After 20 years, people's love affair with CICs seems to waning (or, did anyone else spot that CICs are now becoming rarer in the wild?)

I've always had a personal interest in the government's flagship legal form for social enterprises, the Community Interest Company (CIC), for lots of different reasons.

And I find myself regularly revisiting various published data sets about them - not (always) for idle curiosity, but usually because at least once a year I'm asked to write a feature article about them, or offer comment as part of a national programme or event. And I always try and make sure I'm speaking/writing from a place of actual fact, rather than regurgitating truth illusions about them...

Now, if you know my reputation in relation to CICs, then you may be thinking that I'm about to talk about the data published by the CIC Regulator into how many investigations they've opened in response to complaints and concerned raised with them about the conduct of CICs. Sorry - I'm not, although this number (and trend) is worryingly still zero, despite public frustrations shared by the Fundraising Regulator earlier this year about complaints people are making to them about CICs; and the BBC, Police, and others publicly raising concerns about CICs last year...

I'm instead looking at trend lines - those things you can draw on a chart that show a pattern between a set of numbers that keep changing each year.

I've been tracking data annually, as published by the CIC Regulator, about how many CICs they register each year, and how many they agree to wind up (spoiler: the closure rate of CICs is broadly the same as for all regular private companies, and always seems to have been). 

This is a pretty chaotic chart at first glance, but when you ask excel to plot the 'trend line' (the overall year on year average based on all the numbers across all the years), then there suddenly appears to be a tipping point emerge:

Somewhere around 2023, the average rate at which new CICs are forming (their year on year % growth) became less than the average rate at which they're being wound up (how many are wound up that year as a % of the overall total).

Which means that unless something shifts (and its hard to see what, after the announcement earlier this year that the CIC Regulator will be being wound up itself before the next general election, with no real detail of what this means for existing or future CICs), then CICs will become increasingly fewer in number (based on more of them will be being wound up than are being registered to replace them).

I wondered aloud several years ago if the honeymoon for CICs might be over in light of the exponentially growing number of complaints people were making about them to the CIC Regulator (none of which were ever acted on) - but this data which now shows how people are now choosing them (or not), seems to suggest that 20 years after they were launched as part of a government policy agenda, the honeymoon for them really is now over?

I'd like to apologise to all my fellow freelancers

I recently had an invitation to meet with the Government's Small Business Commissioner, after I was recognised by the new national Fair Payment Code as being the UK's first freelancer to gain this certification (and at the top gold level too!).

I'd already worked with their office to help them review and adapt their application criteria for this standard, (which originally excluded most of us freelance/self-employed types from being able to apply - because most of us don't have accountants, or use expensive accounting software), so that we could be on a slightly leveler playing field as everyone else. And this additional 'going beyond' made me think that the Commissioner might be especially interested in my ideas and experiences? (hence the invitation).

This invitation seemed a good opportunity for to me to help government bodies better understand just how important we are to the wider economy (and maybe a little more deserving of recognition in its policy?), if for no other reason than because I know from most of my conversations with a lot of my peers over the years, that we're actually much better than larger private businesses at paying our suppliers on time.

But as an unpaid carer, I had to decline the invitation - the Commissioner's office said I'd have to travel all the way into central London to meet with them in person: I live way 'up north', so the time needed for the travel wasn't possible against my ongoing caring responsibilities (which ironically, I'm not eligible for any support with, because government policy doesn't recognise that freelancers can also be carers). Despite offering to meet by zoom, or enter in an email dialogue, they simply said "sorry you can't take up the invitation, but keep up all the good work you're doing as an unpaid carer".

So to all my fellow freelancers out there - I'm sorry I wasn't able to represent us to government when I had a clear opportunity to. 

But hopefully more of us will start to submit ourselves to be certificated by the Fair Payment Code now that the application process allows us to, and the subsequent number of us doing so against other types of businesses might prompt the Commissioner to invite some of us round for tea and biscuits in the future, to re-start the conversation that I wasn't able to?  

Why I really signed up to the Fair Payment Code

Earlier this year I became one of the first businesses in the UK (and the first sole trader) to be certificated by the new Fair Payment Code (and at the top tier level, too!). 

This new standard is part of the government's wider attempts and efforts to encourage business growth, investment, etc by helping to make sure money is flowing around our economy in ways that benefit all of us (and isn't getting 'stuck' in the pockets of a few bigger businesses, at the expenses of the lots and lots of small businesses who collectively employ most people).

Over the first few months since the Code (and its first cohort of pioneer awardees) was officially launched, I've seen lots of my fellow certificated businesses share the reasons why they chose to submit themselves to the rigour and scrutiny that the application process for it entails.  Most of these are probably what you'd expect:

- it helps them build more resilient supply chains;

- it makes them more trustworthy with commissioners, investors, etc

- and it helps them better attract talent when they're recruiting, by showing how they're a firm you wouldn't be embarrassed to work for.

However, as you might expect, my motivations were a little different: 

I've always been open in stating my intention to pay all invoices within 24 hours of my receiving them, which has led to my current recognition by the Organisation for Responsible Businesses; the Good Business Charter; PayOnTime; and the previous government Prompt Payment Code.

And that's because ultimately I don't want to be a d*ck - I hate it when I'm paid late by my clients, so why would I further their bad practices by making others similarly suffer when I could do something about it?

I also saw lots of the other big businesses alongside me on the initial list of awardees patting themselves on the back for getting the bronze and silver levels of certification (which means they pay up to 90 days after you give them your bill). But if I can hit gold (guaranteed paying within 30 days) without having dedicated finance managers, access to investment and bank loans, etc in the way they have, then how come my practices are somehow so much better than theirs?

What's stopping bigger businesses from hoarding cash, which not only causes more smaller firms like ours to increase the risk of going bust, but also contributes to likelihood of the wider economy going into a recession, which would hurt all of us?

* recessions aren't caused by an economy running out of money, but by people and businesses stopping spending money in it - like not paying their bills when they're supposed to...

Winning gold (for getting money out of my business the quickest)

I've recently been named as one of the first businesses in the UK economy to be recognised under the Government’s flagship Fair Payment Code - a new standard that aims to challenge practices of late payment, which see small businesses currently losing nearly £2bn each year that they could otherwise be investing for growth, new job creation, etc[1]. 

And to make this recognition it even more special, I'm not only the only sole trader/freelancer to make the list, but I've also been given the gold-level badge, too! 

Given that the code awards businesses against three levels (bronze, silver, and gold), and I'm tiny compared to all the others recognised by it, it's probably safe to say that there's some red faces amongst them - if I can achieve this top level standard ahead of them, without the resources of their finance departments, access to lines of credit, etc, then what’s stopping them from doing the same?

I've always aimed to pay all invoices I receive within 24 hours – not just because I know how important it is to me as a micro enterprise to be paid promptly, but also because late payment practices force too many businesses to be wound up before their time. In turn, this means their plans to continue to grow our wider shared economy are lost; and people’s livelihoods are destroyed, forcing more families into poverty. And I can’t sleep with my conscience if I’m not doing all I can to avoid contributing to this problem.

In the past, my payment practices have been recognised by the Organisation of Responsible Business, the Good Business Charter, the previous Prompt Payment Code, and my being a registered Pay On Time supporter. This latest recognition highlights not just my own professional standards and commitments to fellow businesses of all types, but also the importance of micro enterprises and the self-employed like me, who are quietly and collectively working to strengthen our wider economy for the benefit of us all.

For more about the new Fair Payment Code -https://www.smallbusinesscommissioner.gov.uk/new-fair-payment-code/

---

[1] https://elitebusinessmagazine.co.uk/finance/item/how-are-we-still-talking-about-late-payments

Caring and screwed - how the government criminalises and forces unpaid carers into poverty (and traps them there)

It seems to be a recurring cyclical message from government of all colours - their recognition of the value and importance of those of us who provide unpaid care to our family, friends, and neighbours.

But recent a recent National Audit Office report into the 'carer's allowance scandal' (how unpaid carers have been overpaid benefits and were seemingly refusing to pay the government back), reveals that the actions of our government (whichever colour badge they wear) completely contradict these expressions and apparent commitment of support for us:

Earlier in 2024, the right to Carers Leave for salaried employees was introduced, as part of an attempt to prevent people being forced to quit their jobs because of the often impossible task of having to balance an employers needs and expectations, with the needs of the person/people we care for. However, most of us who would be eligible to ask for this new legal right can't afford to do so, as it's unpaid - and as carers we're already more likely to be in poverty (even while working) that non-carers. This means that roughly 600 people EVERY DAY are still being forced to leave paid work.   

The actual design of the carers allowance benefit (at the heart of this 'scandal') means 91% of us aren't eligible to even begin to apply for it (I'm statemented as the sole unpaid carer for 3 immediate family members, but can't meet the qualifying criteria of it to even begin the application form). And if you already receive a state pension, you're automatically ineligible for it!

If you are lucky enough to be able to apply for carers allowance, and be awarded it, then you can't have a combined total personal income of more than £12,200 (made up of the roughly £8,000 cap on what you can earn, and the approximate £4,200 of carers allowance payments). Compare that to the national average salary of £37,000 (government's office of national statistics) and poverty line calculated by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation of £28,000 to have a minimum standard quality of life. And to further 'rub salt in the wound', if you do get this support for yourself, the person you're caring for may find that their personal benefits are cut..! https://www.gov.uk/carers-allowance/effect-on-other-benefits  

Which brings us to the recent National Audit Office report about carers being prosected and taken to court for overpayments they received (based on their weekly earnings sometimes exceeding the £151 maximum allowed).  https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/carers-allowance 

This report found that the typical overpayment a carer has received is £988.

To put that in context using the earlier figures in this post, that equates to:

• 3 months of full carers allowance;
• 4% of what's needed for a person to have a minimum standard quality of life (remember that the currently rules on carers allowance means a person is already over 50% short of being able to achieve this!)
• 3% of the average wage in the UK (= 1.5 weeks' wages)

And HMRC and the DWP are keen to recover these overpayments, by forcing carers who are already struggling and are in poverty (because the government's rules force them to be so - remember the limit on what you're allowed to earn?), to endure even more hardship, because of mistakes in these overpayments that these same government bodies recognise and admit to making themselves:

• the government are x5 more likely to chase the debt than forgive it (even though it's relatively little - see above);
• we have a 50/50 chance that in their chasing for these amounts, that they'll instigate a 'civil action' to get the money back off us - taking us to court, which will damage our credit rating, and so keep us in poverty into the future...

But why should this matter to you, dear reader, if you don't have caring responsibilities?

Well, as unpaid carers, we save the wider economy £162 BILLION EACH YEAR. The current total overpayments on carers allowance is £252million - less than 2% of this benefit of savings that the state already enjoys because of our efforts and sacrifices.

So, dear government, how about a little compassion and actual recognition of the precarious state we unpaid carers are in: instead of constantly forcing us (and the people we care for) further into poverty, actually reform carers allowance and support properly?

Otherwise, you might find that we can no longer continue to afford to be able to act in these ways, and you'll have to find that extra £162bn each year (which is equivalent to over 90% of the the £179bn NHS budget).   

how the tax system unfairly disadvantages smaller businesses (like mine)

As a non-VAT registered business (like half of all the other business registered in the UK), I can't reclaim the tax I'm charged by my suppliers on my running costs (utilities, marketing, insurances, equipment, etc).

This means my overheads and running costs are up to 20% higher than they might be otherwise if I were - and puts me at an unfair financial disadvantage against other firms who are VAT-registered (because they don't have to cover costs in the same way I do, in their being up to 20% lower...).

So, I hear you reasonably ask, why don't I simply register for VAT and stop griping about this?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that if I did I would likely price myself out of being able to win a lot of the work I currently do with smaller charities, community businesses, social enterprises, and the like: once VAT registered I would be legally required to pay the government up to 20% of all the fees I received from clients and customers (before costs) - so to avoid bankrupting myself, this means I'd need to add this additional amount to the invoices I generate. And as most of these groups in turn aren't VAT registered themselves, this means that they suddenly wouldn't be able to afford me: my price would be going up 20% overnight - but I wouldn't be benefitting from any of that additional fee, in having to pass it straight back to the government...

And is that fair? Well, at the time of this blog, there's increasing outcry about the rising cost of petrol and diesel - but as part of this, no-one seems to be pointing out that at least half of what we pay for this commodity is actually tax imposed by the government....

 

Tax is an emotive issue - many people seem to want to avoid paying as much of it as they can, and there are whole industries that exist to this end (for example, did you know that contracts awarded by the government in recent years have been to companies who've knowingly evaded paying nearly £20BILLION that should have been due in taxes?)

Some people feel that they're justified in this stance because they don't trust how the government uses the monies we pay in tax. And whilst I do have sympathy with this, governments change over time. My own position is that I want to try and be as consistent and honest with myself as I can, and so in tax, as with so many other things, I seem to go against 'accepted wisdom', in that I'm always making conscious decisions to increase my tax liability wherever I can... 

https://thirdsectorexpert.blogspot.com/2015/11/bonkers-why-im-staying-as-sole-trader.html

So whilst this post may have started off as a whine about VAT, now you're reaching its conclusion you'll hopefully realise that it's actually about trying to encourage us to have a wider and more grown up debate about tax than we might usually...

sharing squeaky bum moments, swearing, and bread - my contributions to European Freelancers Week 2021

Each year, there are initiatives and campaigns to help highlight the contribution that freelancers (like me) make to our economy and society, and also the realities and challenges we face in being overlooked in government business policy (including being taxed at higher rates than other types of employees).

One such initiative is European Freelancers Week, which each year stages a week (and 2 weekends) of events, gatherings, and conversations across Europe.

This year, part of its programme was an on-line conversation hosted by Freelance Heroes, and I found that my calendar wasn't demanding that I be delivering a workshop or meeting with a client at the time, so took the opportunity to 'click in'.

Now, my intention of doing this was to listen in to others' experiences, insights, and ideas, as part of the wider CPD framework I've designed for myself over the last 16 years - helping me better reflect on my own thoughts and practices.

But as the conversation progressed, one of the key participants had to offer apologies and leave early, and the host of the call spotted I was watching along and press-ganged me into joining the panel - with no intention to have been an active part of any of the EFweek2021 events this year, I hadn't given any thought to what I might contribute or argue...

(I start to appear at around the 34:30 mark - https://youtu.be/vo_-ACnhzyE?t=2070) 

Watching the call back, I realise that my unscripted and spontaneous offerings (which saw me talking about squeaky bum moments, swearing live, and the importance of bread), may not have been what people might have expected to be hearing about - but in the spirit of EFweek2021 being about allowing us to all share our voices with each other in mutual encouragement and support, it's hopefully added something to the mix that enriched the overall experience?

laser discs, pagers, and social accounting

History is littered with examples of technologies and systems that were of higher standards and quality, but which were supplanted by inferior products and offers.

And that's the frame I want you to have in mind in this piece on 'social accounting' - a practice that dates back centuries, and in recent years, has seen substantive growth in interest in it through the adoption of Social Accounting, SROI, and such like which businesses and social enterprises have developed amongst themselves.

In large part, this has been driven by government interest in how public services can provide more 'bang for its buck' - starting in 2001 as a policy aspiration, this led to the introduction of legislation to start to mandate how the delivery of government contracts should now include going 'above and beyond' the core deliverables to generate wider benefits to communities and society at large. 

This drive by government is in turn largely responsible for the emergence of 'TOMs' - a relative newcomer to this arena of reporting social impact and value (it wasn't until 2017 that it's first framework was released). And whilst many who've been working in the impact sector for some time aren't fully convinced by it, it's quickly gaining traction as the de facto/go to model for local authorities and other public sector bodies to design and understand how social value will be being created and should be recorded and evidenced in the services they commission and contract.

And that creates a tension in how our services and activities are designed and managed - should the impacts that they can create be constrained to the narrow focus that TOMs has pre-defined (and in doing so, ignoring the wider value we create through how we work); and also only consider our impact through the lens of what it can be financially valued at? (which may make reporting simpler, but misses the point that some things are valuable but can't be reduced to a £). 

But it's not just TOMs - the housing sector created the 'HACT' framework in 2012 to identify and monetise services relating to where and how we live, and the construction industry is also piloting a new national value standard.

Such developments not only add to the confusion over how we should best approach thinking about, and understanding, the ways that our activities and services create benefit in the wider world and for the people and communities whose lives we touch. This is further complicated in that the resources associated with each of these new standards can make it hard to be able to justify adopting more than one of them.

So it seems we have a choice - do we stick with models of social accounting that many feel are of a higher rigour and relevance, and go the way of the laser discs and pagers; or do we accept that the world is shifting around us in ways we can't control, and pragmatically change our thinking and practices so we remain 'in the game' along with everyone else?

It feels like we're approaching another 'betamax vs vhs' showdown, and maybe this is one time that although we feel we're working to higher standards, we have to accept that to remain able to engage with commissioners, funders, and others, we have to shift how we think about how we report our impact to a 'lower standard', in order that we're not 'left out in the cold'... 

why the lifeline of SEISS may bankrupt us next year...

At the start of the pandemic, roughly 5 million of us were self-employed.

At the start of the pandemic, government made financial support available to business owners (in the form of grants linked to business rates) and employees (in the form of the furlough scheme).

Only after what seemed an eternity of panic and doubt, did government make an equivalent scheme for us in the form of the SEISS (except about half of us aren't actually eligible to apply for it!).

At the time, may argued that this was further evidence that despite their rhetoric about entrepreneurship, the current administration don't actually understand or care about us unless we're employing lots of people (despite the fact that we pay more tax than our employed counterparts, and other types of business owners). And this led to lobbies, campaigns, and the formation of #ExcludedUK to try and challenge this discrimination.

For those of us who are eligible, the SEISS grant was a lifeline (because even if we can land paying work, we all know it can sometimes take months to get paid which means weeks of little, if any, income to keep the lights on with).

But for those of us who began breathing sighs of relief, having gone through the small print and talked with others who haven't, we may actually be worse off next year for having received it, than if we'd not been eligible for it in the first place...

Unlike the business rate grants and employee furlough schemes, the SEISS grant carries a clause that says we may have to pay it back if HMRC deem that we managed to end this current financial year in a better place than we feared we would (perhaps because in the last few weeks of it, we suddenly land a large contract or finally get paid those back-invoices we never thought would be honoured). But we don't know exactly what the threshold for that looks like, or might be, beyond terms and phrases that are as equally vague as "substantial meal" is for pub landlords.

We'll only know if this is the case after we've done our tax returns, and as the SEISS grants are taxable, we'll have already paid about 20% of them back as tax. 

So if HMRC deem that we shouldn't have received the grant after all, the SEISS amount will magically transform from a grant into a very short-term loan that carries at least 20% interest - 20% being the amount we've already paid in tax on it, and then there's additional interest on the full amount again unless we repay it straight away. It's cheaper to take a bounce-back loan, or arrange  (and you have more time to repay it).

But there's more...

Lets say that you also pay child maintenance through the Child Maintenance Agency. They calculate what you should pay annually, based on your last tax return. Which means that for next year, the SEISS grant(s) you received will be counted as part of your income/earnings (because it's taxable income), pushing you into paying a higher amount of child maintenance. But if you've had to pay the grant (plus at least 20% interest) back, then they've fixed your amount too high. You're already facing the threat of legal action from HMRC to repay money that you no longer have, and now are also being forced to pay levels of child maintenance that haven't been worked out properly that will stretch you even further than you are now.

The pandemic and lack of government support for the self-employed has already seen nearly half a million of us giving up our enterprises, with many more seriously considering doing the same by the end of this year.

My concern is that the SEISS grant that initially seemed like a lifeline to some, actually shows that the government who've designed them have a contempt for people who are self-employed based on larger business owners and salaried workers not facing any such fears, because of the grant support they've received has no such risks attached.

All we've ever asked for as the self-employed is parity with our employed counterparts (who already enjoy far greater privileges than us in terms of lower taxes, pension contributions, better pay, and such like). Initially this parity was about making sure we can all have access to some form of support, but maybe we should also be asking for this support to be equally non-discriminatory in the risks it forces us to take when/if accepting it?

UPDATE AS AT 10 MAY 2021

and so the panic of having to repay these grants begins (but still with very unclear guidance...): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/penalties-for-not-telling-hmrc-about-self-employment-income-support-scheme-grant-overpayments-ccfs47

sources and references

https://www.statista.com/statistics/318234/united-kingdom-self-employed/ 

https://thirdsectorexpert.blogspot.com/2018/02/who-in-their-right-mind-would-be-self.html

https://www.accountancyage.com/2020/08/07/self-employment-income-support-is-it-payback-time/

https://www.excludeduk.org/excluded-uk-an-inclusive-alliance-for-the-excluded 

https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/K-November/Hours-and-incomes-of-self-employed-workers-stayed-low-over-summer 

https://www.altfi.com/article/5997_uk-smes-now-wait-an-average-of-23-days-for-late-payments

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55129828 

becoming deaf, dumb, and blind, during the lock-down

Nearly all of us are currently subject to a national 'lock-down' during an unprecedented pandemic.

And all of us are responding in different ways to the challenges that this 'new world' we now find ourselves living and working in present.

After the initial panic, patterns seem to be starting to stabilise: we're getting used to having to que for an hour (or longer) to get into the supermarket, and then once we're inside for it to take 2-3 times as long to get around as we used to be able to do our shop in, in order to practice social distancing and limiting contact with fellow shoppers and store staff.

But for many, the revelation that they can now work from home using video conferencing and remote access, and which people seem to already be developing habits around, seems to suggest that many will struggle to want to go back to the drudgery of commuting once we're out of the other side of this (whenever that may be).

But there's something about working from home, and also the wider implications of how as enterprises and business we fumble our way forwards through this, that no-one really wants to seem to talk about:

1) what it your internet connection goes down? I've heard of several people and small businesses who have been essentially excluded from the world completely after routine line installs and upgrades fell foul of 'human error', leaving them deaf, dumb, and blind to the world...

2) and what it your tech dies? My laptop's hard drive failed at the start of this week - and it's unlikely that I'll be able to get it anywhere for repair for months, so in the face of having already had nearly all my earning work cancelled by clients already, and an uncertain wait to find out if I'll be able to access the self-employed income support scheme, I've had to pay out several hundreds of pounds unexpectedly to order to buy a new one, and hope that it can be delivered sometime in the next 2 weeks... (in the meantime, my girlfriend has very kindly offered me the use of hers, from which I'm typing this).

3) Gurus and experts all seem to be extolling the virtues of 'pivoting' our business models - but encouraging us to do so in ways that assume that it's only our current market place or customers that are being disrupted - this is nothing like any of us have lived through before, and nothing that was ever conceived of by the academics and speakers who developed these models and frameworks. So for us businesses and enterprises already facing an immediate uncertain future because of cash shortfalls, our longer term planning is also compromised by the models we're being presented with to reinvent ourselves through having been developed for different times...

4) And finally, what happens after the summer for education bodies?

Universities and Colleges quickly moved to continue to offer teaching and classes using on-line platforms, and replace exams with assignments. But within a few months, these will become the norm for many students, who must surely then begin to wonder why they need to raise the money to live on or near a campus to be able to engage with their further and higher education in the future, when they can access it equally from wherever they find themselves living now?

Like many, I can't see that we're ever going to fully return to living and working as we were at the start of 2020, but I wonder how many waves of shock, panic, and fear this pandemic will successively unleash on us before we can all feel its over - and what these will do in turn to our work, learning, and relationships as societies, communities, and economies.

Hopefully the time that the lockdown offers us to start to carefully think about these things will mean that we don't emerge from the pandemic only to fall into the next global panic... 

what I'm doing to help fix a £14.9bn problem that's killing our economy...

There's a problem in the wider business community that's affecting everyone (and our livelihoods), and it's getting worse every year.

It's a problem that people struggle to feel able to talk about or openly challenge.

And it's a problem that's increasing the risk of pushing us back into recession, and leading to further business closures and job losses than we're already seeing and hearing about in the media.

And it's not red tape or (mental) health - it's money. More specifically, the challenge of late payment: customers who commission us to deliver work and goods for them, and then suddenly get out the big book of excuses when it comes to paying us what was agreed, so that they can hold onto the money that's rightly ours for longer.

It disproportionately hits small businesses and the self employed like me, as we don't have big financial reserves to cash flow the work, or employ finance teams who can chase up the money on our behalf (we have to take time out of earning from other work to do that ourselves). We also can't easily use the courts to chase the money, as that costs more cash and time to pursue, and also risks damaging our public reputation.

Late payment is also stifling the wider economy - most small businesses now don't feel that they can raise the money they need to invest in their growth and maintaining their competitiveness because late payment is causing problems for their cash-flow (which makes it harder to repay any loans), and they're having to take out more time to chase customers, rather than deliver more paying work elsewhere (further reducing their cash in, and profitability). And such declines in economic activity, production, and employment are often cited as causes of recession...

And when the cash runs out for us because we've not been paid the money we're owed - it's game over. Our enterprises fold, and we lose our livelihoods along with anyone we're employing. And for what reason? So that some larger corporate can hold onto the cash (which they already have plenty of) for a little longer.

Sadly it's not just big bad private businesses who are guilty of this. Government and the public sector are amongst amongst the worst offenders for not paying on time; and some of my work with charities and social enterprises has also seen this sector being guilty of not paying when bills fall due as well...

It's currently a £14.9bn problem, with the typical small business owed £11,000 and spending nearly a day a week trying to get the money paid that they're owed.

£14.9bn seems an overwhelming amount that nothing can surely be done about. Government have created a post of late payment commissioner to help change this culture, but they've had little (if any?) impact.

So what can a sole trader like me do about it? Well, I can make a pubic commitment to always and openly paying my suppliers on time (if not early) through being certified as a 'Pay On Time' supporter.

I can constructively challenge customers and clients who start to drag their feet in paying me what they owe me for my efforts on their behalf by using the Late Payment Act legislation (very easy and surprisingly effective!).

And I can do this openly and in a way that hopefully encourages others to start to do the same - and if you're reading this, that that means I'm challenging you to do the same!

Government have shown that they can't fix this problem, but the tools are there for us if we have the conviction, leadership, and resolve to get the job done ourselves. 

Who's with me?

tap dancing in the House of Commons

Some of you will know that I'm not big on formalities, nor one to readily 'doff the cap' in restraining myself from speaking out or causing disruption for the sake of manners.

Which meant that I was surprised to be invited to the House of Commons earlier this week, after being shortlisted in the national enterprise support awards from IOEE and SFEDI.

Although my famous fez didn't make the journey down to London with me, I was able to share the experience with my girlfriend (although she's not new to the whole awards ceremonies at Parliament, having done similar a few years back, but with the bonus of guided tours by Ministers!). 

And I'd encourage anyone who has the opportunity to add their partners as a "+1" to any business event like this to do so, as being there with her made me much more aware of just how I present myself in such settings, (and reassuringly/worryingly that I'm not that different in private to my public persona!).

Sadly, despite being shortlisted for 2 of the awards, I was pipped to the post on both of them, but the event was a rare opportunity to re-engage with some universities and sector bodies I'd started to loose touch with. 

The setting itself was also suitably prestigious, although the lack of tables for dancing on made me wonder if the organisers had been tipped off about my coming in advance..? 

But despite this, I still managed to thrown down some moves with a tap dance under the main chandelier in the Central Lobby before security were able to move me along...

based on official statistics, my support to enterprise is far better than what the government pays for...

Business support comes in all sorts of forms, in all sorts of places, and from all sorts of people.

But the question that all entrepreneurs face when navigating the options out there, should be "is it any good?"

And there are all sorts of ways in which you can start to consider the quality, validity, appropriateness, (and even legality!) of the support you find and the advice you're offered through it:

- what qualifications does the person have? (but as I've shown before, a qualification is only an assurance that the person has been taught something, it's usually no indication of how knowledgeable or competent they actually are...)

- what recommendations have others made about them? (but again, I've evidenced how you can't trust any such endorsements a person may have received...)

So what's left? Well, how about statistics relating to performance? After all, it's how the success of any contract or project is usually considered, and the government's flagship business support programme, the growth hubs, are regularly applauded on the basis of these.

But the latest published self-congratulatory statistics about the performance of these growth hubs suggest that they may not actually be that great in practice, and when I compare my own performance against theirs, I seem to come out in a far better light:

Growth Hub - only 5% of all businesses who contact them actually get some 'real' (in person) support

Me - only about 5% of people who contact me by websites, social media, email, or phone don't get the opportunity to have a 'real' (in person) contact and support

Growth Hub - 87% customer satisfaction

Me - 98% customer satisfaction

Maybe this is why I was named as one of the UK's top10 business advisors by Government, and have a trophy cabinet of national and international awards, and the growth hubs don't?

Or maybe it's a case that there's are lies, damned lies, and statistics...?

the best national business support policy may be no policy at all...?

I recently found myself on an 'expert panel' at a forum convened by ISBE (the Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship) on the future of business support policy in the UK, as part of their ongoing conversation into informing and shaping what a new national policy should be.

(OK - to clarify, I was technically there as Leigh Sear of SFEDI and the IOEE, but as he'd been called away overseas, he asked me to fill in for him, hence the confusion of my having 2 names at the forum.)

And while I shared various stories and approaches to business support with those present, I thought it might also be useful to capture here some of the other speakers' arguments and discussions with those in the room that stuck with me, as well as some of what I took away that I'm still mulling over, and that will likely also inform my own ongoing activity in this field:

The definitions debate

With the almost fetishism of high growth in business support policy, it seems that the definition of what constitutes 'high growth' may be too exclusive in excluding many businesses who are seeing significant increases in revenues, but aren't matching this with creating lots of direct employment opportunities (such as software firms, and something that will be be increasingly the norm with the rise of the 'gig economy').

As a result, many businesses who have the potential to contribute greatly to our economy are being sidelined and overlooked - surely to our cost...?

Not a 'bottomless well' (of growth)

It also seems that business growth isn't something that can be sustained - various data sets shared by the ERC(https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ERC-InsightPap-HartDanes.pdf) all indicate that firms can only experience grow for about their first 5 years, and then all mature and plateau; so if policy is to prioritise support for growth, we need to be more open and honest in recognising that businesses are only able to do so for a time limited period.

Measures of success

There seemed to be a general consensus that we need to use more that just financial measures to consider success in business growth - and that these should reflect the aspirations and motivations of the entrepreneurs and owners behind the businesses.

However, I've an idea that whatever these measures are should share the same characteristics as metrics in financial accounts: that they can be bench-marked externally to help us better consider how we compare and contrast with others to fully appreciate just how successful we really are, and that they can be aggregated to form data sets and evidence bases to allow us to better represent and lobby on their behalf.

Whose benefit is policy actually for?

Discussions around the different players active in the business support arena raised a question about who business support should be for, and who should be paying for it. Public policy should take a utilitarian approach, facilitating and enabling the most benefit for the most people, and in the real world, this means that the State can't appease everyone, or provide for all business types and needs (hence it's prioritising of high growth over sole traders as it believes this will create the most impact for more people).

However, we're seeing private firms starting to offer accelerator and incubator programmes, and also sponsor others' enterprise development and growth initiatives. So rather than try and create a single public policy that will encompass everyone, should we rather be taking an approach that uses simpler policy frameworks around different themes and types of enterprise/entrepreneur; better recognising that in some instances the private sector is better placed, and should be leading on elements of support?

The rationale (and risks) for enterprise education to be a recognised part of business support

There seemed to be agreement that any role Universities hold in delivering any policy around business support needs to include elements of enterprise education, and while there are good reasons for this, there are also some risks too - 

• teaching and encouraging entrepreneurship amongst students increases their future employability by developing skills that employers value
• degree apprenticeships creates opportunities for universities to capitalise on their role as a provider of learning, but there's no clear models for how Universities might best harness this new model (yet...)
• there's a risk that in some universities having linked their offer of enterprise support to that of national policy, many student startups are being 'lost' or 'fail to launch' as the University is too focused on encouraging high growth and Intellectual Property-based ventures
• with the rise of corporates taking active roles in offering business support (including where there may not be an immediately obvious business case for them to do so), there's a need for Universities to better co-ordinate their offer with these to capitalise on knowledge and expertise that both are developing - but tellingly, there was no presence from any such corporates at the Forum...

The holy grail: creating a pipeline of support for startup to high growth

Within any national policy that emerges, there will need be a recognition that encouraging new startups is just as important as supporting growth in existing businesses - but that its also difficult to ensure that this progression is smooth or able to be well managed. This is largely because of not only the sheer diversity of different business types and motivations, but also the plethora of support available to them at different stages and in different sectors.

In theory, Local Economic Partnerships should be well placed to better co-ordinate these support offers to maximise their potential for wider benefit, but the experience of many seems to be that owing to the governance models of LEPs not being inclusive or transparent enough, that such knowledge and co-ordination which could unlock the potential of many firms, isn't happening.

If we can only do one thing...

As a closing to the panel debate, a few straw polls were taken of people in the room, asking for shows of hands to gauge what the focus of national policy should be if it could only focus on one thing: more start-ups, or more scale-ups.

(Personally, I'm in favour of more start-ups: they create and encourage more diversity and choice in an ever-changing society; help us develop more resilience; and research shows that the larger firms tend not to stick around that long anyway - the FTSE100 has a churn rate of about 10% each year!)

Overwhelming the room voted in favour of more start-ups.

maybe social investment isn't that different after all..?

I was able to make it along to this year's "Working Capital" conference that was recently staged in Sheffield - a day to immerse myself in reflecting, arguing, sharing, and further exploring the wonderful world of 'social investment'.

Depending on who you speak with, Social Investment is either the next big thing (and has been for a few years...); is a market that's suffered failure in the past and needed interventions from government; or a smoke screen for covering the cuts to grants that sustain many charities and social enterprises...

money might not grow on trees, but these desktop garden
pots from Key Fund mean you can grow most other things 

The day offered a range of perspectives and stories: Cliff Prior of Big Society Capital stating openly what many are starting to whisper in hushed tones - social enterprise should be moving more towards retail and consumer markets because public commissioners are very tough nuts to either crack, or to change their behaviours; and Hazel Blears encouraging those same commissioners to do more to learn from each other to progress the social value act (but in doing seemingly having forgotten previous national initiatives over the last 20 odd years that were designed to do just that...).

But the impressions I'm left with (initially at least - as always, I'm open to others coming back to me to challenge me on these points) are:

• most of the specialist lenders to social enterprise make it difficult for the sector to borrow from them because they usually have repayment terms of only 5 years maximum. But in the private sector its not uncommon to 'refinance' a loan - it can often be hard to get a loan because you've no history of repaying debts; but once you start to, you can flip your loan to another lender on better terms... So what's to stop social enterprises getting what seem initially expensive loans in comparison with the high street banks who see them as being too risky, showing they can manage repayments, and then transfer the loan to their high street bank on better terms?

• the things that are important to those seeking investment (quick decision, affordable terms, flexibility), are the same as for any other type of organisation in any sector seeking a loan

• as a general movement, social investment seems to be a little bit too 'introspective' for my liking: NESTA undertake regular national surveys of social and alternative finance, which no-one referenced today. Without understanding how different 'flavours' of social finance compare to other finance types in how widely they're being used, how can we hope to make a best informed decision about where we should be investing our time in pursuing investment?

But but in all, a good day to reflect, see some friendly and familiar faces, and hopefully the start of most other enterprises' journeys into investment that will ultimately help them create bigger and better impacts on, and for, their respective communities.

who should we believe about how great (or not) being self-employed is?

I'm now into my 12th year of being a self-employed enterprise consultant-type. It was never part of a grand plan I have for my life, but rather necessity: I found myself needing to earn money to support my family, and at the time no-one was hiring, but some were offering work on contracts rather than payroll. And I've been hustling ever since.

Some readers of my bog will know how I've managed to use this status to clever effect in influencing national legislation and policy, and others may also recall the other impacts it's had on me (such as struggling to get to all the christmas parties clients invite me to...).

But there were 3 pieces of research published earlier this month that made me pause and reflect on how appropriate it is that we're all being increasingly encouraged to explore and pursue freelance careers, and also the apparent indifference of the government to us in the bulk of business support being directed to companies with lots of employees and such like:

1) being self-employed makes you happier and earns you more money (according to research by Intuit Quickbooks), but...

2) average earnings for the self-employed continue to fall far below that of their employed counterparts (according to data from the government)

3) being self-employed means your relationships with your family will suffer more (according to the Centre for the Modern Family)

so who should we believe if we're considering a freelance career? What sort of life could we reasonably expect in light of the above contradictory research, and what impact might it have on those close to us?

As for me - I didn't feel I had the luxury of a choice, and over the last 12 years I've tried to manage my role as best I can to try and create as much benefit as possible for those I've been supporting, and also the wider world ('cos of how my mum brought me up). It's been tough, but there have been various moments that I can't imagine I could have otherwise created, (many of which I've tried to chronicle here on my blog).

But the challenge with all this research (as I highlighted under 'Q' in my alternative entrepreneur's A-Z), is that it's all generalisations based on the group of people (who aren't you) that the researchers asked. And I have an idea that we're all so diverse and unqiue in our circumstances that any surveys like these can only point to general trends that may or may not be relevant to us - as with everything, we should look behind the headlines, consider if there are findings which speak into our circumstance, work out what we can do about them, and then just get on with it, and continue making our own path.