Recruitment professionals are split down the middle on the issue of travel & subsistence (T&S) schemes, according to a survey by Recruiter, supported by labour provider Staffline.  

Critics of T&S schemes say the benefits of the tax relief from paying expenses rather than wages are not shared fairly with the workers, with the company operating the scheme pocketing the lion’s share of tax and NI savings, and pushing workers’ wages below minimum wage levels.

The online survey carried out last week on www.recruiter.co.uk reveals how recruiters are split on the issue.

The results show that 51% of respondents operate a T&S scheme, against 49% who don’t. And 42% agreed that the industry would be better off without them, with 38% disagreeing and 20% saying they didn’t know. 

In-house recruiters were equally divided, with four operating a T&S scheme and three not. Two in-house recruiters said they didn’t run a scheme on principle. 

Andy Hogarth, chairman and chief executive officer of Staffline, tells Recruiter: “This is  certainly an issue which is dividing the industry pretty evenly down the middle.”

The survey showed that 67% of recruiters operated a scheme willingly, however 24% said they felt forced to do so. Of the latter (with some respondents giving more than one reason), 77% said this was because the extra margin allowed them to be more competitive, while 46% said it was to increase margins, 38% cited client pressure and 24% said it was to improve the worker package. 

Of those who said they willingly operated a scheme, 75% said this was to improve temporary worker benefits, 39% to improve margins and 50% because it allowed them to be more competitive when pricing, again with some respondents listing more than one reason.

In total 110 recruiters responded, with 63% being agency recruiters, 6% in-house and 6% RPO providers. There was also 25% who did not respond to this question.