Reader emails Graham Stringer demanding he answer the conference
Sent today ...
Mr Stringer,
Apparently the request I submitted via your department's WEB site as indicated in your UKTECH profile has been ignored or did not otherwise reach you. Please see below.
Please acknowledge receipt of this request by return Email.
Regards,
Request for Participation
You have submitted a conference paper on the UKTECH WEB site setting out the need for regulation in society and touching on IR35. Numerous points have been raised in response and other participants eagerly await your reply.
Your paper calls for a reasoned debate of the subject and liaison with business groups.
We cannot have a reasoned debate if you decline to participate and I respectfully request the participation of your department forthwith, preferably by you in person.
Your timetable as a minister may well be busy but perhaps you have not taken the trouble to examine the timings of some of the responses to your paper. Some of us regularly work very long hours to keep our businesses afloat but still find time to take part in discussions about these very serious issues. If your livelihood depended heavily on the outcome, perhaps you would too.
As someone remunerated from public funds, the least you can do as a public servant is to contribute to the debate you claim to want and have indeed initiated.
I would also add that I find some of what is implied by your text to be extremely offensive. As someone who has been running a legitimate business for 15 years and paying all taxes properly due under the law, I am not at all happy with your premise that freelance consultants operating in the IT field voluntarily choose this method of engagement as a means of tax avoidance. My client base was obliterated by the rise of "private taxation agents" following the regulatory changes in 1988. Prior to these regulations, my business was not incorporated. It was incorporated specifically because of those regulations and not as a vehicle for tax avoidance.
I would be grateful if you would address this point and the offensive suggestions in your original text on the WEB forum. I am particularly keen to see that the revised agency regulations are formulated in a manner that not only protects agency employees' rights but also ends the disgusting use of anti-competitive and restrictive practices by agents mediating between small and large businesses and by very large corporations directly.
It is not without good reason that agents operating in this manner are commonly referred to in the industry as "pimps". I maintain that small businesses are being subjected to "skills prostitution" and denied the opportunity to flourish naturally through the operation of these practices and that commercial regulation is therefore urgently required to end them. The draft revisions to the Employment Agency Regulations will, if implemented, merely make the situation worse.
If you are unclear how exactly these scams operate I am more than happy to clarify the issues for you.
Regards,
Mr Bond