As several comments have been pointing out:
So, a question: should the group have been able to enjoy £103 million of tax subsidies for its losses because other companies in the Arcadia Group were presumably able to offset these against liabilities owing?
Is there good reason why the state should support continually loss making companies in this way?
Is a time limit on the number of years during which losses will be supported appropriate?
Would this sum have been better used helping clear the pension deficit?
I think these are appropriate questions to ask.
A further appropriate question to ask. Unitary taxation, an idea stoutly backed by one Richard Murphy, the Sage of Ely, means that a group of companies is taxed as just that, a group of companies making up just the one tax unit. But here, with regard to Arcadia and BHS, the demand is that they should not be treated as the one economic unit, which is what that offset does, but instead be considered separately.
Is there no beginning to the consistency of Richard Murphy?