members (whether FT or not) are only interested in one thing - keeping their jobs until age 60 to retire on 50% final salary. A sustained tabloid attack on their "moral" competancy because they are encouraging wholesale tax dodging at a time when public finances are under pressure (and that is exactly how the tabloids will spin it) could be viewed as a far greater risk to their jobs than losing a few contractors.

Only time will tell what will happen though.

[bluetoaster]

I'm watching this with interest as someone currently contracting at a foundation Trust. I raised this with my client contact the other week and they knew nothing about it but understand why I've said I won't extend my contract with them to push it over 6 months. I've asked for a view from the agent and from my accountant and haven't had a response from either yet.

This will hurt the NHS as following the breakup of NPfIT there is a lot of NHS work at the moment and will be for the next few years.

[d000hg]

The investigation was into permies who choose to incorporate, but as ever, government has over-reacted and anyone contracting in the public sector has been (wrongly) caught up. Glad you're keeping up with the news and not simply throwing half-arsed opinions about

If only a website existed where contractors COULD discuss these things.

Hang on...



I still don't see any reason the government shouldn't review use of contractors in public sector work.

[speling bee]

If only a website existed where contractors COULD discuss these things.

Hang on...



I still don't see any reason the government shouldn't review use of contractors in public sector work.

I have a 6 month contract as a PM / change management expert. The project is 9 months. This is not a large IT programme but a niche project with clear and realistic benefits. I'll leave rather than renew on inside IR35 terms, and they will not be able to replace me with anyone with the niche expertise. No doubt they will muddle through but delivery and benefit realisation will be at risk.

[Rabotnik]

I'm watching this with interest as someone currently contracting at a foundation Trust. I raised this with my client contact the other week and they knew nothing about it but understand why I've said I won't extend my contract with them to push it over 6 months. I've asked for a view from the agent and from my accountant and haven't had a response from either yet.

Same here, I am also working at a trust and my manager hasn't heard anything about this yet. I am somewhat nervous, although my extension ends at the 5 month mark at the end of September. They may wish to extend though for 2 months, and I am unsure whether I should go for it or not. Might be hard to find a contract in October.

[speling bee]

Same here, I am also working at a trust and my manager hasn't heard anything about this yet. I am somewhat nervous, although my extension ends at the 5 month mark at the end of September. They may wish to extend though for 2 months, and I am unsure whether I should go for it or not. Might be hard to find a contract in October.

If it is not raised, I will certainly go with an extension. If they want this change then it is a change to contract, and that is the point at which I will leave. At the moment it's just some uncertainty.

[Rabotnik]

If it is not raised, I will certainly go with an extension. If they want this change then it is a change to contract, and that is the point at which I will leave. At the moment it's just some uncertainty.

That's what I think too, work here as long as it's a suitable arrangement, and if they try change the terms I will disagree and get the contract terminated. It would be interesting though, as I have no notice period here, it's one of those ones where the client can give notice but I can't (wasn't bothered as it was a 3 month contract in a good location for me, solo work, no teammates).

My manager is "on the level" though, so I am sure he will kill the contract if I need to (a fellow Saffa who incidentally wants to start contracting once this piece of work is done).

[SarahL2012]

Contract reviews??

They did say that if you can provide evidence that you are outside IR35 then that would suffice. Obviously HMRC's preference is that you use their contract review service, but there is nothing saying that you HAVE to. So if you genuinely believe that your working practices are outside IR35 then get your contract reviewed by B&C or similar, get a nice letter off them and show it to whoever is the procuring manager. I'm going to guess that as long as they have something that can shove on a file somewhere & tick a box then they'll be happy.

[v8gaz]

If only a website existed where contractors COULD discuss these things.

Hang on...



I still don't see any reason the government shouldn't review use of contractors in public sector work.

Nobody is saying that they shouldn't review. What we are saying is that they solution that they came up with is fatally flawed.

Anything else we need to spoon-feed to you?

[Lewis]

FYI - some recommendations from the PCG:

Public Sector Review – Advice for contractors in the public sector

PCG recommends following the two steps outlined below to provide assurance to your engager:

Step One: Self-assess using the Business Entity Tests
...
Step Two: Get your contract reviewed by a reputable specialist
...