Lobbying Mr Speaker on IR35

[mb31]

I'm fine thank you but have to ask, as you aren't a contractor yet, how can you have a detailed agenda about something that is going to affect your career, past and present? Do you really know enough about IR35 to challenge why these changes are a step too far?

I think you've already guessed that I don't know enough about IR35 to challenge and that is why I would seek advice from people who do if this was a feasible approach.

Based on what I've seen so far I do think the IR35 legislation is very one-sided and unfair. HMRC seem to think they can decide who's an employee but their reasons don't stand up in court. Instead, they decided to roll out new legislation first in the public sector and then in the private sector in the hope that large organisations would make the conservative (and lazy) assumption that all contractors fall inside IR35.

If an end-client client decides that a contractor is actually an employee the fair response would be to offer that contractor a contract of employment. Instead, the HMRC proposal is that the end-client subtracts PAYE and NI from the contractor's invoices via an Umbrella as if he/she is an employee of the end-client. This gives end-clients all of the advantages of taking on a contractor and none of the disadvantages of taking on an employee while the contractor enjoys few of the benefits of being an employee such as security of employment. That's my understanding of it.

You can probably guess which party I will not be voting for at the general election.

Wait a minute...

[malvolio]

I think you've already guessed that I don't know enough about IR35 to challenge and that is why I would seek advice from people who do if this was a feasible approach.

Based on what I've seen so far I do think the IR35 legislation is very one-sided and unfair. HMRC seem to think they can decide who's an employee but their reasons don't stand up in court. Instead, they decided to roll out new legislation first in the public sector and then in the private sector in the hope that large organisations would make the conservative (and lazy) assumption that all contractors fall inside IR35.

If an end-client client decides that a contractor is actually an employee the fair response would be to offer that contractor a contract of employment. Instead, the HMRC proposal is that the end-client subtracts PAYE and NI from the contractor's invoices via an Umbrella as if he/she is an employee of the end-client. This gives end-clients all of the advantages of taking on a contractor and none of the disadvantages of taking on an employee while the contractor enjoys few of the benefits of being an employee such as security of employment. That's my understanding of it.

You can probably guess which party I will not be voting for at the general election.

Wait a minute...

Well that's an incomplete understanding of a complicated situation. Perhaps best you don't debate it with anyone political.

There are reasons why IR35 is still with us, and they are nothing to do (in HMG's eyes at least) with countering tax avoidance other than in the most egregious cases, but with stopping forced incorporation of lower paid workers. The fact that they can't distinguish between serious contractors with high skills, be they engineers, IT or medical staff, and low-paid vulnerable workers such as leisure industry staff, social workers and the like, is the real problem.

There is no reason why a client has to put someone inside IR35 if they don't want to. Most, as far as I can tell so far, are simply listening to their Human Remains team (always a waste of time) and taking the easy but ultimately expensive way out. The focus for those who are lobbying at the moment is stopping them making those kinds of stupid decisions and delaying the implementation so a better understanding of its impact can be assessed.

[mb31]

Thanks for your insight malvolio. I hadn't thought about the vulnerable, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by forced incorporation. Is it to do with zero hour contracts? Hopefully the people who know their stuff can have some influence. A delay does make a lot of sense.

I am tempted to book a slot with Mr Speaker because he doesn't have a vote so I can't do much damage. I have spoken to him on my doorstep before and he came across as quite reasonable while I was setting the world to rights.

Lindsay can influence the agenda in terms of priorities and make sure that the Lib Dems or whoever is fighting our corner get time to make their case. Would it hurt for me to explain to him my personal situation and why it is important to me to have the legislation debated?

[malvolio]

Thanks for your insight malvolio. I hadn't thought about the vulnerable, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by forced incorporation. Is it to do with zero hour contracts? Hopefully the people who know their stuff can have some influence. A delay does make a lot of sense.

I am tempted to book a slot with Mr Speaker because he doesn't have a vote so I can't do much damage. I have spoken to him on my doorstep before and he came across as quite reasonable while I was setting the world to rights.

Lindsay can influence the agenda in terms of priorities and make sure that the Lib Dems or whoever is fighting our corner get time to make their case. Would it hurt for me to explain to him my personal situation and why it is important to me to have the legislation debated?

"I'm not entirely sure what you mean by forced incorporation." - nuff said... So you're a hotel chambermaid on £10 an hour and one day your manager tells you you're being sacked, but you can apply for the job as a freelance contractor at much the same rate: the manager has just saved 25% of his costs and doesn't have to worry about employment rights any more and you have lost all of them and can be dumped on a moment's notice, not paid for holidays, bank holidays or sick time and you have to fund your own pension and Employer's' NICs on top of your usual taxes. Understand?

You do what you think is best - just be aware it may not turn out how you expect.

[mb31]

So you're a hotel chambermaid on £10 an hour and one day your manager tells you you're being sacked, but you can apply for the job as a freelance contractor at much the same rate: the manager has just saved 25% of his costs and doesn't have to worry about employment rights any more and you have lost all of them and can be dumped on a moment's notice, not paid for holidays, bank holidays or sick time and you have to fund your own pension and Employer's' NICs on top of your usual taxes. Understand?

I don't follow what you're saying.

If I were the Chambermaid I'd sue the manager for unfair dismissal on the grounds that the job continues to exist and there should have been no redundancy. I'd already be protected by employment law so how would IR35 help me in the example you've provided? In fact IR35 would make the chambermaids situation worse because she would probably rely on an umbrella with fees.

[malvolio]

I don't follow what you're saying.

If I were the Chambermaid I'd sue the manager for unfair dismissal on the grounds that the job continues to exist and there should have been no redundancy. I'd already be protected by employment law so how would IR35 help me in the example you've provided? In fact IR35 would make the chambermaids situation worse because she would probably rely on an umbrella with fees.

Well, if you say so.

[NeedTheSunshine]

I don't follow what you're saying.

If I were the Chambermaid I'd sue the manager for unfair dismissal on the grounds that the job continues to exist and there should have been no redundancy. I'd already be protected by employment law so how would IR35 help me in the example you've provided? In fact IR35 would make the chambermaids situation worse because she would probably rely on an umbrella with fees.

Unless the Chambermaid has worked for the employer for two years they can basically sack you for any old reason (which they don't have to disclose) and you have no unfair dismissal case. And it's a one week notice period for those that have worked less than 2 years with that employer.

[SimonMac]

He's not a dead weight, he has the power to decide what is discussed in parliament, so if he knows about IR35 and how it's impacting people he might be more inclined to agree to hear something.

[malvolio]

He's not a dead weight, he has the power to decide what is discussed in parliament, so if he knows about IR35 and how it's impacting people he might be more inclined to agree to hear something.

He will only listen if a strong financial case can be made that counters HMT and HMRC's position - which, before we get all excited, has been shown to be wrong on several levels already - or if right now he will lose a lot of votes.

There are 5 million votes held by freelance workers of various shades, so assume 60% do actually vote, that's 3 million votes, of which probably 40% (according to the latest polls) will go to the Tories, so that's 1.2 million spread across the 650 seats, roughly half of which are certain Tory wins anyway. So probably not all that significant...

[northernladuk]

And if they have any clue about Ir35 they'll only listen if your argument is clear and correct. Start getting it wrong and they'll just switch off and could even crystallise any opinion they may already have that HMRC have a good point.

This is the bit I think the OP is going to fall over at and make the situation worse rather than better so IMO he should be dropping this idea.