WHEN the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) submitted a five-point plan to the Chancellor of the Exchequer well in advance of the mini-Budget, the measures chosen were designed to be proportionate and affordable.
The primary focus of the plan was the crisis in business costs, with energy bills and employment costs exerting the most severe pressure on UK firms. The BCC argument was that the costs of doing business were just as important an issue as the cost of living crisis which was, albeit understandably, getting more political and media attention.
The BCC plan included a temporary winter reversal of employers’ National Insurance Contributions, a reduction in VAT on energy bills and a Covid-style energy costs support package for small and medium-sized businesses.
Three weeks ago, I was expressing surprise at how much further the mini-Budget had gone beyond the BCC submission. Now it turns out that there really is a limit to the financial markets’ appetite for government borrowing and the BCC’s caution was better judged after all.
There is some relief that there will still be support for business energy bills over the winter and that there is also scope for discussing the extension of that support for vulnerable sectors. The reversal of the rise in National Insurance Contributions remains in place as does the extension of capital allowances. Given the recent speed of events I cannot, of course, guarantee that any of the above remains true when these words are published. Whatever transpires the cost of doing business crisis has not gone away.
The BCC also requested that Ofgem be given a remit to supervise SME energy costs and that there should be a review of the Home Office Standard Occupations List that controls companies’ ability to solve both acute and chronic skills shortages through immigration. Neither of these last two measures was expected to involve extra demands on the Treasury. We will continue to press their case.
But the unravelling of the mini-Budget does not just take us back to the original position. Interest rates are now widely expected to be higher than they would otherwise have been with the Bank of England looking likely to raise them further and faster than previously hoped. That must surely have consequences for already anaemic trends in business investment. It will also be the final straw for many companies struggling with pandemic debts incurred through no fault of their own.
Equally alarming must be the implications of the UK Government’s fresh need to trim spending. The Chancellor when asked directly in Parliament for guarantees on specific capital investment projects would give no such reassurances. Everything is on the table.
Many of the projects Glasgow Chamber of Commerce is supporting for the expansion of Glasgow’s economy are capital investments. The Clyde Metro, the expansion of the Scottish Events Campus, the physical spaces needed to grow our three innovation districts, the re-purposing of empty city-centre premises and the transformation of our energy systems to meet our net zero targets, are all capital investments which would benefit from UK or Scottish Government support. We must hope that governments can be persuaded of the long-term importance of investments like these or will help design them to attract a greater contribution from private business. At the very least governments at all levels must be even more eager to remove obstacles to projects that the private sector is already keen to deliver.
That business hates uncertainty is now a cliché. But a cliché is usually borne from a basic truth. After a Brexit vote, a pandemic, supply chain disruptions, sustained skills shortages, a war in Ukraine, spectacular increases in energy costs and a draining diet of continuous political drama, many business leaders are running out of patience. Even entrepreneurs who thrive on disruption need a status quo to disrupt.
Is it too much to ask our governments in the coming weeks and months to strive for calmness, consistency and competence?
Stuart Patrick is Chief Executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here