Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Celebrations & sledgehammers'

What a brilliant event the icm11 Awards Dinner was http://www.icm.org.uk/ - a magnificent venue, superb food and remarkable achievements by the Awards' nominees and winners, and the successful Graduates and Prizewinners. It was a real demonstration of the credit community at its best - a community at the heart of which the ICM proudly sits. Gyles Brandreth, the superb host for the evening, privately observed just how friendly the event was and how obviously proud credit professionals are of the community to which they belong.

Gyles had a way of engaging with all of the audience, from our retiring President to the newly qualified student. He also highlighted current themes, one of which is the considerable debate that is ongoing around the Lord Chancellor's statement that he intends to make squatting a criminal offence in England and Wales.

Some parts of the enforcement community, and particularly Claire Sandbrook of Shergroup, are arguing that this is the wrong approach. She believes that the existing powers should be enforced more rigorously, that the court application process needs to be simplified, and that the time taken to grant an order to evict should be accelerated. The public, she argues, would be better served by having a process that enables necessary orders to be obtained and passed to High Court Enforcement Officers within days rather than the weeks it takes currently.

She could well be right; sometimes changing something already in place is preferable to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, particularly when the sledgehammer might increase the prison population and put even more pressure on the criminal justice system. It will be interesting to see if others rally to the mast.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'It's not a black art'

I don't wish particularly to add to the clamour of voices commenting on the budget statement but news of the creation of more than the expected number of Enterprise Zones and action on fuel prices must be worthy of mention, and will surely be welcomed by the small business community who are so desperate for support.

Even more welcome, perhaps, is the news that the Export Credit Guarantees Department (ECGD) is to sell export credit insurance to small businesses for the first time in 20 years to tackle business concerns that private sector provision is failing, rather than simply provide cover for capital goods exports http://bit.ly/gt8lev. Whether the private sector is failing or not is a moot point, and the ECGD is quick to point out that it will only act in circumstances where insurance has already been refused. But whatever the rationale or the mechanic, exporting by small businesses is a vital part of the road to recovery and anything that helps increase export activity must be applauded.

Let's hope the initiative is better supported than previous Government initiatives in this space. Let us hope too that it is sufficiently well publicised and that the process is simple enough for SMEs to understand and use. We need to remove some of the mystique around exporting and dispel the perception that it's a black art!

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Debate is good, and so is information!'

My blog last week was about Vince Cable's announcement that he was going to remove the need for small businesses to produce audited accounts. At the same time we heard of the plan to increase the threshold for filing full accounts. Those who know me will know how passionate I get about things like this which - in my view - are hugely potentially damaging to business and the economic recovery. The ICM also issued a press release http://bit.ly/fMjfjP on the same subject and I shared my frustrations in a letter to all the broadsheet newspapers and it was published by the Sunday Times, Independent and Guardian.

I've had a surprisingly large number of responses. Many have supported my arguments and agreed with my position; a few have disagreed, primarily on the grounds that audits aren't worth the money they cost, add little value, and are - to all intents and purposes - meaningless. There may be an element of truth in this but it doesn't detract from the argument that looking at - and monitoring the performance of - their own business more carefully can only be a good thing for business owners, and sharing information in a more transparent way has to contribute to the assessment of risk more accurately and effectively. Wherever you sit, I'm glad to have added to, and fuelled, an important debate.

The ICM's new database and website went live last Thursday and we've suffered from the inevitable infrastructure and technical teething issues. It's been a challenging few days, and there are no doubt further challenging days ahead, but watching events unfold in Japan has put into perspective just how unimportant such matters are when compared to disasters on this scale. Our thoughts are with all those affected both directly and indirectly.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Save us from madness'

Last Friday, Vince Cable announced that small firms will no longer have to produce independently audited accounts in a measure that he believes will save 42,000 businesses £40 million per year. I've always respected Vince Cable and have no doubt of his commitment to helping small business, but such a move demonstrates a naivety that verges on madness.

I agree with him when he says that 'one of the barriers to growth is the burden of regulation...it takes up time and stops busines growing and that means our economy does not grow'. That is why the ICM has indicated its support for the Daily Telegraph's 'red tape campaign'.

But please can we understand that producing accounts is not 'administration' and neither is it unnecessary red tape. Without numbers, a business cannot know how it's doing, it cannot manage its cashflow and it is far more likely to fail; without audited numbers that can be trusted, banks, creditors and financiers will not support the business and again it is far more likely to fail; and without audited numbers and the ability to access finance, the economy will not grow. Quite the opposite; it will shrink.

The Government is explaining its position by telling us that the rules for small business in respect to auditing and accounts are stricter in the UK than is required by EU law. They tell us also that for micro businesses, those with less than 10 employees, they will push for exemptions to remove the requirement to produce two sets of accounts.

And that's not all. They intend 'helping' medium sized businesses by pushing for EU restrictions to be lifted so that they no longer need their accounts independently audited and will look at relaxing the audit and accounts rules for subsidiaries.

The ICM is going to lobby vigorously against these steps and against the Government's insistence on delivering mixed messages to business. Credit fuels business. Access to credit comes from greater access to information, not less. Why is such a simple statement of fact so apparently difficult for the Government to understand?

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Consistency, fairness and madness'

It is always interesting to see what comes out of the EU and compare ourselves with our fellow 'Europeans'. I was particularly intrigued, therefore, by a recent article in The Guardian http://bit.ly/i5tB9H that highlighted how the Irish are undertaking what they call 'bankruptcy tourism' - in short, taking advantage of the bankruptcy process in the UK as a better way out for entrepreneurs crushed by debt from the property boom.

Waiting 12 months to be declared bankrupt and start again is a considerably more attractive proposition than waiting the likely 12 years in Ireland, and so it set me thinking: isn't it about time that the EU looked more actively into bankruptcy and insolvency across Europe and introduced a modicum of consistency and uniformity among Member states? I am sure it would be well received, especially by creditors.

And while we are talking about the EU, I was similarly intrigued and bemused by The European Court of Justice ruling on sex equality in insurance that will mean that insurance companies are not going to be able to price according to the calculated risk of those wishing to be insured.

I share the frustration of parents who have seen their sons penalised by excessive insurance charges because they fall into the high risk young male driver bracket, but the pricing of insurance and premium rates are based on calculated odds. If we stop this, then what next?

If it is unfair to use claims experience to price insurance, then isn't it also unfair to use credit scoring models predicated on calculated experience? What an interesting conundrum that would be.

I may be becoming too old and cynical but the absence of common sense from EU decisions, of which the above are just two recent examples, drives me to despair!