Public sector IR35 consultation launched

[eek]

Sweepstake time!

I sort of feel sorry for the dept. They just want someone who can do the job (ie you) but will have to settle for whoever is willing to work under the new terms which will be caught contractually

Not quite. At the moment they will probably find someone who doesn't know whats about to happen (that's not however one of the people who know the system).

However they will be coming from London or somewhere else as the market is very small. The money probably looks fine at the moment, come April however pay is paid net and expenses go

[youngguy]

Not quite. At the moment they will probably find someone who doesn't know whats about to happen (that's not however one of the people who know the system).

However they will be coming from London or somewhere else as the market is very small. The money probably looks fine at the moment, come April however pay is paid net and expenses go

Where was the location?

The doc you showed is a major change - one presumes the CL contract will have to be updated as it is currently "IR35 friendly " after the last attempt to change it failed due to staff (MoJ) threatening to walk .

[DaveB]

Where was the location?

The doc you showed is a major change - one presumes the CL contract will have to be updated as it is currently "IR35 friendly " after the last attempt to change it failed due to staff (MoJ) threatening to walk .

Wasn't just MoJ. Cabinet Office, Home Office and others all protested.

Interestingly the flow chart provided appears to indicate that if you are signed up to deliver a work package or other discreet deliverable then you don't end up on the CLOne framework.

Is the requirement output
based/statement of work/
work package (See Step 1)

I suspect this may well provide some wiggle room when aspiration meets reality.

[malvolio]

Wasn't just MoJ. Cabinet Office, Home Office and others all protested.

Interestingly the flow chart provided appears to indicate that if you are signed up to deliver a work package or other discreet deliverable then you don't end up on the CLOne framework.



I suspect this may well provide some wiggle room when aspiration meets reality.

I admire your optimism. Very little PS work can be described in terms of a discrete (or even discreet ) deliverable apart from the people at the top of the programme. They aren't about to issues SoWs for every development item within a programme, for example, and if they get too general in the specification of an SoW they'll get smacked for not following the rules.

The challenge here is not to look to circumvent the new rules but to prove how much damage this is going to do to all PS work, which will be considerable, and then persuade TPTB that they are making a huge mistake by killing off the UK's flexible workforce.

[jamesbrown]

I admire your optimism. Very little PS work can be described in terms of a discrete (or even discreet ) deliverable apart from the people at the top of the programme. They aren't about to issues SoWs for every development item within a programme, for example, and if they get too general in the specification of an SoW they'll get smacked for not following the rules.

The challenge here is not to look to circumvent the new rules but to prove how much damage this is going to do to all PS work, which will be considerable, and then persuade TPTB that they are making a huge mistake by killing off the UK's flexible workforce.

Agreed, but I admire your optimism too

[eek]

Wasn't just MoJ. Cabinet Office, Home Office and others all protested.

Interestingly the flow chart provided appears to indicate that if you are signed up to deliver a work package or other discreet deliverable then you don't end up on the CLOne framework.



I suspect this may well provide some wiggle room when aspiration meets reality.

Sadly I think you are looking at it from the wrong direction.

If you look at the flowchart anything that contains discrete work packages is not covered by CLOne but by Digital Outcomes and Specialists** or Cloud 1. So no doubt it will be argued that as you were recruited by CLOne the discrete work packages are merely a facade that this new document sees through and the fact you've come in under CLOne by itself shows that you are under supervision direction or control...

much that it pains me to agree with malvolio he is right no one is going to create statements of work for small items within a bigger project especially as they need to then go via a different framework and that is just one rule designed to discourage departments trying to ignore them.


Finally someone asked where the contracts are based. Shall we just say up north near a newish castle with the offices original department. And as I've stated before this contract is to keep something essential running as other systems change around it until it can be replaced... Hence there is no real chance of a statement of work being issued beyond keep it going - I just suspect something will get interesting some time late next year and hit the news...

[youngguy]

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/001...proposals.html

Interesting view on VAT.

[eek]

It was actually as now I know the response they use I can hit them with one that's more difficult to get out of...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...rrive_at_estim

And we have a response. Were I feeling better I would add a comment but that can wait till tomorrow

[WordIsBond]

And we have a response. Were I feeling better I would add a comment but that can wait till tomorrow

I'll put their response in shorter terms.

"The number is based on assumptions. We're using this figure to manipulate politicians and public opinion until legislation is passed. It is therefore not in the public interest for you to know what the assumptions are, since the legislation hasn't passed yet. So we aren't telling yet. But we're assuming you and everyone else is stupid since we're using the same number we used to use before the dividend tax increase, which any sane person over the age of 5 would understand would change the number. We don't care because we're busy trying to get the legislation passed. Thank you for your participation in the process by playing this pointless game. Please note that of course you can appeal this decision, but we're the ones who hear that appeal."

Even shorter version:
"We made it up but we can't admit that until the legislation is passed."

Still shorter:


My response:

Total mockery of FOI to have a consultation on public policy and use a number in that consultation without being willing to back it up. If I were PM, I'd be firing some fools for this stuff. The "public interest" is in making as much disclosure as possible of the facts and statistics you are using in a public policy discussion. How are people supposed to respond to a consultation when the facts are in question and YOU won't back them up? The obvious answer is that nobody is allowed to question them.

It only proves that the consultation is a mockery with a predetermined answer. They aren't coming to the public as partners in the process of trying to find a good policy solution. They are the bosses who will dribble out what information they feel like giving, in the form they feel like giving it, without scrutiny. And given that, the obvious conclusion is the consultation is all a sham, the answer has been predetermined.

[MrMarkyMark]

I'll put their response in shorter terms.

"The number is based on assumptions. We're using this figure to manipulate politicians and public opinion until legislation is passed. It is therefore not in the public interest for you to know what the assumptions are, since the legislation hasn't passed yet. So we aren't telling yet. But we're assuming you and everyone else is stupid since we're using the same number we used to use before the dividend tax increase, which any sane person over the age of 5 would understand would change the number. We don't care because we're busy trying to get the legislation passed. Thank you for your participation in the process by playing this pointless game. Please note that of course you can appeal this decision, but we're the ones who hear that appeal."

Even shorter version:
"We made it up but we can't admit that until the legislation is passed."

Still shorter:


My response:

Total mockery of FOI to have a consultation on public policy and use a number in that consultation without being willing to back it up. If I were PM, I'd be firing some fools for this stuff. The "public interest" is in making as much disclosure as possible of the facts and statistics you are using in a public policy discussion. How are people supposed to respond to a consultation when the facts are in question and YOU won't back them up? The obvious answer is that nobody is allowed to question them.

It only proves that the consultation is a mockery with a predetermined answer. They aren't coming to the public as partners in the process of trying to find a good policy solution. They are the bosses who will dribble out what information they feel like giving, in the form they feel like giving it, without scrutiny. And given that, the obvious conclusion is the consultation is all a sham, the answer has been predetermined.

+1 and isn't it a fact that the extra divi tax has been omiited from the figure?