As the Guardian has noted, the Department of Health is looking for a new vice president of operations:
Let's ignore for a mom ent the pay rate.
Let's ignore too the American terminology (since when did was have VPs in the civil service?)
Let's instead note that this is off-payroll working through an umbrella company, with potential tax advantages attached.
Why is what?
And what message does this send out on tax abuse?
If the government plays at off-payroll working and casualisation in this way why should anyone else commit to their payroll and enforcing PAYE?
Are they really this stupid?
And if so, why?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Is there ever anything really stupid about things like this?
It’s deliberate – this Government want to break cleanly away from a rules based operating style to one more befitting of crime syndicate.
They say the engagement will be within the IR35 rules, by which they mean they will have to operate PAYE under the off payroll worker rules. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/off-payroll-working-in-the-public-sector-reform-of-intermediaries-legislation
Makes one wonder why they insist on an umbrella company. It is hard to see what the commercial benefit might be for either party. Does it stop the worker qualifying for employment rights or pension rights?
Yes to the latter
But why do that?
Why not adjust the pay and make them an employee and stop the silly game playing?
If it is caught by IR35 (and almost all of those roles should be and should have been even prior to public sector contract changes) then there isn’t much tax advantage that I can see to the contractor. The whole £1000-£2000 per day will get netted down after allowing for ER NI, EE NI and PAYE. What it does do is keep this contractor off any employment benefits, including pension.
Many contractors see these conditions as the worst of all worlds – mind you there are plenty who could cope with that indignity for up to 2 big ones a day.
Or can you see how the contractor can game the system?
But why not employ them then?
Why play a game that is wholly unnecessary and too closely related to tax abuse?
why play a game? I totally agree – it should be direct employment in these types of roles.
Perhaps because this is not the end-point, but the first step in a journey. The journey to complete privatisation is carried out with greatest facility if done in small steps, without the public noticing; until it is virtually accomplished.
IR35
Short term appointment ?
Allows the appointed one to work on other contracts ?
Dido Harding, anyone ?
But surely what we also shouldn’t miss is this individual’s ability to ‘turn round failing call centres’.
There are so very many of them that are failing that I doubt this is a common skill, particularly when lives could depend on it.
But it is nonetheless some admission for a ‘world-beating’ system!
Agreed