Skip to main content

Government are downplaying the effect of T&S changes on supply teachers

Paystream News

Michelle Derungs

Tuesday 19th Jan, 2016

A tax expert has recently stated that the Government is purposely downplaying the impact that changes to Travel and Subsistence (T&S) will have on supply teachers after a Baroness unsuccessfully petitioned ministers for questions regarding the changes.

CEO of trade body PRISM, Crawford Temple, recently met with Baroness Sharp to discuss the growing cause for concern with the upcoming changes to T&S and asked for her help in raising awareness on the matter.

Baroness Sharp, a former economist and Lib Dem peer tabled a question in the House of Lords, bringing to light the potential damage these changes could have on the education industry, with supply teachers being unable to claim tax relief on travel and subsistence.

The response from Lord O'Neill of Gatley, admitted on behalf of the Government, that they had not yet taken into account the impact these changes would have on the education sector.

PRISM's research has shown that contractor supply teachers would lose on average £3,252 per year.

Crawford Temple added "I am extremely grateful to Baroness Sharp for helping to raise this issue. The Government has once again revealed itself to be totally complacent over the damage this policy will do in classrooms up and down the country."

With less than three months until these changes are set to take place, PRISM are continuing to push their YES2T&S campaign which fights against the tax changes and brings to light the effect these changes will have on the industry, highlighting that the abolishment of T&S will drive wage costs higher for many sectors.

PRISM also highlight how contractors who operate in certain industries including education, healthcare, IT and construction who have benefited from the tax relief T&S provides will be subject to a 20% cut in pay overnight.

Lord O'Neill of Gatley went on to say that "The planned changes will put supply teachers employed through an intermediary on the same terms as other supply teachers, either contracted directly, or through an agency contract."

In response to this Crawford Temple said that "The Government may claim a level playing field but you don't see ministers insisting that contractors are given the same perks and securities as full-time employees. In fact, these rule changes could mean that full-time employees are able to claim more expenses than the contractors."

Crawford further went on to discuss how Lord O'Neill's comments were a means to distract us from the vital role contractors have played in repairing the British economy by providing a no-strings attached labour work force.

Back to the Top