You're probably not going to like this - we certainly don't

[MrMarkyMark]

I actually delivered. But it did require me to wait for the conference call where the 4 layers of management above me weren't on it to pull a fast one and organize a visit to their offices the following day before anyone could stop it....

Difficult in anything PS related.
I have seen consultancies just not do anything though and was suggesting that it is just better not to have them involved.

Seen the same in the private sector, also. You have to push really hard to get things done, way of the world these days

[northernladuk]

Would the intended policy affect you, If you were contracting for a supplier e.g IBM that happens to be engaged with a PS client/project for which you are working on? Or does this only affect contractors that work direct for PS via an Agency?

I doubt it as your client would be IBM. You would be seen as an employee of theirs on site. It's highly likely they would be engaged through Gcloud or other framework and delivering a service so not as a bum on seat contractor to the PS.

[MrMarkyMark]

I doubt it as your client would be IBM. You would be seen as an employee of theirs on site. It's highly likely they would be engaged through Gcloud or other framework and delivering a service so not as a bum on seat contractor to the PS.

+1, that's how I saw it also.

[jamesbrown]

Would the intended policy affect you, If you were contracting for a supplier e.g IBM that happens to be engaged with a PS client/project for which you are working on? Or does this only affect contractors that work direct for PS via an Agency?

Probably not, but it's impossible to completely dismiss at this stage. Part of the consultation focused on the boundary between the PS and the private sector w/r to private sector suppliers. Personally, I think that would be difficult to enforce without a global application across the public and private sectors, so the boundary will probably be quite tight around the PS if they proceed.

[DotasScandal]

Personally, I think that would be difficult to enforce without a global application across the public and private sectors

Does anybody really think this will stop at the PS? Seriously?

[missinggreenfields]

Probably not, but it's impossible to completely dismiss at this stage. Part of the consultation focused on the boundary between the PS and the private sector w/r to private sector suppliers. Personally, I think that would be difficult to enforce without a global application across the public and private sectors, so the boundary will probably be quite tight around the PS if they proceed.

I think that by not having the boundary, it makes it much easier to roll this out everywhere.

Rather than just being PSC > client or PSC > agency > client, I wouldn't be surprised if the target is PSC > anyone / any number of entities, including professional service companies / SI > public sector. From there, it's dead easy to say "these guys manage it for public sector work, so everyone can do it".

[eek]

Probably not, but it's impossible to completely dismiss at this stage. Part of the consultation focused on the boundary between the PS and the private sector w/r to private sector suppliers. Personally, I think that would be difficult to enforce without a global application across the public and private sectors, so the boundary will probably be quite tight around the PS if they proceed.

The example reads as based on the building you are in. That may or may not be an issue for the large consultancies for the medium size ones such as say sopra steria it could be when they provide a team as bums on seats at the end client.

The problem is that we just don't know and it's not worth the risk - so the advice has to be to get out now before everyone discovers what is happening and it becomes a stampede

[eek]

I think that by not having the boundary, it makes it much easier to roll this out everywhere.

Rather than just being PSC > client or PSC > agency > client, I wouldn't be surprised if the target is PSC > anyone / any number of entities, including professional service companies / SI > public sector. From there, it's dead easy to say "these guys manage it for public sector work, so everyone can do it".

I doubt it's that broad but it's definitely possible to read it that way. It's equally possible that HMRC don't understand the consequences of the examples they have used, we need to wait and see.

[jamesbrown]

Does anybody really think this will stop at the PS? Seriously?

No, I don't think anyone imagines that. Obviously, they will deny it without ministerial approval for broader application, but any perceived successes in the PS rollout will be used to justify a broader application (but the reverse probably isn't true ).

[WordIsBond]

If facts supposedly work with HMRC, can someone please convince them to stop using the £400 million number which was calculated before the dividend tax hike?

And if they won't stop using it, can we at least convince a few MPs to start pouring scorn on them publicly for this until they do? It's just dishonest propaganda.

THAT would be something I would think IPSE COULD accomplish.