Ministers have set the high street banks on notice. The Treasury has commissioned an independent review into the impact of more than 6,700 bank branch closures across the UK, and has signalled it is prepared to compel lenders to provide face-to-face services where the evidence shows communities and small businesses are being left adrift.

The Access to Banking Review, announced on Thursday by Lucy Rigby, the economic secretary to the Treasury, will be led by Richard Lloyd OBE, the former executive director of consumer group Which? and a one-time interim chair of the Financial Conduct Authority. Lloyd has been asked to report back by October, gathering evidence on where branch withdrawals have bitten hardest, who has suffered most and where new intervention is needed.

The review lands alongside the government’s Enhancing Financial Services Bill, trailed in the King’s Speech, which the Treasury said would arm ministers with powers to “act swiftly if the evidence supports intervention on access to banking services”. In Whitehall parlance, that is unusually direct language — and a clear shot across the bows of an industry that has spent a decade thinning out its physical estate.

A decade of decline

The scale of the retreat is striking. According to consumer champion Which?, 6,719 branches have shuttered since 2015 — an average of roughly two a day. Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest, Barclays, HSBC and Santander have all taken the axe to their networks, with a fresh tranche of more than 130 closures pencilled in for May and June alone.

The economics from the banks’ perspective are not in dispute. Customers have migrated en masse to mobile apps, footfall has collapsed and the cost of running a Victorian-era branch estate has become harder to justify to shareholders. But the human and commercial fallout has been uneven, with rural towns, older customers and cash-reliant small traders disproportionately affected — a pattern Business Matters has tracked over several years and documented in its reporting on more than 6,000 UK branch closures.

Hubs: helpful, but not enough

The industry’s answer has been the shared banking hub: a Post Office counter for everyday cash and cheque needs, with the big lenders taking it in turns to send their own staff into a private room for more complex queries, typically one bank per weekday. Some 234 hubs have opened since April 2021, and Labour pledged in its manifesto to push the total to 350 by 2029.

Yet hubs come with a structural weakness. While the Financial Conduct Authority polices access to cash, there are no statutory rules governing what banking services must actually be provided inside a hub, those decisions remain at the banks’ discretion. The Post Office’s role as the de facto banking partner has been a lifeline for many high streets, but small business owners say the model still falls short on lending conversations, complex account servicing and the kind of relationship banking that used to be taken for granted.

That gap matters. For owner-managers running a café, a building firm or a one-van logistics operation, the disappearance of a local branch is not an inconvenience, it is a productivity tax. Cash takings have to be banked further afield. Loan applications increasingly run through opaque, centralised credit-scoring systems. And the local manager who once knew the business, and could vouch for it, has all but disappeared.

A turning tide?

There are tentative signs the industry is reading the room. Barclays last year began reopening high street branches and reinstating the role of the bank manager, an explicit bet that physical presence, and human judgement, is once again a competitive advantage. Whether that becomes a trend or remains a marketing flourish will depend in no small part on what Lloyd’s review concludes.

Rigby was careful to frame the exercise as evidence-led rather than punitive. “We are supporting industry’s rollout of banking hubs, but we also need a clear picture of where communities are still losing out,” she said. “This independent review will show us where the problems are and what further action may be required, and we will move quickly to legislate where the evidence shows it is needed.”

Lloyd, for his part, signalled an open-door approach. “It’s important to take stock of the impact that the big shift to digital services has already had, and to understand the need for access to in-person banking in the future,” he said. “I hope to hear from as wide a range of views as possible.”

What it means for SMEs

For Britain’s 5.5 million small businesses, the review is more than a consumer issue dressed up in policy language. Access to a banker who understands the trading rhythms of a local economy has historically been a quiet but consequential ingredient in SME growth. Should Lloyd’s report conclude — as campaigners expect — that hubs alone cannot plug the gap, the Enhancing Financial Services Bill gives ministers the statutory teeth to mandate minimum service levels.

That would represent a significant philosophical shift: from leaving branch strategy to commercial discretion, to treating face-to-face banking as something closer to a regulated utility. The banks will lobby hard against any such reframing. But after a decade in which the lights have gone out above 6,700 high street branches, the political mood in Westminster, and the patience of small business owners, is wearing visibly thin.

Read more:
Treasury orders review into bank branch closures as small firms count the cost

The 150-year-old British sweeteners and ingredients group Tate & Lyle has confirmed it is in advanced discussions with the American food science giant Ingredion over a possible £2.7 billion cash takeover, a move that, if completed, would lift another household name off the London market and forge a transatlantic ingredients heavyweight valued at more than $10 billion (£8 billion).

The FTSE 250 company said on Thursday that the Illinois-headquartered suitor had tabled a conditional 615p-a-share proposal, comprising 595p in cash and up to 20p in dividends. That represents a punchy 64 per cent premium to Tate & Lyle’s closing price the previous evening and prompted an immediate scramble in the stock, which jumped 45.4 per cent to close at 545p. Even after that one-day surge, the shares remain well shy of the 800p-plus levels they were changing hands at three years ago.

In a brief statement to the London Stock Exchange, Ingredion confirmed it had lodged the offer and said it “believes a potential transaction would deliver significant benefits to customers, consumers, employees and Ingredion shareholders”. The Westchester, Illinois-based business added that it was “engaged in discussions and a period of due diligence with Tate & Lyle to further explore a potential transaction. Discussions are ongoing, and there can be no certainty that a binding offer will be made.”

Under City Takeover Panel rules, Ingredion has until 5pm on 11 June either to put a firm offer on the table or to walk away. Tate & Lyle’s board has indicated that the latest approach is one of a series of overtures from the same suitor, and stressed there is no guarantee that a binding bid will materialise.

A price the board will struggle to dismiss

For a company that has spent the past two years grappling with softer bakery demand in the United States, weaker European pricing and stubbornly high input costs, the timing is awkward — and the price is generous. Shares in Tate & Lyle have underperformed those of its American suitor over the past 12 months, leaving the board with little obvious cover for digging in.

Lucinda Guthrie, head of mergers and acquisitions research firm Mergermarket, said the proposal sat at “a level that the board would have to consider”, adding that the public disclosure “will act as a price discovery mechanism to see if a deal can be struck.”

A combination would marry Tate & Lyle’s expertise in low- and no-calorie sweeteners, including the sucralose used in Coca-Cola’s diet ranges — with Ingredion’s broader portfolio of starches, texturisers and plant-based ingredients. Both groups view the United States, where consumers are increasingly steering towards low-calorie drinks and reformulated packaged foods, as their single most important market.

From victorian sugar cubes to silicon-age science

Tate & Lyle’s roots reach back into Victorian Britain, when sugar refiners Henry Tate and Abram Lyle built up rival operations on opposite banks of the Thames. Tate is credited with introducing the sugar cube to the UK in 1875, while Lyle, refining cane sugar in east London, discovered the viscous byproduct he later canned as Lyle’s Golden Syrup.

The instantly recognisable green-and-gold tin, featuring bees emerging from the carcass of a lion in a nod to the biblical riddle of Samson, was entered into the Guinness Book of Records in 2006 as the world’s longest unchanged commercial brand packaging. The two refining houses formally merged in 1921, shortly after the deaths of their founders.

The modern Tate & Lyle bears little resemblance to that Victorian sugar giant. After diversifying through the 1970s, the company eventually sold its sugar refining business, including the historic Plaistow Wharf refinery in London’s Docklands, to American Sugar Refining in 2010, along with the rights to use the Tate & Lyle name on retail sugar packets. What remains in London is a leaner, business-to-business food science group that helps multinational manufacturers cut salt, fat and sugar from their products.

Another london name in foreign sights

The approach lands at a sensitive moment for the City. With more than 30 companies having delisted or announced plans to leave the London exchange this year, much of it driven by private equity and overseas industrial buyers, a Tate & Lyle exit would only sharpen the debate about the steady drift of UK plc into foreign ownership and the wider London market exodus.

It also comes against a backdrop of broader fragility in corporate Britain. Business Matters has previously reported on the record wave of business closures amid a tough operating environment and on the £300 million pulled by investors from UK equities amid inheritance tax fears — trends that have left mid-cap names such as Tate & Lyle particularly exposed to opportunistic offshore bidders.

For its part, Ingredion is hardly a stranger to the global ingredients game. The New York-listed group employs around 12,000 people, sells into more than 120 countries and traces its own history to the mid-20th century, when National Starch was absorbed into the Corn Products Refining Company to create one of America’s dominant corn refiners. The company markets itself as a business that turns “grains, fruits, vegetables and other plant materials into ingredients that make crackers crunchy, candy sweet, yogurt creamy, lotions and creams silky, plastics biodegradable and tissues softer and stronger” — and which now helps brand owners reformulate their products for health-conscious consumers.

Wider coverage from Bloomberg and Food Dive suggests City advisers expect the bid talks to dominate the agenda at Tate & Lyle’s next round of investor briefings, with hedge funds already piling in on the spread between the offer price and Thursday’s closing level.

Whether or not Ingredion ultimately stumps up a firm offer before the 11 June deadline, the disclosure has already done its work. For shareholders who have watched the share price drift for three years, a 64 per cent premium will be hard to wave away. For the London market, it is another reminder that some of its most historic names are now firmly in play.

Read more:
Tate & Lyle weighs £2.7bn approach from US rival Ingredion

For most small and medium-sized British exporters, the painful moment is rarely the order itself. It is the phone call a few days later, when the bank politely points out that the working capital required to fulfil it sits stubbornly the wrong side of an agreed credit ceiling. A career-defining contract becomes, almost overnight, a balance-sheet problem.

That is precisely the bind that Masters Speciality Pharma, a 41-year-old Hertfordshire specialist pharmaceutical company, found itself in last year after winning two sizeable orders from Saudi Arabia worth a combined £2.3 million. The remedy, as is increasingly the case for ambitious British SMEs eyeing the Gulf, came from UK Export Finance (UKEF), the government’s export credit agency, which stepped in with insurance cover against the risk of non-payment and gave HSBC UK the confidence to lift its credit thresholds.

The deal is the latest example of how government-backed insurance is quietly underwriting British SME ambition in one of the world’s most lucrative regions, and it lands at a moment when UKEF is leaning harder than ever into the SME exporter agenda.

A 41-year-old elstree exporter that punches above its weight

Founded in 1984 by Dr Zulfikar Masters OBE and based in Elstree, Masters Speciality Pharma is precisely the sort of business that ministers like to wheel out at trade receptions but that the wider public rarely hears about. The company specialises in making hard-to-source medicines available in markets that the big pharmaceutical multinationals often overlook, and now serves more than 75 countries across the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America.

The Saudi contracts in question were not vanity wins. One covered the supply of a treatment for sickle cell disease, a debilitating inherited blood disorder that disproportionately affects patients in the Middle East and Africa. The other was for a specialised antibiotic used to treat life-threatening infections. In both cases, demand was urgent and the procuring authorities expected delivery on terms that demanded substantial up-front cash.

Therein lay the problem. Masters needed to pay its own suppliers well before the Saudi buyers were due to pay it, and the orders themselves were larger than its existing credit facility with HSBC UK. Without additional headroom, the contracts would have been physically impossible to deliver without straining the rest of the business.

How UKEF’s insurance unlocks the bank

The mechanism UKEF deployed is one that more British SMEs will encounter as the agency expands its remit. By insuring HSBC UK against the risk that the Saudi buyers fail to pay, the government effectively de-risked the additional lending the bank needed to provide. With UKEF on the hook for the downside, HSBC was able to raise its credit thresholds and free up the working capital that Masters needed to fulfil the orders, all without disrupting the company’s day-to-day operations.

It is a model UKEF has been deploying with growing frequency. The agency, which now has authority to provide up to £80 billion of support to British exporters, has set out a target of helping UK firms win more than £12.5 billion of new export contracts by 2029, with the Middle East firmly at the centre of that ambition. It forms part of a broader push that has seen UKEF step up support for SME exporters through faster-track products and higher auto-inclusion limits.

Tim Reid, chief executive of UK Export Finance, said the case for backing companies such as Masters extended well beyond GDP arithmetic. “British businesses like Masters Speciality Pharma are doing vital work, not just for the UK economy, but for patients around the world who depend on access to critical medicines. These are exactly the kind of exports we want to support,” he said. “UKEF is open for business, and we will continue to provide insurance and guarantees to UK exporters of all sizes as they take on new opportunities in the Middle East and across the world.”

The ceiling problem every sme exporter knows

For Simon Clarke, chief operating officer at Masters Speciality Pharma, the appeal of the arrangement boiled down to a frustration that is wearily familiar to any SME finance director who has tried to scale internationally. “A problem for SMEs like us is that you can get a certain amount of credit, but when you hit the ceiling you can go no further,” he said. “UKEF’s support made the difference – it meant we could take on these contracts that would otherwise have been beyond our reach or would have stretched working capital to the detriment of the rest of the business.”

That ceiling is one of the most reliable killers of British export ambition, particularly in higher-ticket sectors such as pharmaceuticals, engineering and capital equipment where customers expect long payment terms and suppliers want their money quickly. James Cundy, head of corporate and leveraged finance at HSBC UK, which already banks Masters in several markets, said the partnership with UKEF had allowed the bank to back the customer without flinching. “HSBC supports Masters Speciality Pharma in several markets across the globe. We know customers exporting overseas often struggle with freeing up working capital, so we were delighted to work with UKEF and increase our facilities to allow Masters Speciality Pharma to continue their vital work without disruption,” he said.

Why the middle east, and why now

The Middle East is becoming an ever more strategic plank of UK export policy. Saudi Arabia is the UK’s largest market for healthcare products and medical equipment in the region, and its Vision 2030 reform programme is creating sustained demand for everything from specialist medicines and medical devices to clean energy infrastructure, education services and advanced manufacturing. UK goods and services exports to Saudi Arabia ran into the billions of dollars in 2024, and ministers expect that trajectory to steepen.

For UKEF, the Masters deal is also a useful case study in selling its proposition to British SMEs who often assume export credit agencies are the preserve of defence primes and civil engineering giants. The agency’s recent push has included a £6.5 billion boost for British exporters and a tighter focus on the kind of insurance and guarantee products that suit smaller, faster-growing companies.

The takeaway for finance directors at Britain’s SMEs is straightforward enough. The Gulf contracts are there for the winning, the medicines, machines and services they want are squarely in British wheelhouses, and the working capital problem that has historically killed those wins can, increasingly, be solved with a phone call to UKEF and a sympathetic bank.

For Masters Speciality Pharma, the result is two delivered contracts, patients in Saudi Arabia receiving treatments they urgently need, and a Hertfordshire SME that has demonstrated, once again, that British specialist manufacturing remains very much open for business.

Read more:
Hertfordshire Pharma lands £2.3m Saudi contracts after UKEF steps in to plug working capital gap

A swelling queue of British exporters hoping to recoup money lost to Donald Trump’s now-discredited emergency tariffs may discover that they are entitled to precisely nothing, the audit, tax and business advisory firm Blick Rothenberg has warned.

According to John Havard, a consultant at the firm, roughly 126,000 claims have been lodged through the US Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system since it opened for business on 20 April. Yet a sizeable proportion of those applications are expected to be bounced, either because the claimant is not legally eligible or because the paperwork has fallen foul of the portal’s exacting requirements.

“Some UK businesses hoping for compensation may find they are ineligible for it and receive nothing,” Mr Havard said. “A number of small British firms may never have encountered tariffs until President Trump’s second term. They are likely unaware that, although falling sales and higher shipping costs have inflicted significant harm on their finances, legally they are owed nothing by the US Government.”

Who actually owns the tariff bill

The crux of the issue, Mr Havard argues, lies in the small print of international trade contracts. Where British firms shipped goods to American customers on an “ex-works” or “cost and freight” basis, the legal obligation to settle the tariff sat with the US importer rather than the UK seller.

“Reimbursing the US importer for its additional costs does not qualify the UK entity to apply for a tariff refund,” he explained. In other words, even where British exporters voluntarily absorbed the cost to preserve a customer relationship, they cannot now walk into the CAPE system and ask for it back.

It is a hard truth for the cohort of SMEs that scrambled to keep American buyers on side after Mr Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to slap tariffs on a wide range of imports, measures that were subsequently struck down by the US Supreme Court, opening the door to refund claims in the first place.

A system creaking under the weight of claims

An official status report timed at 7am Eastern on Monday 11 May 2026 indicated that of the 126,000 claims received, roughly 87,000 had been validated. The remainder are sitting in limbo, with many of the rejections traceable to mundane formatting problems in the CSV files uploaded to the portal.

“Rejections may be because the CSV files submitted to the online portal could not be read and processed by the system due to formatting mistakes,” Mr Havard said. “But some rejections will be due to the claimants’ ineligibility for refunds.”

He added that before businesses can even attempt to file, they must hold an account with US Customs and Border Protection’s Automated Commercial Environment. “Anecdotally there has been considerable activity in new account registrations since the Supreme Court ruled the IEEPA tariffs to be unlawful, but this presents another system for businesses to navigate before they can attempt to get refunds.”

A further pitfall is mistaken identity. “Another reason for rejection could be that the person who filed for a tariff refund is not in Government records as the listed importer, or that person’s broker, for the particular tariffs identified in the claim. This could be people trying to game the system, but it is also potentially because individuals do not fully understand who is supposed to make the claim.”

Refunds trickling out – and bank details missing

Despite Washington signalling that no payments would land before 12 May, Mr Havard said there is reliable evidence that some refunds have already been paid out, with at least one claimant receiving interest on top.

But the process is being held up at the final hurdle for nearly 1,900 claimants who have failed to supply bank details. “As at 7am Eastern time on Monday 11 May 2026, there were 1,880 consolidated refunds which could not be passed from the Office of Trade to US Treasury for payment because the claimant had still to provide the necessary bank account details,” Mr Havard said.

Importers whose applications have been rejected can correct errors and resubmit. “However, no amount of resubmission will help if the claim is invalid in the first place – or if they are not getting clear messages from CAPE to explain why they were rejected.”

The next legal front: the 10% global tariff

Even as refunds for the IEEPA tariffs begin to flow, a second courtroom battle is unfolding over Mr Trump’s replacement measure, a blanket 10% “global tariff” introduced under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down the original duties.

A coalition of small businesses and roughly two dozen, mostly Democrat-led, states challenged the move at the US Court of International Trade, which ruled by a 2:1 majority on 7 May that the new tariffs were also invalid. The Government has appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has granted an administrative stay, meaning the 10% levy continues to be collected on US-bound shipments while the legal process plays out.

“Whatever decision the Appeals Court eventually hands down, it seems inevitable that the losing side, as with the IEEPA tariffs, will want to make a further appeal to the US Supreme Court,” Mr Havard said.

The sums at stake are far from trivial. Estimates suggest some $8 billion of Section 122 tariffs were collected in March alone, a substantial slice of the wider tariff burden being shouldered by British exporters, which has weighed heavily on UK trade flows and prompted British factories to cut their exposure to the US market.

For SME exporters watching from this side of the Atlantic, the message from Blick Rothenberg is sobering: those who think a cheque is in the post would do well to check the terms of their export contracts, and the bank details on their CBP account, before they start spending it.

Read more:
Many British exporters chasing US tariff refunds may end up with nothing

In a move that has set the M&A community talking on both sides of the Atlantic, eBay has firmly slammed the door on a $55.5bn (£40.9bn) unsolicited takeover approach from American video games retailer GameStop, branding the bid “neither credible nor attractive”.

The rejection, communicated in a sharply worded letter from eBay’s board to GameStop chief executive Ryan Cohen, will come as little surprise to anyone with a passing acquaintance of the relative scale of the two businesses. GameStop, the bricks-and-mortar gaming chain that found cult status in 2021 as the original “meme stock”, is roughly a quarter of the size of the online auction house it is attempting to swallow, a David-and-Goliath dynamic that City analysts have long viewed as a near-insurmountable hurdle.

In its rebuff, the eBay board cited “uncertainty” over how the deal would be financed, alongside concerns about “the impact of your proposal on eBay’s long-term growth and profitability”. Directors also pointed to “operational risks, and leadership structure of a combined entity”, as well as questions over “GameStop’s governance”, a pointed reference, observers will note, to a company whose share price has historically been driven as much by social media sentiment as by retail fundamentals.

GameStop had attempted to bolster the credibility of its overture with a commitment letter from TD Securities for roughly $20bn of debt financing. Yet that prospective debt pile is precisely what gave eBay’s board, and a chorus of independent analysts, pause for thought. Sucharita Kodali, retail analyst at Forrester, told Business Matters the proposition was hardly “a terribly good offer”, warning that it would saddle the auction giant with GameStop’s borrowings at a moment when eBay is finally finding its feet again.

That recovery is no idle boast. Despite the well-documented competitive squeeze from Amazon, Etsy and, more recently, the Chinese disruptor Temu, eBay posted net profits of $418.4m in 2025, more than treble the $131.3m delivered the year before, even as sales softened. The board insists its turnaround strategy is bearing fruit and is in no mood to surrender the upside to an opportunistic suitor.

Mr Cohen, however, is unlikely to retreat quietly. The GameStop chief, who built his fortune through online pet retailer Chewy before becoming the unofficial figurehead of the meme-stock movement, claimed last week that eBay could be transformed under his stewardship into a credible challenger to Amazon. He has also signalled his willingness to bypass the boardroom and take his proposition directly to eBay’s shareholders, a hostile gambit that would set the stage for one of the more colourful takeover battles of the year.

For Britain’s SME owners watching from across the Atlantic, the saga is more than a transatlantic curiosity. eBay remains a vital sales channel for thousands of small British retailers, many of whom built post-pandemic businesses on its platform. Any prolonged ownership dispute, or a deal that materially loaded the company with debt, could have tangible consequences for the fees, listing policies and seller protections those firms depend on.

For now, eBay’s chairman and chief executive will be hoping the matter ends here. The bookies, and most of Wall Street, are betting it won’t.

Read more:
ebay rebuffs GameStop’s surprise $55.5bn swoop

Britain’s economy delivered a rare piece of good news this morning, with the Office for National Statistics reporting that GDP expanded by 0.3 per cent in March, comfortably ahead of City forecasts and capping a first-quarter growth rate of 0.6 per cent.

The figures, the last to capture activity before the outbreak of the Iran war began rattling global markets, point to a services-led upswing that has handed the Chancellor a brief reprieve as she braces for what most economists agree will be a far bleaker summer.

According to the ONS, the services sector, still the engine room of the British economy, grew by 0.8 per cent over the quarter, with production nudging up 0.2 per cent and construction rising 0.4 per cent. Wholesale, computer programming and advertising were the standout performers.

“Growth picked up in the first quarter of the year, led by broad-based increases across the services sector,” said Liz McKeown, director of economic statistics at the ONS. “Within that, wholesale, computer programming and advertising performed particularly well.”

For the country’s 5.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises, however, the headline number masks a far more uncomfortable reality. The March print captures only the opening days of the conflict; April and May data, when they land, are expected to reveal the full cost of the disruption ripping through the Strait of Hormuz and into global supply chains.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves seized on the figures to defend her fiscal strategy, telling reporters that “now is not the time to put our economic stability at risk”.

“Today’s figures show the government has the right economic plan,” Reeves said. “The choices I have made as Chancellor mean our economy is in a stronger position as we deal with the costs of the war in Iran. This government is getting on with the job of building an economy that is stronger, more resilient, and prepared for the future.”

Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride was quick to puncture the mood, arguing that “the chaos surrounding the Labour leadership is destabilising Britain’s economy”. His intervention reflects mounting nerves in Westminster, where Sir Keir Starmer is fighting to hold his position amid backbench unrest.

Forecasters have already sharpened their pencils. Capital Economics has slashed its 2026 UK growth projection, with deputy chief UK economist Ruth Gregory warning that “prolonged political instability” represents “an extra downside risk” to her outlook.

“We would be very surprised if growth doesn’t weaken from May as the temporary boost from stockpiling unwinds and the squeeze on households’ real incomes from higher energy prices intensifies,” Gregory said. “In our adverse scenario, the economy suffers a mild recession. So the economy will probably give whoever is Prime Minister a rough ride.”

The energy picture is doing most of the damage. Brent crude has surged by roughly 50 per cent since March on fears of sustained supply disruption, and as a net energy importer Britain is more exposed than most of its G7 peers. Higher import costs are expected to filter rapidly into inflation, while weakening global demand threatens to weigh on the export book just as Britain’s manufacturers had begun to find their feet.

For SME owners, the practical consequences are already taking shape. Survey data shows consumer confidence has fallen sharply since the conflict began, and business investment, which had been showing tentative signs of recovery, is widely expected to stall as boardrooms wait for clarity on energy costs, interest rates and political direction.

The Treasury is understood to be poring over the latest figures ahead of an energy support package for businesses and households, with smaller firms in energy-intensive sectors lobbying hard for targeted relief.

Compounding the uncertainty, Reeves herself is reportedly weighing whether she could remain in her current role under a new Labour leader should Sir Keir be forced out. Bond traders are already pricing in a leftward shift, with gilt yields reflecting expectations that fiscal rules could be loosened and the current government’s growth policies quietly shelved.

For now, Sir Keir has dug in. Following Tuesday’s King’s Speech, in which he promised to “tear down” the status quo and pursue a “radical agenda”, the Prime Minister has cited the war as reason enough to remain at the helm. Whether anxious backbenchers, and equally anxious business owners, will share that assessment over the coming weeks remains very much an open question.

Read more:
UK economy defies gloom with surprise March growth as Iran war clouds outlook

Global oil stockpiles are emptying at the fastest pace ever recorded as the war in the Middle East tips the world into a deepening supply deficit, in a development that threatens to derail the recovery of Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses just as they were beginning to find their footing.

The International Energy Agency has warned of an “unprecedented supply shock” following the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow shipping lane that until recently carried roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas. The destruction of energy infrastructure across the Gulf has compounded the damage, leaving traders, hauliers and manufacturers scrambling to absorb costs that were unthinkable only six months ago.

The Paris-based agency now expects a shortfall of around 1.8 million barrels a day to materialise this year, a dramatic reversal of the 410,000-barrel surplus it had forecast as recently as last month. The shift has come even as the economic damage of the conflict pulls demand sharply lower.

“With global oil inventories already drawing at a record clip, further price volatility appears likely ahead of the peak summer demand period,” the IEA cautioned.

Global supply is forecast to fall by an average 3.9 million barrels a day this year to 102.2 million, on the assumption that tanker traffic through the strait gradually resumes from the end of June. Even on that optimistic footing, the market is expected to remain in deficit until the final quarter.

Markets have whipsawed since hostilities between the United States and Iran erupted, with Brent crude, the international benchmark, surging to as high as $126 a barrel from just $60 at the start of the year. On Wednesday evening Brent snapped a three-day winning streak, sliding 2 per cent to $105.63 in its sharpest one-day retreat in a week. Even so, the benchmark is up 73.6 per cent year-to-date, a move that has rippled through every corner of the British economy from the haulage yards of the Midlands to the petrol forecourts of the south coast.

The IEA estimates that 246 million barrels have been drawn from inventories since the war began, leaving a perilously thin buffer against further shocks. In March the agency, which represents 32 member countries, released 400 million barrels of strategic reserves as a “stop-gap measure” in a co-ordinated bid to steady nerves.

Producers outside the Middle East have been pumping flat out to plug the gap. Forecasts for supply growth from the Americas have been raised by more than 600,000 barrels a day since January, to 1.5 million barrels a day this year, with Texan shale operators and Brazilian deepwater producers leading the charge. It has not been enough. Global supply slumped by a further 1.8 million barrels a day in April to 95.1 million, taking total losses since February to 12.8 million barrels a day. Output from Gulf states affected by the closure of the strait is running 14.4 million barrels a day below pre-war levels.

For Britain’s SME community, the second-order effects are arguably more punishing than the headline oil price itself. The IEA expects the economic fallout, rising inflation, slower growth and a sharp squeeze on household budgets, to drag global oil demand down by 420,000 barrels a day this year. That compares with a forecast decline of just 80,000 a day last month and projected growth of 850,000 barrels a day before the war began. It is the rapidity of the reversal, rather than its absolute scale, that has unnerved policymakers.

“Escalating demand destruction is underpinned by a surge in oil prices since the start of the war,” the IEA said. “Slower economic growth in both OECD and non-OECD countries is also beginning to weigh on consumer and industrial consumption.”

Fatih Birol, the agency’s executive director, last month described the current squeeze as the worst energy crisis the world has ever faced, eclipsing the oil shocks of the 1970s. “We are indeed facing the biggest energy security threat in history,” he said.

For owner-managed businesses already absorbing higher employment costs, stubborn inflation and fragile consumer confidence, the message from Paris is sobering. With warnings that the conflict could push Britain to the brink of recession, the next quarter is shaping up to be the most demanding test of SME resilience in a generation.

Read more:
Oil stocks drain at record pace as Iran war chokes global supply

GB News Radio has emerged as the fastest-growing network station in the country, with the latest RAJAR figures showing a 21 per cent surge in year-on-year reach that has pushed the upstart broadcaster decisively ahead of its closest commercial rivals.

The station, which forms part of the wider GB News operation, attracted 676,000 listeners during the first quarter of 2026, comfortably overtaking Times Radio on 604,000 and Talk on 560,000. It is a result that will sharpen the competitive temperature in a speech-radio market that has seen heavy investment from News UK, Global and Bauer over the past five years.

GB News Radio’s 21 per cent expansion outstripped Talk’s 16 per cent uplift and the 6 per cent rise recorded by LBC, the long-standing market leader in the news-and-talk format. Times Radio, by contrast, saw its annual reach contract by 3 per cent, raising fresh questions about the trajectory of News UK’s five-year-old digital station.

Listening hours at GB News Radio reached 4.35 million in the quarter, a modest 1 per cent improvement on the same period last year but a figure the broadcaster argues underlines deepening listener loyalty alongside the headline reach growth.

Much of the momentum has come from younger demographics that commercial talk-radio operators have historically struggled to capture. The station reported a 20 per cent increase among adults aged 35 to 54 over the past quarter, with the 35-to-54 male audience climbing 30 per cent — a cohort that remains particularly prized by advertisers in the speech genre.

Ben Briscoe, head of programming at GB News, said the numbers reflected a clear shift in listening habits. “These figures show more and more people are turning to GB News Radio for breaking news, opinion and coverage of the day’s biggest stories,” he said. “The continued growth reflects the hard work, commitment and first-class journalism produced by our teams across the schedule every day. Just like on TV, GB News Radio is leaving its rivals trailing behind.”

The radio performance mirrors a strong run for the group’s television operation. GB News was the most-watched news channel in the UK on local election results day, with BARB figures showing an average audience of 185,700 on Friday 8 May. That was 56 per cent ahead of Sky News, which drew 119,000 viewers, and almost double the BBC News Channel’s 93,200.

During April, the channel averaged 89,500 viewers and a 1.59 per cent share, edging Sky News on 86,200 viewers and a 1.53 per cent share. Between July 2025 and April 2026, GB News averaged 90,300 viewers and a 1.47 per cent share, ahead of the BBC News Channel’s 83,900 viewers (1.37 per cent) and Sky News’s 72,000 viewers (1.18 per cent), capping a ten-month run in which the broadcaster has consistently outperformed both established rivals.

For the wider commercial broadcasting sector, the latest RAJAR data points to a more fragmented and contestable speech-radio market than at any point in the past decade, and one in which the newest entrant is now setting the pace.

Read more:
GB News radio outpaces rivals with fastest growth on the UK airwaves

Britain’s ambitions to lead the global race for driverless cars took a significant step forward today as the Government inked a formal partnership with Wayve, the London-headquartered artificial intelligence scale-up that has emerged as the country’s standard-bearer in autonomous vehicle technology.

The Memorandum of Understanding, signed between Wayve and the Department for Business and Trade, is designed to deepen collaboration on next-generation self-driving systems and underpin the company’s continued expansion on home soil, a notable vote of confidence at a time when many of Britain’s most promising tech firms have been lured across the Atlantic by deeper pools of capital.

For the SME and high-growth community, the deal is being read as a barometer of Whitehall’s willingness to back homegrown champions with more than warm words. Under the agreement, Government and industry will pool research interests around the responsible deployment of automated vehicles, with the explicit aim of converting Britain’s world-class AI research into commercial reality on its roads, in its factories and across its supply chains.

Officials hope the partnership will act as a catalyst for fresh investment, skilled employment and long-term growth across an automotive ecosystem that has been buffeted in recent years by the transition to electric vehicles, supply-chain disruption and intensifying competition from China and the United States. The signal to international investors, ministers insist, is unambiguous: the UK is open for business and intends to be the destination of choice for ambitious technology companies looking to scale.

Business Secretary Peter Kyle said the agreement demonstrated how the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy was being put into practice. “This partnership with Wayve shows how government is backing high-growth British scale-ups through our Modern Industrial Strategy to turn world-leading research into real-world deployment,” he said. “By working hand-in-hand with innovative companies, we are accelerating self-driving technology while anchoring jobs, investment and manufacturing here in the UK, making Britain the best place to start, scale and grow a business.”

Alex Kendall, Wayve’s co-founder and chief executive, struck a similarly bullish tone. “I’m delighted to deepen our collaboration with the Department for Business and Trade. We share the Government’s ambition to drive economic growth through the development of the self-driving vehicle sector in the UK and globally,” he said. “Strengthening domestic capabilities will anchor high-value manufacturing in the UK, create thousands of skilled jobs across the supply chain, and support the future of the automotive industry. This is in addition to the transformative benefits to road safety to be gained from self-driving vehicles deployed at scale.”

Founded in 2017 and now one of Britain’s most valuable AI businesses, Wayve has established itself as a pioneer of so-called “embodied AI”, training vehicles to learn from experience rather than relying solely on hand-coded rules and high-definition mapping. The company’s investor roster reads like a who’s who of global capital, and its decision to keep its centre of gravity in the United Kingdom has become a touchstone for the broader debate about retaining home-grown intellectual property.

Science and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall described Wayve as “a true British AI success story, putting the UK at the forefront of self-driving technology.” She added that the agreement would “help secure high-skilled tech and advanced manufacturing jobs in this country” and send a clear signal that “the UK is the best place for ambitious tech firms to start up and scale up.”

The substance of the MoU is squarely aimed at moving automated vehicles beyond the prototype phase and into commercially viable services on British roads. Joint workstreams will cover safety assurance, large-scale simulation and the integration of full self-driving capability into production-ready vehicle platforms, areas where Britain has long held latent expertise but has often struggled to commercialise at pace.

The partnership also reinforces the Government’s ambition to position the UK as a global hub for automated vehicle manufacturing, strengthening domestic supply chains in artificial intelligence, systems integration and advanced automotive hardware. Wayve, for its part, has agreed to share insights from real-world trials with ministers and regulators, providing the empirical foundation for the rules and standards that will govern a national roll-out of self-driving services.

For an automotive sector in the throes of structural reinvention, the implication is significant. Closer collaboration between industry, Government and local partners is intended to revive and evolve British vehicle manufacturing, demonstrating that fast-growing companies can scale at home rather than relocating overseas in search of supportive policy and patient capital.

The announcement comes against the backdrop of the Modern Industrial Strategy, which Whitehall says has already crowded in private investment into priority growth sectors. The Government points to roughly £360 billion in investment commitments, £33 billion in export announcements and 120,000 jobs secured since publication, figures that ministers will be keen to translate into a wider narrative of economic renewal as the political cycle wears on.

For founders, investors and SME leaders watching from the sidelines, the lesson is straightforward enough. When Government and a scale-up of Wayve’s calibre line up around a shared industrial agenda, the message is that Britain intends to compete at the sharpest end of the technology frontier, and that the long-promised marriage between policy and enterprise may, finally, be moving from theory into practice.

Read more:
Wayve lands government deal in race to put Britain in the self-driving fast lane

Sir Jim Ratcliffe has thrown his Ineos Grenadier into one of the most coveted defence procurement contests of the decade, gunning for a Ministry of Defence contract worth an initial £900 million to replace the British Army’s ageing fleet of Land Rovers.

The billionaire industrialist, tax exile and part-owner of Manchester United has been in active discussions with the MoD, lining his utilitarian 4×4 up for a tender that opens shortly and could ultimately deliver up to 7,000 vehicles to the armed forces. A formal announcement from Ineos Grenadier is understood to be imminent, with initial bids due on Monday.

It sets the stage for a four-way scrap that pits Ratcliffe directly against his long-standing rival, Jaguar Land Rover, the British marque he once tried, unsuccessfully, to acquire. JLR is fielding a military variant of its commercially successful new Defender, the modernised reincarnation of the very vehicle the Grenadier was inspired by. The two firms previously clashed in court when JLR accused Ratcliffe of copying the original Land Rover silhouette; the judge ruled there had been no breach of copyright, though Ratcliffe has never disguised the lineage of his design.

Also in the running are BAE Systems, which has paired with the American giant General Motors under the working title Team LionStrike, offering GM’s Infantry Squad Vehicle already in service with US forces, with engineering support based in Leamington Spa and Silverstone. Devon’s Supacat, working alongside defence contractor Babcock, is pitching an armoured derivative of the Toyota Hilux fitted with a bespoke chassis and combat cell.

Mike Whittington, chief commercial officer at Ineos, made it clear the Grenadier’s ambitions stretch well beyond Whitehall. “The Grenadier is the ideal choice for defence services as it’s the most capable 4×4,” he said. “Its local supply lines make it ideal for deployment in European countries, for sovereign defence and operations in the UK and on the continent.” Whittington pointed to existing demand from elite counter-terrorism and special operations units in Germany and France, alongside border forces in Germany, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Hungary and Spain.

Mark Cameron, managing director of the Defender programme at JLR, was equally bullish. “Defender will again begin supplying UK-designed and engineered light logistics vehicles for people and equipment transportation for the defence and blue light sectors, which Defender has a long history of supporting.”

For all the patriotic flag-waving, neither of the two frontrunners is actually built in Britain. The Grenadier rolls off a production line on the French–German border, in the former Smart car plant at Hambach, while the Defender is assembled at JLR’s Slovakian facility in Nitra. The MoD’s tender notably stops short of demanding domestic manufacture, a concession that will raise eyebrows in Westminster given Ratcliffe’s increasingly vocal criticism of the Labour government’s industrial policy.

The MoD confirmed in March that it was retiring the Land Rover from frontline duties after more than seven decades of service, describing the moment as “the end of an era for the vehicle that has been a cornerstone of military operations”. Officials want the first replacement vehicles in soldiers’ hands by 2030, with the initial tranche of 3,000 vehicles, plus engineering support, valued at £900 million.

For Ratcliffe, the contract represents more than a commercial prize. Having built Ineos into one of Britain’s largest privately-held chemicals empires, the Grenadier was always a passion project, conceived over a pint in a Belgravia pub and named after it. Winning the MoD’s blessing would validate his bet on a market that the original Land Rover effectively abandoned and hand him a powerful reference customer to chase further European defence deals.

For JLR, the stakes are arguably even greater. Losing the Land Rover’s spiritual home contract to an upstart designed by a critic of its design heritage would be a public relations setback of considerable magnitude, particularly as the Tata-owned business pushes its premium Defender into ever-higher price brackets and away from the workhorse roots that earned it military favour in the first place.

Read more:
Ratcliffe’s Grenadier rolls into battle for MoD’s £900m Land Rover replacement

Few retailers wear their politics quite so visibly as Alan Roper. Stand the managing director of Blue Diamond, the UK’s leading garden centre group, with 54 destination sites across Britain and the Channel Islands, in front of a microphone and the easy West Country charm gives way to something rather more pointed.

In recent weeks Roper has gone on the record claiming that successive minimum wage rises, layered on top of higher employers’ national insurance, have stripped £12.6m from Blue Diamond’s bottom line, money, he says, that would otherwise have been reinvested in stores, suppliers and people.

“I’m not against the minimum wage,” he insists, in the office above one of his flagship centres. “But you have to recognise that prior to Labour, it was the Conservatives who increased it by ten per cent for two years in succession. Then Labour came in with another 6.7 per cent, plus the 3.5 per cent employers’ NI rise. That is a major hit. I don’t know anyone who has not seen a pub go under recently because of these costs. Sometimes I wonder if politicians realise the level of impact this has.”

The £12.6m figure, he is at pains to stress, is not back-of-an-envelope. Blue Diamond benchmarks profit per employee across the group and Roper can trace the number precisely. It also reflects his own choices as an employer. “It is not just the people on the minimum wage. The colleagues who were earning a pound or one-fifty above it, as a good employer, I chose to maintain that gap. When their pay moved up, the department managers’ salaries moved up. That is where the 12.6 million comes from. I wish it had happened over eight years; instead, it happened in three.”

The consequence has been a quietly ruthless review of full-time equivalent hours, first across the garden retail estate and now in the restaurants. “We benchmarked the most efficient centres against the rest and got everybody working on the same page in terms of hours recruited per day,” he says. “Restaurants are naturally trickier because we won’t compromise service. But we have reduced man-hours, and we’re not the only retailer doing it.”

He is sceptical of those who claim artificial intelligence will fill the gap. “In this format I don’t think AI is going to have a big impact on man-hour reduction. Although I am trialling a full-size salesman avatar in one of our centres this year, I saw one at the Retail Tech Show in London and thought, well, that’s novel, give it a go.”

Such pragmatism has guided 27 years of growth at Blue Diamond, which has now completed its fifty-fourth deal. Yet for every acquisition there is a much larger pile of opportunities Roper has walked away from, something he attributes, only half-jokingly, to the cautionary tale of Wyevale, the once-mighty chain whose collapse he watched at uncomfortably close quarters.

“Wyevale at one point was close to £300m of turnover from about 130 sites,” he says. “That is barely £2m per centre, and at that size you are going to struggle to make money. They got into this mindset of: we want to be national, we’ll just buy centres. Small, large, the demographics didn’t matter. There was no filter on their judgement. It had a garden centre on the tin, so they bought it. The problem was in their DNA from very early doors. Private equity may have finished it off, but the issue was already there.”

Blue Diamond’s filter has remained narrow: demographics, footprint, location, and what Roper calls the “shape” of the opportunity. “I have never said, where’s my fifty-fifth centre,” he says. “That megalomaniac approach is a disaster. It is about the quality of the opportunity, growing sustainably, with low debt on the balance sheet.” Asked where Blue Diamond will be in five years, however, he answers without theatre: “If the right opportunities come, we could easily double in size.”

The most striking strategic shift in the wider sector is one Roper saw coming long before his rivals. In February last year, catering sales overtook live plant sales across the UK garden centre industry for the first time in four years. Blue Diamond’s restaurant arm grew faster than its retail business in 2025. Walk into a busy Blue Diamond at lunch on a Saturday and the queue for breakfast, cake and afternoon tea can resemble that of a casual dining group.

Roper bridles, mildly, at the suggestion that his stores have drifted into hospitality. “Catering goes back 30 years here. I had a large restaurant in a garden centre 30 years ago. What is happening is that other operators have belatedly caught up. Garden centres are a destination, a day out. Customers expect a nice restaurant where they can have breakfast or afternoon tea. It is a prerequisite. Without a restaurant, I think you would lose half your customers.”

The catering footprint, he points out, is far smaller than the planteria and almost always sits at the end of the customer’s natural route through the store. “It is part of the heartbeat. The pressure on us is always to find more space to grow the restaurants. Increasingly, customers demonstrate an insatiable desire for them.”

The same instinct for the local sits behind one of the more counter-intuitive parts of Blue Diamond’s playbook: a refusal to slap a single masterbrand on every site. Acquisitions at Wilton House, the Chatsworth Estate, the Grosvenor Estate and others have all retained their original names, with Blue Diamond co-branded.

“Wilton was my first big move, back in 2001,” he says. “People came there because it was the Wilton House Estate. You couldn’t simply call it Blue Diamond. So we kept the name and put Blue Diamond on it. The same is true at Chatsworth, at Grosvenor, and at the new centre we are building on Lord Iveagh’s Elveden Estate, which will be Elveden Garden Centre.” He bats away the standard corporate playbook. “Customers see their garden centre as part of their local community. Over the years the Blue Diamond brand has caught up alongside the local brand. We’re now in a sweet spot where they see it as both. When we rebadged three of the former Dobbies sites as Huntingdon Garden Centre last year, we were getting emails saying ‘glad you’re coming’ before we had even opened.”

Equally distinctive is Blue Diamond’s commitment to British growers. Unusually for a retailer of its scale, the group will exhibit at the National Horticulture Trade Association plant show at Stoneleigh in June with the explicit aim of meeting smaller suppliers it does not yet stock. “A lot of growers don’t approach groups because they assume we won’t be interested,” Roper says. “We will be. The challenge is volume. Where we can’t take a grower nationally, we’ll regionalise them, the south-west or the north-west. Knowing the family that grows the fuchsias is a strong USP. It’s a win for the grower, a win for us, and it’s something the customer really wants.”

Underpinning everything is data. Two decades ago Roper built what he calls his Best Practice Indicator, or BPI, an internal benchmarking engine that ranks every centre, department, category and individual line on its conversion of footfall into profit. A weekly league table places the 54 centres in order, one to 54. Where a centre underperforms, a BPI calculator now being rebuilt with artificial intelligence will tell the team exactly which lines were missed and why.

“It is the eighty-twenty rule,” he says. “Twenty per cent of your product does most of the work – hydrangeas, salvias, the genuses you cannot get wrong. The right plant, the right product, in the right place at the right time, at the right price. If you get all of that right, conversion goes up. If you don’t, customers feel it is hard work and they switch off.” It is, he argues, what makes growth safe. “I wrote my own retail ethos. I tell my team to define their church and then write their religion. Once everyone is on the same page, you can give people ownership. But you can only give them ownership if you can measure their decisions. BPI does that.”

On consumer demand, Roper concedes the macro picture is hard to read while weather still dominates. “We are up against a very hot, very dry March and April last year. So it is hard to tell what is real.” At the high-ticket end, suites of garden furniture at £2,000 and pergolas at £4,000, he says he is not yet seeing softness, “but I am not stupid enough to think it isn’t coming. I’m introducing an easy-payment system because I think recalibration is coming.” Last year’s business rates reform was, he says, a marginal win: smaller stores benefited, larger sites took six-figure increases, “but if it helps small businesses, I’m all for it.”

What would he do with a day in Number 11? He pauses, then offers something close to a manifesto. “I understand the need to get debt down. But instead of punitive solutions that suppress growth, this government needs to consult the business community on creating a more Thatcherite environment – or, to use a horticultural analogy, a growing environment where businesses can prosper, employ more people and pay more tax. At the moment, reactions feel knee-jerk and we end up on the back foot, repairing profitability.” He sighs, briefly. “Some days I look at it all and think it would be easier to retire.” Then a grin. “I won’t be doing that.”

Read more:
Alan Roper: ‘wage and tax policy has stripped £12.6m out of our profits’

Britain’s best-loved purveyor of sausage rolls is finally packing its bags for the Costas.

Greggs, the Newcastle-headquartered bakery giant, has confirmed it will open its first shop outside the United Kingdom at Tenerife South Airport within the coming weeks, a landmark moment for a business that has spent more than eight decades feeding the British high street.

The announcement, which is likely to delight sun-seeking holidaymakers in equal measure to City analysts watching for signs of fresh growth, came alongside a trading update in which the FTSE 250 group struck a cautiously optimistic tone for the remainder of the year despite what it described as a “challenging market”.

Greggs told investors it expects “to deliver good first half profit progress” and reiterated its full-year outlook. Management indicated that pre-tax profits for the year are likely to be broadly flat against last year, with any uplift “contingent on a recovery in the consumer backdrop”. Analyst consensus pencils in sales of £2.29bn and pre-tax profit of £172.1m for the full year.

Like-for-like sales at company-managed shops rose 2.5 per cent in the first 19 weeks of the year, slightly below the 2.9 per cent recorded over the first 20 weeks of 2025. Total sales, however, advanced a healthier 7.5 per cent to £800m, buoyed by the continued rollout of new outlets. Encouragingly, the pace of growth has picked up in the most recent ten weeks of trading, with like-for-like sales accelerating to 3.3 per cent.

“We have made encouraging profit progress in the year to date, partly reflecting a weak comparator period but also good operational cost control,” the company said.

Greggs added 41 shops to its estate during the period, 17 of them franchised, and shuttered 21, taking its national footprint to 2,759 outlets. Management is targeting 120 net new openings over the current financial year and has set its sights on growing the chain beyond 3,000 sites in the long term.

Yet the move overseas has not silenced the sceptics. The slowdown in like-for-like growth has reignited debate over whether the Geordie giant is nearing saturation point on the British high street. Shares have shed close to a fifth of their value over the past twelve months, and Greggs remains one of the most heavily shorted stocks on the London market, with an estimated £150m wagered on further declines.

For now, though, attention turns to the Canary Islands, where pasties and steak bakes will soon take their place alongside tapas and tortilla. Whether the format travels, and whether franchising overseas proves a more capital-light route to international growth than building out a directly managed estate, will be the question keeping investors guessing through the summer.

Read more:
Greggs takes the sausage roll abroad with Tenerife debut

Britain’s second-hand electric vehicle market has shifted into a higher gear, with sales of used battery-electric cars climbing to a record high in the opening quarter of the year as buyers wrestling with stubbornly high pump prices reassess the cost of motoring.

Figures published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) show that 86,943 used pure-electric cars changed hands between January and March, a 32 per cent jump on the same period last year and the strongest quarterly performance since records began. Battery-electric models also captured a record 4.3 per cent share of the second-hand market, edging the technology closer to the mainstream.

The headline EV growth came against a notably subdued backdrop for the wider sector. The SMMT reported that just over two million used vehicles in total changed hands during the first three months, leaving the broader market essentially flat. That contrast underlines the speed at which the electrification thesis is now feeding through to ordinary forecourt decisions, particularly among private buyers and small business owners weighing the total cost of ownership.

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the SMMT, said the surge reflected the widening pool of affordable used electric stock coming back into the market three or four years after the first significant wave of new EV registrations. He warned, however, that the trajectory remained dependent on continued policy support for the new-car market that ultimately supplies it.

“Growing choice from manufacturers is feeding through into the second-hand electric vehicle market,” Mr Hawes said. “High fuel prices, given the conflict in Iran, may increase demand even further but to maintain this momentum, every fiscal and policy lever must be pulled to ensure a healthy new car market that delivers zero-emission vehicles that can in future flow through to the used market.”

His comments will be read closely in Whitehall, where ministers are under pressure to revisit incentives for both private buyers and the company car schemes that have, until now, done much of the heavy lifting on EV adoption. With the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate continuing to ratchet up the proportion of electric models manufacturers must sell, any softening in new-car demand would, on current trends, eventually choke off the supply of nearly new EVs that smaller businesses and private motorists are increasingly hunting down.

Ian Plummer, chief customer officer at Auto Trader, said the data dovetailed with the behaviour his platform was already seeing among shoppers. “The real story is how the market’s evolving, particularly in terms of electrification. Used EV transactions are up, and market share is rising. That mirrors what we’re seeing on our platform, where nearly one in four used car inquiries are for sub-five-year-old electric models,” he said.

“Rising prices at the pump, driven by global instability, are prompting more people to reassess their running costs, helping to accelerate this shift even further.”

For SME owners running pool cars and small fleets, the figures will sharpen an already pressing calculation. With petrol and diesel prices once again being buffeted by geopolitical risk, the gap between forecourt costs and home or depot charging is widening, while improving used-EV residuals are easing one of the longest-standing objections to making the switch. Whether the government can keep the new-car pipeline flowing strongly enough to sustain that supply, however, remains the question hanging over the second half of the year.

Read more:
Used electric car sales accelerate to record quarter as motorists seek shelter from forecourt pain

A new specialist finance platform aimed squarely at the UK’s construction and manufacturing sectors has launched in a bid to ease one of the most persistent headaches facing small business owners: getting the bank to say yes.

SME Funded, founded by construction mergers and acquisitions specialist Bradley Lay, has positioned itself as the country’s first genuine one-stop shop for funding in these two capital-hungry industries. The platform combines access to more than 130 lenders with its own deployable capital, promising faster decisions and more flexible terms than the traditional high street route.

The timing is pointed. British SMEs have spent the past two years navigating tighter lending criteria, lengthening approval times and a noticeable retreat from small business banking by the major clearers. The Federation of Small Businesses has repeatedly warned that funding bottlenecks are throttling growth at precisely the moment the country needs it most, while construction insolvencies remain stubbornly high and manufacturers wrestle with input cost volatility.

Lay, who knows the construction sector intimately after helping scale a business from £12 million to more than £150 million in revenue before exiting in 2022, is blunt about the problem he is trying to solve.

“SMEs are the backbone of the UK economy, yet when it comes to finance, they’re often underserved,” he said. “Traditional lenders are slow, restrictive and risk averse. When businesses are growing, they hold them back, and when they’re under pressure, they step away. We built SME Funded to change that. This is about giving business owners real access to capital, quickly, intelligently and without unnecessary barriers.”

The product range is deliberately broad: business loans, asset and equipment finance, bridging and property finance, motor finance and software finance, each structured around the individual borrower rather than slotted into a generic template. The pitch is that working capital, growth funding and trading lifelines should look different for a Midlands precision engineer than they do for a London-based subcontractor, and the platform is built around that distinction.

What separates SME Funded from the broker pack, the company argues, is service. Rather than acting as a matchmaker and walking away, the team takes what it calls a “white-glove” approach, structuring deals, positioning the borrower’s story to lenders and managing the process end to end. A three-step application aims to get business owners from enquiry to funds in days rather than weeks.

The team has already worked with more than 600 UK business owners, an experience base that informs both the platform’s design and its sector focus. A spokesperson for the firm said: “Too many strong businesses are held back by slow processes, rigid criteria and a lack of understanding from traditional lenders. Our role goes beyond simply finding a lender. We structure funding properly, tell the right story and manage the entire process, so our clients can focus on running and growing their business.”

Lay’s pedigree adds weight to the proposition. As co-founder of Peak Capital Group and founder of TrueNorth Capital Group, he has led strategic acquisitions across the UK and European construction markets and has advised more than 100 SME owners on growth, financial strategy and exit planning. Having sat on both sides of the deal table, he understands what lenders actually want to see and where SMEs typically fall short in presenting it.

With the economic outlook still uncertain and high street appetite for SME lending showing few signs of recovery, SME Funded is betting that a sector-specialist, capital-backed platform can carve out meaningful share. If the company delivers on its promise of speed, certainty and proper deal structuring, it may have identified one of the more compelling gaps in Britain’s small business finance market.

Read more:
SME funded launches one-stop finance platform to plug funding gap for britain’s builders and manufacturers

Construction is an industry worth $13 trillion globally, yet it remains one of the least profitable on earth. Margins of between 1 and 4 per cent are the norm, and the commercial fate of most projects is sealed long before a single foundation is poured. That uncomfortable truth has just attracted serious capital.

ProcurePro, an Australian-founded software business pitching itself as the first end-to-end procurement platform built specifically for construction, has closed an $11 million (US) funding round led by QIC Ventures, the venture arm of one of Australia’s largest sovereign wealth funds and a substantial infrastructure asset owner in its own right. The round values the six-year-old company at more than $80 million.

Existing backers Airtree and Glitch Capital followed on, and were joined on the cap table by French construction heavyweight Bouygues, which invested through its corporate venture vehicle managed by ISAI. The fresh capital will be funnelled into ProcurePro’s AI roadmap and an ambitious push into the United Kingdom, the Middle East and North America.

The thesis is straightforward, if uncomfortable for an industry not known for its appetite for change. By the time a contractor breaks ground, roughly 80 per cent of project costs have already been committed and the bulk of supply chain risk is baked in. Yet across the sector, that critical procurement stage is still largely run on a patchwork of spreadsheets, email threads and disconnected PDFs — a state of affairs that would be unrecognisable in almost any other industry handling sums of comparable size.

ProcurePro’s response is to pull the full procurement lifecycle, scheduling, tendering, bid analysis and subcontracting, into a single system designed to give commercial teams genuine oversight before pen hits paper. Over the past six years, the platform has been used on 6,000 construction projects worldwide, representing more than $90 billion in build value, and has handled in excess of 200,000 trade packages.

That accumulated dataset is now the company’s strategic moat. It underpins BidLevel AI, ProcurePro’s flagship tool for comparing complex subcontractor quotes, a job that has traditionally swallowed days or even weeks of commercial managers’ time, and which the platform claims to compress into minutes.

Alastair Blenkin, founder and chief executive of ProcurePro, said the raise opens the next chapter of the company’s international growth. “Construction firms are still managing their most critical commercial decisions and millions in spend via out-of-date and untrustworthy spreadsheets,” he said. “The lack of true oversight delays risk identification, which ultimately erodes margins. We built ProcurePro to bring structure, control and certainty to the commercial cockpit of construction firms.”

Blenkin is unsubtle about the prize. “After years of supporting procurement across thousands of projects, we now have a rich foundation of real-world procurement data. This funding allows us to invest further in AI, where we’ll enable construction firms to estimate new project costs backed by their historical purchasing data, rather than someone’s estimate, memory, or a finger in the wind.”

Nick Capell, investment director at QIC Ventures, framed the deal in industrial-policy terms. “Procurement sits upstream of construction spend, yet remains highly manual and weakly governed. It’s a globally relevant problem that remains unsolved,” he said. “With Queensland delivering a once-in-a-generation infrastructure programme ahead of the 2032 Olympics, innovations that improve construction productivity are critical.”

For Bouygues, the appeal is more operational. Marie-Luce Godinot, the group’s senior vice-president for innovation, sustainability and IT, said ProcurePro had already proved itself on live sites. “ProcurePro is one of the first technologies we have seen that brings greater control to the full procurement journey for contractors. It has been deployed successfully on some Bouygues projects, with usage progressively developing across several business units.”

For UK contractors and their SME subcontractor base, the more immediate consequence is staffing. ProcurePro plans to hire 100 people globally over the next two years across product, engineering and go-to-market roles, with its London office among those being scaled alongside Brisbane and Dubai. A first US base is also on the cards.

Whether the platform proves to be the productivity catalyst its backers describe will ultimately be decided on building sites rather than in pitch decks. But after years of construction being singled out as the laggard of the digital economy, the level of conviction now being shown by sovereign wealth, tier-one contractors and specialist venture investors suggests the sector’s spreadsheet era may finally be drawing to a close.

Read more:
ProcurePro lands $11m to drag construction’s $13 trillion supply chain out of the spreadsheet era

The high street rebrand that nobody asked for is heading towards the rocks. TG Jones, the chain hatched from the bones of WH Smith’s 450-strong shop estate, is staring down the barrel of bailiff action after racking up millions of pounds in unpaid bills, with its private equity owner conceding that the business may run out of cash before the summer is out.

In a 214-page restructuring dossier circulated to creditors last week, Modella Capital, the buyout house that snapped up the high street arm of WH Smith earlier this year, disclosed that the retailer is sitting on £3.4m of unpaid business rates, a further £4m owed to suppliers and an £8.4m tax bill that HMRC has so far agreed to defer. Add it together and the chain is in the red by the best part of £16m before the lights have so much as flickered.

“In recent weeks, the business has started to receive a significant number of demand letters and summonses as a result of the non-payment of business rates arrears,” Modella admitted in the document. “Without funding to pay these outstanding business rates or the compromise of these amounts, the business is at risk of local authorities seeking to take enforcement action.”

In plain English, that means bailiffs at the door, either to seize stock from the shop floor or to lodge a winding-up petition against the company itself.

A name nobody recognises

The whole affair has the unmistakable whiff of a deal gone sour. When Modella bought the high street estate from WH Smith, which has decamped to focus on its lucrative travel division at airports and railway stations, it was forbidden from continuing to use the WH Smith fascia. The result was TG Jones, an invented name plastered above hundreds of shopfronts where one of Britain’s most familiar brands once sat.

Trading, predictably, has collapsed. One landlord, who asked not to be named, did not mince her words. “They’ve bought the business and rebranded it with a name that’s lost all the goodwill that went with it,” she said, describing the surviving estate as “a really below-par store portfolio that sells God knows what”. Footfall, she added bluntly, “fell off a cliff”.

She is not alone in her fury. Modella is now asking the landlords of more than 120 shops to accept three-year rent holidays, three years of receiving precisely nothing, while hundreds more are being told to swallow rent reductions of between 15 and 75 per cent. If they refuse, the company has warned, it will run out of cash by the end of June.

Westminster turns the heat up

The proposals have caused consternation in Westminster. Justin Madders, the former employment minister and a member of the Commons business and trade select committee, accused Modella of operating a “heads I win, tails the taxpayer loses” model.

“If workers lose jobs, councils lose revenue and the public is left carrying the cost,” he told The Telegraph. He reserved particular scorn for the licensing arrangements buried inside the restructuring plan, under which TG Jones is required to pay millions of pounds in fees to other parts of the Modella ownership structure for the right to use the very name it was forced to adopt.

“What sticks in the craw,” Mr Madders said, “is that while councils are left chasing unpaid business rates and HMRC is giving breathing space over millions in deferred tax liabilities, the company’s own restructuring documents show millions accruing in licensing fees payable within the wider ownership structure for use of the newly created TG Jones brand name.”

It is the sort of arrangement, common enough in private equity playbooks, that tends to look rather less defensible when councils across the country are being told to wait their turn.

‘Sucking the soul out of the high street’

For all the talk of brutal trading conditions on the British high street, retail analysts are unconvinced that TG Jones can shelter behind macroeconomic excuses. Stephen Springham, head of UK retail research at property consultancy Knight Frank, pointed out that books and stationery — the very heart of the WH Smith proposition — was “the best performing retail subcategory last year, bar none”.

“They can’t blame market conditions. It’s absolutely scandalous,” Mr Springham said, before delivering the most damning verdict the sector has heard in years. The takeover, he argued, was “probably the worst example we’ve ever seen of private equity sucking the soul out of the high street — the only one I would say was worse was BHS”.

The comparison with Sir Philip Green’s collapsed department store is not one any private equity sponsor wishes to invite.

150 closures and counting

Internally, the message from management is no less stark. Alex Willson, the chief executive parachuted in to run TG Jones, told staff last week to brace for the closure of as many as 150 shops as landlords activate break clauses requiring just 43 days’ notice. Redundancies will follow.

“We absolutely cannot carry on as we are or there will not be a viable business in the future,” Mr Willson warned employees.

Creditors will vote on the restructuring plan in late June, with a High Court hearing scheduled for 29 June to determine whether the proposals can be sanctioned. Teneo, the private equity-owned restructuring consultancy, is leading the process.

Several landlords are already plotting a rebellion. “The more proactive landlords, like us, will do everything they can to take them back and re-let them to someone else,” one told The Telegraph. “We’ll do better with other retailers.”

For SME suppliers and small landlords with single-shop exposures, the calculus is rather more brutal. They are owed real money by a business that has openly told them it cannot pay, sitting beneath an ownership structure that continues to extract licensing fees for a brand worth a fraction of what it replaced.

Modella declined to comment.

Read more:
TG Jones faces bailiff threat as WH Smith successor buckles under unpaid tax bills

The Ministry of Defence has handed £16.6m to Elon Musk’s Starlink over the past four years, with much of the bill underwriting Britain’s military support for Ukraine and keeping deployed personnel connected to home.

Figures quietly released by the department show that, despite mounting political tensions between Labour and the world’s richest man, Whitehall has steadily deepened its commercial relationship with the SpaceX-owned satellite operator. A significant share of the spending has covered the purchase of Starlink terminals donated to Kyiv, where the kit has proved indispensable in maintaining uninterrupted high-speed connectivity along the front line.

The remainder has been routed towards welfare and communications provision for British troops stationed in remote theatres. Last year, sailors aboard the carrier HMS Prince of Wales were reported to be trialling Starlink to stream television and keep in touch with families during long deployments, a quality-of-life upgrade the MoD is keen to extend across the fleet.

Ukraine has received more than 50,000 Starlink terminals since Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion in February 2022. The hardware has reached Kyiv through a patchwork of direct donations from SpaceX, US military aid packages and contributions from allies, with Poland the most prominent European supplier. On the battlefield, the terminals have become a critical piece of infrastructure, powering drone operations and underpinning command-and-control communications in conditions where traditional networks have collapsed.

For all the headlines, the MoD’s outlay on Starlink remains a rounding error against the wider military space budget. The Armed Forces’ principal orbital communications are still carried by the dedicated Skynet constellation, which is in line for a £6bn upgrade programme over the coming decade.

Yet the figures will reignite debate in Westminster over Britain’s reliance on a single billionaire whose politics are sharply at odds with the Government’s. Mr Musk declared in 2024 that “civil war” in Britain was inevitable, and in September that year addressed a London rally convened by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, calling on those present to demand the “dissolution of Parliament”. The intervention drew a furious response from ministers, with Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, telling the Tesla founder to “get the hell out of our politics and our country”.

Relations deteriorated further earlier this year when Mr Musk’s X platform was rocked by revelations that its Grok chatbot had circulated thousands of non-consensual sexualised images of women. The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, described the images as “absolutely disgusting”, prompting X to disable the function. X and Grok have both sat under the SpaceX corporate umbrella since February, alongside Starlink itself — meaning every contract the MoD signs with the satellite arm ultimately flows back to the same parent group.

The numbers also expose how comprehensively Starlink has eclipsed its UK-backed rival. OneWeb, the satellite operator part-owned by the British taxpayer following its 2020 government-led rescue, has secured just £2m of MoD business since 2022, barely a tenth of the Musk haul. For an industry that ministers have repeatedly identified as strategically vital, the gulf raises uncomfortable questions about domestic capability and procurement strategy.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “Starlink technology is not used for military operations and is primarily used by our hard-working personnel to stay connected with their loved ones when they’re in areas without regular internet access, for example on a warship. As the public would rightly expect, all spending is rigorously checked to ensure it delivers value for taxpayers’ money and spend on Starlink has significantly reduced in the last year.”

Read more:
MOD hands Musk’s Starlink £16m as Ukraine support drives satellite spend

For decades, British workplaces have measured employee wellbeing in days off. A bout of flu, a chest infection, a sprained ankle: a few sick notes, a fit-to-return form, and the matter is closed.

Yet a growing body of clinical evidence, and a steady drumbeat of employment tribunal cases, suggests that this tidy framework is wholly unfit to deal with the reproductive health challenges that thousands of British workers quietly navigate every day.

Fertility treatment, pregnancy loss and the menopause are, in the words of one consultant, fundamentally different beasts. They cannot be cleared by a course of antibiotics. They are not, in any meaningful sense, temporary. And, crucially for employers, the cost of getting the response wrong is no longer simply a matter of compassion, it is a matter of retention, productivity and, increasingly, legal exposure.

The conventional model of workplace illness assumes a hurdle that the body eventually clears. IVF, miscarriage and menopause do not behave that way. They are tied to identity, to the future a person had imagined for themselves, and to a biological transition that can play out over months or years rather than days.

A miscarriage is, in effect, a bereavement requiring emotional processing alongside physical recovery. IVF involves systemic hormonal shifts that are unpredictable in both timing and intensity. The menopause, increasingly recognised as a workplace issue in its own right, brings vasomotor and cognitive symptoms that can persist for the better part of a decade. None of these is a short-term medical issue, and treating them as such is the first mistake too many British employers continue to make.

Anyone who has sat through a difficult conversation at work knows the British instinct to reach for the silver lining. “At least you can try again.” “Everything happens for a reason.” “At least it was early on.” Said with the best of intentions, these phrases can land with extraordinary cruelty.

Clinically, “trying again” is never a guarantee. For a patient with low anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) levels, the marker used to assess ovarian reserve, each failed cycle or miscarriage represents a biological window that is closing rather than reopening. The phrase also ignores cumulative trauma: the physical and hormonal exhaustion that builds with every attempt. By looking to a hypothetical future, the colleague risks dismissing the very real grief and recovery happening in the present.

The advice from clinicians is simple. Drop the platitudes. Replace them with something direct: *”I’m sorry you are going through this. I’m here if you want to talk, or if you need anything.” Managers should go a step further, focusing on the practical: “I’m happy to adjust your workload and cover meetings so you can focus on your appointments and wellbeing.”

The principle is straightforward. Treat the situation as you would any other specialised medical need. Grant the employee the autonomy to attend appointments or take rest without making them justify themselves repeatedly. The goal is comfort and clarity, and reassurance that their career is not on the line because of their biology.

There is a hard-edged business case here, too, and it begins with cortisol. Sustained workplace stress and the fear of stigma trigger the chronic release of cortisol and adrenaline, the body’s fight-or-flight hormones. These are significant disruptors of an endocrine system that is already under intense pressure during IVF, miscarriage or menopause.

Elevated cortisol interferes with the body’s ability to regulate other essential hormones. For a perimenopausal employee, stress-induced inflammation can physically worsen the frequency and severity of hot flushes and night sweats. For an IVF patient, the same chemistry can sabotage the very treatment the company is, in many cases, helping to fund.

Stigma compounds the problem. When an employee feels they must conceal a miscarriage or a failed cycle to protect their professional standing, the body remains in a state of high tension. The parasympathetic nervous system, the state required for tissue repair and hormonal balancing, never gets a chance to take over. Patients delay seeking help, skip recovery days, and a standard recovery becomes a prolonged health crisis. The cost shows up later, on the absence rota and in the resignation letter.

Among the most misunderstood symptoms is so-called brain fog. During menopause or a high-intensity IVF cycle, the brain’s oestrogen receptors, which govern how the brain uses glucose for energy, are effectively starving or being overwhelmed. The result is a genuine power failure in the regions responsible for memory and executive function.

When a colleague undergoing fertility treatment loses a word mid-sentence or drifts in a meeting, this is not distraction or reduced effort. It is a physiological response to a hormonal storm. Managers who recognise this, and who quietly adjust expectations rather than file it under “performance concern”, will hold on to talented people that less informed competitors will lose.

Reproductive health, employers should understand, is rarely a day-of event. It takes roughly 90 days for a sperm cell to mature, and a similar window applies to the preparation of an egg for ovulation in an IVF cycle. The lifestyle, stress levels and workplace environment an employee experiences today will directly shape their clinical outcome three months from now.

This has profound implications for how SMEs structure their support. A single day of compassionate leave around an egg retrieval, while welcome, is not the point. The biological lead-in — the three months in which keeping cortisol low matters most, is the period in which the employer’s culture is doing its real work, for good or ill. True support is a sustained environment, not a one-off concession.

For UK employers, particularly those running smaller businesses where HR is often a part-time concern, the temptation has long been to handle these matters informally and on a case-by-case basis. That approach is no longer fit for purpose.

Workplace support should not be viewed solely as a wellbeing initiative. It is a factor that can influence treatment tolerance, recovery and overall health outcomes — and, by extension, attendance, productivity and retention. Reproductive medicine specialists routinely see how a lack of flexibility and the strain of uncertainty add to the physical and emotional burden their patients are already carrying.

The modern framework, clinicians argue, should include protected time for medical appointments and treatment cycles; appropriate leave and recovery support following pregnancy loss at any stage; and trained managers capable of handling these conversations sensitively. Confidentiality, flexible working and access to emotional support should be considered core components of an occupational health approach, not optional extras.

Above all, the policy must remain adaptable. Fertility experiences are highly individual, and a rigid model, the kind British HR departments have historically loved, will not survive contact with the variety of clinical pathways now in play.

The businesses that grasp this will retain experienced women in their thirties, forties and fifties, the very demographic most likely to be promoted out of, and lost to, less enlightened employers. Those that don’t will continue to wonder why their best people quietly disappear. In 2026, that is no longer a wellbeing question. It is a competitive one.

Read more:
Why IVF and miscarriage still aren’t properly supported at work

The owner of Facebook and Instagram has taken the UK’s media regulator to the high court, opening a fresh front in the increasingly fractious relationship between Silicon Valley and Britain’s online safety regime.

Meta has filed for a judicial review of Ofcom’s methodology for setting fees and penalties under the Online Safety Act, arguing that pegging charges to a company’s qualifying worldwide revenue (QWR) is disproportionate and out of step with the geographic scope of the regulator’s remit. A hearing has been scheduled for 13 and 14 October.

The stakes are considerable. Under the Act, Ofcom can levy fines of up to 10 per cent of QWR or £18m, whichever is higher. Given that Meta reported global revenues of roughly $201bn last year, the regulator could in theory issue a penalty of around $20bn, a sum that would dwarf the largest fines in UK corporate history. The fee regime introduced last September applies the same QWR principle to annual tariffs, capturing companies whose user-generated content, search or adult-content services in the UK generate more than £250m a year.

Meta contends that liability should be determined by activity within the jurisdiction doing the regulating. “We and others in the tech industry believe its decisions on the methodology to calculate fees and potential fines are disproportionate,” a company spokesperson said. “We believe fees and penalties should be based on the services being regulated in the countries they’re being regulated in. This would still allow Ofcom to impose the largest fines in UK corporate history.”

Court documents filed on Meta’s behalf by Monica Carss-Frisk KC describe Ofcom’s approach as “troubling”, warning that it would result in a handful of large platforms shouldering the bulk of the regulator’s costs even though the Act covers a much broader sweep of internet services. The barrister noted that QWR is not pegged to revenue generated by any particular service in the UK; rather, once a service is offered to British users, the entirety of its global turnover is counted.

Ofcom, for its part, is preparing to dig in. The regulator said its fees and fines framework reflected “a plain reading of the law” and pledged to “robustly defend our reasoning and decisions”.

Meta is not alone in pushing back. The US online forum 4chan has refused to pay penalties imposed under the Act, and Ofcom is facing separate litigation from the operators of both 4chan and Kiwi Farms. The regime has also drawn criticism from Donald Trump’s White House, which has signalled growing impatience with European digital rules that it sees as targeting American firms.

The financial significance of the new system for Ofcom itself is hard to overstate. Once the preserve of broadcasters and telecoms operators paying for spectrum and licence fees, the regulator now expects the bulk of its £233m budget for the year to come from online safety tariffs, which are forecast to bring in £164m. That marks one of the most substantial shifts in Ofcom’s funding base in its two-decade history.

For SME founders watching from the sidelines, the case is more than a transatlantic skirmish between Big Tech and a British quango. The threshold of £250m in qualifying turnover means most smaller platforms sit outside the fee net, but the principles being tested in October, how revenue is attributed across borders, and how proportionality is measured for global digital businesses, will shape the regulatory environment for any UK-based scale-up that one day finds itself trading internationally on the back of user-generated content. The judgment, when it comes, will be read closely well beyond Menlo Park.

Read more:
Meta launches high court challenge against Ofcom over online safety act fines

American Express has thrown its weight behind the small business AI skills race, unveiling two training and education programmes designed to drag owner-managers and their staff out of the experimentation phase and into measurable productivity gains.

Announced this week, the initiatives have been built in partnership with the global non-profit Generation and US-based Scholarship America. The first, AI Upskilling for Small Business, is a free training programme delivered by Generation that is open to small firms anywhere in the world and taught in English and Spanish. The second, Smart Futures for Small Business Scholarships, is a US-only pot funded by the American Express Foundation that will hand eligible employees up to $1,000 (around £790) to spend on AI certification courses run by accredited vendors or educational institutions.

The move lands at a moment when boardroom enthusiasm for generative AI has yet to translate into shop-floor competence. Multiple recent surveys of UK and US small firms suggest that while curiosity is near universal, the share of owner-managers using AI tools in any structured way remains stubbornly low, with confidence and training cited as the principal blockers.

Jennifer Skyler, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at American Express, said the company wanted to bridge precisely that gap. “AI can be a powerful tool for small businesses when it’s used in practical, everyday ways,” she said. “These initiatives were designed to help small businesses move from Gen AI exploration to practical application, equipping them to drive productivity and help unlock new opportunities for growth.”

The Generation curriculum, refined through a series of pilots, is split into three self-guided tracks pitched at different roles and levels of AI familiarity. An AI Generalist track offers a foundational primer alongside short, applied “Mini Missions” covering everyday tasks. A Digital Marketing track focuses on using AI for content production, campaign optimisation and customer insight. A Digital Customer Success track concentrates on speeding up enquiry handling and personalising the customer experience.

Across all three, participants are taught to draft customer communications, support marketing campaigns, summarise and organise information, and convert raw research into commercial insight, while keeping a human eye on the output.

Bonni Theriault, Chief Partnerships Officer at Generation, said the structure was deliberately practical. “Generation programs support participants to practice and master the skills that make the biggest difference to them in their day-to-day work,” she said. “We are delighted to partner with American Express to offer small business owners a chance to hone their AI skills and see real benefits in their work.”

For Katy Kinch, owner of US-based Buttermilk Bakeshop and an early participant, the value lay in punching above her weight. “One of the biggest program takeaways for me was realising how powerful AI can be when used the right way, because it allowed me to do things that typically require a full team,” she said. “I was able to analyse customer feedback, identify trends and track retention patterns from my living room, which gave me insights I wouldn’t normally have access to as a small business owner.”

The Smart Futures element, administered by Scholarship America, is structured as an employer-nomination scheme. Owners can put a team member forward for funding to pursue AI courses or certificate programmes of their choice. Mike Nylund, President and CEO of Scholarship America, framed it as workforce insurance against rapid technology change. “AI tools give small businesses a world of opportunity, and education and training ensure that their workforce is ready to meet the moment,” he said.

For British small business owners watching from the other side of the Atlantic, the cash element is off the table, but the Generation training is not. The curriculum is open globally and free at the point of use, putting it within reach of any UK firm prepared to commit a few hours of staff time. With the Government continuing to push productivity as the central economic challenge facing the country, and with AI repeatedly identified as the most plausible lever for small firms to pull, programmes that lower the barrier to competent adoption are likely to attract growing interest.

Generation is running multiple cohorts throughout the year, with registration open via its website. Applications close on 10 June 2026.

Read more:
American Express opens free AI training to small firms as adoption gap widens

Amazon has quietly opened a new front in the battle for ultra-fast delivery, becoming the first retailer in Britain to drop parcels by drone after a limited launch in Darlington, County Durham.

The service, operated under the company’s long-gestating Prime Air programme, will see packages weighing less than 5lb (2.2kg) flown out from an Amazon fulfilment centre to homes within a 7.5-mile (12km) radius. Initial payloads are unglamorous but practical: beauty products, batteries, charging cables and the kind of small household items shoppers tend to discover they need only when it is already too late to drive to the shops.

For Amazon, which first promised drone deliveries more than a decade ago and has since watched the technology stutter through regulatory and engineering setbacks, the Darlington launch is both a proof point and a test bed. For Britain’s retail sector, including the small and medium-sized businesses that increasingly rely on Amazon’s logistics network, it is a sharper reminder still that the goalposts on customer expectation are moving once again.

The trial’s earliest beneficiary was Rob Shield, a Darlington farmer who let Amazon use an Airbnb on his land for its first test runs. The novelty, he admits, soon took over.

“Initially it was a novelty, so we were ordering everything under the sun,” he says. “Pens, paper, chocolates, anything to make it keep coming.”

Parcels arrive in shoebox-sized packages, released from a height of around 12ft onto the front garden. The spectacle, Mr Shield concedes, drew its own audience: “We’d have people come just to see it.”

What began as a curiosity has become, in his telling, a quiet utility. “You start realising, ‘I actually need something today’, like tape measures and stuff you’re always losing. We just order it and it comes.”

In the UK, Amazon’s drones currently promise delivery within two hours. The American benchmark is rather more pointed: David Carbon, vice president of Amazon Prime Air, says the average delivery time in the US is now 36 minutes.

“The certainty is people have never told us they want their stuff slower,” he says. “If you’ve got kids and you want fever medication, you want it. You don’t want to drive to the store.”

Amazon will cap operations at ten flights an hour and up to one hundred deliveries a day on weekdays, a deliberately modest cadence designed to satisfy regulators rather than sceptical shareholders.

The aircraft in question is the MK30, Amazon’s latest model, fitted with sensors intended to avoid trampolines, washing lines, pedestrians and other aircraft. GPS guides the drone to each drop-off, where it releases its load. “This is effectively an autonomous drone that can do what a pilot does in a flight deck. It can do what ground crews do, and it can deliver a package,” Mr Carbon says.

That autonomy is not absolute. The Darlington flights are conducted “beyond visual line of sight”, BVLOS in industry parlance, but every aircraft is monitored remotely by an operator who liaises with air traffic control at nearby Teesside Airport when required.

The choice of Darlington is, on closer inspection, a piece of careful corporate scouting rather than an accident of geography. The town offers a useful mix of residential streets, major roads and an airport in close proximity, allowing Amazon to stress-test its kit across multiple environments without travelling far. Crucially, it sits beside an Amazon hub with the deep stock needed to support the service.

It is also the only location outside the United States where the company is operating drone deliveries.

The Civil Aviation Authority has granted approval for a trial running to the end of the year, with temporary protected airspace, a regulatory prerequisite for autonomous flight under current rules, secured until mid-June and expected to be extended. Darlington Borough Council, which approved temporary planning permission for what it described as the “unprecedented nature of the scheme”, said it was “great to see Darlington at the forefront of such a pioneering scheme which highlights our borough as an area of innovation, development and investment”.

The limits of flying logistics

For all the choreography, the technology has obvious constraints. Eligible customers will need a garden or yard. Flats and terraces without outside space are excluded.

Dr Anna Jackman, an associate professor of geography at the University of Reading, says the Darlington trial illustrates both the promise and the limitations of the technology. “A lot of our demand for delivery services is in urban centres. They are very densely populated, very congested. And the reality is [drone deliveries] don’t work well in high-rise buildings.”

Rooftop drop-offs and centrally located drone hubs are being explored, she adds, “but right now we’re not there yet”.

There is also the question of safety, where Amazon’s record is not unblemished. In February, an MK30 drone clipped the gutter of an apartment building in a Dallas suburb after losing GPS signal, falling to the ground and breaking apart. No one was hurt, and Amazon has since suspended deliveries to similar buildings. Mr Carbon describes it as one of the “things we learn as we go along”, noting that 170,000 drone flights have been completed safely.

Drones are not entirely new to British skies. The NHS is trialling them to ferry blood supplies across London, and Royal Mail is using them to reach remote communities in Orkney. Amazon’s intervention is different in character: this is a commercial play by the country’s largest online retailer, and the read-across for smaller businesses is significant.

Independent retailers and the SMEs that use Amazon’s marketplace will, sooner or later, face customers who have come to view sub-two-hour delivery as the baseline. The pressure to match, or at least mitigate, that experience will fall hardest on those without the logistics muscle of a global platform. At the same time, the gradual normalisation of BVLOS flight could open new commercial doors for British drone operators, software firms and aerospace suppliers servicing the sector.

For now, the residents of Darlington are the test market, and reaction has been mixed. The launch itself ran years behind Amazon’s original 2023 pledge to begin in 2024, a reminder that aviation regulation does not bend easily to Silicon Valley timelines.

Mr Carbon is unrepentant. “We wouldn’t be doing it if it wasn’t commercially viable,” he says. “It’s a business, right? Absolutely, it can be commercially viable, and that’s the goal that we’re going after.”

Whether it ends up reshaping British retail logistics or remaining an expensively engineered curiosity will depend on what happens next: the regulator’s willingness to widen the airspace, Amazon’s appetite to keep spending, and customers’ willingness to look up.

Read more:
Amazon’s drones touch down in Darlington in UK delivery first

Britain’s state-backed economic development bank has thrown its weight behind one of the country’s most enduring venture capital problems, committing an initial £1 million to co-invest with Angel Academe in female-led businesses across the United Kingdom.

The British Business Bank’s capital, announced today, will sit alongside private money raised by Angel Academe and its EIS fund, which is managed in partnership with crowdfunding-turned-fund-manager SyndicateRoom. The vehicle invests exclusively in high-growth companies with at least one female founder, writing cheques at seed and Series A. The first deals under the new arrangement are expected before the end of June.

The headline figure may look modest set against the sums sloshing around the wider venture market, but the symbolism is anything but. Female founders in the UK still receive less than two per cent of all venture capital deployed, a stubborn statistic that has barely shifted in a decade despite a procession of well-meaning initiatives, codes and pledges. Angel Academe was a founding signatory of the Investing in Women Code, and today’s commitment marks one of the more concrete moves yet from a state institution to put taxpayer-backed capital where the rhetoric has long been.

For an Angel Academe portfolio that already includes Béa Fertility, the at-home conception platform, supply chain transparency outfit Provenance and consumer data privacy business Data Wøllet, the British Business Bank’s involvement amounts to a meaningful seal of approval. Institutional money tends to follow institutional money, and the bank’s imprimatur could prove more valuable to the funds’ fundraising efforts than the cheque itself.

Graham Schwikkard, chief executive of SyndicateRoom, was unambiguous about the thesis. “It’s not a lack of talent, it’s a lack of access,” he said. “This £1m isn’t just capital, it’s a signal to the market that female-led businesses are some of the most undervalued assets in the UK right now. We’re looking for the next sector-defining companies that others are simply missing.”

Sarah Turner, who founded Angel Academe and serves as its chief executive, struck a similar note. “We don’t have a pipeline problem; we have a funding problem,” she said. “By partnering with the British Business Bank, we’re able to put more capital into the hands of women who are building the future of healthcare, data, and commerce.”

Nancy Liu, senior investment manager at British Business Bank Investments, framed the commitment in growth terms rather than purely as an equity question. “The gender investment gap isn’t just a matter of equality, it’s also a barrier to potential growth and innovation in the UK,” she said. “Female founders remain significantly underfunded and the British Business Bank aims to unlock potential across the UK by ensuring diverse entrepreneurs have access to finance, including female founders.”

The funding gap is particularly pronounced in technology and healthcare, where ticket sizes are larger and capital intensity higher — and where, perhaps not coincidentally, the dearth of female cheque-writers on the other side of the table has been most loudly criticised. Whether £1 million of public money proves the catalyst for a meaningful shift, or simply another data point in a long-running debate, will depend on what the bank chooses to do next.

The Angel Academe EIS Funds form part of SyndicateRoom’s stable of tax-efficient investment vehicles, which also includes the Carbon13 SEIS Fund, the Access EIS Fund and the SR Carry Back EIS Fund. SyndicateRoom has now deployed capital into more than 200 British businesses since its launch.

Read more:
British Business Bank pledges £1m to close gender funding gap through Angel Academe partnership

British SMEs operating in one of the country’s fastest-moving aviation frontiers have been handed a significant vote of confidence, after the Government today committed almost £50 million to accelerate the rollout of commercial drones and flying taxis, while bringing in tougher rules to ground the rogue operators clouding the sector’s reputation.

The £46.5 million package, announced by the Department for Transport on 5 May, is designed to dismantle the regulatory bottlenecks that have long frustrated drone start-ups and advanced air mobility firms hoping to scale up their operations across the UK. Ministers believe the wider sector could be worth as much as £103 billion to the economy by 2050, supporting tens of thousands of skilled jobs in engineering, manufacturing, software and operations.

Of the total, £26.5 million will be channelled through the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to streamline approvals for commercial drone use, particularly in emergency response, medical logistics and infrastructure inspection, and to lay the groundwork for electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, more commonly known as flying taxis, to enter UK skies from 2028. Operators will also benefit from a digitised application process intended to slash the time spent navigating red tape.

The remaining £20.5 million will fund the UK’s first bespoke drone identification system, effectively a numberplate for the skies. Using Hybrid Remote ID technology, the system will broadcast a drone’s identity and location during flight, enabling police and other authorised bodies to identify operators in real time and pursue those flying illegally or recklessly.

Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation Minister Keir Mather said the investment was about backing British innovators while keeping public trust intact. “We’re backing the next generation of British aviation innovators with nearly £50 million to drive drone regulation reforms, and unlock barriers to growth that will create jobs, lower emissions, and further the UK’s world-leading aviation reputation,” he said. “Innovation must go hand in hand with strong security, that’s why over half of our investment will develop a new ID system to track drones in real-time, supporting emergency services and building public confidence in an industry that could be worth up to £103 billion by 2050.”

Security Minister Dan Jarvis was blunter still on the enforcement angle. “This funding will create a numberplate system for the skies,” he said. “Law enforcement will be able to identify and take action against those who break the law, taking drones out of the sky, and protecting the public.”

For SMEs working at the sharp end of the industry, the announcement is being read as a long-overdue acknowledgement that regulation has lagged behind technology. Sophie O’Sullivan, director of future safety and innovation at the CAA, said the funding would help unlock routine drone deliveries, long-range inspections and hospital logistics. “Our work going on right now is laying the foundations for commercial operation in the future,” she said. “This vital funding supports the next generation of aerospace, strengthening safety and bringing economic growth for the UK.”

Industry leaders broadly welcomed the move. Stuart Simpson, chief executive of Bristol-based eVTOL firm Vertical Aerospace, said a regulator able to move at pace was essential if Britain hoped to lead in advanced air mobility. “The UK’s CAA has been a serious and constructive partner,” he said. “This investment is a further step towards positioning the UK at the leading edge of the eVTOL sector as it moves towards commercial operations.”

Stephen Wright, chairman and founder of autonomous cargo drone manufacturer Windracers, said the package combined the two ingredients smaller operators have been calling for. “Targeted investment alongside practical regulatory reform is exactly what is needed to unlock real world operations at scale,” he said. “At Windracers, we see first-hand how autonomous aviation can strengthen supply chains, support critical services and operate reliably in some of the most challenging environments.”

The announcement sits alongside a broader Government push to cement the UK as what ministers describe as an “aviation superpower”, including airspace modernisation, £2.3 billion for the development of greener aircraft and a further £63 million for sustainable aviation fuel. For the country’s drone and AAM SMEs, many of which have spent years burning runway waiting for regulation to catch up, today’s commitment may finally signal that the runway is clearing.

Read more:
Government commits £46.5m to fast-track drone industry and tackle rogue operators

GameStop, the American video game chain that became the standard-bearer of the 2021 meme stock frenzy, has stunned Wall Street with an unsolicited $55.5bn (£40.9bn) cash-and-stock offer for the online marketplace eBay, an audacious reverse takeover that would see a company worth roughly a quarter of its target attempt to swallow it whole.

The bid, pitched at $125 a share, represents a $20 premium on eBay’s closing price in New York on Friday. Ryan Cohen, GameStop’s chief executive and the activist investor who engineered the retailer’s improbable turnaround, has signalled he is prepared to take the offer directly to eBay shareholders should the board rebuff him.

Cohen, who has built a reputation for cage-rattling boardroom interventions since making his name as the founder of online pet retailer Chewy, told the Wall Street Journal that eBay “should be worth, and will be worth, a lot more money,” adding that the marketplace “could be a legit competitor to Amazon” under fresh ownership. Under the terms tabled, he would become chief executive of the enlarged group on neither salary nor bonus, taking remuneration solely on the basis of share price performance.

The proposal has been met with thinly veiled scepticism from the City and Wall Street alike. Morgan Stanley described the two companies as having “fundamentally different” business models, while analysts at Bernstein pointed to the yawning gap between GameStop’s balance sheet and the scale of the prize, saying they would be “surprised if anything became of it”. Sucharita Kodali, retail analyst at the research firm Forrester, was equally blunt in conversation with Business Matters, warning that the deal “would saddle eBay with GameStop’s debt” and noting drily: “The truth is, we are not necessarily putting two strong companies together.”

Even so, the financial architecture is in place. GameStop, currently capitalised at around $11.9bn, has secured a commitment letter from TD Securities for some $20bn of debt finance, and Cohen has earmarked $2bn of annual cost cuts within twelve months of completion, savings he intends to wring largely from eBay’s sales and marketing function, which he argues has failed to capitalise on what GameStop terms a “marketplace with near-universal brand recognition”.

For eBay, the approach lands at a delicate juncture. Founded in 1995 as a haven for hobbyists and collectors, the platform was once a defining icon of the early internet but has watched its active user base contract from 175 million in 2018 to 136 million today, ground steadily lost to Amazon, Shopify-powered direct-to-consumer brands and a new wave of social commerce upstarts. The board confirmed it would consider the proposal, though insiders have privately questioned whether a leveraged bid from a smaller bricks-and-mortar operator constitutes a credible route forward.

GameStop’s own story remains one of corporate theatre. Catapulted into the public consciousness during the pandemic, when an army of retail investors organising on Reddit forced a short squeeze that briefly rewrote market mechanics, the company has since used its inflated valuation to shore up its balance sheet and pivot under Cohen, who took the chief executive role in 2023. Net profit climbed to $418.4m in 2025, up from $131.3m the previous year, although top-line sales continued to slide, the familiar pattern of a retailer cutting its way to profitability rather than growing into it.

Investors delivered their verdict swiftly. eBay shares closed up 5 per cent in New York on Monday, while GameStop tumbled by more than 9 per cent, the market’s blunt assessment that any value created by the deal would flow firmly in one direction.

For Cohen, however, the strategic logic extends beyond the spreadsheet. GameStop’s network of roughly 1,600 American stores would, he argues, hand eBay a ready-made physical footprint for live commerce, authentication services and other ventures that have struggled to gain traction online alone. Whether that proposition is sufficient to overcome the structural and financial objections piling up against the bid is, for the moment, very much an open question.

What is not in doubt is that Cohen has, once again, ensured that the corporate establishment cannot ignore him.

Read more:
Gamestop tables shock $55.5bn swoop for eBay as Cohen sets sights on Amazon

Microsoft is to plant a fresh flag in central London, taking the entirety of Film House, an eight-storey Art Deco landmark on Wardour Street, to serve as the principal home of its rapidly expanding UK artificial intelligence operations.

The deal underscores how the world’s deepest-pocketed technology groups are doubling down on the capital as the AI arms race intensifies. Microsoft, alongside Meta and Amazon, is committing billions of dollars to compute, talent and real estate in pursuit of a slice of what is shaping up to be the defining commercial contest of the decade.

Film House carries no small amount of cinematic provenance. Built in the 1920s as the first British outpost of French film studio Pathé, complete with private screening rooms, the building later housed HMV before serving as Nike’s UK headquarters. Texas-based developer Hines acquired the property in 2023 and has since refurbished it to court the buoyant demand for premium workspace. Tenants will find a gym, a bar, a rooftop terrace, a so-called hidden courtyard, showers and changing rooms, and, in a nod to the building’s heritage, a cinema in the basement.

Even with Film House secured, Microsoft is understood to be hunting for a substantially larger London headquarters to consolidate its wider workforce in the capital. Property agents suggest the company has its eye on a 300,000 sq ft footprint, three times the size of the Soho building, somewhere along the Elizabeth Line, where transport connectivity has reshaped occupier appetite.

A Microsoft spokesman declined to comment on the Film House lease but said: “We are committed to the UK and have facilities across the country. We regularly review our portfolio to make sure it meets the needs of our people and our long-term business.” Hines also declined to comment.

The American group is far from alone. Last month OpenAI signed a lease for a larger base near King’s Cross, just around the corner from rival Anthropic, which recently confirmed plans to move into the same neighbourhood. The clustering effect is unmistakable, and is rippling through the wider SME ecosystem of AI start-ups, scale-ups and supporting professional services drawn to the gravitational pull of the majors.

Mike Gedye, head of European technology leasing at CBRE, said: “We expect London’s depth of talent and established tech ecosystem to continue reinforcing its position as a global hub for technology and AI. Tech and AI businesses are making a footprint in London on a relatively small or short-term lease, but upsizing significantly within 18 to 24 months.”

That trajectory has profound implications for the capital’s commercial property market. CBRE estimates AI companies could absorb close to half of all the speculative office space currently under construction in London. Between now and 2033, the firm’s analysts forecast that AI occupiers will take up to four million sq ft of workspace, the equivalent of roughly eight Gherkins.

Not everyone is convinced the boom will hold. Some in the property industry warn that AI’s productivity gains may ultimately translate into fewer jobs across the wider economy, eroding tenant demand. Landlords, however, are betting the other way, calculating that the explosive growth of start-up technology businesses will more than compensate for any contraction at more traditional employers.

For London’s smaller technology firms, the message from Microsoft’s Soho move is clear: the capital’s AI gold rush is gathering pace, and the postcodes around it are about to get very crowded indeed.

Read more:
Microsoft plants AI flag in Soho with Film House lease as London tech land grab accelerates

NatWest has cashed in on the surge in borrowing costs unleashed by the war in Iran, posting a 12.2 per cent jump in first-quarter pre-tax profits to £2 billion and lifting its revenue guidance for the year, the latest sign that Britain’s biggest lenders are reaping the rewards of a market that no longer expects the Bank of England to keep cutting rates.

The FTSE 100 bank comfortably outpaced the £1.9 billion pencilled in by City analysts, with results published on Friday showing total income up 9.5 per cent year-on-year at just shy of £4.4 billion. Crucially for shareholders, its net interest margin, the gap between what the bank charges on loans and pays out on deposits, widened to 2.47 per cent from 2.27 per cent a year earlier.

Buoyed by the stronger quarter, NatWest told investors it now expects full-year income, stripping out one-off effects, to land at the “top end” of its previously guided range of £17.2 billion to £17.6 billion, citing “our latest expectations for interest rates and economic conditions”.

The numbers complete a hat-trick of bumper updates from Britain’s high-street giants, following similarly strong figures from Lloyds Banking Group and Barclays earlier in the week. Together they underline how the higher-for-longer rates regime, re-imposed by the energy price shock that followed the outbreak of war on 28 February, has transformed the economics of UK retail and commercial banking, at least in the short term.

Paul Thwaite, chief executive of NatWest, was at pains to play down any suggestion that the bank was simply riding a geopolitical wave. “It’s a good set of numbers but the numbers are driven by doing things for customers,” he said, pointing to deposits up 2.5 per cent year-on-year at £445.5 billion and net lending 6.6 per cent higher at £396.4 billion.

For the millions of households and small businesses on the receiving end, however, the numbers tell a more uncomfortable story. With inflation expectations climbing, swap rates, the wholesale benchmarks that lenders use to price fixed-rate mortgages, have jumped sharply. The average two-year fixed residential deal stood at 4.83 per cent before the conflict, according to data provider Moneyfacts, but has since climbed to 5.78 per cent. The Bank of England held its base rate at 3.75 per cent this week but warned that borrowing costs may need to rise “significantly” if price pressures persist.

Higher rates, of course, cut both ways. They flatter margins, but they also stress-test the loan book. NatWest set aside a £140 million charge to reflect the war’s likely drag on the economy, taking its quarterly impairment for expected credit losses to £283 million, up from £189 million in the same period last year. The bank is now modelling UK economic growth of just 0.4 per cent this year, with unemployment peaking at 5.7 per cent.

Thwaite was candid about the limits of forecasting in the current climate. “None of us know exactly how it’s going to pan out over the course of the rest of the year; a lot of that will depend on the duration of the energy shock,” he said.

For now, though, NatWest’s books are holding up. Katie Murray, the bank’s finance chief, said the lender had “not seen significant shifts in customer behaviour or signs of stress”, a guarded but pointed reassurance for investors mindful that today’s fatter margins could quickly be eroded if SME borrowers and mortgage holders begin to buckle under the weight of dearer debt.

For Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses, already navigating tighter credit conditions and weaker demand, the read-across is sobering: the banks may be thriving on the new rate environment, but the cost of capital for the rest of the economy is heading in only one direction.

Read more:
Natwest profits jump to £2bn as Iran conflict drives mortgage rates higher

Britain’s reputation as Europe’s cleantech powerhouse is being undermined by a brutal funding drought at the very bottom of the pipeline, with new figures showing investment in the country’s youngest low-carbon and renewable energy companies has collapsed to its lowest level in five years.

Research published by Cleantech for UK (CTUK) reveals that the value of early-stage deals halved in 2025, while the number of transactions plunged from 188 in 2024 to just 94 last year. The slump comes despite the broader sector pulling in £7.2 billion of investment overall, comfortably outstripping Germany’s £1.7 billion and France’s £1.4 billion.

The headline figure may flatter to deceive. Strip away the late-stage mega-deals and a far more uncomfortable picture emerges of an industry whose seed corn is being eaten before it has chance to germinate.

“If we allow the pipeline to dry up now, it means we’ll have no new innovation in cleantech coming through in five years’ time,” warns Sarah Mackintosh, director of CTUK and a former head of innovation at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. “Funders will be sitting there waiting for scale-ups and none will come.”

CTUK, established in 2023 to bridge the gap between Whitehall and the venture community, attributes the early-stage collapse to what it terms a “triple squeeze”: punishingly high industrial energy prices, the quiet closure last year of the Government’s Net Zero Innovation Portfolio without a successor, and investor caution rooted in higher interest rates.

Westminster’s recent decision to decouple gas and electricity prices, severing the link that has long allowed expensive gas to set the price for cheaper renewables, is expected to deliver what Mackintosh calls a “fairly immediate impact”. Yet it does little to address the underlying reality that British industrial energy costs remain among the dearest in Europe, a particular handicap for the capital-hungry sectors at the heart of the energy transition such as battery manufacturing and carbon capture infrastructure.

To these domestic headwinds has been added a fresh geopolitical shock. The US-Iran conflict and tensions around the Strait of Hormuz have rekindled fears of an oil and gas price spiral, with the International Monetary Fund warning that Britain faces the sharpest growth downgrade in the G7 and one of the highest inflation rates as a consequence.

Mackintosh notes that higher rates and the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions have also dulled the appetite of venture capital firms, whose money, she says, “doesn’t go as far as it used to”.

The picture is rather rosier further up the funding ladder. Total equity investment in cleantech rose by 58 per cent year-on-year to £3.9 billion, though the bulk of that capital flowed to software businesses and proven, late-stage operators. Among the standouts was a £750 million raise by Kraken, the energy technology platform owned by Octopus Energy Group, and a £130 million round for energy infrastructure specialist Highview Power. The total nevertheless sits well shy of the £11.9 billion peak struck in 2023.

CTUK is now urging the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank to deploy their firepower more aggressively to help young firms cross the so-called valley of death between a laboratory breakthrough and a commercial factory. The National Wealth Fund signalled in January that it intends to channel up to £5 billion a year of taxpayer money into green energy projects, but the question for SMEs is whether any of that will reach companies still trying to prove their technology at scale.

Mackintosh points to British innovators such as battery-tech firm Anaphite, materials specialist Immaterial and carbon-removal venture Supercritical as the sort of “world-leading” businesses now in jeopardy. “These are the sorts of companies that are going to put the UK on the map,” she says. “It would be a travesty if we didn’t even start the ideas because they haven’t got the backing to scale up.”

For a Government that has staked much of its industrial strategy on green growth, the warning lights are flashing. Without urgent intervention to rekindle early-stage investment, ministers risk presiding over a clean-energy economy that imports tomorrow’s breakthrough technologies rather than exports them.

Read more:
Britain’s green start-ups face ‘triple squeeze’ as early-stage funding crashes to five-year low

Christina Ong’s Como Group has emerged as a key shareholder in the lossmaking SL6, the holding company behind The Fat Duck and the Hinds Head, handing the celebrity chef the firepower to expand.

The Singaporean billionaire long credited with turning London’s Bond Street into a luxury catwalk has set her sights on a rather more idiosyncratic British institution: the country kitchen of Heston Blumenthal.

Christina Ong, the 78-year-old fashion mogul and hotelier dubbed the “Queen of Bond Street”, has emerged as the new financial backer of the celebrity chef’s lossmaking restaurant empire. Filings lodged this week show that her family’s Como Group has become a key shareholder with significant control of SL6, the holding company behind Blumenthal’s culinary ventures.

The deal hands the Ong family a foothold in one of British gastronomy’s most distinctive brands and offers the chef the financial muscle to push into new markets. It is understood the cash injection will underpin the expansion of Blumenthal’s award-winning operations, headed by The Fat Duck in Bray, Berkshire, the three-Michelin-starred restaurant that almost single-handedly placed British “molecular gastronomy” on the world map when it opened in 1995. Blumenthal, 59, also operates the nearby Hinds Head pub close to Maidenhead.

“Como’s international experience in the hospitality sector opens up new doors for what comes next,” Blumenthal said, adding that the partnership would allow the group to “explore new possibilities”.

The investment arrives at a delicate moment for SL6. In its most recent set of accounts, the company conceded it was in talks with potential investors to secure long-term funding “to help overcome the current economic challenges [and] provide a foundation for future growth”. For the 12 months to the end of May 2024, revenues fell to £8.9 million from £9.5 million while pre-tax losses widened to £2.1 million, up from £1.4 million the previous year.

A spokeswoman for the company sought to balance the picture, insisting that demand for reservations across both restaurants remained robust and that the Hinds Head had delivered consistent month-on-month growth over the past 18 months, putting it on course for a record year.

Ong’s arrival comes only weeks after Blumenthal confirmed the closure of Dinner by Heston, his two-Michelin-starred ode to historical British cookery housed within the Mandarin Oriental in Knightsbridge. The London site, which opened in 2011, will shut once the hotel tenancy expires, although a sister Dinner by Heston, opened in 2023 inside the Atlantis The Royal hotel on Dubai’s Palm Jumeirah, continues to trade.

For Como Group, the deal extends a hospitality and lifestyle empire that already spans 15 countries. Headquartered in Singapore and controlled by the Ong family, it operates 11 restaurants, the bulk of them in its home city, alongside a portfolio of 19 luxury hotels and resorts in markets including London, Italy, France, the Maldives, Bali, Australia and Thailand. The group’s first foray into food and beverage came in 1989, when it opened the Armani Café in London.

Ong herself is a fixture of British retail and luxury. She founded the Club21 fashion boutiques in 1972 and, through Challice, the investment vehicle she runs with her 80-year-old husband Ong Beng Seng, holds a 56 per cent stake in Mulberry, the British leather goods house. Her interests also include a string of fashion franchise stores running brands such as Emporio Armani.

“We see this partnership as the beginning of something very special,” Ong said. “We look forward to supporting that continued evolution of these iconic restaurants, while unlocking new opportunities for thoughtful growth in the years ahead.”

The deal also marks a public reappearance for the Ong family on the corporate stage. Last year, Ong Beng Seng was fined S$23,400 after pleading guilty to a charge linked to a gift scandal involving a former Singaporean government minister. He had faced a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, but a judge granted “judicial mercy” in light of his poor health.

For Blumenthal, who has spent three decades coaxing Britons into eating snail porridge and bacon-and-egg ice cream, the message to the dining public is more prosaic. With Como’s chequebook now within reach, the chef has the runway to refresh, and quite possibly enlarge, an empire that, for all its critical acclaim, has been struggling to make the books balance.

Read more:
Singapore’s ‘Queen of Bond Street’ takes a seat at Heston Blumenthal’s table

Britain’s biggest winemaker uncorks a record-breaking year as chief executive James Pennefather sticks to his audacious target of capturing 1 per cent of the global champagne market by 2035.

Chapel Down, Britain’s largest winemaker, has sold more than a million bottles of English sparkling wine in a single year for the first time, a watershed moment in its bid to seize 1 per cent of the global champagne market by 2035.

The Kent-based producer, listed on London’s junior Aim market and backed by the billionaire Lord Spencer of Alresford, said the million-bottle haul equates to roughly 0.4 per cent of champagne’s worldwide market share. James Pennefather, who took the helm as chief executive last year, expects that figure to climb to 0.7 per cent by the end of the decade.

Pennefather said the company’s long-term ambition was anchored in the available acreage across its native Kent. “We certainly do have options to get there faster, but it also slightly depends on what happens to the wider champagne market,” he said.

While champagne has historically been the preserve of formal celebrations, Pennefather argued that English sparkling wine was redrawing the boundaries of the category. “One of the real strengths of Chapel Down and English sparkling wine is that we’ve expanded the number of occasions on which people are drinking high-value sparkling wines,” he said. “That gives us confidence that we are also expanding the category as a whole.”

The company farms more than 1,000 acres of vineyards across the south-east of England, producing both still and sparkling wines. Its growing brand profile has been bolstered by partnerships with Ascot, The Boat Race and the England and Wales Cricket Board.

Results for the year ending 31 December 2025 lay bare the appetite for home-grown fizz. Group revenues climbed 19 per cent to £19.4 million, fuelled chiefly by a 38 per cent surge in off-trade sales through supermarkets to £9.4 million on the back of a 5 per cent rise in listings.

On-trade sales, those flowing through pubs, bars and restaurants, edged up 5 per cent to £2.6 million, helped by new account wins. International revenues jumped 49 per cent to £1 million, lifted by the firm’s tie-up with Jackson Family Wines in the United States and a higher profile at British airports and St Pancras International station.

The performance pushed Chapel Down back into the black, with pre-tax profits of £469,000 compared with a £1.4 million loss the previous year. Buoyed by a strong start to 2026, the board reaffirmed guidance for net sales of £22.1 million, in line with City consensus.

Pennefather conceded that the conflict in Iran was a watch-point for the business, although the Middle East accounts for only a “small” share of revenues. “We haven’t seen any immediate impact,” he said, “but a sustained increase in fuel costs could have an impact on profitability.”

Elsewhere, investors raised a glass to Carlsberg after the Danish brewer posted its first quarterly volume rise in a year, helped by its push into soft drinks. The world’s third-largest brewer, which counts Kronenbourg, Skol and Somersby cider among its stable, reported a 2.8 per cent lift in total organic volumes during the first quarter, with growth across every region. Soft drinks volumes leapt 10 per cent, driven in no small part by its £3.3 billion takeover of Britvic, while beer volumes nudged 0.4 per cent higher.

Read more:
Chapel Down toasts million-bottle milestone in race to challenge champagne

Premier Inn owner Whitbread is to scrap its chain of branded restaurants and recycle £1.5 billion of hotel freeholds through a sale-and-leaseback programme, placing 3,800 jobs at risk as the FTSE 100 group tears up its five-year plan in response to mounting cost pressures and a restless activist investor.

Britain’s largest hotel operator has been hunting for ways to lift returns and protect margins after the autumn Budget left it nursing a sharp rise in business rates and employer national insurance contributions. Pressure has been compounded by US activist Corvex Management, which has urged the board to launch a strategic review after a prolonged spell of share price underperformance.

Unveiling the outcome of its business review on Thursday, the company set out a new five-year roadmap targeting a £275 million uplift in annual profits and £2 billion of shareholder returns. Investors gave the plan a frosty reception: shares slumped 6 per cent, or 151p, to £22.34 in early trading.

Central to the overhaul is the extension of the £500 million restructuring of Whitbread’s food and beverage arm. Two years ago, chief executive Dominic Paul launched the so-called “accelerating growth plan”, converting 112 Beefeater and Brewers Fayre sites into 3,500 new bedrooms and offloading a further 126 restaurants. The group will now go further, replacing all 197 of its remaining branded outlets with what it described as “a more efficient integrated restaurant” format. The shift, expected to deliver a return on capital of between 15 and 20 per cent by 2031, will knock up to £160 million off food and beverage sales this year as sites transition.

The property strategy marks an equally significant pivot. Whitbread, which currently owns the freeholds of roughly half its hotels, will recycle £1.5 billion of property to fund future growth and trim net capital expenditure by more than £1 billion over the next five years. The move will reshape the company into a majority-leasehold business, with freehold ownership falling to between 30 and 40 per cent of the estate.

Paul defended the rebalancing as a pragmatic response to “significant cost increases in the form of business rates and national insurance, as well as the implied market discount of our inherent value”. He added: “Owning a significant proportion of our property is a unique strength which powers the growth of Premier Inn while supporting our resilience as a business, underpinned by a strong balance sheet. But we can improve our approach. We will refocus our capital spend and recycle more of our freehold real estate, driving increased margins and returns, reducing our capital intensity and increasing cash returns for shareholders.”

The strategic reset accompanied a set of full-year results that underlined why the board feels the need to act. Revenue for the 12 months to the end of February was broadly flat at £2.9 billion, in line with City forecasts, while pre-tax profit tumbled 19 per cent to £298 million after £130 million of impairment charges linked to the restaurant restructuring. The group held its full-year dividend at 97p, with a final payout of 60.6p per share.

For the wider hospitality sector, Whitbread’s retreat from its branded restaurant heritage and its tilt towards a leaner, leasehold-heavy model is likely to be read as a bellwether. With business rates revaluations, employer NICs and stubborn wage inflation continuing to bite, even the largest operators are concluding that capital-light growth and aggressive cost discipline are no longer optional.

Read more:
Whitbread axes branded restaurants and puts 3,800 jobs at risk in £1.5bn Premier Inn shake-up

Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses are about to be marched back into the inflationary trenches they thought they had left behind.

According to fresh modelling from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr), the war in Iran and the resulting blockade of the Strait of Hormuz will tear a £35 billion hole in UK output over the next two years, push consumer price inflation back above 4 per cent, and force the Bank of England to raise interest rates rather than cut them.

That is the optimistic reading. It assumes the fighting ends soon and that crude, currently trading near $110 a barrel, drifts back to $65 by the close of next year. Should the conflict drag on and oil spike to $140, a level last seen in the run-up to the 2008 crash, the damage doubles to £68 billion, and Threadneedle Street may be forced into the steepest emergency tightening since Black Wednesday in September 1992.

For the owner-managed firms that make up the bulk of the British economy, the implications are uncomfortably familiar. Energy bills are heading north again, household budgets will tighten just as confidence had begun to recover, and the cost of credit, already a millstone for growth-stage companies, is unlikely to ease before the autumn.

Niesr has cut its UK growth forecast for 2026 to 0.9 per cent, down from the 1.4 per cent it pencilled in as recently as February. The early-year momentum was real enough, gross domestic product expanded by 0.5 per cent in the three months to February and is on course for a respectable 1 per cent in the first half. The trouble starts in the second. As fuel and energy costs feed through into household bills, consumer spending power will be eroded and growth is expected to flatline for the remainder of the year.

Annual consumer price inflation, currently drifting back towards target, is forecast to climb to 4.1 per cent at the start of 2027. That, Niesr argues, will compel the Bank of England to lift Bank Rate to 4 per cent in July, rather than allow it to fall towards 3 per cent as markets had been pricing in only weeks ago.

“Even in a relatively benign scenario, where the conflict in the Middle East is resolved quickly from here, the shock is likely to have a material impact on the UK economy,” said David Aikman, director of Niesr.

The bond market is already drawing its own conclusions. Yields on ten-year gilts breached 5 per cent on Tuesday for the third time since hostilities began two months ago, the highest borrowing costs Britain has paid since the financial crisis. The benchmark briefly hit 5.07 per cent before settling at 5.03 per cent in the afternoon. Gilts were the worst-performing major asset class of the day, a stark reminder of the UK’s structural exposure to imported energy.

That repricing piles fresh pressure on Rachel Reeves. With higher inflation eating into the real value of departmental budgets, Niesr calculates a 4 per cent erosion by the end of the decade unless the Treasury tops them up, the chancellor faces what the institute politely terms “tough calls” at the autumn Budget. Translated for boardrooms across the country: expect the tax-raising conversation to begin again.

In the adverse scenario, the picture turns considerably bleaker. Inflation would remain stuck above 4 per cent, more than double the Bank’s 2 per cent mandate, and the Monetary Policy Committee could be forced to push borrowing costs up by a punishing 1.5 percentage points in short order. Stephen Millard, Niesr’s deputy director, described $140 oil as “severe but plausible”, warning that central banks would have to “respond big time” if it materialised.

For now, the MPC is expected to sit on its hands when it meets on Thursday, holding Bank Rate at 3.75 per cent while officials assess how the next round of energy price rises, due in June, ripples through wages and the labour market. The institute’s central concern is the spectre of “second-round effects”, pay settlements rising to compensate for higher bills and embedding inflation in the system, much as they did in 2022 and 2023.

For SME leaders, the message from Niesr is bracing but clear. The cost-of-doing-business crisis is not over; it has merely been paused. Hedging energy exposure, locking in financing where possible and stress-testing margins against another year of elevated rates ought to be back at the top of the boardroom agenda.

Read more:
Britain braces for £35bn energy shock as Iran conflict pushes inflation back above 4%

The Tony Blair Institute has called on ministers to pull an “emergency handbrake” on Britain’s runaway sickness benefits bill, urging Whitehall to strip cash entitlements from claimants with mild depression, ADHD and other conditions the think tank argues are compatible with work.

In an intervention that will land squarely on the desks of finance directors and HR chiefs across the country, the institute founded by Sir Tony Blair has proposed a new statutory category of “non-work limiting conditions” covering anxiety, stress-related disorders, lower back pain, common musculoskeletal complaints and certain neurodevelopmental conditions. Claimants would receive treatment and employment support in place of benefits, in a shift the TBI insists could be introduced without primary legislation.

The proposals arrive at a critical moment for British employers. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March that spending on health and sickness benefits for working-age adults will hit £78.1bn by 2029-30, a 15 per cent jump on this year’s outlay. With around 1,000 people a day becoming newly eligible for health and disability payments, business groups have grown increasingly vocal about the squeeze on the labour market and the corresponding drag on productivity.

The TBI’s report lands in awkward political territory for the Labour government, which last year tabled plans to tighten disability benefit eligibility only to gut its own proposals after a backbench revolt. Whitehall now points to a review led by Social Security Minister Sir Stephen Timms, expected to report later this year, as the vehicle for any further reform.

Dr Charlotte Refsu, a former GP and the institute’s director of health policy, said the welfare system was “drawing too many people into long-term dependency for conditions that are often treatable and compatible with work, and not doing enough to support recovery”. She added: “A system that leaves people on benefits without timely treatment or a route back to work is not compassionate. It is bad for the country and bad for people’s health.”

Under the TBI blueprint, every claimant would require a formal diagnosis before applying for benefits, and those already on the books would face more frequent and rigorous reassessment. The think tank stopped short of estimating either fiscal savings or the number of claimants who would lose entitlement, but argued any windfall should be ploughed back into employment support and NHS treatment for mental health and musculoskeletal conditions, the two clusters that have driven much of the post-pandemic surge in claims.

YouGov polling of more than 4,000 British adults, commissioned by the institute, found that 54 per cent of voters believe the welfare system is too easy to access and fails to prevent misuse, a finding likely to embolden ministers minded to revisit reform.

For SME owners contending with stubborn vacancies and rising employment costs, the report sharpens a debate that has been simmering in boardrooms since the pandemic. Smaller employers have repeatedly flagged the difficulty of recruiting from the economically inactive cohort, particularly the more than 2.8 million working-age people currently signed off long-term sick. The TBI argues that supporting claimants into “appropriate work” would not only ease the fiscal pressure but also reduce social isolation and improve mobility and independence, a framing that aligns with the back-to-work rhetoric increasingly heard from both Labour ministers and the Conservative and Reform UK opposition.

The proposals have, however, drawn fierce criticism from the disability sector. Jon Holmes, chief executive of the learning disability charity Scope, branded the report “deeply unhelpful and ill-informed”, arguing it ignored “the lived reality of people with a learning disability and plays to a populist trope about welfare”. He warned: “Slapping labels on people and denying them benefits will not tackle the root cause. It will push people into deeper anxiety, misery and poverty. That’s not reform, it’s a recipe for making things worse.”

The Department for Work and Pensions said it had already “rebalanced” Universal Credit to deliver £1bn of savings, with the health-related element for new claimants cut by up to 50 per cent earlier this month. A spokesperson said the department had “increased face-to-face assessments and improved use of NHS evidence, all while ensuring those who genuinely can’t work are always protected”, adding that ministers would “consider the TBI’s report”.

For Britain’s small and medium-sized employers, the question is no longer whether reform comes, but how quickly, and whether it will deliver the workforce uplift that has eluded successive administrations.

Read more:
Blair think tank urges ’emergency handbrake’ on sickness benefits as bill races towards £78bn

The United Arab Emirates has announced it is to withdraw from Opec and the wider Opec+ alliance after nearly six decades of membership, in a move that analysts warn could herald the unravelling of the world’s most powerful oil cartel and usher in a fresh wave of price volatility for British businesses already grappling with stubborn energy costs.

The Gulf state, which joined the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in 1967, said the decision reflected its “long-term strategic and economic vision and evolving energy profile”. Abu Dhabi’s energy minister suggested that operating outside the cartel’s quota system would afford the country greater flexibility to pursue its own production ambitions, free of the collective discipline that has long shaped global crude markets.

For the UK’s small and medium-sized enterprises, the immediate consequences are far from academic. Energy-intensive sectors, from manufacturing and logistics to hospitality, have spent the past three years contending with input costs that swung wildly on the back of geopolitical shocks and Opec+ output decisions. A weakened cartel could mean cheaper oil in the short term as producers compete for market share, but it also raises the spectre of greater price swings as the disciplinary mechanism that has historically tempered volatility begins to fray.

Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Financial, did not mince his words, describing the move as “the beginning of the end of Opec”. With the UAE’s departure, the cartel loses roughly 15 per cent of its production capacity and what Mr Kavonic called “one of its most compliant members”. The UAE currently pumps approximately 2.9 million barrels per day, against Saudi Arabia’s nine million.

“Saudi Arabia will struggle to keep the rest of Opec together, and will effectively have to do most of the heavy lifting regarding internal compliance and market management on its own,” he warned, adding that other members may yet follow Abu Dhabi’s lead. He went further, characterising the development as a “fundamental geopolitical reshaping of the Middle East and oil markets”.

The departure leaves Opec with eleven members. Founded in 1960 by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, the cartel was created to coordinate production and stabilise revenues for member states. The current line-up also includes Algeria, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Libya, Nigeria and the Republic of the Congo.

For SME owners watching from Britain, the message is clear: hedging strategies, fixed-price energy contracts and supply chain stress-testing are no longer the preserve of FTSE 100 boardrooms. The post-Opec era, if it does indeed dawn, promises a more fragmented and unpredictable global energy market, and the businesses that prepare now will be best placed to weather what comes next.

Read more:
UAE’s shock Opec exit signals a new era of energy market volatility for British business

Lloyds Banking Group has cemented its position as the most complained-about name in British financial services, racking up more grievances with the City regulator than any other lender during the second half of 2025, as the wider sector handed nearly a quarter of a billion pounds back to disgruntled customers.

Fresh figures from the Financial Conduct Authority show the FTSE 100 banking giant fielded a hefty 187,516 complaints across its subsidiaries between July and December last year. The black horse brand itself bore the brunt, accounting for 90,837, while its Edinburgh-based commercial arm Bank of Scotland was not far behind on 79,508.

The scale of the figures partly reflects the sheer footprint of the group, which counts roughly 28 million customers and remains the country’s biggest financial services provider. Santander, which serves around 14 million Britons, came in a distant second with 124,919 complaints.

Despite the eye-catching numbers at the top of the table, the wider picture is one of relative stasis. Total grievances across the industry edged up to 1.9 million, a rise of just under one per cent on the first half of the year and broadly consistent with the trend that has prevailed since early 2021, when figures have fluctuated between 1.7 million and 2 million.

There was, however, a measure of good news for the sector. The proportion of complaints upheld in the customer’s favour slipped from 57.9 per cent to 55.5 per cent, while the total bill for redress fell to £236.2m, down sharply from £283.7m in the first half of 2025. The average payout also tracked lower, dropping to £215 from £238.

The findings come at a sensitive moment for the high street, with both Lloyds and Santander under fire from consumer groups for the pace at which they are pruning their branch estates. Analysis by Lightyear shows the Spanish-owned lender has shuttered close to 500 sites over the past two years and announced a further 44 closures in January, fuelling accusations that vulnerable customers are being left stranded.

Lurking behind the headline numbers is the motor finance mis-selling scandal, which continues to cast a long shadow over Britain’s lenders. Lloyds has set aside £2bn to cover potential redress linked to so-called secret commission arrangements between car dealers and banks, while Santander has earmarked £461m. Both are among the most heavily exposed names in the sector.

The FCA’s pause on motor finance complaints, in place since January 2024 after volumes surged on the back of concerns over discretionary commission arrangements, is due to be lifted on 31 May 2026, raising the prospect of a fresh wave of grievances landing on lenders’ desks this summer.

Elsewhere, motor and transport insurance proved the standout pain point of the period, with complaints leaping by more than a third to 340,000. That surge helped drive a 10 per cent jump in overall insurance and protection grievances to 790,329. Current accounts remained the single largest category, although the volume eased to 492,149 from 541,493 in the first half.

For Britain’s biggest banks, the latest data offers little immediate respite. With the motor finance reckoning still to come and branch closures continuing to draw political heat, the pressure on customer service teams looks set to remain firmly elevated through 2026.

Read more:
Lloyds tops the league of shame as Britain’s finance firms pay out £236m to aggrieved customers

British founders are being urged to think twice before accepting cheques from investors lured by tax breaks, after fresh analysis revealed that companies relying on the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) are overwhelmingly failing to scale.

Antler, the Singapore-headquartered early-stage venture capital firm, has crunched the numbers on more than 40,000 UK funding rounds over the past decade and concluded that the schemes, long held up by successive chancellors as the jewels in the crown of British start-up finance, are doing the opposite of what was intended.

Just 12 per cent of all UK companies raise follow-on capital after their initial round, according to Antler’s research. For those backed exclusively by EIS or SEIS money, the picture is bleaker still: a mere 3.7 per cent ever go on to secure further investment.

Adam French, partner at Antler and a familiar face on the British venture scene, did not mince his words. The schemes, he argued, prioritise “quantity over quality” and fail to provide founders with the strategic backing they need to grow into the kind of businesses that genuinely move the dial.

“If you were an investor in an SEIS fund, you’re primarily excited about the fact that you’re going to get 30 to 50 per cent of your investment back as a tax benefit in your tax return, and you don’t care as much about the outcome of the business that you’re investing in,” Mr French said.

The contrast with conventionally backed start-ups is stark. Where a company secured at least one institutional co-investor or an active angel in its opening round, the proportion going on to raise more capital leapt to 25.7 per cent, almost seven times the rate seen by the tax-relief-only cohort.

“The only way to do a good job in venture capital is to find the companies that go on to be outliers, and the tax-incentivised funds don’t have that mandate,” Mr French added. “They’re not looking to take insane amounts of risk because that’s ultimately what you have to do in venture to make a lot of money.”

The SEIS was introduced in 2012 by then-chancellor George Osborne to turbocharge the flow of capital into Britain’s fledgling start-ups, building on the older EIS, which dates back to 1994. Both offer generous reliefs designed to compensate investors for the considerable risk of backing unproven businesses.

Under current rules, investors can deploy up to £1 million per tax year, rising to £2 million for so-called knowledge-intensive companies that pour resources into research and development. Hold the shares for at least two years and any losses can be offset against income tax, an arrangement that, in effect, allows the Treasury to underwrite a significant chunk of the downside.

For more than a decade the schemes have channelled billions of pounds into the British innovation economy, and they have plenty of defenders in Whitehall and the City. But Antler’s findings will reignite a long-simmering debate about whether tax-led investment is genuinely building the next generation of British scale-ups, or merely creating a cottage industry of tax-efficient portfolios that quietly run aground.

Antler’s analysis did find that companies raising $1 million or more in their opening round were more likely to attract further backing, suggesting that cheque size remains a meaningful signal. But Mr French was emphatic that the calibre of the investor on the cap table mattered more than the headline figure.

His message to founders is blunt. “My advice to founders is to make sure you’re very selective about who you’re taking money from,” he said. “Don’t go for the first capital that lands on your table, make sure you go for the right capital.”

For Britain’s army of seed-stage entrepreneurs, the warning lands at a delicate moment. With venture funding still well below the highs of 2021 and the cost of capital biting across the board, the temptation to grab whatever money is on offer has rarely been greater. Antler’s data suggests that succumbing to that temptation may be the surest route to a dead end.

Read more:
Beware the tax-break brigade: founders warned over EIS and SEIS investors who ‘don’t care about the outcome’

A British artificial intelligence company founded by one of the architects of fintech unicorn Tide has written to every Member of Parliament warning that the political debate over children’s smartphone use has descended into a “false choice” between blanket bans and unrestricted access.

SafetyMode, the London-headquartered child safety technology firm led by Tide founder George Bevis, has used the parliamentary intervention to press ministers to consider a third path, arguing that on-device technology can give parents meaningful control without locking children out of the digital economy altogether.

The timing is not accidental. The letter lands in Westminster postbags days after a landmark American court ruling found that several of Silicon Valley’s largest platforms had knowingly engineered addictive products for young users, a judgment that has sharpened the appetite among legislators on both sides of the Atlantic for tougher action.

In Britain, the political mood music has shifted markedly over the past eighteen months, with cross-party support building for tighter restrictions on under-16s. Yet SafetyMode’s pitch to MPs is that the conversation has narrowed prematurely.

“Right now, the entirety of the conversation around social media and phone safety seems to pretend all we can achieve is either to open the floodgates entirely or to ban them completely, losing all benefits these technologies may offer,” the company writes in its letter, copies of which have been seen by Business Matters.

The firm, founded by Mr Bevis alongside Bertie Aspinall and product specialist Dan Barker, has spent the past two years developing what it claims is one of the most sophisticated parental control platforms on the market. Unlike rival products that route children’s data through cloud servers, SafetyMode’s technology runs artificial intelligence directly on the device, filtering harmful content in real time while keeping personal information off external servers.

The product was built in partnership with parenting forum Mumsnet, whose research underpins much of the company’s commercial thesis. More than 90 per cent of parents surveyed told Mumsnet that current smartphones are not safe enough for children, while 86 per cent expressed concern about the impact of devices on their child’s mental health and attention span.

Speaking to Business Matters, Mr Bevis said the political class risks reaching for the bluntest available instrument. “We are at a turning point in how society views children and smartphones. There is clear agreement that there is a problem, but the solutions being discussed are too narrow. Regulation matters, but it takes time, and it cannot be the only answer.”

Mr Aspinall, the firm’s co-founder, struck a more pointed note. “The courts, governments, schools and parents all recognise the risks. But companies at the heart of this won’t fix it themselves. So the question becomes, what do we do next? On the one hand is regulation. But if we want to protect children now, the answer is simple. You build safety into the device itself and put control back in the hands of parents.”

The company’s technology has been designed to read context rather than merely scan for prohibited keywords, identifying when conversations turn abusive, sexualised or otherwise damaging, even when those exchanges would slip past conventional filters.

For now, SafetyMode is available only on Android handsets. The firm has been openly critical of Apple, arguing that the Cupertino giant’s restrictions on third-party developers prevent meaningful parental controls being built for iPhone users, a complaint that echoes broader regulatory scrutiny of Apple’s walled garden in both Brussels and Washington.

There is also an industrial strategy dimension to the company’s lobbying. SafetyMode is positioning Britain as a potential global hub for what it calls the “safe tech for kids” movement, arguing that ministers could combine child protection with a fresh wave of innovation, investment and skilled job creation if they chose to back domestic firms developing protective technologies.

Whether MPs will be receptive remains to be seen. Backbench pressure for outright restrictions on under-16s using social media has hardened in recent months, and Whitehall has shown limited appetite for technological solutions that depend on parental engagement. But with the American courts now exposing platform behaviour in unprecedented detail, the case for action of some kind appears unstoppable.

The question Mr Bevis and his colleagues are putting to Parliament is whether that action should empower parents or simply slam the door shut.

Read more:
SafetyMode warns MPs of ‘false choice’ on child smartphone safety as global pressure mounts

The 50-strong flooring chain backed by Sir Richard Harpin’s Growth Partner has appointed restructuring advisers, raising the prospect of store closures and redundancies as the cost-of-living squeeze continues to drag on consumer spending.

Flooring Superstore, which employs around 300 people from its Bishop Auckland headquarters in County Durham, has drafted in Begbies Traynor and the restructuring arm of Santander to weigh its options. People familiar with the matter said a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) or a full administration are both on the table, controversial routes that typically squeeze landlords and suppliers while preserving the equity of incumbent owners and senior creditors.

The retailer was co-founded in 2012 by Dan Foskett and sells vinyl, laminate and wood flooring alongside artificial grass through its branded showrooms and online channels. Growth Partner, the investment vehicle established by Harpin, the entrepreneur behind home emergency repair group HomeServe, backed the business in 2020 with a £5 million injection that allowed Foskett to crystallise a portion of his shareholding. He retains a 22 per cent stake, while Growth Partner holds 25 per cent. The remainder is split between three individual investors.

Harpin, who last year published “How to Make a Billion in Nine Steps”, focuses on British and European retail names primed for scale. His portfolio includes pizza oven specialist Gozney and bathroom retailer Easy Bathrooms. However, several Growth Partner-backed businesses have collapsed in recent years, among them Crafters’ Companion, co-founded by Dragons’ Den investor Sara Davies, and Yorkshire-based Keelham Farm Shop.

Flooring Superstore was a pandemic winner, riding the wave of home-improvement spending while consumers were confined to their properties. That tailwind reversed sharply once lockdowns eased, as the chain was forced to absorb spiralling energy and raw material costs and unwind the additional capacity it had built. The cost-of-living crisis has since hammered demand for big-ticket household refurbishments.

Connection Retail, the parent company that also owns Direct Wood Flooring, Grass Direct and Snug Carpets, posted turnover of £49.3 million in the year to the end of July 2024, down from £51.8 million a year earlier. Pre-tax profit nonetheless swung from a £3.3 million loss to a £619,000 profit, while net debt stood at £3.5 million at the year-end.

Santander shored up the group’s balance sheet last June with a debenture, a secured loan agreement under which the lender acts as security trustee. Filings at Companies House show Connection Retail has two outstanding charges, having pledged its property and overall business assets as collateral to both Growth Partner and the high-street bank.

The disclosed restructuring talks mark a striking pivot from the expansion blueprint Foskett set out only twelve months ago, when he told The Times that he intended to grow the estate to as many as 150 stores, deepen the brand’s marketing reach and continue building its exclusive product range.

Growth Partner and Flooring Superstore had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication. Santander and Begbies Traynor declined to comment.

Read more:
Harpin-backed Flooring Superstore weighs restructure as sales slip

Ministers are turning up the heat on Britain’s biggest companies to fortify their cyber-defences, warning that a new generation of artificial intelligence tools, including Anthropic’s controversial Mythos model, risks unleashing a fresh wave of sophisticated hacking against UK plc.

In a pointed intervention, Baroness Lloyd of Effra (pictured), the cybersecurity minister, has written to almost 200 business leaders pressing them to back a new “cyber-resilience pledge” designed to drag boardrooms into the front line of digital defence.

To sign up, companies must make cybersecurity an explicit board-level responsibility, enrol with the National Cyber Security Centre’s early-warning service, and require the “Cyber Essentials” certification throughout their supply chains. The pledge will be formally launched in the summer and is intended to give investors, customers and trading partners a clearer benchmark by which to judge a business’s digital defences.

The push comes against a febrile backdrop. Anthropic, the San Francisco-based AI developer, revealed last week that it had decided not to release Mythos, a model honed for cybersecurity work, because of its uncanny ability to sniff out vulnerabilities in software. Instead, the company has quietly handed it to 40 US technology firms to help them shore up their defences.

While some industry watchers have dismissed the move as a marketing flourish, Wall Street, the City and financial regulators are taking it seriously. Britain’s biggest high-street lenders, including Barclays, Lloyds and NatWest, are understood to be in talks with Anthropic about gaining access to the model.

Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, has gone so far as to suggest that Anthropic may have “found a way to crack the whole cyber-risk world open”, an unusually colourful assessment from Threadneedle Street.

The UK’s AI Security Institute, one of the few bodies outside the United States to have put Mythos through its paces, described the model as a “step up” in capability. It concluded that Mythos was “at least capable of autonomously attacking small, weakly defended and vulnerable enterprise systems where access to a network has been gained”, though it stopped short of saying whether the model could breach better-fortified targets.

For SMEs, the assessment is uncomfortable reading. The lion’s share of “small, weakly defended” enterprise systems sits squarely in the small and medium-sized business community, where IT budgets are tight and dedicated security teams a rarity.

Dan Jarvis, the security minister, will press the pledge at this week’s CyberUK conference in Glasgow, where he is expected to argue that the country still suffers from a yawning perception gap between digital and physical crime. Drawing on the recent ransomware attack that crippled Jaguar Land Rover, Jarvis will tell delegates that had the same damage been done by “an old-school physical attack, it would have been the equivalent of hundreds of masked criminals turning up to dealerships across the country, breaking glass, smashing up computers and driving cars right off the forecourt”.

His message: “There is no real difference between them; they are both brazen acts of criminality.”

Lloyd struck a similarly urgent tone, telling business leaders: “The cyber threat facing UK businesses is serious, growing and evolving fast. AI is giving attackers capabilities that would have seemed extraordinary just a year ago and no organisation can afford to be complacent. Cyber-resilience isn’t just a technical issue; it’s a board responsibility and we’re asking every boardroom in Britain to prove they treat it as one.”

Despite years of warnings from Whitehall and the NCSC, the take-up of basic cyber hygiene measures remains stubbornly low. Just 56,000 Cyber Essentials certificates were issued in 2025, covering roughly 1 per cent of UK businesses, a figure that ought to give every chair, chief executive and finance director pause for thought.

Help, of a sort, is on the way. The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, currently working its way through Parliament, will compel firms operating in critical sectors to raise their game. But ministers appear unwilling to wait for the legislation to land before applying pressure on the boardrooms they believe should already be ahead of the curve.

For SME owners and directors, the practical takeaway is unambiguous. AI-powered attack tools are no longer a theoretical worry kept at bay by the world’s best-resourced criminals. They are, increasingly, a clear and present danger, and a signature on a government pledge will count for little if the basics are not in place behind the boardroom door.

Read more:
Ministers urge British boardrooms to sign cyber-resilience pledge as AI threat escalates

The taxman has been forced into a tactical retreat over a contentious VAT levy on free medicines supplied to seriously ill patients, after Britain’s pharmaceutical heavyweights warned the policy was jeopardising the country’s standing as a global life sciences hub.

HM Revenue & Customs has confirmed to the industry that it will pause enforcement of disputed VAT bills issued against drugs companies providing medicines free of charge under early access programmes, while Whitehall thrashes out a longer-term settlement with the sector.

The climbdown follows mounting alarm in boardrooms after Bayer, the German pharmaceutical multinational, took the unprecedented step last month of halting new patient enrolments under its UK compassionate use scheme. *Business Matters* understands that at least one further major drugmaker is now actively weighing a similar withdrawal, raising the spectre of vulnerable patients being denied cutting-edge therapies.

At the heart of the dispute are post-clinical trial continuity of care and compassionate use schemes, arrangements designed to bridge the gap for patients with life-threatening or severely debilitating conditions who require access to medicines that have yet to secure marketing authorisation or NHS funding. For many of these patients, the schemes represent a clinical lifeline.

HMRC had begun issuing VAT demands to pharma companies on the basis that supplying these medicines, even gratis, constituted a taxable transaction. Industry leaders have argued the interpretation is not only commercially punishing but threatens to undermine the UK’s hard-won reputation as a destination of choice for clinical research, a sector ministers have repeatedly identified as central to the government’s growth ambitions.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has been pressing ministers to confirm that “clinically justified” free-of-charge supply should fall outside the scope of VAT altogether. Without that assurance, executives warn, multinational sponsors will simply route their next generation of trials to more accommodating jurisdictions.

Following a recent meeting between Treasury officials and pharma chief executives, HMRC policy officials have informed the industry that, while the agency retains an obligation to protect Exchequer revenue, it accepts the government is “actively considering” the issue. The taxman has therefore agreed to exercise its discretion by extending review periods and holding off on enforcement action while talks continue. Crucially, however, HMRC has not budged on its view of historic tax liabilities, meaning bills already issued remain on the table.

A Whitehall source insisted that no blanket reprieve was on offer, with each case being assessed individually. “HMRC is not systemically extending review periods,” the source said.

The political temperature has been rising for months. Julia Lopez, the shadow science, innovation and technology secretary, wrote to Liz Kendall, her opposite number, in February warning that “the UK’s reputation as a home for clinical research is essential to our status as a life sciences superpower. That reputation is now at risk.”

In a reply this month, Lord Vallance, the science minister and a former senior executive at GSK, acknowledged ministers were “aware of the issue” and recognised “the importance of patients across the UK having access to innovative medicines.” He confirmed the government was in “discussions with the sector on this matter” and added: “I fully recognise the concerns you have raised.”

Bayer, in announcing its decision to suspend new enrolments, said it had been supplying treatments to patients with “life-threatening, long-lasting, or severely debilitating conditions or diseases which cannot satisfactorily be treated by any licensed and reimbursed drug in the UK.” Following the change in HMRC’s stance, the company said it had “made the difficult decision to pause the addition of new patients” while continuing to serve those already enrolled.

The Treasury maintains that “in certain circumstances the giving of goods away for free can be outside the scope of VAT,” and that where supply does fall within scope, a relief may apply. A government spokesperson said: “We are in active discussions with the sector. We fully recognise the importance of early access and compassionate use schemes and are fully committed to ensuring patients can continue to benefit from them.” A government source added that there had been no recent changes to UK VAT policy.

Lopez was unconvinced. “Even if HMRC has paused this damaging VAT charge, and it’s still not clear, the harm has already begun,” she said.

For an industry that contributes more than £17bn annually to the British economy and employs tens of thousands in high-skilled research roles, the affair has crystallised wider anxieties about the predictability of the UK tax environment. With the government banking heavily on life sciences as an engine of post-Brexit growth, ministers will be acutely conscious that a swift and unambiguous resolution is now needed — not least to reassure the international boardrooms where the next round of investment decisions is already being weighed.

Read more:
HMRC backs down on free-drugs VAT raid as pharma giants threaten UK exodus

Britain’s public finances delivered a rare slice of good news for the chancellor this week, with government borrowing sinking to a four-year low in March. But business leaders and economists are already bracing for the figures to sour, warning that the escalating conflict in the Middle East could swiftly unravel Rachel Reeves’s carefully constructed fiscal plans.

According to figures released on Thursday by the Office for National Statistics, the government borrowed £12.6bn last month, the lowest March total since 2022 and £1.4bn below the same month a year earlier. The drop was driven by a sharp fall in debt interest spending and a bumper £100bn haul in tax receipts.

For small and medium-sized businesses, which continue to shoulder the weight of frozen income tax thresholds, higher employer national insurance and stubborn inflation, the figures offer only cold comfort. While the Treasury has edged closer to meeting its borrowing targets, the improvement owes less to restraint on Whitehall and more to a quirk of the retail price index.

Despite the monthly improvement, March’s figure came in above the £10.4bn consensus forecast from City economists. Borrowing over the full financial year reached £132bn — £700m below the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projection, but still the sixth-highest annual total since records began in 1947. The figure was nonetheless nearly £20bn lower than the previous year.

The headline reduction was flattered by a dramatic fall in debt interest costs, which dropped to £3.2bn in March from £13bn in February and £4.5bn in the same month last year. A substantial portion of the UK’s debt stock remains linked to the retail price index, a measure economists have long dismissed as outdated. A sharp deceleration in RPI between December and January fed directly through to lower payments to index-linked gilt holders.

Tax revenues also did much of the heavy lifting. Public sector receipts rose £5.4bn year on year to cross the £100bn threshold in March, propelled by higher income tax and national insurance takings. Public spending climbed more modestly, up £2.9bn to £91.6bn.

Tom Davies, senior statistician at the ONS, said the figures showed that “although spending has risen this financial year, this was more than offset by increased receipts,” noting that March’s borrowing was 10 per cent lower than a year earlier.

Yet the optimism was tempered by warnings that the tailwinds of the past month could quickly reverse. Economists fear that the war in the Middle East is already feeding through to British inflation and growth forecasts, threatening to squeeze the chancellor’s room for manoeuvre.

“A sustained rise in energy prices would create a double squeeze on the public finances,” said Martin Beck, chief economist at WPI Strategy. “True, higher oil and gas prices could boost North Sea revenues, while stronger inflation might lift VAT receipts and income tax revenues through frozen thresholds. However, those gains would likely be outweighed by weaker economic growth and higher spending pressures, including increased welfare costs, rising debt interest payments, and potential support for households and energy-intensive firms.”

Figures published earlier this week showed consumer price inflation climbing to 3.3 per cent in March, up from 3 per cent in February. Some economists now expect it to peak at double the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target later this year, a development that would push the government’s debt interest bill higher once more and heap fresh pressure on already stretched SMEs.

The Bank’s nine-member monetary policy committee meets next Thursday and is widely expected to hold the base rate at 3.75 per cent. A minority of analysts, however, now believe Threadneedle Street could be forced to raise rates later in the year to counter the inflationary fallout from the Middle East. Updated forecasts for inflation, growth and unemployment will accompany the decision.

Debt as a share of gross domestic product stood at 93.8 per cent, up 0.6 percentage points year on year and back at levels not seen since the 1960s.

The picture could worsen quickly. The Resolution Foundation warned in a report this month that a further escalation in the Middle East war could erase £16bn of the £23.6bn fiscal headroom Reeves carved out in her March spring statement. Under her own fiscal rules, the chancellor must balance day-to-day spending with tax receipts within five years.

Ellie Henderson, economist at Investec, said: “The spike in energy prices has likely dampened the outlook, with higher inflation increasing the cost of servicing index-linked gilts, and the slower growth forecasts constraining growth in potential tax receipts.”

The Treasury, for its part, is keen to claim credit. James Murray, chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “Our deficit is down [by] £19.8bn because of our plan to cut borrowing. In a volatile world the decisions we are taking are the right ones to keep costs down, take back our energy security and cut borrowing and debt.”

For British businesses, and especially the SMEs that make up the bulk of the country’s employers, the figures underline an uncomfortable truth: however benign March’s numbers appear, the margin for error has rarely been thinner.

Read more:
UK borrowing slips to four-year low but Middle East tensions threaten Reeves’s fiscal plan

Tesla has staged a dramatic comeback in Europe, posting an 84 per cent surge in March sales as electric vehicles cemented their position as a mainstream choice for the continent’s motorists, new industry figures reveal.

The resurgence of Elon Musk’s car maker, which endured a bruising 2025, comes against the backdrop of a broader electric boom across Europe, where zero-emission models now account for more than one in five new registrations. For small and medium-sized businesses operating fleets, the shift marks a turning point in the economics of going electric.

Data from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) shows total new car sales across the continent, including non-EU markets, climbed 11 per cent year-on-year in March to 1.42 million units. First-quarter volumes reached 3.52 million, up 4 per cent on the same period in 2025.

Battery-electric vehicles were the standout performer. March sales leapt 41 per cent to 344,000 units, taking the quarterly tally to 723,000, a 36 per cent increase. EVs commanded 24 per cent of the March market and more than 20 per cent across the full quarter.

Tesla’s own March tally rose 84 per cent, albeit against a weak comparator, with quarterly volumes up 45 per cent to 78,300 units. The American marque’s return to growth comes as Chinese rival BYD continues its aggressive European push. The Shenzhen-based manufacturer, which sells both pure-electric and hybrid models, saw its first-quarter deliveries leap more than 150 per cent to 73,800 units, narrowing the gap on Tesla significantly.

The ACEA credited the boom to consumer-friendly fiscal measures. “The market was supported by robust consumer activity bolstered by new and revised tax benefits and incentive schemes across major European countries,” the trade body said. Rising forecourt prices, driven by the ongoing Iran conflict, are also thought to be nudging buyers towards battery power.

For Britain, however, the figures make sobering reading. The UK’s 22.3 per cent electric share has now been overtaken by Germany, where EVs accounted for 22.7 per cent of the first-quarter market. Germany and France have posted electric growth roughly three times the British rate, raising fresh questions about whether Westminster is doing enough to support SME adoption and the charging infrastructure small firms rely on.

Eastern Europe, long regarded as the region the electric revolution forgot, is finally catching up. Poland, the continent’s sixth-largest car market, reported a near 50 per cent rise in EV sales, though penetration remains below 6 per cent. From admittedly low bases, Croatia recorded a 442 per cent jump in March, with Romania up 148 per cent and Slovenia 142 per cent.

Italy and Spain, traditional laggards among the larger Western European economies, also showed signs of life with EV volumes rising 72 per cent and 46 per cent respectively.

The figures will encourage UK SME owners weighing whether to electrify vans and company cars, but they also underscore a widening gulf between British uptake and that of its major European competitors, a gap that policymakers and business leaders will be watching closely in the months ahead.

Read more:
Tesla accelerates European comeback as EV sales surge past one-in-five milestone

Britain’s sole traders and small business owners can now generate an indicative insurance quote without ever leaving ChatGPT, after digital broker Simply Business became the first in the UK to plug its pricing engine directly into OpenAI’s chatbot.

The London-headquartered insurer, which counts more than one million customers across the UK and United States, has switched on a dedicated app inside ChatGPT’s App Directory. A parallel launch has gone live in the US market on the same day.

For the estimated 5.5 million small businesses across the UK, the pitch is one of speed. Users are asked for just four details , their trade, annual turnover, years trading and UK postcode – and the app returns an indicative price in seconds. Those who wish to proceed are routed to the Simply Business website to complete underwriting and purchase a policy in the conventional way.

The company says the integration has been built with the privacy, security and reliability safeguards that brokers are expected to uphold, a point likely to matter to regulators watching the rapid encroachment of generative AI into regulated financial services.

The move is the latest plank in a global technology strategy that has been gathering pace at Simply Business. In October last year, the firm rolled out a hyper-personalised AI advisor in the US, designed to strip friction out of a purchase journey that has long been a source of frustration for time-poor entrepreneurs.

Group chief executive David Summers said the launch was a natural extension of the company’s founding ambition. “In 2005, we set out to change the way small businesses purchase insurance,” he said. “More than two decades later, we have over one million customers worldwide and we are continuing to evolve our capabilities to simplify the way they research and buy insurance. Launching this insurance app in the UK and the US for small businesses in ChatGPT is our latest step in meeting our customers where they are and making the insurance-buying process an easier, better and fairer experience for them.”

Group chief technology officer Dana Edwards argued that the broker was simply following its customers. “Small business owners are already using platforms like ChatGPT to research, plan and make decisions,” she said. “By safely bringing insurance pricing into that environment, we’re removing one more barrier between them and the coverage they need. We designed the app with the safeguards that customers have come to expect, this kind of rapid, responsible innovation is precisely what our global technology platform is built for.”

The launch underscores a broader shift in how UK SMEs are expected to transact with financial services providers. As conversational AI becomes the first port of call for research on everything from tax to staffing, insurers, accountants and lenders are under growing pressure to meet customers inside those platforms rather than waiting for them to arrive on a branded website.

The Simply Business app will appear as a recommendation when ChatGPT users ask questions related to business risk and insurance cover, or it can be summoned directly from the App Directory.

Read more:
Simply Business becomes first UK broker to put small business cover inside ChatGPT

Northern Gritstone, the venture capital firm bankrolling the North of England’s deeptech and life sciences ambitions, has pulled in a further £20 million of ordinary share commitments in the first tranche of a one-year rolling close, with the British Business Bank stepping up as cornerstone investor alongside hedge fund grandee Andrew Law.

The fresh capital takes the Leeds-headquartered firm’s permanent capital base to £382 million, building on the £362 million closed in April 2025. The state-backed British Business Bank has written a £10 million cheque, lifting its total exposure to Northern Gritstone to £40 million and reinforcing its position as the single largest backer of UK venture and venture growth capital funds. Mr Law, chief executive of London hedge fund Caxton Associates, has topped up his own stake, though the firm has not disclosed the size of his latest commitment.

The round marks the opening salvo in a wider fundraising programme that Northern Gritstone intends to run through 2026, a notable show of conviction at a moment when much of the European venture market remains becalmed.

Since launching in May 2022, Northern Gritstone has deployed capital into 51 companies spanning semiconductor design and manufacturing, advanced materials, secure computing, artificial intelligence, healthtech and gene therapies. Many of its portfolio businesses are spinouts from the so-called Northern Arc universities, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield, which between them generate close to £800 million in research funding each year, 92 per cent of which is rated world-leading or internationally excellent.

The pitch to investors is that the Northern Arc now sits alongside Oxford, Cambridge and London as the fourth pillar of what the industry has dubbed the UK’s “Technology Diamond” — a geography that Northern Gritstone argues is structurally under-capitalised relative to the quality of its intellectual property pipeline.

For the British Business Bank, the commitment is part of a wider thesis on the spinout economy. Between 2022 and 2024, the Bank backed nearly a quarter (24 per cent) of all university spinout deals in the UK, cementing its role as the default co-investor for funds prepared to turn academic research into commercial businesses.

Lord Jim O’Neill, chairman of Northern Gritstone and the former Goldman Sachs chief economist who coined the “Northern Powerhouse” label while at the Treasury, said the latest vote of confidence would help accelerate the firm’s work across the Northern Arc. “We are very grateful for this further support from the British Business Bank and Andrew Law to continue developing global businesses in the North of England originating from our ‘Northern Arc’ university ecosystem,” he said. “In this way, investors are contributing to future higher value-added activity and the North’s productivity.”

Chief executive Duncan Johnson said the speed of the rolling close underlined the resilience of the regional innovation story. “This strong start to Northern Gritstone’s rolling close in today’s challenging fundraising environment shows the belief in innovation coming from the North of England,” he said. “The region is now an integral part of the UK’s Technology Diamond, and we are proud to support the incredible talent of the North, helping to commercialise groundbreaking research into internationally commercial businesses.”

Christine Hockley, managing director and head of commercial equity funds at the British Business Bank, framed the decision as a deliberate bet on science-led growth. “The UK’s universities are a powerhouse of breakthrough research, and Northern Gritstone plays a vital role in transforming world-class research from the North of England into high-potential, IP-rich businesses,” she said. “Our increased commitment reflects the Bank’s ambition to scale life sciences and deeptech businesses, which are critical to the UK’s future growth.”

With the rolling close now open and further tranches expected over the coming twelve months, Northern Gritstone’s next challenge will be converting institutional interest into the kind of scale-up capital needed to keep Britain’s best Northern spinouts from drifting across the Atlantic in search of later-stage funding.

Read more:
British Business Bank anchors Northern Gritstone’s £20m rolling close as northern deeptech push gathers pace

Royal Mail has put a £500 million price tag on rescuing its battered reputation for on-time delivery, unveiling a five-year recovery plan that will see Saturday second-class post wound down from May and thousands of part-time posties asked to take on full-time hours.

The pledge marks the first substantive operational reset under Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky, whose EP Group completed its £3.5 billion take-private of parent group International Distributions Services last year, lifting Britain’s letters monopoly off the London Stock Exchange after more than a decade as a quoted company.

Under the blueprint, the 510-year-old postal operator will spend £100 million a year creating the equivalent of 3,000 full-time delivery roles, achieved largely by persuading roughly 6,000 part-timers to lift their average week to 35 hours. The company has secured trade union backing for the package, no small feat in a business that has weathered some of the most bruising industrial disputes in recent British corporate history.

The numbers behind the overhaul lay bare just how far standards have slipped. Against a regulatory benchmark of delivering 93 per cent of first-class mail the next day, Royal Mail is currently managing 77 per cent, leaving nearly one letter in four arriving late. Second-class performance is little better, with 91 per cent landing on doormats within three days against a target of 98.5 per cent.

Ofcom has already softened the rulebook in the wake of the Kretinsky takeover, easing the universal service obligation to permit non-first-class items to be delivered on alternate days and trimming the regulatory targets to 90 per cent for next-day first-class and 95 per cent for three-day second-class. Royal Mail says it will hit those revised thresholds within twelve months of the new regime bedding in.

For SME owners and finance directors who have long complained that unreliable post is gumming up invoicing, contract delivery and customer correspondence, the proof will be in the doormat. The company’s own diagnosis pinpoints “completion rates of delivery routes” as the central failure, with an estimated 8 per cent of rounds either under-resourced or too unwieldy to be finished within the working day. A targeted shake-up of working practices is planned at the weakest performers among Royal Mail’s 1,200 delivery offices, with fresh recruitment focused on Oxford, Cambridge and London, where staff shortages have been most acute.

The pay backdrop is also instructive. Posties hired since 2022 are on the equivalent of £27,200 a year, around £1,800 below the £29,000 paid to longer-serving colleagues, a two-tier structure that has fuelled retention difficulties and which the move to fuller hours is designed, in part, to mitigate.

Alistair Cochrane, chief executive of Royal Mail, struck a contrite note. “We recognise our service hasn’t always been the standard our customers rightly expect and we’re determined to do better,” he said. His chairman went further when grilled by MPs in recent weeks, with Mr Kretinsky telling a parliamentary inquiry: “We are sorry for every letter that has arrived late,” before describing operations as “not perfect but not catastrophic”.

The political optics matter. The universal service obligation, baked in when David Cameron’s coalition floated Royal Mail in 2013, has been the convenient scapegoat for years of underperformance. With Ofcom now having loosened that corset, the excuses are wearing thin. Of Royal Mail’s 130,000-strong workforce, 80,000 are front-line delivery staff, and it is on their rounds that Mr Kretinsky’s £500 million bet will ultimately stand or fall.

For Britain’s small businesses, many of which still rely on the post for everything from cheques to compliance documents, the message from Mount Pleasant is one of cautious optimism. Whether the new owners can succeed where successive management teams have stumbled remains the open question.

Read more:
Royal Mail commits £500m to fix delivery failures as Kretinsky era takes shape

With the number of young Britons not in education, employment or training (NEET) closing in on the one million mark, McDonald’s UK has stepped into the breach with what it claims is the largest in-person work experience programme the country has ever seen.

The fast-food giant, one of the UK’s biggest employers of under-25s, today unveiled a nationwide scheme offering 2,500 paid placements in its first year, with a stated ambition to scale the commitment annually. Crucially for a generation increasingly priced out of unpaid internships, every placement will come with a wage attached.

The initiative will be delivered through McDonald’s network of franchisees, the local business owners who run the bulk of its 1,400-plus restaurants, and will be deliberately weighted towards the country’s NEET hotspots. A quarter of all placements have been earmarked for young people who are already NEET or considered at risk of becoming so.

To underpin the launch, McDonald’s has commissioned its first Youth Confidence Index, a piece of research that lays bare the gap between aspiration and opportunity confronting Britain’s under-25s. While 80 per cent of those in education, training or employment believe they have something positive to offer society, that figure plunges to 57 per cent among the NEET cohort. Two-thirds (67 per cent) of young people surveyed said they would jump at the chance to do work experience but cannot find it; almost seven in ten (69 per cent) cited a lack of opportunities locally, while 61 per cent said they simply could not afford to work for free.

It is a familiar picture to anyone who has covered the small business beat over the past decade, a labour market in which entry-level roles have thinned, hospitality and retail vacancies are no longer the rite of passage they once were, and the Bank of Mum and Dad has quietly become a prerequisite for a foot on the career ladder.

Lauren Schultz, chief executive of McDonald’s UK & Ireland, framed the move as both a commercial and civic responsibility. “At McDonald’s, we believe in the potential and ability of young people and want to help them make it,” she said. “With over 100,000 employees under 25 across the UK, we have the reach to make a real difference and are uniquely positioned to open doors at scale. Everything a young person needs to learn about the world of work, from communication to financial skills, can be mastered at McDonald’s.”

The announcement has been welcomed in Whitehall. Pat McFadden, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said the scheme demonstrated “what’s possible when Government and business help young people into work”, noting McDonald’s “strong track record” of training. The Rt Hon. Alan Milburn, who chairs the government’s Young People and Work Review, was rather less restrained, branding the NEET crisis “a national outrage with long-term consequences” and calling on other employers to follow suit.

Sector-watchers and academics were similarly supportive. Lee Elliot Major OBE, professor of social mobility at the University of Exeter, said: “We don’t have a shortage of talent in this country, we have a shortage of opportunity. By offering paid work experience at scale, McDonald’s is showing how businesses can boost social mobility and productivity, potentially transforming the life chances of thousands of young people.”

Haroon Chowdry, chief executive of the Centre for Young Lives, said the data was unambiguous. “Young people want to work. They have hopes and ambition, but what they often lack are opportunity and support. Every young NEET is a person who has been let down by the system.”

For the participants themselves, all aged 16 or over, the offer is a five-day, hands-on placement covering the core mechanics of running a restaurant, from inventory checks and drive-thru operations to customer service, all under the supervision of seasoned crew. Tucked alongside the practical experience are sessions on interview technique and time management, the soft-skills currency that small and medium-sized employers across the country routinely complain is missing from CVs.

The programme builds on a body of work that pre-dates the current NEET emergency by some margin. McDonald’s UK & Ireland’s apprenticeship scheme has supported more than 22,000 people in earning degrees since 2006, while community initiatives such as Fun Football and Taste for Work, the latter of which has reached more than 210,000 youngsters, have long formed part of the company’s social investment. Today’s announcement also sees the chain partnering with two of the country’s more influential think tanks. The Centre for Young Lives is publishing a fresh report, Turning the Tide on Rising NEETs, setting out evidence-based policy recommendations, while the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is embarking on a two-year research programme, State of a Generation.

For a government that has staked political capital on its Youth Guarantee, a pledge to get every young person earning or learning, the McDonald’s intervention is timely. Whether other large employers can be persuaded to write similarly sizeable cheques remains the open question. As Milburn put it, this is the “kind of leadership employers need to demonstrate if we’re serious about giving every young person a fair start.”

For SME owners watching from the sidelines, the message is harder to ignore. The talent is there. So is the appetite. What has been missing, until now, is a door wide enough to let them through.

Read more:
McDonald’s bets on Britain’s youth with UK’s biggest paid work experience scheme

British small and medium-sized enterprises are facing a fresh squeeze on margins after official figures revealed inflation jumped to 3.3 per cent in March, the first hard evidence of how the Middle East conflict is feeding through to the real economy.

Data released by the Office for National Statistics on Wednesday showed the Consumer Prices Index accelerated from 3 per cent in February, in line with City forecasts and marking the first uptick in the headline rate since December. It is also the first inflation reading to capture the surge in global oil and gas prices since hostilities erupted two months ago, with Brent crude up roughly 30 per cent and trading around the $100-a-barrel mark for several weeks.

The pain at the pump was unmistakable. Petrol rose by 8.6 pence per litre to an average of 140.2p, its highest since August 2024, while diesel, the lifeblood of the haulage and trades sector, leapt by 17.6p to 158.7p, a level not seen since November 2023. For the nation’s 5.5 million SMEs, many of whom rely on vans, lorries and company cars to service customers, it amounts to a significant and largely unhedgeable operating cost.

Air fares added further heat, climbing 10 per cent month-on-month against a 0.3 per cent fall over the same period a year earlier. That is the steepest February-to-March rise since 2016, although the ONS noted that prices were collected before the outbreak of war and were inflated by the timing of long-haul flights immediately after Easter.

Grant Fitzner, chief economist at the ONS, said: “Inflation climbed in March, largely due to increased fuel prices, which saw their largest increase for over three years. Airfares were another upward driver this month, alongside rising food prices. The only significant offset came from clothing costs, where prices rose by less than this time last year.”

Economists at the International Monetary Fund and elsewhere have warned that the headline rate could climb through the summer and potentially peak above 5 per cent, more than double the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target. Core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy components, edged down to 3.1 per cent from 3.2 per cent, but services inflation, the measure most closely watched by Threadneedle Street, ticked up to 4.5 per cent from 4.3 per cent. Food prices were 3.7 per cent higher year-on-year, a number that will ripple through hospitality margins.

The Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is expected to leave Bank Rate on hold at 3.75 per cent when it meets next Thursday, though rate-setters are facing an uncomfortable dilemma. Martin Beck, chief economist at WPI Strategy, said: “With inflation likely to remain above target for longer, the Bank of England is unlikely to cut rates any time soon. But equally, the case for further tightening remains weak. A prolonged period of policy on hold looks the most likely outcome, leaving the economy exposed to the trajectory of the conflict and its impact on energy markets.”

Peter Dixon, senior economist at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, went further, arguing that the Bank “cannot risk appearing complacent, and we therefore expect one precautionary [quarter point] rate increase over the coming months”. A move of that kind would raise the cost of variable-rate borrowing for millions of homeowners and small business owners, and set back those attempting to step onto the property ladder.

There are, however, glimmers of resilience. GDP grew by a stronger-than-expected 0.5 per cent in February and unemployment fell unexpectedly to 4.9 per cent in the three months to February, down from 5.2 per cent, suggesting that, for now at least, the labour market is holding up despite the external shock.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, struck a sympathetic note: “This is not our war, but it is pushing up bills for families and businesses. That’s why it’s my number one priority to keep costs down.” The Treasury has so far extended support to a limited number of rural households dependent on heating oil and has widened an existing scheme aimed at cutting energy bills for businesses, though SME lobby groups are already pressing for more targeted relief for firms whose fuel and logistics costs cannot easily be passed on to customers.

For British SMEs, the immediate message from March’s data is stark: energy-driven cost inflation is back, interest rate relief is further away than many had hoped, and the next phase of the Middle East conflict will do as much to shape the outlook for cash flow and investment as anything decided in Westminster.

Read more:
Inflation climbs to 3.3% as middle east conflict drives up fuel bills for Britain’s SMEs

Rolls-Royce has been crowned the nation’s most iconic trade mark in a public poll marking 150 years since Britain became one of the first countries in the world to formalise the protection of brands, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has announced.

The Goodwood-built marque pipped Radio Caroline, Twinings and Cadbury to the top spot in a survey that drew around 2,000 nominations, with the public asked to choose the brands they felt had most shaped daily life in the UK. Rounding out the top ten were Bass, Burberry, the Transport for London roundel, Calpol, Mini and the BBC, a roll-call that reads less like a marketing list and more like a cultural autobiography of post-war Britain.

The poll coincides with the 150th anniversary of the UK trade mark register, which opened for business on 1 January 1876 following the passage of the Trade Marks Registration Act 1875. The very first mark to be registered, on day one, was the Bass & Co red triangle label, a piece of intellectual property still in use today and still, as one respondent succinctly observed, attached to “good beer”.

For the SME community, the milestone is more than ceremonial. The register now protects more than 2.5 million marks, with around 200,000 fresh applications received in the past year alone, a record-breaking figure that points to the value modern entrepreneurs place on owning their identity in an increasingly crowded marketplace.

More than 400 trade marks filed before 1900 remain live on the register, a remarkable testament to brand longevity. Bovril (1886), Drambuie (1893), Lyle’s Sugar (1887), Bird’s Custard Powder (1891), Rose’s Lime Juice Cordial (1876) and Woodward’s Gripe Water (1876) are all still trading on the goodwill first banked by their Victorian founders. Even Lyle’s Golden Syrup carries with it the gloriously biblical “Out of the Strong Came Forth Sweetness”, registered in 1884 and quietly enduring on supermarket shelves ever since.

Other Victorian filings border on the prophetic. Kodak was registered in 1888, just as mass photography was emerging, while a mark named “Millennium” was filed in January 1892, more than a century before the date it would come to evoke.

Adam Williams, chief executive of the IPO, said the anniversary underscored the role of trade marks as the bedrock of consumer confidence. “Trade marks are the foundation of brand trust. For 150 years, they’ve helped British businesses, from corner shops and market stalls to app stores and global online retailers, build lasting relationships with consumers and stand behind the quality of their products,” he said. “The tens of thousands who register a trade mark each year are making a statement: we’ve built something good, and we’re putting our name to it.”

Tom Reynolds, chief executive of the British Brands Group, described trade marks as “a legal promise” between business and customer. “Some trade marks have become so embedded in our lives that they’ve become shorthand for the thing itself. Think of a tick, a swoosh, or even a silver lady on a car bonnet. Instantly, you know exactly what you’re getting. That’s the power of a trade mark, and it’s the foundation every iconic brand is built on.”

Kelly Saliger, president of the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (CITMA), said the application surge confirmed the UK’s continuing pull as a centre of enterprise. “Brand recognition is a powerful asset, and a registered trade mark protects it, acting as a marker in the sand that warns other businesses to steer clear, and giving the owner the means to take action against those who come too close.”

Rolls-Royce, whose Silver Ghost was officially dubbed “the best car in the world” in 1913, has long since transcended the motor industry. Julian Jenkins, director of sales and brand at Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, said the result reflected the way the marque had become “a global shorthand for the best of the best in any field”. Matthew Hill, head of intellectual property at Rolls-Royce plc, added that the recognition acknowledged the company’s “continuing commitment to powering, protecting and connecting people everywhere”.

Radio Caroline, the offshore station that sailed into broadcasting history from the North Sea in 1964 and was finally registered as a trade mark in 1992, was second on the list. Station manager Peter Moore said the recognition was “a testament to our past, present and future”, while listeners reminisced about passing O-Levels to its broadcasts.

Twinings, which has traded from the same Strand address since 1706 and registered its mark in 1908, was third. Chief brand officer Heather Hartridge said the logo was “more than just a logo, it is a symbol of the craftsmanship, expertise and care that goes into every blend”.

Cadbury, first traded in 1824 and registered in 1886, was fourth. Equity marketing director Phil Warfield said the brand’s “iconic glass and a half” remained “a promise to our customers for generations”. Ewa Chappell, legal and corporate affairs director at Budweiser Brewing Group UK/Ireland, current custodians of Bass, noted that the original red triangle had been “copied so often that it proved just how powerful the demand for Bass truly was”.

Burberry’s check, born in the trenches of the First World War, made the list alongside the Transport for London roundel, first protected in 1917. TfL customer director Emma Strain said the symbol had “guided Londoners and visitors safely through the capital as a trusted and globally renowned emblem” for more than a century.

Calpol, the small bottle that has soothed generations of feverish children, sat eighth, with one parent describing it simply as “the first thing you reach for at 3am”. Mini, the diminutive motor that defined British car-making from 1959 onwards, was ninth. Head of MINI Jean-Philippe Parain said the brand “continues to stand for timeless design, go-kart handling, and distinctive personality”. The BBC completed the top ten.

When the 1875 Act took effect, applications arrived by post, were entered by hand, and could only protect marks used on physical goods. Today’s register tells a rather different story. Services as well as goods are covered, and registrable marks now include holograms, motion marks, multimedia marks and patterns of light. Applications cover categories that would have bewildered a Victorian clerk, from snack products derived from insects and edible ant larvae to wearable smartphones, humanoid robots, downloadable virtual handbags, and perfumes for use in virtual worlds.

For SMEs, the practical message is that trade mark protection has never been more accessible, or more strategically important. Registration costs a fraction of the goodwill it preserves, lasts for ten years and can be renewed indefinitely, providing the legal armoury to defend brand value as businesses scale.

After 150 years, Britain’s trade mark system has, in the IPO’s own words, “no sign of standing still”. For the small businesses building tomorrow’s iconic brands, that should be a reassuring thought.

Read more:
Rolls-Royce tops the list as Britain’s trade mark register turns 150

London’s small and medium-sized businesses are bracing for a punishing week of disruption as London Underground drivers prepare to stage two 24-hour walkouts, in a dispute over working patterns that threatens to drain millions of pounds from the capital’s already fragile hospitality and night-time economy.

Members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union will down tools from midday on Tuesday 21 April and again from midday on Thursday 23 April, with Transport for London (TfL) warning operators and passengers to expect “significant disruption” across the entire network. A separate walkout by 150 Unite members working as bus station and network traffic controllers, running from 23 to 25 April, is set to compound the misery.

For business owners across the capital, the timing could scarcely be worse. Operators in hospitality, retail and leisure are already contending with a fresh wave of energy price rises, persistent wage pressures and jittery consumer confidence. The loss of reliable late-night transport, industry leaders warn, risks tipping vulnerable SMEs over the edge.

TfL has published a day-by-day forecast of likely disruption. Normal services are expected to run on Tuesday 21 April until mid-morning, with availability tapering off ahead of the midday walkout. Any trains still running will wind down early, and TfL is advising those who must travel to complete their journeys by 8pm.

On Wednesday 22 April, services will start later than usual, with no trains expected before 7.30am. Significant disruption is forecast across all lines until midday, with a gradual recovery throughout the afternoon and evening.

The pattern repeats on Thursday 23 April, with normal services until mid-morning and a 12pm walkout triggering severe disruption into the evening. Friday 24 April will again see no service before 7.30am and continuing disruption across the network.

Although a reduced timetable will operate on some routes, TfL has confirmed there will be no service at all on the Piccadilly and Circle lines, no trains on the Metropolitan line between Baker Street and Aldgate, and no service on the Central line between White City and Liverpool Street. Trains that do run are likely to be sporadic, overcrowded and unable to pick up every waiting passenger.

The Elizabeth line, DLR, London Overground and tram services will operate as normal.

Adding to the disruption, seven bus routes operated by Stagecoach from Bow Bus Garage in East London will be affected by a 24-hour walkout from 5am on Friday 25 April. Routes 8, 25, 205, 425, N8, N25 and N205 are all in scope, although TfL expects the 25 and 425 to maintain a near-normal service for most of the day. The N8 will run a reduced route between Hainault and Liverpool Street at its usual frequency, while the remaining routes are likely to be severely delayed or cancelled.

The dispute centres on TfL’s proposal to introduce a four-day working week for train operators. The union has branded the plan “fake”, arguing it would simply condense existing hours into fewer days without delivering genuine improvements.

The RMT initially suspended strike action last month after TfL management agreed to negotiate, but accused the operator of reneging at the weekend.

RMT general secretary Eddie Dempsey said the union had “approached negotiations with TfL in good faith throughout this entire process”, adding: “despite our best efforts, TfL seem unwilling to make any concessions in a bid to avert strike action. This is extremely disappointing and has baffled our negotiators. The approach of TfL is not one which leads to industrial peace and will infuriate our members who want to see a negotiated settlement to this avoidable dispute.”

Claire Mann, TfL’s chief operating officer, countered that the proposals were fair and flexible. “We have set out proposals to the RMT for a four-day working week. This allows us to offer train operators an additional day off, whilst at the same time bringing London Underground in line with the working patterns of other train operating companies, improving reliability and flexibility at no additional cost. The changes would be voluntary, there would be no reduction in contractual hours and those who wish to continue a five-day working week pattern would be able to do so.”

For Michael Kill, chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA), the latest walkout is another hammer blow to a sector running on empty.

“As the sector faces a fresh surge in energy and operating costs, this new wave of strike action creates yet more uncertainty that businesses simply cannot absorb,” he said. “Margins are being squeezed from every direction, and confidence is increasingly fragile.”

Mr Kill questioned the wider purpose of the industrial action. “The ongoing disruption to transport services begs the question, who does this actually benefit? Because right now, it’s businesses, workers and the wider public who are paying the price for the reckless actions of the few.”

He warned that the knock-on effects go well beyond lost footfall. “Without reliable late-night transport, staff struggle to get to work, customers stay away, and businesses lose critical trade. Many venues are already under intense financial pressure, continued disruption only compounds that risk.”

While acknowledging workers’ right to withdraw their labour, Mr Kill called for an urgent return to the negotiating table. “We respect the right to strike, but this situation cannot continue. All parties must get round the table and find a resolution, because sustained uncertainty at a time like this will have serious, lasting consequences for London’s night-time economy.”

TfL is urging travellers to use its journey planner to map their routes in advance and to check the status of lines in real time via its live status page. For SMEs, the message from industry is simpler: brace for a difficult week, and start demanding that both sides find a settlement before the damage to the capital’s economy becomes permanent.

Read more:
Tube strike chaos piles fresh pressure on London’s beleaguered night-time economy

Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses have been dealt another blow at the till, with corporate lawyers, financial planners and founders rounding on what they describe as “a continual tax-grabbing assault on SMEs” that is quietly eroding the rewards of building a company in the United Kingdom.

From 6 April, Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR), the regime formerly trading under the rather more flattering banner of Entrepreneurs’ Relief, climbed from 14 per cent to 18 per cent on the first £1m of qualifying gains. It is the latest step in a long retreat from the policy’s original settlement, when business owners paid just 10 per cent on lifetime gains of up to £10m. The rate has now risen by 80 per cent over the past decade, and by 28 per cent in this single adjustment alone.

For a generation of owner-managers who have spent the past twenty years pouring sweat and capital into their companies, the maths is becoming harder to swallow. And, in the words of one adviser, “if we’re wondering why there are so few homegrown UK success stories, this is part of the answer.”

Martin Rayner, director at Compton Financial Services, argues the latest move cannot be read in isolation. “BADR has now increased by 80 per cent over the past decade and by a further 28 per cent in this latest change alone, this is not a one-off adjustment, it’s an ever-increasing tax on entrepreneurial success,” he said.

“And this doesn’t exist in isolation. Employer NI increases and minimum wage rises, which ripple upward through salary structures, not just the lowest tier, are already squeezing owners before they even think about exit.”

Rayner is blunt about the wider implications. “SMEs represent 99.9 per cent of all UK businesses. They are the backbone of this economy and the starting point of every large company. The risks of starting and growing a business keep rising while the rewards keep shrinking.”

For Scott Gallacher, director of Leicester-based financial advisory firm Rowley Turton, the change has a tangible human cost, measured not in pounds, but in years.

“Changes such as the increase from 14 per cent to 18 per cent could mean some business owners having to work an extra year just to stand still,” he said. “When you add this to the earlier move away from 10 per cent, the cumulative impact becomes much more significant.”

On a £1m sale, the journey from 10 per cent to 18 per cent represents an additional £80,000 handed to the Treasury, “the equivalent of around two additional years of work for many, simply to end up in the same position,” Gallacher noted.

He cautioned against treating seven-figure exits as proof of extravagance: “While £1m may sound like a large number, in today’s terms it often represents a lifetime’s work rather than extraordinary wealth.”

Steven Mather, lawyer and director at Steven Mather Solicitor in Leicester, warned that the bite is sharper still on transactions above the £1m threshold.

“Three years ago, a sale at £5m would have cost £900,000 in tax. Now, the same sale costs £1.14m, almost an extra quarter of a million in tax. And for what? Nothing,” he said.

“A business owner who has worked really hard over the years, paying all the tax along the way, to get to the point of exiting and having to pay another shedload to the Government.”

For Mather, the contrast with the regime’s original architecture is stark. “When I first started, BADR was called Entrepreneurs’ Relief and was £10m at 10 per cent. That helped incentivise British entrepreneurs to build and grow in the UK. Now? Those people go and do it in the UAE where it’s all tax-free.”

Graham Nicoll, financial planner at NCL Wealth Partners, frames the change as a familiar Treasury technique dressed in new clothes.

“On paper, a 4 per cent increase may not look drastic, but in real terms for every £1m of sale proceeds it is an extra £40,000 going to HMRC, which is meaningful,” he said.

“The impact of this is the same as fiscal drag, in that reliefs are becoming less generous over time, rates are creeping up and lifetime limits have shrunk dramatically. Changes in tax impacts like these will influence business owners’ thinking about timing, succession planning, structure and much more.”

His starting point with clients, he says, is no longer about the deal but the destination. “What are you looking to achieve, what do you want life to look like after business and how much do you need to achieve this? Robust cash flow planning underpins effective exit planning conversations.”

For Colette Mason, author and AI consultant at London-based Clever Clogs AI, the contradiction at the heart of government policy is becoming impossible to ignore.

“Just last week, the Government launched the £500m Sovereign AI fund telling AI entrepreneurs to start, scale and stay in Britain. But why would you, if the exit is being taxed so punitively?” she asked.

“You can’t pour public money into helping founders build and then squeeze what they keep after years of grafting to make it work.”

Her conclusion is one increasingly heard in boardrooms and breakfast meetings from Shoreditch to Solihull: “At some point, people do the maths and build somewhere that lets them keep the reward, and that really isn’t Britain with the continual tax-grabbing assault on SMEs.”

For a Government that has staked much of its growth narrative on the dynamism of British entrepreneurs, the message coming back from those entrepreneurs is unambiguous. Build the company, take the risk, employ the staff, pay the tax, and then watch the reward shrink each April. It is, advisers warn, a model that flatters HMRC’s spreadsheet for now, but quietly empties the pipeline of the very success stories Britain says it wants to celebrate.

Read more:
BADR hike branded a ‘tax-grabbing assault’ as Britain’s founders eye the exit

Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses are bracing for one of the most punishing periods since the pandemic, as the fallout from the Middle East oil shock threatens to push the UK economy to the brink of a technical recession within weeks.

The Item Club, the influential economic forecasting group, now expects the UK to “flirt” with recession through the second and third quarters of the year, with GDP growth halving to just 0.7 per cent in 2026, down from 1.4 per cent last year. Growth in 2027 is pencilled in at a “still-below-par” 0.9 per cent, a grim backdrop for owner-managed businesses already contending with tighter margins and nervous customers.

The trigger is the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil passes. The International Energy Agency has described the disruption as the largest supply shock in the global oil market’s history. Shipping through the strait remained at a standstill on Sunday after Tehran reasserted control of the waterway, with Donald Trump and the Iranian regime accusing one another of breaching the ceasefire struck in the wake of February’s US-Israeli strikes.

The American president accused Iran of a “total violation” after reports of fire being directed at vessels near the strait, and repeated his threat to target Iranian bridges and power infrastructure unless Tehran accepts Washington’s terms. Brent crude fell roughly 9 per cent to below $90 a barrel on Friday after Iran signalled it would reopen the waterway, which has been effectively closed since the 28 February attacks.

For British SMEs, many of whom still carry the scars of the post-Ukraine energy crisis,  the implications are stark. Matt Swannell, chief economic adviser to the Item Club, said: “Consumers’ spending power will be squeezed, while more expensive financing arrangements and a less certain global economic backdrop will pour cold water on companies’ investment plans.”

The labour market is forecast to deliver the “biggest jolt” since the pandemic. The Item Club expects unemployment to climb to 5.8 per cent by the middle of next year, with an additional 250,000 people out of work as firms trim headcount. Joblessness is not expected to drift back down to 4.75 per cent until 2029. Swannell flagged a “worrying switch” in the make-up of unemployment, shifting away from new entrants joining the labour market and towards outright redundancies, a trend that tends to hit smaller employers hardest.

Inflation, meanwhile, is projected to run at close to double the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target by the year-end. Even so, the Item Club does not expect “a repeat of 2022”. A softer economy and weakening jobs market should make it harder for companies to pass cost increases through to customers “as aggressively” as they managed in the months following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

That subdued pass-through explains why the Bank is unlikely to reverse course on rates. The Monetary Policy Committee is judged to view current borrowing costs as already holding back activity and “leaning against inflation”, with the Item Club pencilling in two further cuts by the middle of next year, welcome news for SMEs weighing refinancing decisions.

Separate analysis from EY underlines just how heavily geopolitics is weighing on boardrooms. Of the 55 profit warnings issued by UK-listed businesses in the first quarter, 49 per cent cited policy change and geopolitical uncertainty as a leading driver, the highest proportion recorded for that cause in more than 25 years of the firm’s tracking. The FTSE travel and leisure sector, a bellwether for discretionary spending, notched up its joint-highest number of profit warnings in three and a half years.

The mood among consumers is similarly downbeat. The latest Deloitte tracker shows overall consumer confidence has slumped to its lowest level since 2023, falling 3 percentage points during the first quarter, the sharpest quarterly drop since early 2022. Five of the six confidence measures compiled from Deloitte’s survey of 3,200 UK consumers fell, with the steepest decline coming in sentiment around household disposable income. Discretionary spending tumbled 7 percentage points to its weakest reading since the start of 2023.

For Britain’s SME owners, the message from the data is unambiguous: the next two quarters will test cash flow, hiring plans and pricing power in ways not seen since the pandemic. Those who move early to shore up working capital, renegotiate energy contracts and diversify supply chains away from Gulf-dependent routes are likely to be the ones still standing when growth finally returns.

Read more:
Britain to ‘flirt’ with recession as Iran oil shock rattles SMEs