Self-Employment

Debate between Mark Garnier and Glyn Davies

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) for his helpful and useful comments. As he said, I will speak about the slightly more tangible and gritty problems facing businesses. Before getting into the meat of my speech, I am struck by how many MPs are in the Chamber and the fact that I cannot see one who has not been in business. It is remarkable that the Chamber is so full, although I am sorry not to see more support for the shadow Minister with responsibility for small businesses. It is incredible to see so many politicians here, all of whom have extensive business experience.

As my hon. Friend said, I want to speak specifically about taxation, regulation, access to finance and cash-flow management. For the purposes of clarity, we are interested today in self-employed people and those who employ fewer than five members of staff—small businesses and micro-businesses. It would be wrong to start my speech without highlighting some of the initiatives that the Government are already taking.

On finance for businesses, the Government are introducing measures to increase the availability of equity finance through venture capital trusts and improvements to the enterprise initiative scheme. They are making regional growth fund allocations for business opportunities and addressing tax initiatives, such as rolling over capital gains into new venture funding. The national loan guarantee scheme is seeking to push debt finance further down the line, and the emergence of community finance organisations, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) highlighted, is providing locally based informal financing opportunities.

On helping businesses with advice, my hon. Friend the Minister has recently announced three new websites. The Business Link website has an information section offering help on a range of business-related issues, including how to start up a new business. The “mentors me” website offers an opportunity not just for new businesses to find business mentors, but for business people to provide mentoring services. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) made the very good point that setting up a business is tough and that having the benefit of the experience of business people who have learned from their mistakes and can impart their wisdom to new businesses is incredibly important. Websites such as “mentors me” are a way of disseminating that information.

Finally, the improved Business Link website has a wide range of information on how to finance and grow a new or expanding business. However, were I to stand here praising the Government’s glorious achievements, many though they are, as I am sure all hon. Members agree, the Minister would have nothing to say, so I shall turn to some of the problems facing businesses. I hope that he will address some of them and explain how the Government can help and thereby reinforce the process of developing part of the economy that has so much potential for growth and is so liberating for a huge number of people.

I shall start with taxation. No one wants to pay tax, but if we all want to enjoy the wealth of services that the Government provide and to sort out the problems that we inherited, we accept that we must make a contribution to tax. But as we know, it is widely reported that the UK tax system is the most complex in the world. Whether that is true is a moot point, but irrespective of where we are in the ranking of complexity, the fact that we have tax complexity at all is completely at odds with any sort of entrepreneurial spirit that we may want to foster. The last thing a bright, young and enthusiastic business creator wants is to have that entrepreneurial spirit crushed by the dead hand of taxation regulation.

There are various simple answers. On national insurance, for example, the Chancellor has not only put in place a policy to help small businesses by giving employers a national insurance holiday for the first 10 employees, he is investigating doing away with that pointless and superfluous tax. That is definitely a noble direction, but things such as the accounting period for national insurance and PAYE and the fact that two forms must be filled in doubles the bureaucracy facing small businesses. Something as simple as dealing with that would be a quick fix.

We are familiar with the Federation of Small Businesses, which is an incredibly rich source of information on issues facing many small businesses. However, for micro-businesses and the self-employed, there is little specific data. The FSB definition of a small and medium-sized business is one with up to £25 million turnover and 250 employees. I do not know about other hon. Members, but certainly in Wyre Forest anybody bigger than that is quite a large employer locally, and there are few of them.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I agree from a standpoint of running a micro-business myself: I have been a farmer and my wife has been a restaurateur. Regulation, and the fear of it, is particularly damaging to a micro-business, because the individual running it simply has to have the capacity to deal with all these things. In a larger business, often other people can deal with such matters, but it is typical of the small and micro-businesses that we meet for one person to do so. That is incredibly difficult. Fear of regulation and not being able to deal with health and safety issues are probably more of a deterrent than anything else.

[Mark Garnier]

I will come to the regulatory burden in a minute. My hon. Friend is right. I have seen a turkey farm that has had to comply with huge industrial reporting requirements for toxic chemicals, because turkeys produce ammonia, but it also has to prove that it is not producing a great range of other chemicals. These are the unintended consequences of over-bureaucratic regulation.

The FSB provides a great deal of helpful data on business attitudes. Sticking with the taxation issue, 60% of FSB members—two thirds of businesses—complained that the UK tax system is not only too complex, but has a negative impact on their ability to take on more staff and expand.

Independent Financial Advisers (Regulation)

Debate between Mark Garnier and Glyn Davies

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier]

That is a recurring theme and I shall come on to that point, but the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. It has been raised by huge numbers of IFAs who have got in touch with me, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire and with many other Members.

The three aims that the FSA has talked about are, I believe, laudable in principle, overall. It is not our intention tonight to derail the retail distribution review, which will improve standards for consumers. I suspect that not a single professional in the industry would disagree with the overall principles. Indeed, Which?, the consumer champion, strongly supports the measures contained in the RDR, and states that its members

“firmly believe that the IFA industry is best placed to offer this advice”.

However, the devil is, as always, in the detail.

In addressing the problems, the FSA has, through the RDR, introduced issues that disproportionately affect the IFA community. The IFA trade organisation, the Association of Independent Financial Advisers—AIFA—suggested in evidence to the Treasury Committee that although some 30% of IFAs strongly supported the RDR and 40% were rather ambivalent towards it, 30% would not put up with the RDR. The 30% who are against the RDR suggest that it would be better to leave the industry altogether, so the community of IFAs would shrink significantly.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is particularly damaging in rural areas, where all the independent advisers are either one-man businesses or very small businesses, and that a huge proportion of the 30% who do not like the RDR are likely to come from such rural areas?

[Mark Garnier]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Small businesses in rural areas are likely to be most affected because they have so few resources in their offices. As a direct result, poorer communities in rural areas will be denied access to independent financial advice. That is not a good thing.

Lord Turner, the chairman of the FSA, suggested that reducing the number of IFAs might well reduce the overall cost of investor advice. How can reducing competition possibly result in improved service to consumers? The key issues facing the worried community of IFAs can be reduced to just a handful of salient points. The first concerns qualifications, which are probably the cause of the biggest mailbags on this subject. It has been said, perhaps a little harshly, that IFAs hold a qualification no better than that of a McDonald’s burger bar employee—a qualification and credit framework level 3 pass, which is equivalent to an A-level.

The RDR requires all financial advisers to attain the QCF level 4 pass and, in the broadest sense, that is not unreasonable. However, it does not take into account the fact that a great many IFAs have a wealth of experience but, with an average age of 47, little enthusiasm to start taking exams. It is estimated that the exams will require 100 hours of study for each of four modules—that is 400 hours of study. We must bear in mind the fact that that is for a full-time professional who needs to earn a living and who may, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) mentioned, be working by himself in a rural community with little support.