Results of the public sector consultation is up

[eek]

I agree wholeheartedly.

...and therein lies the problem - they may make 12pa but that assumes no contractor leaves, no agency increases margins to their their extra admin, no project is delayed due to a walkout (cost money or deferring benefit) and no consultancy charging ppl at 2-2.5 cost comes in to fix it.

Very short sighted and makes the workers in Gov (as opposed to policy makers) much harder

but that's a win win for the policy makers. We got the law made, implementation fails to implement it, come the promotions board the policy makers are already 2 points ahead - they successfully delivered, implementation have totally failed...

[northernladuk]

Serious Q (notwithstanding I haven't rad all the docs yet)

What do we know today from the new info that we didn't know yesterday? Has any clarity been provided?

Have you read it?

[SueEllen]

I agree wholeheartedly.

...and therein lies the problem - they may make 12pa but that assumes no contractor leaves, no agency increases margins to their their extra admin, no project is delayed due to a walkout (cost money or deferring benefit) and no consultancy charging ppl at 2-2.5 cost comes in to fix it.

Very short sighted and makes the workers in Gov (as opposed to policy makers) much harder

You forget it is NOT their money.

[eek]

Serious Q (notwithstanding I haven't rad all the docs yet)

What do we know today from the new info that we didn't know yesterday? Has any clarity been provided?

Decision is made by the end client, agencies don't have much say in it....

Will need to triple check that but that seems to be what all the documentation states...

[eek]

According to the consultation, that was explicitly not the case. It was a clear have/eat cake strategy. Afterall, it would be much easier (for "employees") if employment were mandated (e.g. FTC) on the outcome of the ESI.

And that's the bit we need to attack every way we can...

[youngguy]

Decision is made by the end client, agencies don't have much say in it....

Will need to triple check that but that seems to be what all the documentation states...

The person who probably understands the least about our business model, but who is most willing to put info into a tool and accept the first answer it gives

[jamesbrown]

Decision is made by the end client, agencies don't have much say in it....

Will need to triple check that but that seems to be what all the documentation states...

The documentation is ambiguous on this, as far as I can tell. It's either:

1. The client identifies when the contract is within scope; or
2. The client identifies whether it is caught.

I suspect it's the former, because the documentation alludes to agents and others using the online tool. In other words, I think the client's responsibility is not to deem whether a contract is caught (although it probably should be their responsibility), but simply to inform the agent that the contract is within scope (i.e. relevant public authority, and all other preconditions met).

[eek]

The documentation is ambiguous on this, as far as I can tell. It's either:

1. The client identifies when the contract is within scope; or
2. The client identifies whether it is caught.

I suspect it's the former, because the documentation alludes to agents and others using the online tool. In other words, I think the client's responsibility is not to deem whether a contract is caught (although it probably should be their responsibility), but simply to inform the agent that the contract is within scope (i.e. relevant public authority, and all other preconditions met).

From page 9 of the consultation response

Engagers will be required to inform the relevant party, such as an agency, whether the
off-payroll rules should apply and will be liable for this decision. HMRC will publish
guidance about the information needed which will also cover what engagers should do
if working practices change.

and from the technical notes https://www.gov.uk/government/public...us-test-is-met

Requirement on public sector body to provide information to agency as to whether employment status test is met
33.The public sector client must inform the intermediary, agency, or third party with whom they have a contract to provide the services that the contract falls within the new off-payroll rules or that it does not. This conclusion can be included in the contract with the intermediary, agency, or other third party, or separately.

34.If the public sector client does not notify the intermediary, agency, or other third party of the status of the worker then they may request in writing that the public sector client provides the necessary information. The public sector client can also be asked by the person they have contracted with about the reasons or reaching the conclusion they did.

35.The public sector client must reply to the written requests for a decision on whether the off-payroll rules are applicable or for the reasons why the client reached a conclusion within 31 days of receiving the request. If the public sector client does not reply to the request as to whether the off-payroll rules apply within 31 days they become responsible for accounting for PAYE.

36.Public authorities must ensure there is clear process in place to comply with this information requirement.

So from my reading it seems the department is making the decision - and personally they should be doing so prior to advertising the role....

[jamesbrown]

From page 9 of the consultation response

When I mentioned ambiguous, it was precisely those instances that I was thinking about. Why should that be interpreted as "inside IR35" rather than "within the scope of a determination"? Remember, there are preconditions on whether the contract is within the scope of a determination, beyond whether it is a public authority (which, in itself, may be ambiguous in some cases).

Obviously, if the agent makes a request for information, the public authority will need to respond, but that isn't the same thing. The question is whether the client makes the determination by default, or responds to a request for information.

[eek]

When I mentioned ambiguous, it was precisely those instances that I was thinking about. Why should that be interpreted as "inside IR35" rather than "within the scope of a determination"? Remember, there are preconditions on whether the contract is within the scope of a determination, beyond whether it is a public authority (which, in itself, may be ambiguous in some cases).

Obviously, if the agent makes a request for information, the public authority will need to respond, but that isn't the same thing. The question is whether the client makes the determination by default, or responds to a request for information.

Isn't that more to do with the timing of the determination rather than who is making the determination.

The one thing I was looking for (and some agencies were no doubt fearing / hoping for) was whether agencies could determine the result and that doesn't appear to be the case....