Contractor in the Public Sector (IT or otherwise)?

[98elise]

A bit of a witch hunt going on at the moment....

http://www.freelanceadvisor.co.uk/money/legislatio...

Could be interesting how this pan's out. I can see why its an issue if you are in what appears to be an FTE role, but for project roles its going to be a pain. I suspect a lot of IT project roles will be harder to fill in the public sector.

[Eric Mc]

It's to do with accountability to the taxpayer - the ultimate "employwer" of those who work in the public sector.

It shouldn't be an issue for those lower down the chain but those employed in senior managerial roles such as heads of departments or government agencies should be properly appointed employees.

[Deva Link]

This is pretty common for senior people in many organisations. I suppose someone will argue that it saves the employer money, although for people paid out of the public purse, that's a zero sum game.

[Tim330]

The example given in pg8 omits the VAT that the goverment would receive from a LTD Co

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/ch...

[Eric Mc]

It's not about the money. It's about the principle of government departments being run and managed by peoplewho aren't actually employed by the civil service. And those self same people will be affecting and influencing government policy and hiring and firing "ordinary" civil service or government agency staff - without they themselves being subject to the same rules and regulations as those staff.

[Tim330]

Eric Mc said:

It's not about the money. It's about the principle of government departments being run and managed by peoplewho aren't actually employed by the civil service. And those self same people will be affecting and influencing government policy and hiring and firing "ordinary" civil service or government agency staff - without they themselves being subject to the same rules and regulations as those staff.

I agree but hope its not the thin end of the wedge for those contractors in the private sector who don't manage people or make key business decisions.

[Eric Mc]

It shouldn't be. There is a special case for people doing government related work - especially if they are key decsion or policy makers.

[Steffan]

Eric Mc said:

It's not about the money. It's about the principle of government departments being run and managed by peoplewho aren't actually employed by the civil service. And those self same people will be affecting and influencing government policy and hiring and firing "ordinary" civil service or government agency staff - without they themselves being subject to the same rules and regulations as those staff.

I entirely agree with Eric Mc on this.

Within the public sector there must be absolute transparency on every transaction. This is public money and it needs to be properly administered.

Tax avoidance may be acceptable in the private sector where individuals, as business owners, or shareholders or investors, risk their money. They have that choice.

The Taxpayer has no choice but is legally required to contribute. Therefore there must be absolute transparency throughout public administration.

Edited by Steffan on Thursday 24th May 17:56

[Eric Mc]

They are working for us - not themselves. That is the whole principle behind the notion of a "civil servant". If they are the servant, who should be the master?

[Burrow01]

Eric Mc said:

It shouldn't be. There is a special case for people doing government related work - especially if they are key decsion or policy makers.

So where does this leave all the Quangos, Agencies and soon to be privatised Police / security services

[New POD]

I did a 6 month contract for the MOD, and I've always found it funny, that Civil Servants are taxed. I mean why not just pay them less, and not bother to collect tax and NI ? That way the Payroll department in the MOD could be smaller, and employ less people and the HMRC could be smaller and employ less people.

[Deva Link]

New POD said:

I did a 6 month contract for the MOD, and I've always found it funny, that Civil Servants are taxed. I mean why not just pay them less, and not bother to collect tax and NI ? That way the Payroll department in the MOD could be smaller, and employ less people and the HMRC could be smaller and employ less people.

I don't know, but maybe it could be because people pay different rates of tax and have different allowances according to their personal circumstances.

Many low paid civil servants with families will be having their pay topped up with tax credits - surely that's bonkers, why not pay them more in the first place?

[rog007]

Burrow01 said:

Eric Mc said:

It shouldn't be. There is a special case for people doing government related work - especially if they are key decsion or policy makers.

So where does this leave all the Quangos, Agencies and soon to be privatised Police / security services

This being looked at. The BBC for example have been politely asked to declare their position but seem reluctant. I suspect things will only change if the public demand it via their MP. They just need to be careful what they ask for; the law of unintended consequences could be alive and well in this scenario...

[Eric Mc]

Burrow01 said:

So where does this leave all the Quangos, Agencies and soon to be privatised Police / security services

That is a good question.


It is less of an issue for those working at the lower level or those on genuine short term contracts. As I keep trying to emphasise., this is an issue for those at the top levels - including CEOs and heads of department. They should ALWAYS be properly engaged employees of the organisation and not outside contractors operating through intermediary tax vehicles. It sends all the wrong messages and is morally incompatable for the "bosses" to be engaged on such a basis..