The late Queen Elizabeth II was “very keen” that her second son, then the Duke of York, take on a “prominent role in the promotion of national interests” as the United Kingdom’s special representative for international trade and investment, according to confidential papers on his 2001 appointment released by Downing Street this week.

The cache of 11 files, published on Thursday following a successful Liberal Democrat motion in the Commons, sheds fresh light on how Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor came to occupy one of British business diplomacy’s most senior unpaid posts, a role he held for a decade and which has since become the focus of a Metropolitan Police criminal inquiry.

A royal recommendation, in writing

In a memorandum to the then-foreign secretary Robin Cook dated February 2000, Sir David Wright, the chief executive of British Trade International, the predecessor to today’s Department for Business and Trade, set out the palace’s thinking in unusually direct terms.

“The Queen’s wish is that the Duke of Kent should be succeeded in this role by the Duke of York,” Sir David wrote. “The Duke of Kent is to relinquish his responsibilities around April next year. That would fit well with the end of the Duke of York’s active naval career. The Queen is very keen that the Duke of York should take on a prominent role in the promotion of national interests.”

He added: “No other member of The Royal Family would be available to succeed the Duke of Kent. The Duke of York’s adoption of his role would seem a natural fit.”

For Whitehall officials charged with selling British plc abroad, the recommendation from Buckingham Palace was, in the language of the time, treated as decisive.

The envoy who preferred ‘sophisticated countries’

If the appointment had a regal sheen, the papers also reveal a markedly less flattering portrait of the working envoy. In a letter dated 25 January 2000, Kathryn Colvin, then head of the Foreign Office’s Protocol Division, recorded a briefing from the duke’s principal private secretary, Captain Neil Blair, on his employer’s travel preferences.

The ex-prince, the note records, “tended to prefer more sophisticated countries” and preferred “ballet over theatre”. Captain Blair also stipulated that “the Duke of York should not be offered golfing functions abroad. This was a private activity and if he took his clubs with him he would not play in any public sense”.

For an envoy whose taxpayer-funded brief was to open doors for British exporters in fast-growing emerging markets, the attitudes set out in the briefing will sit uncomfortably with the SME exporters who relied on the office to act as a battering ram into difficult jurisdictions. As former business secretary Sir Vince Cable noted earlier this year, the conduct of Andrew’s tenure deserves serious examination by investigators, not least because the role traded on the prestige of the Crown to win commercial advantage.

From soft power to criminal inquiry

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest on 19 February, his sixty-sixth birthday, has transformed what was once a footnote of royal soft power into a constitutional and commercial headache for the Government. The arrest followed allegations that the former envoy shared sensitive material with the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein during his time as trade representative.

Emails published by the US Department of Justice indicate that Andrew forwarded official reports of trips to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam to Epstein in 2010 and 2011, within minutes of receiving them from his then special adviser. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has reportedly pressed US authorities to expedite the release of unredacted exchanges held in the wider Epstein files.

Detectives are understood to be considering whether to broaden the scope of their inquiry beyond the offence of misconduct in public office — a notoriously difficult charge to mount — to encompass potential corruption offences as well as alleged sex trafficking. Any prosecution will fall to the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime Division, which handles the most sensitive matters.

Lord Peter Mandelson, the former business secretary and a mutual acquaintance of both men, was himself arrested following the release of the Epstein files in the United States, accused of having disclosed sensitive information. Both men deny any wrongdoing and have been released under investigation; both maintain they had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

What it means for British business

For owner-managers and SME exporters, the readership Business Matters has championed for more than two decades, the documents matter for reasons that go well beyond royal soap opera.

The Special Representative for International Trade and Investment was, until 2011, the public face Britain put forward to court inward investors and to bang the drum for UK companies in capitals from Riyadh to Astana. It was, in effect, a brand. The newly-published file makes plain that the appointment process was driven less by a forensic assessment of commercial fit than by dynastic convenience and palace preference.

That has implications for how the present generation of trade envoys, and the export support architecture around them, is scrutinised. UK Export Finance has spent the past three years dramatically expanding its direct support for SME exporters, precisely because the soft-power model that underpinned the Andrew era proved fragile when its figurehead became politically toxic. The unwinding of Pitch@Palace, the ex-prince’s own start-up showcase, tells a similar story.

The Government’s decision to release the file, under duress from the Liberal Democrats and against the backdrop of an active criminal inquiry, as the BBC reported earlier this year, is a tacit acknowledgement that public confidence in the way British trade promotion was conducted at the turn of the century has not survived contact with the Epstein files. As RTÉ noted in its coverage of Thursday’s release, the documents arrived “just months after lawmakers accused the king’s brother of putting his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein ahead of the nation”.

For Britain’s exporters, the lesson from these dusty memoranda is brisk and uncomfortable: the credibility of UK trade promotion abroad now depends on transparent process, not royal patronage. The sooner Whitehall internalises that, the better for the businesses that pay its salaries.

Read more:
Andrew trade envoy files: Queen ‘very keen’ ex-prince led UK plc abroad, Whitehall papers reveal

The black cab is the most reliable piece of street furniture in London. It has outlasted hansom carriages, two world wars and the rise of Uber. But the trade now faces an opponent it cannot intimidate with a beep of the horn, an artificial intelligence that drives two million miles a week and never has to learn a single street name.

In a quiet corner of Westminster, just behind Parliament Square, a Jaguar I-Pace is nosing its way around a roundabout choked with tourists. The wheel is turning, the indicators are flicking on and off, the speed is precisely judged. The man in the driver’s seat is not driving. Alex Kendall, chief executive of the British self-driving start-up Wayve, has his hands in his lap.

A few miles east, in a hushed examination room at Transport for London, Steven Fairbrass is sitting his twentieth attempt at the Knowledge of London. He has been studying for eight years. He stumbles on a street name in Portland Place and the examiner, kindly, tells him to come back another day.

These two scenes, highlight the future of London transport and frame the most consequential business story the capital’s streets have seen in a generation. The world’s most heavily regulated taxi trade is colliding with one of the world’s most heavily capitalised pieces of artificial intelligence, and the collision is going to shape everything from urban property values to the United Kingdom’s industrial strategy.

A trade already in retreat

The numbers tell their own grim story. Licensed black cab drivers in London peaked at 25,538 in 2014. By November 2024 the figure had fallen to 16,965, a contraction of more than a third in a decade. Over the same period the number of licensed private hire drivers, Uber, Bolt, Addison Lee and the rest, has grown by 82 per cent, to 107,884. As Business Matters has previously detailed, the lost fare income runs into hundreds of millions of pounds a year, and the trade’s underlying cost base, electric-vehicle financing, congestion charging, insurance, keeps rising.

The pipeline of new cabbies is drying up faster than the existing workforce is retiring. The pass rate for the Knowledge, the test that for 161 years has separated the “knowledge boys” from the rest, has slumped from 59 per cent in 2020 to 38 per cent in 2025. Steve McNamara, head of the Licensed Taxi Driver’s Association, has warned that without intervention the trade could be functionally extinct by 2045.

Into this softening market arrive two competitors with very different business models but identical ambitions.

Silicon Valley meets the South Circular

Waymo, the autonomous-driving arm of Alphabet, has been quietly mapping a 100-square-mile patch of London since the autumn. A fleet of around 100 Jaguar I-Paces, fitted with the company’s proprietary stack of 29 cameras, six radars and five lidar units, has been recording the city’s curious right-hand-drive choreography. The company, as Business Matters reported earlier this year, is targeting a fully driverless commercial launch in the fourth quarter of 2026, in partnership with the fleet operator Moove.

Waymo’s co-chief executive, Tekedra Mawakana, points to a fleet that has now driven more than 170 million paying-passenger miles in the United States and a safety record that, the company says, shows 92 per cent fewer serious-injury crashes than the human benchmark. “We travel over two million miles a week,” she recently told Anderson Cooper for a CBS Minutes piece. “Humans drive about 700,000 miles in a lifetime, so this is almost three lifetimes per week that our fleet is driving.”

Wayve, the Cambridge-founded scale-up backed by Microsoft, Nvidia and now Uber, takes a deliberately different approach. Its AI Driver is a foundation model trained end-to-end on millions of hours of footage, designed to generalise to any city rather than relying on the pre-built high-definition maps that Waymo favours. The bet is leaner, faster and, in theory, exportable. It has been enough to attract a $1bn funding round last year and a valuation of $8.6bn, the richest yet awarded to a British AI company. In May, Wayve signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department for Business and Trade to fast-track the path from test fleet to commercial deployment.

The prize is not just London fares. Ministers estimate that the autonomous vehicle sector could add £42bn to the UK economy and create close to 40,000 jobs by 2035. Whoever wins London, the most complex, most regulated and most observed urban driving environment in the western world, wins a benchmark that can be sold to every other capital.

The regulatory starting gun

For years, the British self-driving question was theoretical. The Automated Vehicles Act 2024 settled the legal architecture, creating a new category of “authorised self-driving entity” that takes on legal liability when the car is in charge. In a significant acceleration, the Department for Transport has brought forward the Automated Passenger Services permitting regime to spring 2026, allowing pilots of driverless taxi and bus services with no safety driver onboard. The Vehicle Certification Agency has been confirmed as the single national gatekeeper deciding which vehicles can carry paying passengers.

This matters commercially because permits, not technology, were the real bottleneck. Now the path is clear. Uber, which is partnering with Wayve, plans to fold autonomous vehicles into its existing London app. Bolt has indicated it will follow. Waymo’s pilot may carry no driver at all from day one. Within twelve months, a Londoner could be hailing a robotaxi on the same screen they currently use to summon a human one.

The human moat

The cabbies’ counter-argument is not that the technology will fail. It is that a London journey is not a navigation problem.

The Knowledge requires aspiring drivers to memorise some 25,000 streets and 20,000 points of interest within a six-mile radius of Charing Cross. Tom Scullion, who has been driving for 34 years, says he is regularly asked to ferry unaccompanied children to school and a regular client’s Irish wolfhound to the vet. The trust is a function of the licence, and the licence is a function of the years of study.

It is also a function of biology. Research by the late Professor Eleanor Maguire at University College London famously demonstrated that the posterior hippocampus, the brain’s spatial filing cabinet, grows measurably larger in qualified cabbies. New work from UCL’s Spatial Cognition Group suggests, intriguingly, that taxi drivers’ route-planning strategies could in turn inform the next generation of AI navigation systems, an irony not lost on the trade.

Whether that biological moat translates into commercial defensibility is the question that matters in the boardroom. Wayve and Waymo are not pitching themselves as better navigators. They are pitching themselves as cheaper, always available and, they argue, safer. In a city where average black cab fares have risen sharply with electric-vehicle financing costs, price competition is the threat the trade has the least answer to.

What it means for UK plc

The substantive question is not whether the cabbie survives, it is what the disruption tells us about Britain’s appetite for tolerating one. The Treasury has banked on AV adoption to lift productivity and rejuvenate UK automotive manufacturing. The National Wealth Fund is reportedly close to backing the Oxford-founded driverless start-up Oxa. Sherbet London has just raised £40m to electrify its black cab fleet, an explicit defensive play. Insurance underwriters, fleet operators, mapping companies and local councils are all being asked to model a scenario that did not exist eighteen months ago.

Three commercial implications stand out. The first is that London is being treated by the world’s largest AV companies as a global proving ground; success here unlocks a regulatory passport to Paris, Berlin and Tokyo. The second is that the United Kingdom, almost uniquely among large economies, has both a credible domestic champion in Wayve and a willing regulator, which is rare leverage in a sector dominated by American capital. The third is that the long-feared “Uberisation” of the taxi industry was, in retrospect, a soft landing. The next disruption removes the driver altogether, and with it the principal cost line, the principal customer-service complaint and, less comfortably, the principal employer of working-class Londoners who never went to university.

The black cab will not vanish overnight. The same regulatory frame that admits Waymo also affirms the taxi trade’s protected status to ply for hire on the street, and the iconography remains commercially valuable: every tourism board on earth would pay to keep a TX5 in the establishing shot. Sherbet’s investors, evidently, agree.

But the economics are unforgiving. The number of “appearances” booked at TfL each year is falling. The capital cost of a new electric London-style cab now exceeds £70,000. And the next generation of would-be cabbies, including 41-attempt Knowledge graduate Anshu Moorjani, are entering a market in which their newly enlarged hippocampi will be competing with neural networks that learn faster every week.

A century after the last horse-drawn hansom left the streets of London, the same city is preparing to host the first commercial robotaxi service in Europe. The Knowledge made the London cab the gold standard of urban transport. Whether it survives the algorithm is now, finally, a question with a deadline.

Read more:
The Knowledge versus the algorithm: inside London’s £42bn robotaxi reckoning

Peter Kyle has issued a defiant message to the boardrooms of corporate Britain: the government’s long-awaited crackdown on late payments will not be diluted, no matter how loudly big business lobbies against it.

In an interview with Business Matters, the Business Secretary said he would not “resile from delivering” what he described as a “step change in the relationship between all larger businesses and their supply chains” as the Small Business Protections (Late Payments) Bill is laid before parliament on Tuesday.

The legislation, billed by Whitehall as the most far-reaching shake-up of commercial payment rules in more than 25 years, caps payment terms at 60 days for large firms paying smaller suppliers, imposes mandatory interest of 8 per cent above the Bank of England base rate on overdue invoices, and hands the Small Business Commissioner sweeping new powers to investigate, name and fine serial offenders. It also outlaws the controversial use of “retentions” in the construction sector, a practice in which main contractors withhold a portion of a supplier’s bill, ostensibly as a defects guarantee, but which the government argues has long been abused to prop up cashflow further up the chain.

According to government figures, poor payment practices drain roughly £11 billion a year from the UK economy and contribute to the closure of an estimated 38 small businesses every day.

A line in the sand

Kyle was unequivocal when asked whether ministers would soften the bill in the face of pressure from corporate Britain. “I am fighting to bring more fairness to our economy,” he told Business Matters. “Sixty days is a solid, reasonable outer limit for paying a small business.”

He claimed the reforms would give the UK “the strongest legal framework in the G7” on commercial payments — a point ministers have made repeatedly since the package was first trailed earlier this year.

“An unhealthy economy is one in which businesses are exploited or strangled to death,” he said. “I don’t think there are many people in their personal lives, let alone in their professional lives, that think it’s reasonable to wait more than two full months to be paid.”

His comments come amid mounting unease in Westminster that the legislation could be watered down at committee stage. Both the British Retail Consortium and the Confederation of British Industry have flagged concerns. The CBI warned last week that the new rules must be “balanced carefully against the need to protect the competitiveness of larger businesses — particularly those operating across complex supply chains”.

Supporters of the bill, however, see those interventions as precisely the reason ministers cannot afford to flinch. Craig Beaumont, executive director at the Federation of Small Businesses, pulled no punches. “Many big businesses are using small businesses for free credit, and some are busy lobbying to keep it,” he said. “As this bill goes through parliament, it absolutely must not be watered down. Victims don’t want a balanced approach with perpetrators.”

A commissioner with teeth

For the reforms to bite, much will hinge on enforcement — and on Emma Jones, the small business commissioner appointed last year to take on Britain’s payment culture. Until now her office has been seen by critics as toothless, having not used its existing “name and shame” powers since Labour came to power. The government has said that is because no complaint from suppliers had merited that step.

Kyle insisted that would change once the new bill became law, and made clear he expected Jones to use her new powers assertively, including fines that could run into the tens of millions of pounds for “persistently” late payers.

“I’m empowering her to do these things, and she also has my full backing to act as swiftly as possible,” he said. “We need to have swift inquiries, swift judgments, and we need to have swift enforcement. And that will lead to the behaviour change we need.”

A drag on growth

The political logic for Kyle is clear enough. Cashflow remains the single biggest pressure point for Britain’s 5.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises, and recent figures suggest the problem is getting worse, not better, with UK firms hitting record levels of late invoice payments and SMEs collectively left more than £100 billion out of pocket last year.

For a government that has staked its growth agenda on unblocking the supply side of the economy, the message that businesses can no longer treat their smaller suppliers as a free line of credit is, by ministerial standards, an unusually sharp one. Whether the bill survives its passage through parliament without significant amendment will be the first real test of how serious Kyle is about that promise.

Read more:
Kyle vows no climbdown on late payment crackdown as landmark bill enters parliament

Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses have given the King’s Speech a decidedly lukewarm reception, with industry leaders accusing ministers of squandering a “critical opportunity” to ease the mounting cost pressures threatening to choke off growth across the economy.

While the legislative programme offered some genuine wins, most notably a long-awaited crackdown on late payments and a meaningful overhaul of City regulation, there was a conspicuous silence on the three issues that dominate the in-tray of every SME owner in the country: business rates, soaring energy bills and the rising cost of employing staff.

Coming as the deepening conflict in the Middle East drives up energy and shipping costs, the omissions felt particularly raw to firms already navigating what the CBI’s chief executive, Rain Newton-Smith, described as “strong global headwinds”.

A missed moment on rates and energy

Shevaun Haviland, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, did not mince her words. “With the Middle East conflict ratcheting up cost pressures, this was a critical opportunity to deliver meaningful change and give companies the certainty they urgently need,” she said. “Businesses will be disappointed to see no clear progress on reforming business rates, which remain a major cost burden for firms across the UK.”

Haviland was equally pointed on what she called the speech’s failure to grapple with supply-chain resilience, urging ministers to accelerate work on infrastructure, planning reform and the chronic backlog of grid connections that has become a binding constraint on industrial investment. Businesses, she said, wanted “a relentless focus on reducing costs, boosting investment and improving competitiveness”.

Newton-Smith struck a similar note. Firms, she argued, “want to go for growth, but they need strong leadership from government to reform an unfair business rates system, lower business energy bills and find appropriate landing zones on the Employment Rights Act”.

The British Retail Consortium went further, warning that ministers risked allowing an “inflationary storm” to take hold. Helen Dickinson, its chief executive, said: “Government cannot raise living standards without reducing the costs of doing business. Every moment of indecision will deepen the damage done to the British economy and extend the pain felt by households everywhere.”

Late payments: a long-overdue win for SMEs

For all the grumbling, one measure was greeted with something close to euphoria in the SME community. The Small Business Protections (Late Payments) Bill will impose maximum payment terms of 60 days, mandate interest on overdue invoices and arm the Small Business Commissioner with powers to investigate serial offenders and issue fines.

The economic case is stark. Late payments drain an estimated £11 billion from the UK economy every year and, according to government figures, contribute to the closure of 38 businesses every day.

Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the Federation of Small Businesses, called the bill “an historic moment for small firms”, adding: “Late payment destroys thousands of viable small firms a year. For too long, large businesses have used small suppliers as a free overdraft.”

Emma Jones, the Small Business Commissioner, described the package as “excellent news for UK businesses”. Steve Thomas, insolvency partner at Excello Law, said the measures could finally arrest the “domino effect” of large companies pushing smaller suppliers towards insolvency, though he argued the 60-day deadline should ultimately be tightened to 28.

The City cheers a regulatory reset

In the Square Mile, the mood was markedly brighter. The Enhancing Financial Services Bill promises a significant pruning of the post-crisis regulatory thicket, including an overhaul of the Financial Ombudsman Service, the absorption of the Payment Systems Regulator into the Financial Conduct Authority, and a streamlining of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime.

Miles Celic, chief executive of TheCityUK, said the package “signals a clear commitment to strengthening the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre”. Hannah Gurga, director-general of the Association of British Insurers, hailed it as “a significant step towards strengthening the UK’s competitiveness and long-term economic stability”.

Chris Hayward, policy chairman at the City of London Corporation, struck a note of cautious optimism. “Delivery will be key,” he said. “We must now maintain momentum and ensure reforms translate into tangible improvements in how regulation operates in practice.”

The accompanying Competition Reform Bill, which aims to speed up merger investigations and bake a growth duty into regulators’ decision-making, was similarly well received. Michael Moore, chief executive of UK Private Capital, said quicker, more focused investigations would provide “increased clarity” for private capital firms weighing UK investments.

Hospitality braced for a holiday tax

If the City had cause to smile, the hospitality sector did not. Proposals for local tourist levies have alarmed an industry already grappling with the highest employment and energy costs in its recent history.

Allen Simpson, chief executive of UK Hospitality, was blunt: a holiday tax, he said, would be “wildly unpopular, as well as economically destructive. A holiday tax will increase the cost of a staycation for Brits, it will hit lower income families hardest, it will lose the Treasury money and it will cost 33,000 jobs.”

Matthew Price, chief executive of Awaze, the holiday rentals group behind cottages.com and Hoseasons, warned that any levy on overnight stays “risks placing further pressure on consumers with already tight budgets, and by extension the communities and businesses that rely on holidaymakers for their living”. If a levy is unavoidable, he urged, it must be applied through “a standardised national framework that minimises the impact on guests, owners and the wider visitor economy in Britain”.

Steel, Europe and a leasehold flashpoint

Elsewhere, the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill gives ministers the powers to take British Steel into full public ownership, subject to a public interest test. The CBI cautiously described nationalisation as “an expensive option of last resort”, while conceding that preserving sovereign steelmaking capability mattered for economic security.

The European Partnership Bill, which would fast-track future UK-EU agreements, was warmly welcomed by exporters and retailers. The BRC called it a “golden opportunity” to cut red tape for food businesses, manufacturers and suppliers trading across the Channel, though it pressed for clear guidance on the sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements that will follow.

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which will ban leasehold for new flats in England and Wales and cap ground rents at £250 a year, drew predictable battle lines. Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister, said the legislation “marks the beginning of the end for the leasehold system that has tainted the dream of home ownership for so many”. The Residential Freehold Association countered that the proposals were “a wholly unjustified interference with existing property rights” that risked damaging investor confidence in the housing market.

Regulatory sandboxes for the innovators

Finally, the Regulating for Growth Bill empowers regulators to establish “sandbox” schemes allowing firms to trial emerging technologies — from defence innovations to AI-controlled ships — under lighter-touch oversight. It was warmly received by investors, with Moore suggesting the powers would help founders and backers “grow, innovate and support jobs” in sectors often dependent on private capital.

 The verdict

Across 37 bills, the King’s Speech offered something for almost every business constituency, and, in the eyes of many SMEs, not nearly enough. The late payments crackdown will rightly be celebrated as a structural reform a generation overdue. The City has its long-promised regulatory reset. Exporters have a route to a closer European relationship.

But for the corner-shop retailer staring at a quadrupled rates bill, the manufacturer absorbing yet another energy price spike, or the publican counting the cost of the Employment Rights Act, the speech will feel like a missed opportunity. The political theatre may have moved on; the economic anxiety on Britain’s high streets has not.

Read more:
King’s Speech leaves small firms wanting more on rates, energy and red tape

Veteran-led small businesses are about to find the door to international trade rather easier to push open.

UK Export Finance (UKEF), the government’s export credit agency, has today unveiled a partnership with specialist broker Finance for Forces designed to plug an awkward gap that has long frustrated former service personnel turning their hand to enterprise: getting the right finance, at the right moment, to chase orders overseas.

For the thousands of veterans who have built businesses since leaving uniform, the appetite to export is rarely in doubt. The cash flow to underwrite that ambition, however, has been another matter. Under the new arrangement, Finance for Forces, founded by Russell Lewis MC and Paul Goodman, will be able to introduce qualifying clients to UKEF’s suite of short-term products for smaller exporters, including working capital guarantees, bond support guarantees and export insurance policies. UKEF, in turn, will refer veteran-led firms back the other way where the fit is right.

It is a neat piece of joined-up government, and one that comes with a clear strategic backdrop. The collaboration is explicitly designed to support the Government’s Veterans Strategy, launched in November 2025, which framed the ex-service community as a national economic asset rather than a welfare line item, citing the leadership, discipline and operational nous that translate, with surprising frequency, into commercially robust SMEs.

Beyond the referrals plumbing, the two organisations will run information sessions and networking events aimed at demystifying export finance, an area that even seasoned founders can find labyrinthine. For veteran entrepreneurs, many of whom are scaling for the first time, that hand-holding is likely to matter as much as the products themselves.

Chris Bryant, Minister of State for Trade, said the partnership was about converting service into commercial reward. “Our veterans have shown extraordinary bravery and dedication in service to the nation, and their skills should be matched by real commercial opportunity,” he said. “This partnership will help turn entrepreneurial ambition into export success, helping veteran-led businesses reach international markets with the backing and confidence they deserve.”

Tim Reid, chief executive of UKEF, said the agency’s small business remit was central to the move. “Supporting small businesses to export and grow is central to UKEF’s mission. By partnering with Finance for Forces, we can reach more veteran-led businesses and help them access the finance they need to win international contracts, enter new markets and scale up with confidence.”

Paul Goodman, co-founder of Finance for Forces, was perhaps the bluntest on the practical problem the deal is meant to solve. “Veterans bring leadership, resilience and a mission focus to business, but navigating commercial finance can be challenging,” he said. “This partnership with UKEF will help veteran-led firms understand their options and access the backing they need to develop exports and accelerate growth.”

For UKEF, the announcement sits within a broader push to shed any lingering reputation as a facility primarily for the corporate heavyweights. The agency has spent recent years recalibrating towards SMEs in every corner of the country, promising faster response times and more targeted support irrespective of location, size or ownership. Bolting on a dedicated channel for the veteran business community, a constituency with a particularly strong record on resilience and follow-through, looks, on the face of it, like a sensible bet.

Whether the partnership translates into a meaningful uplift in veteran-led export volumes will depend, as ever, on awareness and execution. But for founders who have spent years wondering whether the export financing system was really built for businesses like theirs, the answer just got a little more encouraging.

Read more:
UKEF teams up with Finance for Forces to put veteran-led exporters on the global map

Jamie Dimon has fired the bluntest warning shot yet at Westminster, signalling that JPMorgan Chase will walk away from its planned multibillion-pound Canary Wharf skyscraper if the political weather in Britain turns colder for the banking industry.

Speaking to Bloomberg TV on Tuesday, the chairman and chief executive of America’s largest bank said the lender would “reconsider” the project should its UK tax bill climb “too much”, a pointed intervention as speculation grows in the City that Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership is vulnerable and that a successor government could lurch leftwards.

“Not political instability, but if they become hostile to banks again, yes,” Dimon told the broadcaster when asked whether the febrile mood in Westminster was giving him pause. “I’ve always objected to the fact, we didn’t damage the UK in any way, we paid probably $10 billion in extra taxes by now. I don’t think that’s right or fair. If that happens too much we will reconsider.”

The proposed tower, which would span roughly three million square feet and accommodate up to 12,000 staff, was unveiled the day after Rachel Reeves delivered her latest Budget. The chancellor opted against raising taxes on banks after intensive lobbying by the industry, a decision that JPMorgan rewarded with one of the most consequential corporate property announcements London has seen in a generation.

Were it built, the skyscraper would rank among the largest office buildings in Europe. JPMorgan has put the construction-phase boost to the local economy at £9.9 billion, while the Treasury has dangled a business rates discount of “up to 100 per cent” to secure the investment. The bank, however, was careful to caveat its commitment at the time, stressing that the project remained “subject to a continuing positive business environment in the UK”.

Dimon’s latest remarks make plain what that small print really means.

Britain’s lenders are enjoying a profitable run. First-quarter results from the high street banks confirmed earnings continue to be flattered by higher-for-longer interest rates, themselves a consequence of the inflationary shock from the war in Iran. That combination, fat banking profits, squeezed household budgets and battered public finances, has long been a recipe for political appetite to raid the sector.

UK Finance, the industry’s lobbying arm, calculates that banks operating in Britain now shoulder the heaviest tax burden of any major financial centre, with an effective rate of 46.4 per cent last year against 27.9 per cent in New York and 38.9 per cent in Frankfurt. The numbers reflect a bank levy on balance sheets introduced in the 2010 emergency Budget after the financial crisis, layered with a corporation tax surcharge on profits brought in five years later.

CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, captured the mood last month when he observed that “banks in the UK are more highly taxed than they are in other major jurisdictions.” Analysts at Jefferies told clients last week that they considered an increase in the bank surcharge to be “more likely than not”.

A retreat by JPMorgan from Canary Wharf would not simply leave a hole in the Docklands skyline. It would dent the supply chain of construction firms, fit-out specialists, security contractors, cleaners, caterers and software vendors that depend on big anchor tenants. It would also chill the broader signal sent to overseas investors weighing whether London remains, post-Brexit, a credible base for European headquarters, investors whose downstream spending touches thousands of British SMEs.

There is, equally, a financing dimension. Punitive levies on banks rarely stay confined to the banks themselves. They tend to manifest in tighter lending criteria, higher arrangement fees and a more cautious approach to small business credit, precisely the segment of the market that already complains loudest about access to capital.

Whether the warning lands depends on who occupies Number 10 by the autumn. Should Sir Keir survive, Treasury officials are likely to continue the delicate dance of squeezing revenue from elsewhere while keeping the City onside. Should he fall, his successor will inherit a fiscal hole, a restless backbench and an industry that, despite record profits, has become extraordinarily adept at signalling its mobility.

Dimon, who has spent the better part of two decades reminding politicians on both sides of the Atlantic that capital travels, has chosen his moment. JPMorgan’s tower is not merely a building. It is a bargaining chip, and the chancellor, whoever she or he turns out to be, has just been put on notice.

Read more:
JPMorgan threatens to scrap Canary Wharf skyscraper if Labour swings left on bank taxes

Roughly 600 staff at OpenAI have walked away with an average of $11 million (£8 million) apiece after cashing out a combined $6.6 billion (£4.8 billion) in shares, in one of the largest single transfers of employee wealth that Silicon Valley has produced.

The secondary share sale, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, allowed early employees of the ChatGPT developer to sell stock to incoming investors rather than wait for an initial public offering. As many as 75 of the lucky group sold the maximum permitted by the company and walked away with $30 million each.

It is a vivid illustration of the concentration of wealth being generated by the artificial intelligence boom and a sharp reminder, for British SME founders watching from the sidelines, of the scale at which the US technology sector now operates. The single payout pool exceeds the entire annual research and development budget of most FTSE 250 companies.

OpenAI requires staff to hold their shares for two years before they can be sold, meaning last year’s deal was the first significant opportunity for early employees to realise their gains since ChatGPT was released to the public in November 2022. The product’s instant global success has driven one of the steepest re-ratings of a private company in corporate history.

The lab founded by Sam Altman and his co-founders was valued at around $1 billion in 2019, when it established a profit-making subsidiary alongside its non-profit parent. By 2023, after Microsoft’s landmark investment shortly following ChatGPT’s launch, the figure had reached $29 billion. The October secondary sale that delivered last year’s payouts valued the company at $500 billion, and a further $122 billion fundraising round completed in March pushed the figure to $852 billion.

An initial public offering, expected in early 2027, could value OpenAI at more than $1 trillion and turn dozens of its earliest employees into multimillionaires several times over. Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which now houses his xAI laboratory, and Anthropic, the developer of the Claude chatbot, are both reported to be eyeing public market debuts at comparable valuations.

The scale of the OpenAI payout has not gone unnoticed in the wider technology labour market. Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, is reported to have offered individual compensation packages worth more than $300 million in an attempt to lure leading AI researchers from rivals. The resulting talent war has pushed salaries for senior machine-learning engineers well into seven figures and is making it increasingly difficult for European start-ups, including British ones, to retain home-grown talent.

The transaction was completed even as concerns about an AI bubble reached a recent peak. Technology stocks suffered a sharp sell-off between September and October last year amid investor unease over the circular financing arrangements between AI laboratories, chipmakers and cloud providers, and over the eye-watering capital expenditure being committed by the largest players. That OpenAI was able to clear a $6.6 billion secondary at a $500 billion valuation in the middle of that wobble underlines the strength of demand from sovereign wealth funds and private investors for exposure to the sector.

The payouts also coincide with an increasingly bitter legal dispute between the company and Mr Musk, an early backer who has sued OpenAI over its conversion from a charitable foundation into a for-profit enterprise. The case, which has been in court for the past fortnight, has produced one of the more eye-popping disclosures of the boom: Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s president, testified that his stake in the business is worth approximately $30 billion. OpenAI has dismissed the litigation as motivated by jealousy and did not respond to a request for comment on the share sale.

For founders of British growth-stage businesses, the OpenAI numbers serve as both inspiration and warning. They demonstrate the extraordinary value that secondary markets can unlock for employees without the need to list, a route increasingly favoured in Silicon Valley as companies stay private for longer. They also underline the talent and capital headwinds facing any UK firm hoping to compete with the American hyperscalers, where stock-based compensation alone can exceed the lifetime earnings of an entire British R&D team.

Whether the AI boom proves to be a generational technological shift or a richly priced rerun of the dotcom era, the cheques have already cleared.

Read more:
OpenAI mints hundreds of overnight millionaires as staff cash out $6.6bn in share sale

A Cotswold soap-maker, a Warwickshire 3D-printing pioneer supplying supercar manufacturers and an Edinburgh tech-refurbishment social enterprise are among 186 organisations honoured this year with The King’s Awards for Enterprise, as Britain’s most prestigious business accolade marks its 60th anniversary.

The 2026 cohort, which includes 76 winners for international trade, 52 for innovation, 36 for sustainability and 22 for promoting opportunity through social mobility, underlines the growing breadth of the awards first presented by Queen Elizabeth II in 1966. Renamed in 2022 following the King’s accession, the honours have now recognised more than 8,000 British businesses across six decades.

A sustainability story written in soap

For Emma Heathcote-James, founder of the Little Soap Company, the recognition vindicates an approach that has prized principles over margins since she began hand-crafting bars from her Cotswold cottage in 2008.

“We don’t make the profit that we perhaps could if we made everything in China, but every single decision that we make is putting the planet and people first,” said Heathcote-James, 49, whose products are now stocked by Waitrose, Tesco and Boots.

The business, which turns over around £2.4 million and employs 13 staff, manufactures exclusively in Scotland and northern England, home to the few soap factories Britain has left, and produces vegan-certified, cruelty-free ranges in recycled packaging.

It has not, however, been insulated from the macroeconomic squeeze. Chief operating officer Sharon Redrobe, who is married to Heathcote-James, said geopolitical tensions had pushed up the cost of raw materials including the essential oils used as fragrances, while greenwashing by some competitors remained a source of frustration. Winning as a small, independently financed business, she said, was the company’s “biggest coup” to date.

Little Soap Company has deliberately avoided external investment, wary of pressure to grow margins by switching to cheaper inputs. “It’s really important that we can demonstrate you can have a successful business and still do things correctly from the start,” Heathcote-James said.

From a mother’s garage to the supercar grid

In Shipston-on-Stour, Warwickshire, RYSE 3D has secured an international trade award after export orders rose by an extraordinary 2,300 per cent to £2.24 million over three years. The company manufactures high-performance 3D-printed parts for more than 20 of the world’s leading supercar marques.

Founder Mitchell Barnes, 29, started developing a 3D printer in his mother’s garage as an undergraduate, using his student loan to build the first prototype and selling the service to coursemates after successfully printing a model for his car-design degree. He is among the youngest ever recipients, and has now collected a second King’s Award in as many years, having won his first at 27.

“It’s a royal honour,” Barnes said. “You don’t believe it when you first get it, but then winning two is even more insane.”

The business, which employs 25 people, exports principally to Latvia, Denmark and the United States, although the tariff regime introduced by Washington last year has eaten into US returns. Healthy margins have allowed RYSE 3D to absorb some of the impact, but Barnes said the team had had to redouble efforts elsewhere to compensate, including launching an automated online ordering tool aimed at everyday customers.

To address a chronic skills shortage, the company has taken to recruiting from outside the sector altogether, training former coffee baristas as 3D printing engineers. Barnes plans to open offices on both the east and west coasts of the United States before the end of 2026.

Refurbishing devices, repairing communities

Edinburgh Remakery, a ten-strong social enterprise honoured in the sustainability category, refurbishes and resells used technology, donating devices to people experiencing digital exclusion and routing unsalvageable components to specialist processors including the Royal Mint, which extracts gold from old motherboards.

Chief executive Elaine Brown said the team had been overwhelmed when the news arrived: “There was much jumping up and down in the remakery that day and a few more cakes were had just to celebrate.”

Demand for the service has surged as businesses retire PCs ahead of the end of support for Windows 10, but Brown argued that many of these machines could be given a second life by being fitted with alternative operating systems. “Being a business for good has been good for business,” she said. “We’ve grown our turnover, we’ve grown our engagement, and the King’s Award is the icing on the cake.”

Winners universally described the application process as exhaustive. Serial entrepreneur Will Fletcher, 46, who oversaw the promoting opportunity category as a judge, said the assessment was deliberately rigorous.

“It’s a really, really thorough process,” he said. “You always get a few that are out-and-out winners, and then there’s a few really tough cases.”

The category, Fletcher noted, rewards profitable companies that channel resources back into their communities, work that is “time-consuming to do properly and not directly linked to how much profit the company makes”. His own former business, Recycling Lives, won the award four times, including in 2019 for supporting ex-offenders into employment, where reoffending rates among participants ran at less than 5 per cent against a national average of around two-thirds. Fletcher now runs Car.co.uk, a Lancashire-based digital car-buying platform, which itself takes home a 2026 award for innovation.

Taken together, this year’s roll call suggests that British SMEs continue to find competitive advantage not in spite of their values, but because of them, a message the King’s Awards have championed, in one form or another, for sixty years.

Read more:
King’s Awards crown Britain’s small business heroes on 60th anniversary

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been warned that her flagship pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles risks blowing a £4.8bn hole in the Treasury’s own coffers, with potentially serious knock-on consequences for the small and medium-sized businesses that underpin Britain’s burgeoning clean transport sector.

In a robustly worded letter to Dan Tomlinson, the exchequer secretary, a coalition of trade bodies representing EV drivers, renewable energy firms and charging operators has argued that the Chancellor’s new electric vehicle excise duty, due to take effect on 1 April 2028, could backfire spectacularly. Their case: that the levy will suppress new car sales to such a degree that it ends up costing the Exchequer considerably more than it raises.

Announced in the November 2025 Budget, the duty will charge fully electric car drivers 3p per mile and plug-in hybrid motorists 1.5p per mile. Treasury forecasts put the expected take at £1.1bn in 2028-29, rising to £1.9bn by 2030-31. The industry’s number-crunchers, however, paint a starkly different picture.

Research carried out by Beama, the trade body representing energy infrastructure companies, suggests the Treasury could lose £630m in VAT receipts in 2028 alone, as motorists postpone EV purchases. In a worst-case scenario, where buyers also defer ordering petrol and diesel vehicles ahead of the looming combustion-engine ban, the cumulative hit to the UK economy could reach £4.8bn.

“Introducing the pay-per-mile policy early is a fiscal own goal,” said Matt Adams of Beama. “It will slow EV uptake, reduce EV charging investments and cost the UK economy more than the Treasury stands to raise with the taxation.”

The warning carries particular weight for the thousands of SMEs operating across Britain’s nascent EV ecosystem, from independent charge-point installers and small fleet operators to clean-tech start-ups and aftermarket specialists. Many of these smaller firms have invested heavily on the assumption that EV adoption will continue its upward trajectory, using rising registrations to justify capital expenditure, recruitment and expansion plans. A sudden slump in demand would, the trade bodies argue, leave a long tail of smaller operators dangerously exposed.

The signatories, Beama, ChargeUK, EVA England and the Renewable Energy Association, point to overseas precedents that should give the Chancellor pause for thought. The introduction of a pay-per-kilometre charge in Iceland sent new EV sales tumbling by 75 per cent in 2024, while a comparable measure in New Zealand triggered a 50 per cent slump.

Replicating that pattern on British roads would have profound implications for the public finances, the trade bodies argue, given that electric vehicles cost on average £6,000 more than their petrol and diesel equivalents, and therefore generate proportionally higher VAT receipts on purchase.

Jarrod Birch, head of policy at ChargeUK, said the timing of the proposed levy was particularly ill-judged. “EVs are experiencing a surge of interest as an alternative to roller-coaster petrol prices,” he said. “Government should be doubling down on the transition by making buying and charging an EV affordable for all.”

Recent months have indeed seen EV sales accelerate, buoyed in part by volatility in oil markets following the outbreak of the Iran war. The trade bodies cautioned, however, that this short-term fillip is likely to prove temporary, and that the structural impact of a per-mile charge could weigh on the sector for years to come.

A Treasury spokesperson defended the Government’s broader approach. “This Government is committed to the EV transition, boosting support to save drivers up to £3,750 on a new car and investing over £3 billion into UK manufacturing and more charging points,” they said.

For Britain’s SME-heavy charging and clean-tech sectors, however, the central question is whether those incentives will be sufficient to offset the chilling effect of a tax that critics say risks pulling the rug from under the very transition Whitehall claims to be championing. With less than two years until the duty comes into force, the Chancellor has time to think again. Whether she will is another matter entirely.

Read more:
Reeves’s pay-per-mile EV tax ‘could cost Treasury £4.8bn’, industry coalition warns

JP Morgan is quietly unwinding part of its post-Brexit Parisian build-up, shifting a clutch of trading roles back to London in what insiders describe as a recalibration rather than a retreat from the Continent.

The Wall Street giant, which moved aggressively to bulk up its French operations after Britain’s departure from the European Union, has concluded that it overshot when estimating how many EU-based staff it would need to satisfy the bloc’s regulators. A handful of traders are now packing their bags for the City, with the bank citing a combination of evolving role requirements, regulatory clarity and, tellingly, personal tax considerations among bankers themselves. Bloomberg was first to report the move.

“Paris is the home of JP Morgan’s EU sales and trading team, and we are committed to our sizeable operations on the Continent for the long term,” a spokesperson for the bank insisted, in language designed to soothe the Élysée as much as the markets.

Britain’s exit from the EU triggered one of the most disruptive structural overhauls global banking has seen in a generation. Lenders were forced to redistribute assets, capital and personnel across jurisdictions to keep client access alive and regulators on side. JP Morgan was among the most enthusiastic movers, transplanting hundreds of bankers across the Channel and turning Paris into a genuine European trading hub.

The strategy paid handsome dividends, at least diplomatically. Chief executive Jamie Dimon, widely regarded as the world’s most influential banker, was awarded France’s Légion d’Honneur in recognition of the bank’s contribution to lifting the French capital’s status in international finance. By the back end of last year, JP Morgan had roughly 1,000 staff in France, with 650 of them on the markets side.

That figure is now drifting in the opposite direction, and the timing is no coincidence. The bank is pressing ahead with plans for a colossal 3m sq ft tower in Canary Wharf, unveiled in the wake of an Autumn Budget that, to the relief of the Square Mile, spared the banking sector from a long-trailed tax raid. Chancellor Rachel Reeves hailed the project as “a multi-billion pound vote of confidence in the UK economy”.

The numbers are eye-watering even by the standards of British infrastructure spending. The development is expected to pump as much as £10bn into the wider economy, generate 7,800 construction and supply-chain jobs and ultimately house up to 12,000 employees, cementing London as JP Morgan’s principal base across Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

But the deal is not done. JP Morgan has made plain that the skyscraper will only rise if Westminster keeps the fiscal weather favourable. A report from Tower Hamlets council disclosed that the bank has lobbied for “a business rates incentive over a period of years”, and ministers themselves have cautioned the local authority that JP Morgan is “unlikely to progress” without “clarity and certainty” on its eventual tax bill.

For SME owners watching from the sidelines, the message is mixed. A reinvigorated London financial centre would be a fillip for professional services firms, suppliers and the wider hospitality and property ecosystems that depend on a thriving Square Mile. Yet the unmistakable subtext, that even the bluest of blue-chip lenders are willing to play hardball on tax — is a reminder that the post-Brexit settlement remains a work in progress, and that footloose capital will continue to test the limits of British competitiveness.

Read more:
JP Morgan reverses Brexit-era Paris move as London beckons trading roles back

The Gaydon-based luxury marque is pressing ahead with trademark action against the Chinese conglomerate that owns a sizeable slice of its share register, in a dispute that underscores the delicate politics of cross-border automotive investment.

Aston Martin Lagonda has launched legal proceedings against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, the Hangzhou-headquartered motor group that holds a 17 per cent stake in the British carmaker, over a winged emblem the luxury marque claims is too close for comfort to its own storied badge.

The case, which pits Britain’s most famous sports car manufacturer against one of its largest shareholders, centres on a logo Geely intends to roll out on vehicles produced by its London EV Company (LEVC) subsidiary, the Coventry-based maker of the capital’s black cabs. The design features a horse’s head set within a pair of outstretched wings, and Aston Martin contends that the overall impression sails far too close to the slender winged motif that has adorned its bonnets since 1927.

The row is not a new one, Aston Martin first raised objections in 2022, when Geely sought to register the marks with the UK Intellectual Property Office. The Gaydon firm formally opposed the application the following year, arguing infringement, only for the hearing officer to side with the Chinese group on the basis that consumers were unlikely to mistake an electric taxi for a £150,000-plus grand tourer.

That ruling did little to cool tempers at Aston Martin, and the latest legal salvo suggests the board is prepared to press the point despite the awkward shareholder dynamic. Geely acquired its 17 per cent holding for roughly $310m (£245m) in 2023, making it one of the marque’s most significant backers alongside executive chairman Lawrence Stroll’s Yew Tree consortium and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

For Geely, the London taxi business is a strategically important British asset. The group has been quietly assembling a portfolio of UK marques over the past decade, with Lotus now firmly in its stable alongside LEVC. Its involvement at Aston Martin was initially welcomed as a source of both capital and potential manufacturing expertise at a moment when the British firm has been burning through cash to fund its electrification programme.

The dispute also comes at a bruising time for Aston Martin’s brand stewardship. The company recently saw 007 defect to the silver screen behind the wheel of a BYD, a coup for the rival Chinese electric-vehicle maker and a blow to a marque whose cultural cachet has long been bound up with the James Bond franchise.

In public, both parties are playing down the significance of the row. Aston Martin has declined to comment further on live proceedings, while Geely has characterised the matter as a routine trademark dispute and insisted it remains committed to a professional working relationship with the Gaydon marque as both business partner and investor.

Trademark lawyers watching the case note that the outcome will hinge on whether the courts accept that the average buyer, whether of an Aston Martin DB12 or an LEVC electric cab, could be confused or whether Aston’s goodwill in the wings motif is being unfairly exploited. What is already clear is that having a Chinese partner on the share register is no guarantee of a quiet life in the intellectual property courts.

Read more:
Aston Martin takes its 17pc shareholder Geely to court over ‘copycat’ wings logo

A powerful new artificial intelligence model developed by Anthropic has triggered a flurry of crisis meetings among finance ministers, central bankers and senior financiers, who fear the technology could be turned on the global financial system with devastating consequences.

The model, known as Claude Mythos, has been shown to pinpoint vulnerabilities in many of the world’s most widely used operating systems, prompting alarm at the highest levels of government and commerce. While some specialists believe it marks a step-change in AI’s ability to uncover and exploit cyber-security flaws, others have urged caution, arguing that far more independent testing is needed before its true capabilities can be judged.

Canada’s Finance Minister, François-Philippe Champagne, confirmed to media that Mythos had dominated discussions at this week’s International Monetary Fund meetings in Washington DC. “Certainly it is serious enough to warrant the attention of all the finance ministers,” he said. Drawing a comparison with geopolitical risks, he added: “The difference is that the Strait of Hormuz – we know where it is and we know how large it is… the issue that we’re facing with Anthropic is that it’s the unknown, unknown. This is requiring a lot of attention so that we have safeguards, and we have processes in place to make sure that we ensure the resiliency of our financial systems.”

Mythos is among the latest additions to Anthropic’s Claude family of models, which competes directly with OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini. It was unveiled earlier this month by developers responsible for stress-testing so-called “misaligned” AI behaviour, instances in which a model acts against human values or intended goals. Their verdict was that Mythos is “strikingly capable at computer security tasks”.

Citing concerns that the model could surface long-dormant software bugs or identify novel ways to exploit system weaknesses, Anthropic has opted not to release it publicly. Instead, access has been granted to a handful of technology giants, including Amazon Web Services, CrowdStrike, Microsoft and Nvidia, under an initiative dubbed Project Glasswing, which the company describes as an “effort to secure the world’s most critical software”.

On Thursday, Anthropic released an upgraded version of its existing Claude Opus model, saying this would enable Mythos’s cyber capabilities to be evaluated within less powerful systems.

Not everyone in the cyber-security community is convinced the fears are proportionate, particularly given the limited independent testing conducted so far. The UK’s AI Security Institute, which has been given access to a preview version, is the only body to have published an independent assessment. Its researchers concluded that while Mythos Preview could compromise systems with weak defences, it was not dramatically more capable than its predecessor, Opus 4. “Our testing shows that Mythos Preview can exploit systems with weak security posture, and it is likely that more models with these capabilities will be developed,” the report’s authors wrote.

Sceptics have also pointed to precedent: in February 2019, OpenAI similarly delayed the release of GPT-2 on safety grounds, a decision critics at the time dismissed as a marketing device.

Senior bankers are now to be granted early access to Mythos so they can probe their own defences ahead of any wider release. C.S. Venkatakrishnan, chief executive of Barclays, told the BBC: “It’s serious enough that people have to worry. We have to understand it better, and we have to understand the vulnerabilities that are being exposed and fix them quickly.” He added that a far more interconnected financial system had created both fresh opportunities and fresh exposures, cautioning: “This is what the new world is going to be.”

For Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses, which rely on the integrity of banking, payment and cloud infrastructure every day, the implications are considerable. A cyber incident capable of destabilising a major lender or payment processor could ripple rapidly through SME supply chains, hitting cash flow, invoicing and customer confidence within hours.

Anthropic has already flagged that Mythos has uncovered multiple vulnerabilities in core operating systems, financial platforms and web browsers. Governments and banks are being offered advance access to harden their defences before any public launch.

Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, has said that the development must be treated with the utmost seriousness. “We are having to look very carefully now what this latest AI development could mean for the risk of cyber crime,” he said. “The consequence could be that there is a development of AI, of modelling, which makes it easier to detect existing vulnerabilities in sort of core IT systems, and then obviously cyber criminals, the bad actors, could seek to exploit them.”

The US Treasury has confirmed that it has raised the matter directly with major American banks, urging them to run internal tests ahead of any public release. Industry sources further suggest that a rival US AI firm could shortly unveil a similarly potent model, but without comparable guardrails.

For the UK technology sector, the controversy may prove an opening as much as a threat. James Wise, a partner at Balderton Capital and chair of the newly established Sovereign AI unit, a £500m government-backed venture capital fund targeting home-grown AI businesses, argued that Mythos is merely “the first of what will be many more powerful models” capable of exposing systemic weaknesses.

Speaking to the BBC’s Today programme, he said his unit was “investing in British AI companies that are tackling that, companies working in AI security and safety”, adding: “We hope the models that expose vulnerabilities are also the models which will fix them.”

For the country’s AI scale-ups and cyber-security start-ups, the message from Threadneedle Street and Washington alike is unmistakable: the defensive side of the AI arms race has just become one of the most commercially significant frontiers in British enterprise.

Read more:
Finance chiefs sound alarm over Anthropic’s ‘mythos’ AI model amid cyber-security fears

Rolls-Royce Motor Cars has reasserted its electric credentials with the unveiling of a £3 million zero-emissions hypercar aimed squarely at the world’s wealthiest collectors, signalling that the Goodwood-based marque intends to chase margin rather than volume in the years ahead.

The Nightingale, revealed this week, arrives only weeks after the BMW-owned manufacturer quietly abandoned its pledge to become an all-electric carmaker by 2030, conceding that a significant slice of its clientele remained unconvinced by battery power. For a company whose model names have long drawn on the darker hours, Phantom, Wraith, Ghost and Spectre, the Nightingale represents a deliberate tonal shift, named after Le Rossignol, the Cote d’Azur retreat of co-founder Sir Henry Royce.

Just 100 examples will be built, with first deliveries scheduled for 2028. Rolls-Royce is making no pretence of openness: the customer list is “by invitation only”, targeting the sort of ultra-high-net-worth individuals who already have several Rollers parked at their various residences.

The strategic logic is straightforward. Rolls-Royce has long been uneasy about its 6,000-unit annual production ceiling, fearing that volume erodes exclusivity. Rather than push the dial higher, the company has been quietly fattening its margins through ever more elaborate personalisation, bespoke starlight headliners, £26,000 onboard chessboards and £22,000 luggage sets are now routine add-ons. The Nightingale takes that logic to its natural conclusion by reviving full coach-building, allowing clients a direct hand in shaping the bodywork atop the chassis.

Nearly six metres in length and roughly Phantom-sized, the Nightingale retains the signature Pantheon grille before tapering into a torpedo-shaped rear behind a two-seat drophead cockpit. The design nods to the experimental 16EX and 17EX prototypes that Royce was developing in the 1920s after the death of his partner Charles Rolls, channelling an Art Deco sensibility into a segment , the open-top sports car, in which Rolls-Royce has historically felt somewhat awkward.

Demand for one-off commissions, notably the Boat Tail reportedly acquired by Jay-Z and Beyoncé for around $30 million, has prompted Rolls-Royce to nearly double the footprint of its Sussex plant to 100,000 square metres at a cost of £300 million. Crucially, the expansion is not designed to lift output but to house the specialist componentry and accessory capacity that underpins the bespoke model, a business in which some owners spend almost as much on extras as on the car itself.

Chris Brownridge, chief executive, framed the launch as a response to client appetite rather than a shift in strategy. “Some of the most discerning Rolls-Royce clients in the world asked us for our most ambitious work,” he said, pointing to the combination of coach-building freedom, near-silent electric propulsion and open-top motoring as the project’s defining trio.

For Britain’s flagship luxury carmaker, the Nightingale is less a statement about electrification than a declaration of where the profits now lie: in the pockets of a few hundred collectors, not the showrooms of the merely wealthy.

Read more:
Rolls-Royce targets collectors with £3m electric Nightingale as coach-building strategy accelerates

Britain’s solar sector delivered a statement of intent this week, smashing generation records on back-to-back days as ministers gave the green light to the country’s biggest solar installation.

Solar farms across England, Wales and Scotland produced 14.1GW of electricity at midday on Monday, eclipsing the previous benchmark of 14GW set last July. That mark lasted barely 24 hours before Tuesday afternoon’s output pushed the bar to 14.4GW.

The milestones landed on the same day the government confirmed approval for Springwell, a vast solar farm in Lincolnshire expected to generate enough power for roughly 180,000 homes at peak capacity. Energy minister Michael Shanks framed the decision as central to shielding consumers and businesses from volatile international fossil fuel markets, calling solar “one of the cheapest forms of power available.”

Springwell follows the approval of Tillbridge, another large-scale Lincolnshire installation backed six months earlier,  a notable doubling down in a county where Reform UK’s anti-renewables stance has been gaining traction. Together with 23 other major clean energy projects approved since Labour took office in 2024, the pipeline could supply the equivalent of up to 12.5 million homes.

The solar records come barely a fortnight after wind generation hit its own new peak of 23.9GW, pushing gas-fired output to a two-year low and providing a dry run for the government’s ambition of a virtually carbon-free grid by 2030. The electricity system operator is understood to be preparing to run the network without any gas generation for short spells as early as this summer.

For the thousands of smaller firms watching their energy costs with understandable anxiety, the direction of travel matters. The government has streamlined planning for so-called plug-in solar installations and updated building standards to require solar panels on all new homes from 2028, measures that should, in time, ease the burden on businesses operating from newer commercial and mixed-use premises.

Whether the pace of deployment proves fast enough to deliver the bill reductions ministers are promising remains the critical question. But with records tumbling and consents flowing, the trajectory is difficult to argue with.

Read more:
Britain smashes solar records as ministers greenlight country’s largest solar farm

Uber is doubling down on autonomous mobility with plans to invest up to $1.25 billion in electric vehicle maker Rivian as part of a long-term strategy to launch a global robotaxi network.

The ride-hailing giant will initially commit $300 million, with the total investment potentially rising to $1.25 billion by 2031, contingent on Rivian meeting key performance milestones tied to the reliability and safety of its autonomous driving technology.

The partnership will see Uber, alongside fleet partners, purchase at least 10,000 autonomous Rivian R2 vehicles, which will be deployed exclusively through the Uber platform. The first robotaxi services are expected to launch in San Francisco and Miami in 2028, before expanding across the United States, Canada and Europe.

The deal represents one of Uber’s most significant moves yet in the rapidly evolving autonomous transport sector, as it seeks to position itself as the primary commercial gateway for robotaxi services rather than a developer of the underlying technology.

Having sold its own self-driving division in 2020, Uber has pivoted to a partnership-led model, aligning itself with a growing roster of autonomous vehicle developers. The company has now struck agreements with more than 20 self-driving firms, including Waymo and Zoox, as it races to build scale ahead of widespread adoption.

Under the Rivian agreement, Uber will also pay licensing fees for access to Rivian’s proprietary autonomous software, while retaining the option to expand the fleet to as many as 50,000 vehicles from 2030 onwards.

If all milestones are achieved, the companies expect to deploy thousands of fully driverless vehicles across more than 25 cities globally by the end of the decade.

For Uber, the strategy is clear: control the customer interface and demand layer, while outsourcing the capital-intensive and technically complex elements of autonomy to specialist partners. The company is also experimenting with owning or co-owning fleets, giving it more direct exposure to the economics of autonomous transport as it explores financing partnerships with banks and private equity investors.

The move comes as competition intensifies in the robotaxi space, with Tesla, Lucid and a host of technology-led entrants all vying for dominance in what many see as the next frontier of mobility.

Tesla has already begun limited robotaxi deployments in Austin and San Francisco, while Lucid is exploring expanded collaborations with Uber and other partners to scale its own autonomous ambitions.

For Rivian, the deal marks a significant strategic pivot towards software and autonomy at a time when the electric vehicle market is facing slowing demand, policy uncertainty and margin pressure.

The company acknowledged that accelerating its autonomy roadmap would come at a financial cost, warning it no longer expects to meet its previously stated profitability targets by 2027 due to increased research and development spending.

Nevertheless, investors initially responded positively to the announcement, with Rivian’s shares rising sharply before paring gains later in the session.

Rivian has been investing heavily in its in-house autonomous stack, including a proprietary chip, lidar systems, high-definition cameras and radar sensors, all of which are expected to be integrated into its upcoming R2 platform from 2027.

The company is also developing software for both commercial fleets and private vehicle ownership, with ambitions to enable fully autonomous everyday use cases such as school runs and airport pickups.

Industry analysts view the Uber–Rivian partnership as emblematic of a broader shift in the sector, where success is likely to depend less on individual technological breakthroughs and more on the ability to integrate hardware, software and distribution at scale.

Uber’s global network of riders and drivers provides a ready-made marketplace for autonomous services, while Rivian brings manufacturing capability and a vertically integrated approach to vehicle and software development.

However, significant hurdles remain. Regulatory approval, safety validation, infrastructure investment and public trust will all play critical roles in determining how quickly robotaxis move from pilot programmes to mainstream adoption.

The timeline itself reflects this reality. While Uber aims to operate robotaxis in 15 markets by the end of this year through various partnerships, meaningful scale is not expected until 2027 and beyond.

In the meantime, the deal underscores a growing consensus across the mobility sector: that autonomy is no longer a distant ambition, but an increasingly central battleground for the future of transport, and one that will require deep capital, long-term commitment and strategic collaboration to win.

Read more:
Uber commits up to $1.25bn to Rivian in major Robotaxi push

The UK government has stepped back from one of its most controversial proposals on artificial intelligence and copyright, signalling a decisive shift towards market-led licensing and greater transparency rather than sweeping legal reform.

In its long-awaited Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, published in March 2026, ministers confirm they will no longer pursue a broad copyright exception for AI training with an opt-out mechanism — a policy that had triggered fierce opposition from across the UK’s creative industries.

Instead, the government is opting for a more cautious, evidence-led approach, prioritising transparency obligations and allowing a nascent but rapidly expanding licensing market to develop. The move marks a significant recalibration of policy at a time when the UK is seeking to position itself as both an AI superpower and a global creative hub.

At the heart of the report is a clear admission: the government’s preferred option, allowing AI developers to use copyrighted material unless rightsholders explicitly opted out, failed to win support.

The consultation attracted more than 11,500 responses, with the overwhelming majority of creators, publishers and rights organisations rejecting the proposal outright.

Ministers now concede that a broad exception “with opt-out is no longer the government’s preferred way forward”, citing strong industry opposition, lack of consensus, and insufficient evidence on economic impact.

This represents a notable victory for the UK’s creative sectors, from publishing and music to film and photography, which argued that such an exception would effectively legalise uncompensated use of their work by generative AI systems.

The report lays bare the fundamental policy dilemma: how to balance AI-driven economic growth with the protection of intellectual property.

On one side sit AI developers, who require vast datasets, often including copyrighted material, to train large language models and generative systems. On the other are creators whose works underpin those systems but risk being displaced by them.

The government acknowledges that modern AI models are typically trained on “billions of copyright works”, raising complex questions about fairness, consent and competition.

Yet it also highlights uncertainty around the economic benefits of reform, noting limited evidence that loosening copyright rules would materially increase AI investment in the UK.

In effect, ministers are choosing to pause rather than gamble.

Rather than legislating, the government is placing its bets on licensing, a market-based mechanism already beginning to take shape.

A growing number of deals between AI firms and content owners, particularly in publishing, music and image libraries, suggests a commercial model is emerging. However, the report acknowledges this market is still “new and evolving” and lacks transparency.

Crucially, ministers have ruled out direct intervention for now:

“We propose not to intervene in the licensing market at this stage… and will keep market-led approaches under review.”

This position aligns closely with industry sentiment across both creative and technology sectors, which broadly favour voluntary, negotiated agreements over statutory schemes.

However, it also raises important questions, particularly for SMEs and individual creators, about bargaining power and equitable remuneration.

Among those welcoming the shift is Tom West, CEO of Publishers’ Licensing Services (PLS), who sees licensing as both practical and scalable.

West said: “We welcome that the government has listened to the strong response it received from across the UK’s creative industries to its consultation and has stepped back from its preferred option of a copyright exception with an opt out and is to review the transparency of AI inputs, which would further boost licensing.

Whilst we await further clarity from the government on the long-term direction of its copyright policy, PLS will continue to serve our publishers and work with our partners on market-based, industry-backed AI licensing solutions.

This approach is already being put into practice. At the London Book Fair last week, PLS launched the first stage of a new collective licensing solution designed specifically to support the use of published content in AI. It was met with strong interest and positive feedback from publishers and industry partners, with publishers already beginning to sign up. The solution offers a practical, scalable way for AI developers to access high-quality content while ensuring creators are paid and retain control over how their work is used.

The case has not been made for the introduction of a new copyright exception. There is no market failure and a dynamic licensing market for the use of content in AI has developed and continues to grow. Any copyright exception for generative AI would jeopardise these licensing solutions, removing the ability of large and small rightsholders to receive payment for the use of their works in AI and reducing control over their content.

PLS welcomes the government’s engagement on this critical issue. We share a commitment to a mutually beneficial outcome and invite the government to work closely with us to help further develop and promote licensing options that support rightsholders of all sizes and AI developers seeking high-quality, trusted content.”

If licensing is the economic mechanism, transparency is the regulatory lever.

More than 90% of consultation respondents supported requirements for AI developers to disclose the sources of training data.

The government agrees, in principle, but stops short of immediate regulation. Instead, it proposes:
• developing industry-led best practice
• monitoring international frameworks (notably the EU AI Act)
• considering future legislation if needed

Transparency is seen as essential to enable enforcement, licensing and trust, particularly given that creators often have no visibility over whether their work has been used.

For UK businesses, particularly SMEs, the implications are nuanced.

For creators and publishers
• greater protection in the short term
• stronger negotiating position in licensing deals
• ongoing challenges around enforcement and visibility

For AI startups and developers
• continued legal uncertainty
• potential cost barriers to accessing training data
• reliance on licensed or overseas-trained models

For the wider economy
• slower regulatory clarity
• reduced risk of over-regulation
• continued dependence on global AI ecosystems

The report explicitly notes that SMEs on both sides, creators and developers, face disproportionate challenges under the current system.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the report is its tone: cautious, iterative, and deliberately non-committal.

The government repeatedly emphasises the need for more evidence, more international alignment, and more market development before taking decisive legislative action.

With ongoing litigation in the US, new rules emerging in the EU, and rapid advances in generative AI, the UK risks being pulled in multiple directions, economically, legally and politically.

This is not a resolution, it is a holding position.

By stepping back from sweeping reform, the government has bought time. But it has also shifted responsibility onto the market to prove that licensing can work at scale, fairly and efficiently.

If it can, the UK may yet carve out a balanced model that supports both innovation and creativity.

If it cannot, the debate over copyright and AI will return, sharper, louder, and far harder to resolve.

Read more:
UK government backs away from AI copyright overhaul as licensing emerges as the battleground

Rolls-Royce Motor Cars has abandoned its ambition to become a fully electric brand by 2030, marking a significant shift in strategy as the global transition to electric vehicles shows signs of slowing at the very top end of the automotive market.

The decision, confirmed by chief executive Chris Brownridge, reverses a high-profile commitment made in 2022 under his predecessor Torsten Müller-Ötvös, who had pledged that Rolls-Royce would cease production of its iconic V12 combustion engines by the end of the decade.

At the time, the company positioned its first electric model, the Spectre, as the beginning of a rapid transition, targeting 20 per cent of annual sales in the near term and as much as 70 per cent by 2028. The long-term ambition was clear: a complete shift away from internal combustion engines within eight years.

However, Brownridge has now acknowledged that the assumptions underpinning that strategy have changed materially. He pointed to a combination of softened customer appetite for fully electric luxury vehicles and a broader easing of regulatory pressure in key markets.

“For every client that loves an electric vehicle there is one who does not,” he said, underlining the continued demand among Rolls-Royce’s ultra-high-net-worth clientele for traditional powertrains. “Some clients do want an electric vehicle, we build what is ordered.”

The recalibration reflects a wider industry trend, particularly among premium and luxury manufacturers, where the pace of electrification is proving more uneven than previously anticipated. While mass-market brands continue to push towards electrification, high-end marques are increasingly adopting a more flexible, demand-led approach.

Brownridge was careful not to outline a revised electrification timeline, declining to specify new targets for zero-emission sales or confirm how many additional electric models Rolls-Royce plans to introduce. Nor did he disclose current sales performance for the Spectre, though its market reception has been closely watched as a bellwether for electric adoption in the luxury segment.

Instead, the emphasis appears to be shifting towards optionality rather than outright transition. The V12 engine, long synonymous with Rolls-Royce’s heritage and brand identity, will remain part of the company’s offering for the foreseeable future.

“The V12 is part of our history,” Brownridge said, suggesting that legacy and customer preference are now being given equal weight alongside environmental considerations.

The move comes amid a broader reassessment of electric vehicle strategies across the luxury automotive sector. Just a day earlier, Bentley confirmed that its own transition to an all-electric lineup would be delayed, with its first zero-emission model now expected at least two years later than originally planned.

Together, the announcements highlight a growing divergence between policy ambition and market reality. While governments continue to push for decarbonisation, including through bans on new petrol and diesel vehicles in the 2030s, manufacturers are increasingly signalling that consumer demand, particularly at the premium end, may not align neatly with those timelines.

Rolls-Royce’s original 2030 commitment was made at a time of strong political momentum behind electrification and rising optimism about battery technology, infrastructure rollout and customer adoption. Since then, a more complex picture has emerged, with concerns around charging infrastructure, range anxiety and the experiential differences between electric and combustion engines influencing buyer behaviour.

In the ultra-luxury segment, where emotional connection and heritage play a significant role in purchasing decisions, those factors appear to be even more pronounced.

Despite stepping back from a fixed deadline, Rolls-Royce is not abandoning electrification altogether. The Spectre remains a central part of its future portfolio, and the company is expected to continue investing in electric technology. However, the transition will now be paced according to customer demand rather than dictated by a hard deadline.

The shift underscores a broader reality facing the automotive industry: the road to electrification is unlikely to be linear. For Rolls-Royce, the strategy now appears to be one of balance, preserving its legacy while adapting to a changing, but still uncertain, future.

Read more:
Rolls-Royce scraps 2030 all-electric target as demand softens

Formula 1 is expected to cancel the Bahrain and Saudi Arabian Grands Prix as the escalating conflict in the Middle East continues to destabilise the region, with the decision likely to reduce the 2026 calendar to 22 races.

The two races, scheduled to take place in April, were due to form the fourth and fifth rounds of the championship. The Bahrain Grand Prix had been planned for 10–12 April before the sport was set to travel to Jeddah for the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix on 17–19 April.

However, both Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are among several Gulf states that have been targeted by Iranian strikes in retaliation for US and Israeli military operations in the region. The deteriorating security situation has raised serious concerns across international sporting bodies, airlines and logistics operators, with Formula 1 now expected to formally call off both events.

Sources indicate that the announcement could be made before the end of the weekend as the sport assesses the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.

Safety remains the overriding priority for both Formula 1 and motorsport’s governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA). With tensions escalating across the Gulf and no clear signs of de-escalation, the championship’s organisers are understood to have concluded that staging races in the region in April would present unacceptable risks.

Business Matters, which is currently in China with the Aston Martin Aramco Formula 1 team ahead of the Chinese Grand Prix weekend in Shanghai, understands that the races will likely be removed entirely from the calendar rather than postponed.

If confirmed, the cancellations will leave a notable gap in the early-season schedule. Following the Japanese Grand Prix, which takes place from 27–29 March and serves as the third round of the championship, Formula 1 would not return to action until the Miami Grand Prix on 1–3 May.

That would create an unusual five-week break in the racing calendar during April, a period that normally features several Grands Prix as the season builds momentum.

While Formula 1 has occasionally rearranged or replaced cancelled races in previous seasons, sources suggest that the already packed March-to-December calendar makes it unlikely that replacement venues will be found at short notice. As a result, the 2026 championship is expected to run over 22 race weekends instead of the originally planned 24.

The Middle East has become a key region for Formula 1 over the past two decades, with races in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi forming an important part of the championship’s global expansion strategy.

Bahrain first joined the calendar in 2004 and traditionally hosts the opening race of the season, while the high-speed street circuit in Jeddah made its debut in 2021 as part of the sport’s growing presence in the Gulf.

Both races have become major sporting and commercial events, attracting large international audiences and significant investment from host governments.

However, the current conflict has already begun to disrupt global transport networks, energy markets and commercial shipping routes across the region, raising broader concerns about the feasibility of large-scale international events.

Teams, logistics partners and broadcasters also face complex operational challenges when transporting equipment and personnel across a region experiencing heightened military activity.

The situation is being monitored closely by Formula 1 Management, the FIA and race organisers, who are expected to issue formal confirmation once final discussions conclude.

In the meantime, attention remains on the Chinese Grand Prix weekend in Shanghai, where Mercedes driver George Russell is aiming to build on his opening-race victory and extend his early lead in the championship standings.

With the season potentially losing two races, the fight for points could become even more intense as drivers and teams compete across a shorter calendar in what is already shaping up to be a highly unpredictable year in Formula 1.

Read more:
F1 set to cancel Bahrain and Saudi Arabian Grands Prix amid Middle East conflict

A major new life sciences facility has officially opened in Glasgow, marking a significant step forward for Scotland’s rapidly expanding healthcare innovation sector.

The 87,000 sq ft Health Innovation Hub (HiH) was formally launched by Wes Streeting during a ceremony held on 5 March. The development represents a major investment in precision medicine, digital health technologies and clinical research, reinforcing Glasgow’s ambition to become a global centre for life sciences innovation.

Developed and operated by Kadans Science Partner in partnership with the University of Glasgow and its Living Laboratory for Precision Medicine initiative, the Health Innovation Hub transforms a former brownfield site into a world-class research and commercialisation centre.

The project forms part of the wider Glasgow Riverside Innovation District (GRID), an initiative designed to attract research investment, support high-growth life sciences companies and strengthen links between academia, the NHS and industry.

The facility was delivered with support from the UK Research and Innovation through its Strength in Places Fund, which contributed £18.8 million towards the development.

Additional support came through the Glasgow City Region City Deal, a long-term funding partnership between the UK and Scottish governments that will see £1 billion invested in infrastructure and economic growth projects across the wider city region.

Together, the investments aim to position Glasgow as a leading European hub for biomedical research, digital health innovation and translational medicine, the process of turning scientific discoveries into practical healthcare solutions.

Speaking at the launch, Streeting described the life sciences sector as one of the UK’s most important economic and scientific assets.

“Our life sciences sector is one of our greatest national assets and facilities like this are the jewels in the crown,” he said.

“We are already leading the way in areas like vaccine development and with the opening of this landmark facility comes the promise that Scotland and Britain will be at the forefront of the precision medicine revolution too.”

One of the hub’s defining advantages is its proximity to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, one of the largest hospitals in Europe.

This location allows companies and researchers to operate directly within Glasgow’s Clinical Innovation Zone, enabling close collaboration with clinicians, patients and healthcare data systems.

The model is designed to dramatically shorten the timeline between research discovery and real-world medical application, a key goal for modern healthcare innovation ecosystems.

By bringing together academic researchers, NHS clinicians, biotechnology firms and digital health companies under one roof, the facility aims to accelerate the development of new diagnostics, therapies and healthcare technologies.

Even before its official opening, the building has attracted strong interest from the life sciences sector and is already more than 70% occupied.

Among the first tenants are several high-growth research and technology companies including; Chemify, Panthera and Genetix Research Ltd.

The facility also houses the Digital Health Validation Lab, a collaborative initiative between the University of Glasgow and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

The lab provides an environment where new healthcare technologies can be tested and validated using real clinical workflows and patient data.

The Health Innovation Hub has been designed to accommodate organisations at different stages of development, from university spinouts and early-stage biotech firms to established international companies expanding their research presence.

The design reflects a growing trend in global life sciences development, creating integrated innovation environments where startups, clinicians and researchers can collaborate closely.

Steijn Ribbens, chief executive of Kadans Science Partner, said the hub demonstrates the impact of long-term public-private collaboration.

“The building is the embodiment of what can be achieved when universities, industry, healthcare providers and government partners work together,” he said.

“We are proud to support the world-class science being undertaken here and look forward to seeing how this environment drives further collaboration and real-world healthcare impact.”

Local leaders say the project will help create skilled jobs while supporting economic regeneration in surrounding communities.

Susan Aitken described the development as a landmark investment in the city’s future economy.

“Glasgow’s life sciences sector is already world-leading and world-changing, and this investment positions us perfectly to scale that success globally,” she said.

“The Health Innovation Hub brings the city’s new economy directly into the heart of Govan, creating opportunities for skilled jobs and new career pathways for young people.”

The hub also aims to ensure innovation benefits local communities. The development process included consultation with residents in nearby neighbourhoods such as Linthouse and Govan, shaping aspects of the building design and community spaces.

The building has achieved BREEAM Excellent certification, reflecting a strong focus on sustainability and environmental performance in its design and construction.

Energy-efficient infrastructure, adaptable laboratory layouts and environmentally responsible materials are intended to future-proof the facility as scientific requirements evolve.

Through Kadans’ wider European network of science campuses, the hub is also expected to help attract international research partnerships and investment into Scotland’s life sciences sector.

Professor Andy Schofield, principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow, said the hub creates the conditions for major breakthroughs in healthcare.

“By bringing researchers, clinicians, entrepreneurs and the local community together beside one of Europe’s largest teaching hospitals, we have created an environment where discoveries can move rapidly into real-world patient care,” he said.

“This is exactly the kind of collaborative ecosystem needed to tackle the major health challenges facing Scotland, the UK and the world.”

As the facility begins full operations, the Health Innovation Hub is expected to play a central role in advancing precision medicine, digital healthcare technologies and biomedical research — helping cement Glasgow’s reputation as one of the UK’s most important life sciences clusters.

Read more:
Glasgow opens new Health Innovation Hub to accelerate life sciences innovation

Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered her Spring Statement to the House of Commons under the shadow of escalating conflict in the Middle East and mounting fears of a renewed inflation shock driven by surging energy prices.

In a speech lasting just over 20 minutes, Reeves stressed the importance of “stability in an increasingly uncertain world”, pointing to falling inflation and previous interest rate cuts as evidence that the cost-of-living squeeze on households is easing. However, beyond presenting updated forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and criticising opposition parties, she unveiled no new tax or spending measures.

The Chancellor has pledged to hold only one fiscal event each year, the autumn Budget, meaning the Spring Statement was positioned as a forecast update rather than a policy platform.

Growth downgraded for 2026

The OBR has revised down its forecast for UK economic growth in 2026 to 1.1 per cent, weaker than the 1.4 per cent predicted in November. Reeves insisted that the longer-term outlook remains resilient, with growth forecast to reach 1.6 per cent in both 2027 and 2028, slightly stronger than previously projected, before settling at 1.5 per cent in 2029 and 2030.

The downgrade comes amid soft domestic demand, geopolitical instability and renewed energy market volatility following military escalation in the Gulf region. Rising oil and gas prices threaten to complicate the inflation trajectory, particularly if disruption to global supply chains persists.

Unemployment to rise before falling

Unemployment is forecast to peak at 5.3 per cent later this year as weaker labour demand feeds through the economy. The rate is then expected to decline steadily, ending the parliamentary term at 4.1 per cent, lower than at the start.

The Chancellor framed this as evidence that the labour market remains fundamentally strong despite short-term headwinds. However, youth unemployment and business hiring caution remain key concerns across several sectors.

Borrowing falls and headroom improves

The OBR forecasts that borrowing will be nearly £18 billion lower than anticipated in the autumn. Public sector net borrowing is projected to decline from 4.3 per cent of GDP this year to 1.8 per cent by 2030.

Reeves highlighted that fiscal “headroom” against her self-imposed rules has increased from £21.7 billion in November to £23.6 billion. The buffer is designed to reassure financial markets and protect against unexpected shocks.

She also confirmed plans to meet North Sea energy industry leaders to discuss the implications of Middle East tensions on domestic production and energy security.

Night-time economy: “Stability rhetoric won’t save us”

Despite the Chancellor’s emphasis on stability, business leaders were quick to challenge what they described as a disconnect between Westminster messaging and frontline reality.

Michael Kill, chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA), said the statement failed to recognise the acute pressures facing hospitality and leisure businesses.

“Across the UK, major brands and corporates are collapsing at pace. Confidence is fragile. Margins are exhausted,” he said.

Kill warned that escalating energy costs, higher National Insurance contributions and ongoing business rates burdens are placing “compounding pressure” on the sector. He called for a VAT cut for hospitality, arguing that targeted intervention would stimulate demand, protect jobs and restore confidence.

With youth unemployment rising, the NTIA stressed that the night-time economy has traditionally provided entry-level employment for young people, and warned that increased employment costs are making it harder to sustain those roles.

Business confidence remains fragile

Separate research from the Zoho Digital Health Study 2026 underscores the cautious mood across UK businesses. Twenty-one per cent of business leaders cited high inflation, recession risk and rising interest rates as their biggest external challenge.

Half of firms reported rising costs per employee over the past year, ahead of a further 4.1 per cent rise in the National Living Wage due in April 2026.

Sachin Agrawal, managing director at Zoho UK, said leaders are prioritising productivity and automation over expansion.

“Businesses want to grow, but they’re doing so more selectively by investing in technologies that deliver clear efficiency gains,” he said.

AI platform Photoroom also urged the government to match pro-entrepreneur rhetoric with tangible digital support for SMEs, arguing that access to AI tools can significantly reduce overheads and increase productivity.

Thames transport: a missed green opportunity

Uber Boat by Thames Clippers said the Spring Statement missed an opportunity to accelerate London’s transition to greener river transport.

Geoff Symonds, chief operating officer at Uber Boat by Thames Clippers, said regulatory reform and green fuel incentives could be implemented at minimal cost.

“Low-key budgets don’t have to mean low ambition for the environment,” he said, calling for parity in green incentives between river transport and land-based networks.

A cautious tone in uncertain times

The Spring Statement was deliberately restrained. Reeves’ strategy is to project fiscal discipline and market stability while preserving room for manoeuvre ahead of the autumn Budget.

However, with energy prices climbing, geopolitical tensions rising and consumer confidence fragile, the path ahead is far from settled. The coming months will test whether stability alone is sufficient, or whether targeted intervention becomes unavoidable.

For now, the Chancellor’s message is clear: hold the line, protect fiscal credibility and hope that inflation continues to fall despite global turbulence. Whether businesses and households feel that stability in practice remains an open question.

Read more:
Spring Statement 2026: Reeves downgraded growth as business leaders demand urgent action

Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association (TSSA) has called for Sir Keir Starmer to resign as Labour leader following the party’s defeat to the Green Party in the Gorton and Denton by-election.

The transport and travel union, which is affiliated to the Labour Party, said the result reflected growing dissatisfaction among voters and warned that Labour’s recent political direction was costing it support.

Maryam Eslamdoust, general secretary of TSSA, said the party’s positioning under Keir Starmer had alienated core voters and created space for the Greens to gain ground.

“It’s clear that the disastrous lurch to the right under Keir Starmer is haemorrhaging Labour votes to the Greens,” she said. “There’s an urgent need for a change in leadership, and Keir must announce his departure immediately.”

Eslamdoust argued that replacing the leader alone would not be sufficient to reverse Labour’s fortunes. Instead, she said, the party needed a broader shift in policy direction, returning to what she described as its “radical soul”.

She called for an expansion of public ownership across key industries, including water, energy and mail services, alongside a substantial rise in the minimum wage. She also advocated for the introduction of a wealth tax to fund public services.

“Only by embracing ‘Real Labour’ policies will we be able to win back support from the voters who switched from our party to the Greens in Gorton and Denton,” she said.

The intervention underscores growing tensions between parts of the trade union movement and Labour’s current leadership, particularly over economic policy and the party’s positioning on public ownership and redistribution.

Labour has not yet responded publicly to the TSSA’s remarks.

Read more:
TSSA calls for ‘urgent change’ in Labour leadership after by-election defeat

MPs have approved Doug Gurr as fit to become the next permanent chair of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), but warned ministers that additional safeguards are needed to protect the regulator’s independence and address potential conflicts of interest.

In a report published on Thursday following a pre-appointment hearing earlier this week, the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee said it was satisfied that Mr Gurr has “the professional competence and independence required” to take on the role as defined by the Government. However, the committee stressed that serious concerns remain about the context of his appointment and the broader direction of competition policy.

Mr Gurr, a former senior executive at Amazon, was questioned extensively by MPs about his ability to act independently, particularly given the circumstances surrounding the removal of the previous chair amid pressure to align the watchdog more closely with the Government’s pro-growth agenda. Committee members made clear that the CMA must not prioritise investment or consolidation over consumer welfare, warning that growth cannot come at the expense of competition.

MPs also expressed unease about potential conflicts of interest arising from Gurr’s long and senior career at Amazon, one of the world’s largest technology companies and a business that could fall within the CMA’s new digital market regime. The committee suggested ministers consider whether he should recuse himself from any future decision about designating Amazon with Strategic Market Status under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

The hearing also became a wider examination of the CMA’s recent performance. MPs noted that staff numbers at the regulator have almost doubled over the past decade, yet competitive pressures in the UK economy have not improved. They criticised what they described as slow market investigations during the cost-of-living crisis and weak enforcement action in certain high-profile cases.

Concerns were also raised about the CMA’s handling of digital competition issues, including delays in seeking remedies from Google over its relationship with news publishers and the limited commitments secured from Google and Apple regarding their mobile ecosystems. The committee questioned whether the watchdog had been sufficiently assertive in deploying its new statutory powers.

Internal challenges within the CMA were also highlighted. A recent budgeting error forced a 10 per cent reduction in staff, and internal surveys suggest that only around a quarter of employees expect to remain at the organisation for the next three years. MPs indicated that rebuilding morale and confidence inside the regulator would be a significant task for the new chair.

Another issue scrutinised during the hearing was the time commitment attached to the role. The CMA chair is currently expected to dedicate two days a week to the position. The committee questioned whether that allocation is sufficient for a regulator operating at the centre of politically sensitive and economically significant decisions, particularly during periods of crisis or intense scrutiny.

While the committee ultimately endorsed Mr Gurr’s appointment, it warned that it is “not the hallmark of a robust recruitment process” to have secured only one appointable candidate for such a critical role.

Liam Byrne, the committee’s chair, said the CMA sits at the heart of whether markets work for consumers or against them. He said that although Mr Gurr is professionally competent to take on the job, ministers must take steps to maximise confidence in the appointment.

“Growth cannot mean greater concentration,” Byrne said. “Investment cannot come at the expense of consumer welfare. And operational independence must be protected in fact, not just in theory.”

The final decision now rests with the Business Secretary, but the committee’s report makes clear that Parliament will be watching closely to ensure that the CMA remains an independent and effective guardian of competition in the UK economy.

Read more:
MPs back Doug Gurr for CMA chair but demand safeguards over conflicts and independence

Aston Martin has confirmed it will cut 20% of its workforce after annual losses widened sharply, as the luxury carmaker battles weak global demand and the impact of US trade tariffs.

The Gaydon-based manufacturer said net losses jumped 52% last year to £493.2m, while operating losses reached £259.2m. The company employs about 3,000 people globally, meaning around 600 roles are expected to go, with the majority of cuts understood to affect UK operations.

Aston Martin said the restructuring programme would generate annual savings of approximately £40m, with most of those savings realised during 2026. It did not provide a detailed timetable for the redundancies but confirmed that roles across the business, including factory positions, would be affected.

The carmaker blamed “extremely disruptive” US tariffs introduced under Donald Trump, as well as subdued demand in China, the world’s largest automotive market. The company has already warned that tariffs have significantly affected sales in the US, one of its key territories.

In a statement, Aston Martin said: “Having undertaken at the start of 2025 a process to make organisational adjustments to ensure the business was appropriately resourced for its future plans, we had to take the difficult decision at the end of 2025 to implement further changes. This latest programme will ultimately see the departure of up to 20% of our valued workforce.”

The job cuts form part of a broader effort to stabilise the company’s finances after years of volatility. Alongside the workforce reduction, Aston Martin has trimmed its five-year capital expenditure plan to £1.7bn, down from £2bn, by delaying investment in electric vehicle development.

The move signals a shift in strategy as the company prioritises short-term cash preservation over accelerated electrification. It comes amid a wider slowdown in EV demand across the luxury segment and mounting pressure on automakers from rising borrowing costs and trade uncertainty.

Aston Martin said it expects further cash outflows in 2026 but forecast a “material improvement” in financial performance, supported by the launch of its Valhalla hybrid supercar. Around 500 deliveries of the £850,000 model are expected to contribute to improved margins.

The company is targeting gross margins in the high 30% range and adjusted earnings before interest and taxes close to break-even.

In a separate effort to bolster its balance sheet, Aston Martin last week agreed a £50m deal to sell perpetual branding rights to its Formula One team.

Despite the cost-cutting measures and asset disposals, the company faces continued scrutiny from investors over its long-running turnaround plan, as it attempts to rebuild profitability in a turbulent global market.

Read more:
Aston Martin to cut 20% of workforce as annual losses widen

A senior adviser to Rachel Reeves has drawn sharp criticism from the hospitality sector after saying Britain does not “need any more restaurants”.

Alex Depledge, appointed last year as the Government’s entrepreneurship adviser, argued that ministers should prioritise high-growth industries such as technology and advanced manufacturing rather than hospitality and retail.

Speaking to Insider Media, Depledge said: “We don’t need any more restaurants. I’m not anti-hospitality, but that’s not where my efforts are.” She added that the UK should focus on scaling sectors such as clean tech and creative industries to drive long-term economic growth.

Her remarks prompted an immediate backlash from publicans and restaurateurs already grappling with higher national insurance contributions and business rate reforms.

Sacha Lord, chairman of the Nighttime Industry Association and a former adviser to Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, said the comments deepened confusion about Labour’s stance towards hospitality. “Small and medium-sized businesses are the largest employers in the private sector,” he said, adding that the sector had been “blindsided” by recent tax changes.

TV chef Michel Roux Jr also criticised the remarks on social media, while pub campaigner Andy Lennox urged Depledge to reconsider what he described as “unwise words”.

Hospitality accounts for around 7 per cent of UK employment, with roughly 2.6 million people working in the sector, according to the Office for National Statistics. The number of restaurants fell 1.3 per cent in 2025 to 89,600, as operators faced rising costs and squeezed consumer spending.

Depledge, who founded property and software businesses including Resi UK and Good Lord, defended her focus on sectors capable of generating higher productivity and wages. She suggested that while small businesses remain vital, their overall contribution to the economy has remained broadly stable over decades.

The Chancellor has introduced targeted relief for pubs, including a temporary 15 per cent business rates discount, but restaurants and hotels have continued to press for broader support.

The episode underscores growing tension between Labour’s push to champion “future-facing” industries and the concerns of traditional sectors that remain major employers across the country.

Read more:
Reeves adviser sparks backlash after saying UK doesn’t ‘need any more restaurants’

Peter Mandelson was arrested at his Regent’s Park home amid concerns he posed a potential flight risk, according to his legal team.

The former cabinet minister and peer was detained on Monday afternoon on suspicion of misconduct in public office, following allegations that sensitive government documents were leaked while he was serving as business secretary under Gordon Brown.

Police questioned Mandelson for several hours before releasing him on bail in the early hours of Tuesday morning. As part of his bail conditions, he was required to surrender his passport.

His lawyers said officers had previously agreed to interview him on a voluntary basis next month but moved to arrest him following what they described as a “baseless suggestion” that he was planning to relocate abroad.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Mandelson said: “There is absolutely no truth whatsoever in any suggestion that he was intending to leave the country permanently. His overriding priority is to cooperate fully with the police investigation and to clear his name.”

Sources indicated that detectives from the Metropolitan Police Service acted after receiving new information over the weekend. Earlier this month, officers from the force’s Central Specialist Crime team executed search warrants at two properties linked to Mandelson and seized computers and documents for examination.

A source close to the investigation said the decision to arrest was taken for “clear operational reasons” after fresh intelligence came to light.

Mandelson has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing. The investigation remains ongoing.

Read more:
Lord Mandelson arrested amid concerns he was ‘flight risk’

Aston Martin has issued another profit warning and agreed to sell the permanent naming rights to its Formula One team for £50m, as the British marque grapples with falling deliveries, mounting debt and the impact of US tariffs.

The carmaker, majority-owned by Canadian billionaire Lawrence Stroll, said earnings for 2025 would be worse than City forecasts, marking its fifth profit warning since September 2024.

Analysts had expected the company to report a loss of around £184m when it publishes full-year results next week.

Aston Martin delivered 5,448 vehicles last year, nearly 10 per cent fewer than in 2024, as sales in the US were hit by a 25 per cent tariff on imported cars imposed by former US president Donald Trump. The group also missed targets for high-margin special edition models.

Shares fell as much as 4 per cent in early trading before trimming losses.

Cash reserves stand at around £250m, broadly stable over the past six months but down from £360m at the start of 2025. The company’s debt pile has risen by about 70 per cent since early 2024.

To bolster liquidity, Aston Martin has agreed to sell the permanent right to use its name in Formula One to its F1 team for £50m. The team is operated by AMR GP Holdings, a separate entity also controlled by Stroll, meaning the deal effectively represents additional funding from its owner.

Because Stroll sits on both sides of the transaction and holds a 32 per cent stake in Aston Martin, the deal requires shareholder approval. Investors representing more than half the company, including Stroll’s vehicle, Geely and Mercedes-Benz, have already indicated they will vote in favour.

A similar naming rights arrangement was struck in 2024, granting the F1 team rights until 2055.

Since taking control in 2020, Stroll has sought to reposition the brand through new model launches and repeated capital raisings. However, the turnaround has been marked by persistent losses, production setbacks and inventory challenges.

The US tariff regime added significant cost pressure in one of Aston Martin’s most important markets. A subsequent UK-US trade agreement reduced tariffs to 10 per cent on up to 100,000 British-made cars from mid-2025, offering partial relief.

In October, the company cut £300m from its investment plans and scaled back development spending on new models, citing tariffs and subdued demand in China.

Despite the headwinds, Aston Martin pointed to upcoming deliveries of its £850,000 Valhalla hypercar as a positive sign. Around 500 units are due for delivery in 2026, with more than half of the limited 999-production run already sold.

Nevertheless, with its share price down roughly 50 per cent over the past year, Aston Martin’s efforts to restore profitability remain under intense scrutiny as it navigates a volatile global automotive market.

Read more:
Aston Martin issues fresh profit warning and sells F1 naming rights for £50m

Quentin Griffiths, the British co-founder of online fashion retailer Asos, has died after falling from a high-rise apartment building in Pattaya, according to local reports.

Griffiths, 58, is reported to have fallen from the 17th floor of his condominium. Emergency services attended the scene and confirmed his death.

Thai police said there were no immediate signs of disturbance inside the apartment but added that investigations are ongoing and foul play has not been ruled out pending further forensic analysis. Authorities said a full post-mortem examination would be required to establish the exact cause of death.

The circumstances surrounding the fall remain unclear. A source close to the family told The Sun that the situation was being described as “suspicious”, though no official determination has been made.

Griffiths had reportedly been involved in a legal dispute with his former Thai spouse over business assets. Last year, he was questioned by police following allegations that he had forged documents to sell land and shares in a jointly operated company. He denied the allegations and was released after questioning. Reports indicate the investigation was continuing at the time of his death.

Born in London, Griffiths co-founded Asos in 2000 alongside Nick Robertson and Andrew Regan. The company grew into a global online fashion retailer valued at around £3bn at its peak, with high-profile figures including the Princess of Wales and Michelle Obama among those to have worn its own-label designs.

Griffiths stepped down from Asos in 2005 after serving as marketing director. He later realised significant gains from share sales, reportedly making around £15m in 2010 and receiving further windfalls in subsequent years.

In later years, he pursued legal action against accountancy firm BDO, alleging incorrect tax advice had resulted in a multi-million-pound liability linked to share disposals in Asos and Achica, another online retail venture he co-founded.

Griffiths had lived in Thailand for more than a decade. He is understood to have been the father of three children.

Business Matters has contacted the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office for comment.

Investigations by Thai authorities are continuing.

Read more:
Asos co-founder Quentin Griffiths dies after fall in Thailand

Former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi has defected to Reform UK, becoming the most senior ex-Conservative figure to join Nigel Farage’s party.

Zahawi, 58, was unveiled alongside Farage at a press conference in London, where he warned that Britain was “drinking in the last chance saloon” and said the country “really does need Nigel Farage as prime minister”.

In a video message announcing his move, the former vaccines minister and chancellor said: “Nothing works, there is no growth, there is crime on our streets and there is an avalanche of illegal migration that anywhere else in the world would be a national emergency. I’ve made my mind up that the team which will deliver for this nation is the team that Nigel will put together.”

The defection marks a dramatic political reversal for Zahawi, who once insisted there was “no chance” he would ever join Farage. Writing in 2014, he said he had “been a Conservative all my life and will die a Conservative”. A year later, he warned that Farage’s policies could discriminate against British citizens born overseas.

Zahawi’s political career spanned more than a decade at Westminster. Elected as Conservative MP for Stratford-on-Avon in 2010, he held a series of senior cabinet roles under four prime ministers, rising to chancellor in 2022. He stepped down as an MP at the last general election after being forced out of government over a dispute surrounding his tax affairs.

Born in Iraq, Zahawi arrived in Britain as a child refugee in the 1970s after fleeing Saddam Hussein’s regime. He has previously spoken about sitting at the back of a classroom aged 11, unable to speak English. He later co-founded polling company YouGov and built a substantial personal fortune, including a large property portfolio.

His move adds further momentum to Reform UK’s efforts to present itself as a credible national political force rather than a single-person movement. Farage said Zahawi’s defection helped dispel claims that Reform was a “one-man band”.

Zahawi follows a growing list of former Conservative MPs who have joined Reform, including Nadine Dorries, Andrea Jenkyns and Lee Anderson, reflecting deepening fractures on the right of British politics.

The Conservatives dismissed the move, with a party spokesman describing Reform as “the party of has-been politicians looking for their next gravy train”. The spokesman added that Zahawi had previously said he would be “frightened” to live in a country run by Farage, questioning the consistency of his views.

Despite that criticism, Zahawi insisted his support for Reform reflected the gravity of the moment. “Even if you don’t yet realise that Britain needs Reform,” he said, “you know in your heart of hearts that our wonderful country is sick.”

Read more:
Nadhim Zahawi defects to Reform UK, calling Britain ‘last chance saloon’

The government has issued a stark warning to Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, signalling it is prepared to block access to its Grok chatbot in the UK if it fails to comply with British law on online safety.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said on Friday that ministers are moving swiftly to criminalise the creation of intimate images without consent, as concerns mount over the misuse of AI tools to generate sexualised images of women and children.

Her comments follow reports that Grok, xAI’s chatbot integrated into the social media platform X, has continued to allow users to generate sexually manipulated images if they are willing to pay for premium access, despite public assurances that safeguards had been tightened.

Kendall described the practice as “despicable and abhorrent”, adding that it was “totally unacceptable” for any platform to profit from such content.

She said the government expects the media regulator Ofcom to act decisively and without delay. “I, and more importantly the public, would expect to see Ofcom update on next steps in days, not weeks,” she said, urging the regulator to use the full range of powers granted by Parliament under the Online Safety Act.

The Technology Secretary explicitly reminded xAI that UK law allows regulators to block services from being accessed domestically if they refuse to comply. She said that any decision by Ofcom to use those powers would have the government’s “full support”.

Kendall confirmed that ministers are also legislating to ban so-called “nudification” apps, which use AI to digitally undress individuals without consent. The measure is included in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before Parliament.

In addition, she said new legal powers will come into force within weeks to make the creation of non-consensual intimate images a criminal offence, closing a loophole that has allowed AI-generated abuse to spread faster than enforcement mechanisms.

She also warned that platforms are expected to comply fully with Ofcom’s new guidance on violence against women and girls (VAWG). “If they do not,” she said, “I am prepared to go further.”

The intervention marks one of the strongest signals yet that the government is willing to escalate its response to AI-driven abuse, particularly where children and women are targeted.

“We are as determined to ensure women and girls are safe online as we are to ensure they are safe in the real world,” Kendall said. “No excuses.”

Read more:
Liz Kendall warns xAI over Grok images as UK moves to criminalise non-consensual AI deepfakes

A high-profile £14 million divorce dispute involving the former manager of Australian rock band INXS has shone a spotlight on the growing complexity of modern family law cases, particularly where generational wealth, gifts and opaque asset structures are involved.

Maria Christina Copinger-Symes, who previously managed the band during its global success, is now locked in a legal battle with her former husband, James Copinger-Symes, a former SAS major, after a financial settlement agreed following their separation in 2022 was challenged over alleged “material non-disclosure”.

Under the original financial remedy order, Ms Copinger-Symes agreed to pay her ex-husband a lump sum of £1.2 million, leaving her with approximately £5 million from the couple’s joint marital assets. However, the settlement has since unravelled after it emerged that Mr Copinger-Symes received a £27.6 million gift from Ms Copinger-Symes’ parents after the couple separated.

Ms Copinger-Symes argues that the gift was not disclosed during the original proceedings and that, had it been known, it would have fundamentally altered the outcome of the settlement. She is now seeking a £14 million share of the sum, claiming it constitutes material non-disclosure sufficient to overturn the original order.

Her former husband disputes this, arguing that the gift was neither secret nor matrimonial in nature and should therefore be excluded from any financial remedy. He maintains that the funds were gifted to him on the clear understanding that Ms Copinger-Symes would have no entitlement to them.

The case also highlights how financial disputes in divorce can become deeply entangled with wider family relationships. Reports suggest the dispute has intensified existing tensions within Ms Copinger-Symes’ family, allegedly stemming from disagreements over property and inheritance, underscoring the emotional and relational damage that can arise when wealth, divorce and family dynamics collide.

At its core, the case raises two long-standing and highly contentious issues in family law: the obligation of full and frank financial disclosure, and the boundary between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, particularly where significant gifts are made after separation but before final settlement.

The Court of Appeal heard the case over two days, with judgment now reserved. The panel, comprising Lord Justice Moylan, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Nugee, is expected to deliver a ruling at a later date.

Family law practitioners will be watching the outcome closely. A decision in favour of reopening the settlement could have wide-ranging implications for how post-separation gifts are treated and reinforce the risks of incomplete disclosure in cases involving complex family wealth structures.

Read more:
£14m divorce battle exposes the risks of non-disclosure in complex family wealth cases

The head of the world’s largest technology trade show has accused the UK government of failing to properly support British businesses on the global stage, warning that the country is falling behind its European peers when it comes to showcasing innovation.

Gary Shapiro, chief executive of the Consumer Technology Association, which organises CES in Las Vegas, said Britain’s presence at the event remains inconsistent and underwhelming compared with nations such as France and the Netherlands.

CES, which opens this week, attracts around 100,000 visitors each year and is widely regarded as the most influential global platform for emerging consumer technologies. Thousands of companies use the four-day exhibition to launch products, secure international partnerships and attract investment.

Shapiro said the UK’s participation at the event has been “spotty”, adding that it was surprising given the strength of Britain’s technology sector. He said other western European governments consistently prioritise the event, not only through financial support but by sending senior political figures to demonstrate backing for their domestic tech industries.

The CTA chief was particularly critical of the lack of visible UK government engagement at CES. While France will once again be represented by cabinet ministers, following previous appearances by President Emmanuel Macron, and the Netherlands is sending senior political representatives including members of its royal family, Britain has no comparable presence.

“It doesn’t have to be about money,” Shapiro said. “It’s about showing up. Do relevant cabinet ministers attend the world’s largest innovation event? In Britain’s case, that hasn’t happened in any meaningful way for years, and that’s been a disappointment.”

According to provisional exhibitor numbers, France has 64 companies at CES this year, Germany 38, the UK 29 and the Netherlands 27, although final figures will not be confirmed until later in 2026. Industry figures say the gap in visibility is more significant than the raw numbers suggest, pointing to the scale and quality of government-backed national pavilions from other countries.

The criticism follows the UK government’s decision in 2021 to scrap the Tradeshow Access Programme, a scheme that provided grants of up to £2,500 to help small and medium-sized businesses attend international trade fairs. The programme, which cost an estimated £8–10 million a year, has not been reinstated despite repeated lobbying from the tech sector.

Mark Birchall, managing director of exhibition support firm Tradefair, said the absence of UK backing was keenly felt by businesses trying to compete internationally. He said British companies often find themselves overshadowed by smaller nations whose governments invest heavily in national stands and coordinated delegations.

“I’ve had pavilion envy for years,” Birchall said. “You go to major tech events and see countries like Latvia, Lithuania and Malta turning up with impressive government-funded stands, while British firms are left to fend for themselves.”

Analyst Paolo Pescatore of PP Foresight said the situation highlights a growing disconnect between government rhetoric and reality. He said the UK frequently talks up its ambition to be a global tech leader, yet consistently fails to provide practical support at the world’s most important industry events.

“France stands out time and again for how it backs its start-ups and SMEs,” he said. “The proof is in the pudding. In the UK, the private sector is being asked to carry the cost alone.”

A government spokesperson defended its record, saying a thriving technology sector sits at the heart of its plans to grow the economy and modernise public services. The spokesperson pointed to the Industrial Strategy and Small Business Plan as evidence of support for firms looking to scale internationally.

However, for many in the tech industry, CES remains a litmus test of global ambition, and one where Britain risks being seen as absent just as international competition intensifies.

Read more:
Tech trade show boss criticises UK for lack of support at CES

Britain can “without a doubt” compete with the United States to become a global hub for cryptoassets, the City minister has said, as the government sets out long-awaited legislation to regulate the fast-growing digital assets market.

Lucy Rigby said the proposed framework showed the UK’s intention to “lead the world in digital assets adoption”, amid mounting concern from the crypto industry that Britain has been moving too slowly while rival jurisdictions press ahead.

“This is about recognising that cryptoassets are here to stay, and so we need to modernise regulation to ensure it’s fit for the digital age,” Rigby said. “Firms have been very clear with us that they want regulatory clarity because it will allow them to invest here.”

The legislation, unveiled on Monday, paves the way for a comprehensive UK regulatory regime for cryptoassets such as bitcoin, with rules expected to be in force by 2027. The Financial Conduct Authority will now be responsible for designing the detailed framework.

Crypto firms have long argued that the UK risks falling behind both the US and the European Union in setting clear rules for the sector, potentially losing out on investment and high-skilled jobs. While proponents say digital assets could transform parts of the financial system, regulators remain cautious. The FCA has repeatedly warned consumers that they should be prepared to lose all their money when investing in crypto.

In the US, President Trump has vowed to make America the “crypto capital of the world” and has championed a lighter-touch regulatory approach. The EU has also moved faster, implementing its own regulatory regime for cryptoassets, increasing pressure on the UK to accelerate its plans.

Although the UK and US set up a transatlantic taskforce in September to co-operate on digital assets policy, Washington has already moved ahead in key areas. In July, Trump signed the Genius Act, the first major piece of US federal crypto legislation, which focuses on stablecoins, cryptocurrencies pegged to assets such as the dollar. The president’s family has also backed a number of crypto ventures, further fuelling interest in the sector.

Asked whether Britain could realistically compete with the US, Rigby was unequivocal. “Definitely, without a doubt,” she said.

She described the UK’s approach as “forward-leaning”, adding: “It’s comprehensive and offers consumer protections in the same way we would for other financial products like stocks and shares.”

Research commissioned by the FCA last year found that around 12 per cent of UK adults, roughly seven million people, already own cryptocurrencies, despite the absence of a full regulatory regime and the volatility of digital asset prices.

“We’re recognising that more and more people are investing in cryptoassets,” Rigby said, arguing that regulation is needed both to protect consumers and to support responsible innovation.

The push on crypto regulation comes amid wider concern in Westminster that the UK’s financial services sector is becoming less competitive internationally, with business drifting to rival centres such as Wall Street. In response, ministers have urged regulators, including the FCA and the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority, to reduce unnecessary red tape.

Asked about the pace of reform at the regulators, Rigby said that “both have made significant steps forward”, but acknowledged that there was “further to go”.

With legislation now moving through parliament, ministers hope the UK can strike a balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining the high regulatory standards that underpin the City of London’s global reputation.

Read more:
Britain can compete with the US as a global crypto hub, insists City minister

The European Union’s planned ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035 is set to be watered down, according to senior figures in the European Parliament, in a move that is likely to trigger fierce opposition from environmental campaigners.

The decision, which is expected to be outlined by the European Commission this week in Strasbourg, would mark a significant retreat from one of the central planks of the EU’s Green Deal. Campaigners have warned that any dilution of the ban would amount to a “gutting” of the bloc’s climate ambitions for transport.

Under existing legislation agreed in 2022, all new cars sold in the EU from 2035 must produce zero CO₂ emissions, effectively banning petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles. However, Manfred Weber, president of the European People’s Party group, said the outright ban on combustion engines would be softened.

“The technology ban on combustion engines is off the table,” Weber told Germany’s Bild newspaper. “All engines currently manufactured in Germany can therefore continue to be produced and sold.”

His comments come after months of lobbying from national leaders and the automotive industry. Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said last week that he supported a rethink, arguing that combustion-engine vehicles would still dominate global roads well beyond 2035.

“The reality is that there will still be millions of combustion engine-based cars around the world in 2035, 2040 and 2050,” Merz said.

Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, alongside several major carmakers, has also pushed for changes that would allow hybrid vehicles to remain on sale. Weber suggested that under revised rules, manufacturers would instead be required to cut average fleet emissions by 90 per cent from 2035, rather than meeting a strict zero-emissions target.

This could open the door to a new generation of plug-in hybrid vehicles with extended electric range but a combustion engine as backup for long-distance journeys.

Environmental groups have reacted angrily to reports of a climbdown. Colin Walker, head of transport at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said weakening the rules would keep European households “stuck driving dirtier and more expensive petrol cars for longer” and slow the transition to electric vehicles.

Some manufacturers, including Volvo and Polestar, have also criticised calls to soften the ban, warning that policy uncertainty could hand an advantage to Chinese electric vehicle makers that are already scaling rapidly.

A spokesperson for the European Commission said the 2035 deadline was still under discussion, adding that commission president Ursula von der Leyen had acknowledged growing calls for “more flexibility” on CO₂ targets.

Alongside any changes to the ban, the commission is expected to propose new incentives to support the production and purchase of small, affordable electric vehicles made in Europe, as part of a broader effort to counter rising imports from China.

The debate highlights deep divisions within the EU over how fast the transition away from fossil-fuelled cars should happen, balancing climate targets against industrial competitiveness, jobs and consumer demand as the bloc charts its automotive future.

Read more:
EU set to soften 2035 petrol and diesel car ban amid political pressure

Lando Norris has become Britain’s newest Formula One world champion after holding his nerve through a tense title decider in Abu Dhabi, securing his first championship and ending the country’s five-year wait for another motorsport hero.

The 26-year-old McLaren driver, who grew up in Bristol and has long spoken of idolising Lewis Hamilton, finished third in the season finale, enough to clinch the title by just two points after a fiercely fought contest with Max Verstappen and team-mate Oscar Piastri. He becomes the 11th British world champion, and the first since Hamilton sealed his seventh crown in 2020.

Norris cut an emotional figure as he crossed the line, breaking down on the team radio before being congratulated by McLaren CEO Zak Brown.

“Thank you guys. You made a kid’s dream true,” he told the team through tears. “I love you mum, I love you dad. Thanks for everything.”

Norris entered the final race with his title hopes shaken after he and Piastri were disqualified from the previous grand prix for a technical infringement, an episode that dramatically reopened the championship battle and ignited questions about whether he could hold his nerve.

Starting second behind Verstappen, Norris was passed by Piastri on the opening lap, briefly putting his title hopes under strain. But the McLaren driver steadied himself, managed his pace and executed a calculated, mistake-free drive to bank the points he needed.

Verstappen, seeking a fifth consecutive title, and Piastri, chasing his maiden crown, pushed relentlessly across 90 minutes of strategic tension — but neither could overhaul the Briton’s points advantage.

As soon as Norris stepped out of the Papaya-orange McLaren, helmet off and eyes red, cheers erupted around Yas Marina. His mother, Cisca Norris, was the first to embrace him, followed by Piastri and senior team members.

“I haven’t cried in a while,” Norris admitted in parc fermé. “I didn’t think I would cry, but I did. It’s been such a long journey. Not many people get to experience this in Formula One. I’m very proud of myself , but I’m even more proud of everyone in the team.”

Norris’s path to the summit has been shaped by years of graft, global travel and family support. The son of business founder Adam Norris, who built e-mobility company Pure, Lando started karting at six, left school early to pursue motorsport full-time, and quickly rose through Europe’s junior categories before joining McLaren’s F1 programme.

His father, speaking moments after the chequered flag, said: “It’s been a really long, hard journey. Longer than you’d think. There’s been a lot of travelling to weird and wonderful places. He has always been fast and loved it more than everyone else.”

Celebrities including Emily Ratajkowski, Gordon Ramsay and Thierry Henry watched the drama unfold from the Abu Dhabi paddock.

Norris’s partner, model and actress Magui Corceiro, was in the McLaren garage throughout, and was visibly emotional as he became world champion. The couple, who have been together on and off for two years, embraced trackside as the celebrations began.

The championship marks a watershed moment for McLaren, who only a few seasons ago were battling near the back of the grid. Under Zak Brown and team principal Andrea Stella, the team has undergone a sweeping transformation, culminating in one of the most impressive competitive resurgences in recent F1 history.

Norris, who has spent his entire Formula One career at McLaren, paid tribute to the team’s revival.

“We’ve been through very difficult times and some great times. This year, we fought to the very last laps,” he said. “Max and Oscar didn’t make it easy, but that’s what makes this feel so special.”

Norris now joins a lineage that includes Sir Jackie Stewart, James Hunt, Damon Hill, Jenson Button and Hamilton, but his arrival as champion feels distinctly modern. A driver shaped by both digital-era fandom and classic racing discipline, he has become one of Formula One’s most popular figures far beyond the British Isles.

And now, officially, a world champion.

Read more:
Lando Norris crowned Formula One world champion after nail-biting Abu Dhabi finale

Safe handling, transportation and storage in the pharmaceutical industry are incredibly important for keeping products safe, functional and easy to access.

These practices must comply with safety regulations to ensure the products are safe for purchase and consumption. This article explains the benefits of appropriate transportation, storage and handling in the pharmaceutical industry and how to meet the proper safety standards essential to the industry.

Meet regulations

Pharmaceutical companies must follow Good Distribution Practices (GDP) and Good Storage Practices (GSP) in compliance with pharmaceutical safety standards. These are standards designed to safeguard medications from contamination or damage during processing.

Equally, companies must make sure that licensing and audits are regularly conducted and that the tests meet the standards of authorities like the FDA, EMA, WHO, MHRA, or relevant local bodies.

Organisation and safety

The stock should be organised well so that it is safe and easily accessible. Use separate storage areas for:

• Temperature-sensitive drugs (cold chain, refrigerated, frozen)
• Hazardous chemicals
• Quarantine or returned products

In these storage areas, you want clearly marked zones with proper signage that make it quick and easy to see where everything is.

There should be a rota for material flow and shelf stocking to minimise congestion and collisions between forklifts or trolleys.

Finally, there should be accessible emergency exits and evacuation routes so that all staff can evacuate easily in an emergency.

Control the environment

The areas where drugs and products are stored should be controlled to meet each product’s specific needs. For example, refrigerated medicines, such as insulin, need to be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius.

You can also implement control measures to prevent contamination from external sources, such as pests. This is more important for some sensitive products or medications that may require a cleanroom.

Regulations and maintenance

When ensuring your equipment is efficient for transporting and storing products, you need to be aware of equipment regulations and maintenance requirements.

Regular maintenance of goods lifts, pallet jacks, conveyors and automated storage systems will ensure they operate as intended and that there are no areas where medication is mishandled or inappropriately stored.

Another way to make sure the equipment is efficient and functioning is to implement proper training and certification for operators. This will mean they can identify any potential problems before they are noticed in regular maintenance checks.

These training situations should involve  training for:

• Handling chemicals
• Emergency procedures
• Ergonomics and lifting techniques
• Reporting hazards and near misses

Implement lockout/tagout procedures. These procedures mean that the machines must be shut off and cannot be restarted if they experience any issues. This is a great way to prevent staff injuries or production disruptions.

Fire and emergency safety

An essential part of ensuring any workplace or store is safe is ensuring it meets fire safety regulations and has emergency exit and evacuation procedures.

For fire safety, you can install systems like:

• Sprinklers
• Extinguishers
• Fire blankets
• Fire doors

It is also important to implement emergency response training for employees (fire drills, evacuation, spill containment).

In pharmaceutical warehouse storage units, it may also be worth providing PPE and hazardous chemical suits to protect people’s skin and lungs from any harmful chemicals in the event of a spill.

Security and monitoring

Some tips for enhancing security in your stores include:

• Having controlled access to prevent theft or unreported issues
• Install CCTV surveillance and alarm systems
• Have a clear inventory system that tracks products and quickly detects missing items

Many of these security measures can be monitored to check everything is running smoothly, but there are some other ways to monitor stock to ensure you’re meeting safety standards:

• Get regular internal audits and inspections
• Keep track of any incidents

Implement safety regulations

Health and safety in the pharmaceutical industry are paramount. Take on board this advice and make sure you are actively meeting these standards and keeping your staff, stock and customers safe.

Read more:
Pharmaceutical Warehouse Safety

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered a bruising second Budget, confirming more than £30 billion in tax rises and abandoning earlier assurances that “working people” would be shielded from higher taxes.

Instead, she told MPs she was asking “everyone to contribute”, with most households now set to be worse off and middle-income families bearing the brunt.

While welfare payments, pensions and minimum wages will rise, a broad package of tax increases — combined with frozen thresholds — means millions will see their disposable income fall further. Business owners have criticised the plans, with some dubbing it a “Budget for benefits”.

If you want to see how the budget affects you use your Budget calculator produced in partnership with accountants Blick Rothenberg – Click Here 

Below, a breakdown of how different groups will be affected.

Who loses out

Workers using salary sacrifice

One of the most significant changes is the cap on National Insurance relief for salary-sacrificed pension contributions. From April 2029, only the first £2,000 of annual contributions will be exempt — a sharp shift from the current unlimited allowance.

For someone earning £50,000 and contributing 5%, this equates to an estimated £75 a year in additional tax; for a £100,000 earner, around £450. Employers, who also lose NI relief, face even greater costs and may respond by lowering their own pension contributions.

Pension specialists warn of long-term consequences. Hargreaves Lansdown calculates that a 22-year-old earning £25,000 could retire with £57,000 less if employer contributions stagnate as a result of the change.

Earners hit by frozen thresholds

Reeves has extended the freeze on income tax thresholds until 2031, pulling more workers into higher tax bands as wages rise. This also drags more estates into inheritance tax and more gains into capital gains tax.

According to analysis, a worker on £50,000 this year will pay £8,165 more in tax between 2020 and 2031 due to the frozen bands.

Owners of high-value property

Homes in England worth over £2 million will face a new surcharge of between £2,500 and £7,500 a year. The charge, uprated annually with inflation, affects around 100,000 homeowners but is expected to have wider effects.

To administer the levy, the Chancellor is ordering a revaluation of Bands F–H, raising concerns that many homes last valued in 1991 will be pushed into higher council tax bands. Property analysts warn it may destabilise a market already under pressure while the government attempts to build 1.5 million new homes.

Drinkers, smokers and gamblers

Alcohol duties will rise in February in line with the RPI measure of inflation — adding 13p to a bottle of wine, 11p to Prosecco and 38p to gin. Tobacco duty will rise above inflation, and a new vape duty remains scheduled.

The gambling sector faces one of the steepest hits. Tax on online gaming profits rises from 21% to 40%, and online betting duty jumps from 15% to 25%, though bingo duty is abolished.

Savers and investors

The cash ISA allowance will be capped at £12,000 for under-65s from April 2027, with £8,000 of the £20,000 allowance ring-fenced for investments. The Chancellor has also raised tax on dividends, savings income and property income by two percentage points, saying it is “not fair” for investment income to attract lower rates than earnings.

Industry leaders called the ISA change a blow to financial confidence at a time when households are trying to build savings buffers.

Motorists — especially EV drivers

Electric vehicle owners will face a new 3p-per-mile road charge from 2028 to replace lost fuel-duty revenue.

Meanwhile, petrol and diesel drivers gain a temporary reprieve: the 5p fuel duty cut is extended until September 2026, before being phased out gradually.

Holidaymakers

Mayors in England will be given powers to introduce a tourist tax on overnight stays. The levy is expected to be around £1 per night, though councils will have flexibility over the final design.

Who gains

Large low-income families

Reeves has scrapped the two-child benefit cap, handing substantial increases to larger low-income families. The OBR estimates 560,000 families will benefit, with around 18,000 households gaining more than £14,000 per year.

Universal Credit, PIP, child benefit and other working-age benefits will rise by 3.8% in April. Free school meals will expand to all households on Universal Credit in 2026, and the Help to Save scheme will become permanent.

Low-paid workers

The National Living Wage rises to £12.72 an hour, delivering an annual boost of around £700 for a full-time employee. The rise forms part of a longer-term plan to introduce a single adult wage rate from age 18.

Train passengers

Regulated rail fares have been frozen for 2025, the first across-the-board freeze since 1996. Labour claims that commuters on certain routes will save more than £300 a year.

State pensioners

The state pension rises by 4.8% under the triple lock, adding £550 a year to the full new state pension. Some retirees under the old scheme will gain £440. However, further increases could push pensioners paying no tax today over the £12,570 personal allowance, creating new tax liabilities.

Households facing high energy bills

Reeves says an average household will save £150 a year after she scrapped a Conservative-era eco levy she claims added £1.7 billion annually to bills.

Read more:
Reeves unveils £30bn tax rise as Budget leaves millions worse off and middle earners hit hardest

Artificial intelligence and robotics could automate more than half of all work carried out in the United States — with existing technology — according to a new report from the McKinsey Global Institute.

The research finds that 57% of US work hours could be automated today if organisations redesigned workflows around the capabilities of AI agents and robots. The analysis suggests that nearly half of American jobs sit within occupations facing significant disruption from automation.

Around 40% of the roles most vulnerable involve drafting, information processing and routine reasoning — tasks at which AI agents already excel. Hiring in some of these fields, including paralegals, office administrators and even computer programmers, has slowed as companies assess the potential for AI to absorb large portions of their workload.

Physical roles are also at risk. Jobs performed in hazardous environments, such as warehouse operations or machinery handling, are highly likely to be replaced by robotics as adoption costs fall and safety concerns increase.

Conversely, McKinsey found that roughly one-third of American jobs are difficult to automate because they require deeply human qualities — from empathy to dexterity. Nursing and social care are among the safest professions, with 70% of tasks requiring physical presence, compassion and intuitive decision-making that machines struggle to replicate. Maintenance and repair roles, which require judgment, adaptability and work in unpredictable environments, are also hard to automate.

The report — Agents, Robots and Us — emphasises that the biggest barrier to large-scale automation is not technological capability but policy decisions, investment and companies’ willingness to overhaul entire workflows rather than automate piecemeal tasks. McKinsey estimates that redesigning work with AI in mind could generate $2.9 trillion a year in economic value by 2030.

The report paints a future in which humans work in partnership with AI rather than being replaced wholesale. Workers will spend less time preparing documents or processing data and more time interpreting outputs, guiding AI systems and making higher-level judgments. Teaching is highlighted as a sector where hybrid AI use could remove administrative burdens and support lesson planning, while leaving educators to lead, evaluate and interact.

While jobs will disappear, McKinsey argues that new roles will emerge — including AI product managers, safety specialists, system trainers and engineers responsible for tuning and supervising automated tools.

Real-world evidence suggests the shift is already under way. Fintech group Klarna has said it can continue to grow revenue without growing headcount, thanks to AI. Law firm Clifford Chance and telecoms provider BT have recently announced job reductions linked to increased automation.

Early-career workers appear most exposed. A recent Stanford study found that employees aged 22–25 in AI-intensive occupations have experienced a 13% decline in employment, although more experienced workers have not yet seen equivalent displacement.

McKinsey’s report follows Microsoft’s recent analysis predicting that translators, sales representatives and financial advisers face early AI disruption, while nurses, plumbers, ship engineers and water treatment operators remain among the safest professions.

Read more:
AI could replace half of the work carried out by American workers, McKinsey warns

A British man jailed in the United States for hacking the Twitter accounts of high-profile figures including Barack Obama and Jeff Bezos has been ordered to hand over £4.1 million in cryptocurrency linked to his crimes.

Joseph James O’Connor, 26, was sentenced in the US last year after admitting to his role in a sophisticated cyberattack that saw him gain access to dozens of celebrity and corporate Twitter accounts. He used the compromised profiles to promote fraudulent Bitcoin schemes, scamming victims worldwide. O’Connor also threatened several celebrities with the release of private messages and images unless they paid him in cryptocurrency.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has now secured a Civil Recovery Order to seize 42 Bitcoin — along with other digital assets — that O’Connor obtained through the scheme. The recovered cryptocurrency is worth approximately £4.1 million at today’s market value.

The CPS Proceeds of Crime Division worked closely with agencies in the United States and Spain, where O’Connor was arrested, to ensure he could not conceal or transfer the assets before the order was enforced.

Adrian Foster, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the CPS Proceeds of Crime Division, said the action demonstrates the reach of UK authorities even when offenders are convicted overseas.

“Joseph James O’Connor targeted well-known individuals and used their accounts to scam people out of their crypto assets and money,” he said. “We were able to use the full force of our powers to ensure that even when someone is not convicted in the UK, we can still prevent them from benefiting from their criminality.”

O’Connor was a central figure in the July 2020 Twitter breach, one of the platform’s most significant security failures. The attack compromised accounts belonging to political leaders, billionaires, celebrities and major brands, prompting international investigations and widespread concern over the security of social media platforms.

Read more:
Twitter hacker ordered to repay £4.1m in Bitcoin after celebrity account scam

Aviva chief executive Dame Amanda Blanc has urged the chancellor to rethink plans for a major clampdown on salary sacrifice schemes, warning that the move would penalise both employers and workers while damaging long-term pension saving across the UK.

Speaking ahead of Rachel Reeves’ 26 November budget, Blanc said Aviva was “very concerned” about the Treasury’s intention to cap the amount workers can sacrifice tax-free to just £2,000 a year — a change expected to raise around £2 billion annually.

Salary sacrifice allows employees to give up part of their gross pay in return for pension contributions or other benefits. Because the contribution is taken before tax and national insurance (NI), both individuals and employers save on NI payments. At present, workers can contribute up to £60,000 a year into pensions tax-free under the system.

But pensions experts warn that Reeves’ proposed cap would sharply increase NI bills for employers and employees, likely leading many companies to reduce the generosity of their pension contributions.

“What you’re effectively doing is penalising those employers that actually contribute more to employees’ pensions,” Blanc said. “And you’re also signalling to people who save for their pension that perhaps they shouldn’t do it. That is bad news long-term for the UK, particularly when 15 million people are already not saving enough for retirement.”

The move would also represent a second NI blow for businesses in just over a year. Reeves increased employer NI in her first budget last October — a decision that drew strong criticism from business leaders.

Blanc warned that removing the NI benefit entirely would impose a meaningful cost on firms: “The actual cost to employers of removing that NI benefit from salary sacrifice is not going to be insignificant.”

Her comments came as Aviva delivered a strong third-quarter update. The FTSE 100 insurer said it now expects to realise £225 million in annual cost savings from its £3.7 billion acquisition of Direct Line — almost double the £125 million previously forecast — by 2028.

Aviva also expects to generate operating profit of £2.2 billion this year, excluding any contribution from Direct Line. That means the company is set to hit its 2026 profit target two years early. It also unveiled new three-year goals, including delivering a return on equity of more than 20% by 2028.

Analysts at Bank of America reiterated their “buy” rating on Aviva, saying they expect the insurer to beat its newly updated financial targets.

Despite the strong guidance, Aviva shares fell 42.5p — down 6.1% — to close at 650p. The stock has risen around 40% since the start of the year, with analysts suggesting that many of the upgrades announced on Thursday had already been priced in by investors.

Read more:
Aviva chief warns Reeves that salary sacrifice tax cap would be ‘bad news’ for Britain

Aston Martin has been pushed deeper into junk bond territory after Fitch Ratings downgraded the luxury carmaker’s credit score to ‘CCC+’, citing worsening cash flow, rising financial pressures and the impact of US tariffs on its largest market.

The rating, cut from ‘B-’, reflects what Fitch described as “deteriorating liquidity” following materially weaker and negative free cash flow in the first nine months of 2026. The agency now forecasts a £400 million free cash flow shortfall in 2025, considerably worse than previously expected, and predicts that cash flow will remain negative until at least 2028, even after planned reductions in capital and operating expenditure.

Fitch also warned that US policy uncertainty poses a significant challenge for the company. Despite Aston Martin enjoying a relative advantage over European rivals under the US–UK trade agreement, tariffs introduced earlier this year have dented consumer confidence in the brand’s most important market.

The carmaker introduced an additional 3% price increase—its second hike of the year—in an attempt to offset the tariff impact. While early pre-buying activity lifted sales in the first quarter, unit volumes in the Americas slipped slightly in Q2 and the decline intensified in Q3.

The downgrade follows Aston Martin’s profit warning last month, when the company directly blamed Donald Trump’s tariff regime for weaker performance and subsequently cut £300 million from its investment plans.

The latest assessment from Fitch compounds a challenging period for the company, which has faced repeated financial setbacks in recent years—despite high-profile fundraising rounds and a product overhaul intended to restore long-term profitability.

With liquidity under pressure, weakened demand in the US, and years of negative cash flow still forecast, the downgrade signals a deeper struggle for Aston Martin as it navigates a turbulent economic and political backdrop.

Read more:
Fitch cuts Aston Martin’s credit rating to ‘CCC+’ as tariffs deepen financial strain

More than six million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across the globe are calling on world leaders to take urgent and coordinated action to support business-led climate progress, warning that the path to net zero will stall without their inclusion.

In an open letter released ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Brazil, the SME Climate Hub and its global partners urged governments to adopt a unified set of policies that unlock green finance, simplify climate guidance, and create meaningful incentives for smaller firms to take action.

SMEs account for 90 per cent of global businesses and generate over half of the world’s GDP, yet they are among the least supported when it comes to decarbonisation. Despite their crucial role in local economies and international supply chains, most small businesses still face significant barriers to climate action. A recent SME Climate Hub survey found that 80 per cent of respondents reported either minimal government support or no awareness of existing climate-related incentives.

“The global climate transition cannot succeed if SMEs are left behind,” said Pamela Jouven, Director of the SME Climate Hub. “Governments have the power to turn climate risk into business opportunity. We’re urging Heads of Delegations at COP30 to adopt a practical policy framework that empowers SMEs and recognises them as vital contributors to the net zero transition.”

The open letter calls for governments to strengthen national frameworks so that SMEs are formally recognised within climate and biodiversity strategies and included in consultation processes. It also advocates for the integration of small firms into public procurement systems, ensuring they can compete fairly for green contracts and become part of sustainable value chains.

Jouven and her fellow signatories argue that governments must do more to demonstrate the business case for decarbonisation, including funding research that quantifies the commercial benefits of net zero strategies — from energy efficiency savings and improved resilience to risk, to access to new markets and customers.

Another key priority is clarity. Many SMEs are held back not by reluctance, but by confusion. The letter urges policymakers to develop consistent, centralised guidance to help small firms navigate reporting requirements and access credible resources for climate adaptation and emissions reduction.

Above all, the group stresses that progress depends on unlocking finance. It calls on financial institutions and governments to design funding models that meet the needs of smaller enterprises, including tailored green loans, grants, tax incentives and government-backed guarantees.

“Small businesses are the backbone of economies and global supply chains,” Jouven added. “Empowering them to take climate action will accelerate the delivery of national net zero targets and build resilience across the global economy.”

The letter’s release comes as climate financing is expected to dominate the agenda at COP30 in Belém, Brazil. With SMEs employing two billion people worldwide, the SME Climate Hub warns that failing to equip them for the green transition would not only jeopardise climate goals but risk leaving vast sections of the economy unprepared for the low-carbon future.

Read more:
Six million small firms urge COP leaders to unlock finance and incentives for green growth

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is shutting down some of his final remaining business ventures, including Pitch@Palace Global Ltd, once seen as a potential source of private income after the King withdrew financial support.

Pitch@Palace began as a Dragon’s Den-style initiative allowing entrepreneurs to pitch start-up ideas to investors, backed by the then Duke of York. It attracted global attention and corporate sponsors before collapsing under the weight of scandal following Mountbatten-Windsor’s association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

A document filed with Companies House on Tuesday confirmed that Pitch@Palace Global has applied to be struck off the register and dissolved. The application, signed by the firm’s sole director, accountant Arthur Lancaster, declared that there were no outstanding debts or other obstacles to closure.

Lancaster, who has long acted as a business associate of Doug Barrowman and Baroness Michelle Mone — both embroiled in a high-profile dispute over a pandemic PPE deal — is understood to hold the company’s shares on behalf of Mountbatten-Windsor. The former prince remains listed as a person with significant control, under his previous title.

Pitch@Palace’s UK arm was wound up in 2021 after the Newsnight interview that prompted Mountbatten-Windsor’s withdrawal from royal duties and the removal of his official titles. However, its international division, Pitch@Palace Global, had remained open until now.

The company’s most recent accounts show cash reserves dwindling from £220,990 to just £10,965 by the end of March, suggesting that most of the remaining funds have been withdrawn in recent years.

The venture had continued to generate controversy abroad. The Chinese arm’s founder, Yang Tengbo, was accused of espionage — allegations he denied — while a Dutch accelerator, Startup Bootcamp, briefly explored a deal to acquire the business in 2024, citing “immense value” in its international network. That agreement later fell through.

On the same day, a second company linked to Mountbatten-Windsor — Innovate Global Ltd — also filed for closure. Lancaster is again listed as the sole director. The firm, which has no employees and minimal assets, was reportedly intended to serve as a reboot of Pitch@Palace’s international operations under a new brand.

The closures further mark Mountbatten-Windsor’s continued retreat from public and commercial life. Once billed as a champion for innovation and entrepreneurship and the self styled royal entrepreneur-in-residence at the palace , his flagship initiative has now quietly come to an end.

It was also confirmed this week that his surname will formally be rendered with a hyphen — Mountbatten-Windsor — aligning with the spelling first approved by the Privy Council in 1960.

Read more:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor winds up Pitch@Palace and remaining business interests

More than 100 jobs are at risk at Aston Martin’s St Athan plant in the Vale of Glamorgan, as the luxury carmaker grapples with US trade tariffs and falling demand from China.

The company, which began production at its Welsh site in 2019, confirmed that staff consultations are under way but said no final decision on redundancies has yet been made.

Aston Martin said the planned measures were part of efforts to “strengthen the business in response to continued challenges in the global macroeconomic environment.” The firm added that the proposals could affect “contractor, fixed-term and permanent roles.”

Union leaders described the situation as “devastating”. Andrew Pearson, regional officer for Unite, said the union would begin consultation talks with the company in an effort to mitigate job losses.

The company’s shares have tumbled over the past year as it struggles with weaker demand across key international markets. Aston Martin recently warned that it could lose £110 million this year due to the “global macroeconomic environment.”

The St Athan site has already seen job cuts this year. In February, Aston Martin confirmed that 170 roles were being axed as part of a broader cost-saving drive.

Production jobs are expected to be most affected in the latest round of potential cuts, along with a number of contractor positions, according to BBC Wales.

The Welsh government said it was in contact with Aston Martin and stood ready to support affected employees.

“We are prepared to work with the company to offer support to workers following the outcome of the consultation,” a spokesperson said.

The St Athan plant, built on the site of a former RAF base, was seen as a key pillar of Aston Martin’s expansion when it opened in 2019. It employs several hundred staff and was originally intended to produce the company’s first SUV, the DBX, and future electric models.

Now, as economic pressures mount and global trade tensions bite, the future of that investment — and the jobs it brought to south Wales — hangs in the balance.

Read more:
More than 100 Aston Martin jobs at risk in Wales amid global slowdown

The government is still reviewing plans to tighten reporting requirements for small and micro companies, with ministers yet to decide whether to press ahead with rules that would require them to publish profit-and-loss accounts for the first time.

In an interview with The Times, Blair McDougall, the new small business minister, said that “all options are on the table” as officials weigh up the balance between tackling fraud and protecting small firms from unnecessary administrative burdens.

“There are obviously different arguments in terms of the impact on businesses of their exposure, particularly for SMEs, versus people who are worried about financial crime and everything else,” McDougall said. “We’re balancing that at the moment and discussing it.”

Under plans announced by Companies House in June, firms classified as “small” or “micro” would lose the right to file abbreviated accounts from April 2027. Instead, they would have to submit full profit-and-loss statements, revealing revenues and profits.

The move formed part of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, designed to reduce fraud and improve the accuracy of information filed at Companies House. However, within days of the announcement, the Department for Business and Trade signalled a pause in the rollout amid concerns from business groups that the new rules would increase red tape and risk exposing commercially sensitive data.

If implemented, the reforms would affect companies with turnover below £10.2 million, balance sheets under £5.1 million, and fewer than 50 employees. They would also require all firms to file accounts digitally using commercial software, ending the use of paper and web-based submissions.

The proposals were first consulted on in 2019 and made law in 2023 under the previous Conservative government. Business groups have broadly supported greater transparency but warned that the changes could deter entrepreneurship by exposing small firms’ financial details to competitors.

McDougall, who became an MP in 2024 and took on his first ministerial role in September, said the government’s focus was on building business confidence and long-term growth rather than rushing through reforms.

He added that success would be judged by how well the government delivers on its Small Business Plan and industrial strategy, both launched earlier this year. “We’ve got a terrible history in government of publishing these PDFs that then gather dust,” he said.

McDougall spoke during International Trade Week at The Great British Pitch, an event organised by Small Business Britain that brought together entrepreneurs and international buyers. He said such initiatives were central to boosting the profile of British SMEs and driving export-led growth.

The final decision on the Companies House reforms is expected early next year, with officials indicating that ministers are still assessing the regulatory impact on smaller businesses before confirming the 2027 timetable.

Read more:
Government still weighing changes to small company filing rules, says business minister

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has signalled that her 26 November Budget will ask more Britons to shoulder the burden of repairing the nation’s public finances — even if that means breaking Labour’s manifesto pledge not to raise income tax.

In a speech this week, Reeves warned that “hard choices” were unavoidable if Britain was to protect the NHS, reduce national debt and keep inflation under control. Her language marked a shift from earlier assurances that only those with the “broadest shoulders” would face higher taxes.

“If we are to build the future of Britain together, we will all have to contribute,” she said. “When that requires hard choices, we will act guided by the interests of working people.”

While the Chancellor maintained that fairness would underpin her fiscal plans, her remarks were widely interpreted in Westminster as preparing voters for a broader tax rise that could affect millions of middle-income workers.

At the heart of the political tension lies the question of how Labour defines “working people” — a term that may exclude much of the upper-middle-income bracket. Treasury insiders suggest the government considers those earning up to £45,000–£46,000 a year as “working people”.

That would leave roughly one-third of UK earners outside the protected group, potentially exposing professionals such as paramedics, teachers, software developers, and vets to higher income tax or national insurance contributions.

Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that around 40% of male employees and 20% of female employees earn above £45,000. In London, where the median full-time salary stands at nearly £50,000, the proportion is significantly higher — meaning the capital’s workforce could face the steepest hit.

Ironically, Labour’s own inflation-busting public sector pay awards could see the Chancellor give with one hand and take with the other. NHS pay scales show that senior paramedics, speech and language therapists, and school nurses now earn above the proposed threshold.

Similarly, the National Education Union estimates that nearly all school leaders and senior teachers fall within the bracket likely to face higher tax. Years of frozen income tax thresholds — known as fiscal drag — have already pushed many of these workers into higher bands.

Britain’s finances have become increasingly reliant on a small pool of top-rate taxpayers. According to HMRC projections, 1.2 million people earning above £125,140 — just 3% of all income-tax payers — contribute around 40% of total income tax receipts.

Income tax now raises more than £300 billion annually, making it the government’s single largest revenue stream. Yet, as tax policy experts point out, Britain’s average worker still pays less tax on earnings than counterparts in most major European economies.

“The UK system has become top-heavy,” said Chris Sanger, head of tax policy at EY. “If you increase rates for those with the highest incomes, you risk losing mobility and, ultimately, revenue. In a post-pandemic world where remote work is common, the wealthy can relocate more easily than ever.”

The political risk for Labour is that a tax rise on higher earners could alienate the very middle-class voters who helped deliver its 2024 election victory. YouGov polling shows that households earning over £50,000 were disproportionately likely to vote Labour, while Reform’s support was strongest among lower-income groups and Conservative voters skewed older and retired.

If Reeves presses ahead, she faces a delicate balancing act: funding the public services Labour has promised to revive, while avoiding a backlash from the professionals and entrepreneurs who underpin Britain’s tax base.

As one City economist put it: “Reeves is walking a fiscal tightrope — between fairness and flight risk. The more she taxes those who can move, the less they’ll stay to pay.”

Read more:
Labour risks breaking tax pledge as Rachel Reeves targets higher earners in autumn Budget

Sir Charlie Mayfield says ill-health is driving millions out of work, costing employers and the economy billions — but the problem is “not inevitable.”

Britain is at risk of an “economic inactivity crisis” as the number of sick and disabled people out of work continues to rise, according to a government-commissioned review led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, the former John Lewis chairman.

The report warns that 800,000 more people are now out of work due to health conditions than in 2019, costing employers £85 billion a year in lost productivity, sick pay and staff turnover. Without intervention, a further 600,000 workers could leave the labour market by 2030.

“This is not inevitable,” Sir Charlie said, as he launched a new taskforce aimed at helping people return to work and tackling what he described as a “vicious cycle” of poor health and economic inactivity.

The report, commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) but produced independently, found that one in five working-age people is now out of work and not seeking employment — a major reversal after decades of improving participation.

Sir Charlie said sickness is costing the UK far more than just business losses.

“Work is generally good for health, and health is good for work,” he said. “For employers, sickness and staff turnover bring disruption and lost experience. For the country, it means weaker growth, higher welfare spending and greater pressure on the NHS.”

According to some estimates, illness-related inactivity costs the wider economy £212 billion a year — almost 70% of annual income tax receipts — through lost output, welfare payments and additional healthcare costs.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expects spending on health and disability benefits for working-age people alone to reach £72.3 billion by 2029–30.

Mayfield said the surge was being fuelled by a “sharp rise” in mental health conditions among younger workers and chronic musculoskeletal problems — such as back pain and joint issues — among older staff.

His taskforce will also work with GPs, who he said often face pressure from patients to issue sick notes but find it difficult to assess whether someone could work in a modified role.

Business groups broadly welcomed the taskforce but warned that parts of Labour’s Employment Rights Bill risk discouraging firms from hiring people with existing health conditions.

The Bill includes guaranteed hours and restrictions on zero-hours contracts — measures that some retailers fear will make flexible hiring harder.

Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, said retailers were committed to supporting employees with ill-health but that “the government’s goals and policies are at odds with one another.”

“While encouraging employers to invest in workforce health and provide flexibility, they risk making it more difficult,” she said.

In response to the report, the government announced a partnership with over 60 major employers, including Tesco, Google UK, Nando’s and John Lewis, to test new health and wellbeing initiatives aimed at reducing sickness absence and improving return-to-work rates.

Over the next three years, these programmes will form the basis for a voluntary national workplace health standard, expected by 2029.

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said the partnership was “a win-win for employees and employers.”

“This is about keeping good, experienced staff in work and supporting people to stay healthy for longer,” he said.

Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said the review “accurately identified a culture of fear, a dearth of support and structural barriers to work” as key issues behind Britain’s worsening inactivity rate.

The CIPD, representing HR professionals, welcomed the focus on prevention. Its chief executive, Peter Cheese, said the report’s success “will depend on how well its recommendations are understood by business and backed by national and regional policymakers.”

Dr Roman Raczka, president of the British Psychological Society, said the shift toward “rehumanising the workplace” was overdue, but warned that not everyone could or should return to work.

“The workplace itself can be a root cause of poor mental health,” he said. “Those signed off sick deserve timely access to safe, compassionate care.”

Read more:
Ex-John Lewis boss warns UK faces £85bn sickness bill and economic crisis

Chancellor Rachel Reeves used a rare Downing Street address to lay the groundwork for her upcoming Budget, signalling that tough tax decisions lie ahead — but sought to pre-empt backlash by insisting the pressure on public finances “wasn’t our fault”.

In the speech, she said the UK economy was struggling not because of Labour’s policies but because of “longer-term factors” such as Brexit, decades of Tory austerity and rising global borrowing costs. “We must deal with the world as it is, not how we wish it could be,” she said.

Ms Reeves presented her forthcoming fiscal package as a choice between “investment and hope, or cuts and division”. She said she would do “what is right rather than what is popular”, placing emphasis on protecting the NHS, reducing national debt and improving the cost of living. But she also acknowledged that the measures required could mean pain for taxpayers — in particular the “wealthy” and property-owners — and carry consequences “for years to come”.

With the public finances projected to be weaker than expected, analysts estimate she may need to raise around £20 billion to £30 billion in additional revenue, despite last year’s historic tax rises.

Ms Reeves stressed that any future tax decisions were not being taken lightly: “Any Chancellor of any party would be standing here facing the choices I face,” she said, placing the blame squarely on previous governments and global shocks rather than her own policies.

She specifically cited a barrage of international headwinds — from US tariffs and conflicts in Europe to supply-chain disruption and jump-in borrowing costs — as having undermined Britain’s growth prospects. “The world has changed,” she said, “and we’re not immune to that change.”

Although she reaffirmed the manifesto promises not to raise VAT or tax working-people’s payslips, she stopped short of committing not to raise income tax, or altering thresholds — leaving open the possibility of a “wealth tax” or a hike in capital taxes.

Opposition parties seized on the remarks, warning that Ms Reeves was setting the stage for a significant tax raid disguised as a responsible Budget. Conservatives argued the Chancellor was laying the blame for her own ask on others.

With the next Budget scheduled for 26 November 2025, markets will be watching closely. Ms Reeves warned that if lenders and investors doubted her commitment to fiscal rules, the UK’s cost of borrowing could rise further — potentially forcing even deeper cuts or higher taxes.

In sum, the Chancellor has raised expectations of tough decisions while making it clear she will not be the one held solely responsible — outsourcing the blame to Brexit, austerity and global chaos. Whether the public accepts that framing — and whether her fiscal package delivers growth alongside the pain — remains the key question.

Read more:
Reeves shifts blame for looming tax rise to Brexit and austerity ahead of budgeting storm

Viral jacket potato brand SpudBros has come under fire after being accused of “bullying” a small business owner over a name dispute.

The Preston-based duo, Jacob and Harley Nelson, who became social media sensations for serving up gourmet potatoes from a tram and have since expanded to London and Liverpool, were accused of threatening legal action against a Portsmouth trader, Rumen Islam, owner of The Spud Father.

Islam, 27, opened his stand last month, offering his own take on the viral potato trend. But he says he has since been contacted by SpudBros’ legal team, who claim the name infringes their trademark.

“After months of graft — long days, late nights — we’ve now been threatened with legal action from SpudBros over the use of our name,” Islam wrote on social media. “We’ve poured our heart and soul into this. It’s gutting to think we might lose it because a bigger company wants to throw their weight around.”

The Portsmouth business owner told followers he will be changing the name after the dispute took a mental and emotional toll. “It’s been really hard,” he said in a TikTok video viewed thousands of times. “We’re a really small business — I’m born and bred in Pompey — and this was for the locals. It’s disheartening.”

Supporters online have flooded to defend Islam, accusing SpudBros of “corporate bullying” and calling for the brothers to drop the matter.

Comments on SpudBros’ recent TikTok posts include: “Stop bullying The Spud Father — there’s enough business for everyone.”
“Bit strange to go after a shop 260 miles away. Justice for Spud Father!”

The backlash led SpudBros to issue a public statement on Instagram, insisting they were not suing anyone.

“There are rumours we’ve sued a small business called The Spud Father. We are not suing anyone. Not now. Not ever,” wrote Jacob Nelson.

He said the company trademarked The Spudfather after launching a dish of the same name — in tribute to their father — which became their best-seller.

“As we grew, we developed merch, expanded franchises and had discussions with major retailers,” he said. “We trademarked the name in June, and it was approved before any other business applied for it. Our legal team simply responded to a notification from the Intellectual Property Office — it’s not a lawsuit.”

Nelson added that his family had received threats online since the story went viral, including towards his young daughter, and urged followers to stop the “hate”.

“We’d never want anyone to feel attacked. That’s not who we are,” he said. “We love small businesses — we were one. There’s room for everyone to succeed.”

Intellectual property lawyer Stephanie Davies, senior associate at Withers & Rogers, said the dispute highlights a common pitfall for startups.

“It’s often wrongly assumed that only big companies need to trademark their names,” Davies said. “Small businesses can build a following quickly, and if they don’t secure a registration early, they risk infringing on someone else’s rights — or losing their own brand identity.”

With a valid registration in place, she added, SpudBros may have a strong legal position, and The Spud Father could be forced to rebrand.

“Trademark searches should always be done before launch,” Davies said. “It’s far less painful than a rebrand once the business is up and running.”

The dispute marks the latest clash in the fast-growing world of viral potato vendors.

The Nelson brothers’ success has paralleled that of Ben Newman, better known as Spud Man, whose Tamworth-based jacket potato stall has 4.2 million TikTok followers and even drew the attention of Hollywood stars Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman.

New rivals, including Spud Hut, Spud Life, and Spud Factory, have since popped up nationwide, each hoping to carve out a slice of the viral food trend.

For now, The Spud Father says it will continue trading — but under a new name.

Read more:
SpudBros blasted for ‘bullying’ small UK business in name dispute

Steven Bartlett, the entrepreneur and Diary of a CEO host, has revealed his business empire has been valued at $425 million (£320 million) following a major eight-figure investment — a deal that cements his position as one of the richest entrepreneurs ever to appear on Dragons’ Den.

The 33-year-old investor, who joined the BBC show in 2022, announced the new valuation through a press statement this week. The deal sees venture capital firms Slow Ventures and Apeiron Investment acquire a minority stake in his umbrella company Steven.com, which now houses Bartlett’s rapidly expanding portfolio, including Flight Story, Flight Cast, Flight Fund, and online shopping platform Stan Store.

Bartlett said the capital injection will help him “build the Disney of the creator economy”, positioning his ventures at the centre of the multi-billion-dollar influencer and creator marketplace.

“For the last century, companies like Disney demonstrated the power of intellectual property,” Bartlett said. “In today’s world, creators are the new franchises — and with my team, we’re building the modern version of that model.”

Despite the investment, Bartlett said he still retains more than 90% ownership of Steven.com.

The valuation marks another major milestone for Bartlett, who has evolved from startup founder to multimedia mogul. His media and technology portfolio now spans content production, venture investment, and e-commerce infrastructure for digital creators.

Steven.com integrates all of his ventures, including:
• Flight Story – a marketing and communications agency powering The Diary of a CEO and Davina McCall’s Begin Again podcast.
• Flight Cast – a creative production division.
• Flight Fund – Bartlett’s venture capital arm investing in tech and consumer brands.
• Stan Store – an e-commerce platform competing with Shopify and Linktree.

Bartlett claims the investment is the largest ever made in a European company specialising in social media creators.

Born in Botswana to a Nigerian mother and English father, Bartlett grew up in Plymouth and dropped out of university at 18 before launching his first business.

He co-founded Social Chain in 2014 with Dominic McGregor, building it into one of Europe’s fastest-growing social media agencies. However, the company attracted criticism for plagiarising social media content and overstating valuations.

In his biography, Bartlett claimed to have taken Social Chain public at a valuation of $600 million, though the firm’s 2019 merger with German retailer Lumaland placed its true value closer to $186 million. The company later reached $620 million after Bartlett’s exit and was eventually sold for just £7.7 million.

Bartlett left Social Chain in 2020, later establishing Flight Story and the Diary of a CEO podcast — both now key drivers of his wealth and influence.

While Bartlett’s business success has been widely celebrated, his ventures have not been without controversy.

A BBC investigation in late 2024 found that his Diary of a CEO podcast had featured guests promoting unverified health claims, including that a keto diet could treat cancer and COVID-19 was “biologically engineered”, without challenge from Bartlett. Critics accused him of giving a platform to harmful misinformation.

In 2022, Bartlett also faced backlash for investing in Ear Seeds — a product pitched on Dragons’ Den that claimed to help cure ME/chronic fatigue syndrome. Following complaints, the BBC added a disclaimer clarifying that the treatment was not medically verified.

He was later admonished by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in 2024 for failing to disclose his financial interests while promoting Huel and Zoe on social media.

Despite the controversies, Bartlett’s influence continues to grow. His Diary of a CEO podcast — featuring guests including Richard Branson, Simon Cowell, and Boris Johnson — won Best International Podcast at the iHeart Radio Podcast Awards earlier this year.

With his latest valuation, Bartlett joins the upper echelon of UK entrepreneurs under 35. Industry observers say his empire demonstrates both the economic power and volatility of the creator economy, where brand, authenticity, and influence are the new assets of value.

“Steven Bartlett is the embodiment of the modern business model,” said Dr. Harriet Mason, professor of media entrepreneurship at the University of Leeds. “He’s part content creator, part venture capitalist — a hybrid we’ll see far more of in the next decade.”

For Bartlett, however, the focus remains clear: scaling Steven.com into a global creative media ecosystem.

“Creators are the studios of the future,” he said. “Our goal is to empower them — and build something enduring around their stories.”

Read more:
Steven Bartlett’s fortune soars as new $425m valuation cements his status among richest Dragons

Former Chancellor George Osborne has warned that Reform UK “cannot be trusted to run the economy”, accusing Nigel Farage’s party of lacking fiscal credibility at a time when economic stewardship is likely to define the next general election.

Speaking amid growing scrutiny of Reform’s costed plans, Mr Osborne dismissed the party as economically unreliable, pointing to its proposals to lift the two-child benefit cap and nationalise water companies — policies that have already been branded “socialist” by Conservative critics.

“I don’t think people are going to pick Reform to fix the economy,” he said. “I would just be: economy, economy, economy, economy, economy as much as you possibly can.”

His intervention comes as the Conservatives, led by Kemi Badenoch, fall further behind in the polls. A recent MRP survey from Electoral Calculus puts Reform at 36 per cent, with the Tories trailing on just 15 per cent — leaving the Conservatives projected to win only 24 seats, behind the SNP.

Reform UK recently dropped its pledge for £90bn of tax cuts amid increasing concern over the party’s fiscal realism. Nonetheless, Mr Osborne questioned whether Mr Farage has the resolve to make “tough decisions on the economy”, noting that electoral success hinges on managing growth, spending and taxation with credibility.

The former Chancellor, who presided over austerity measures during the Cameron-led coalition government, argued that the Conservatives’ best hope of clawing back support lies in reasserting their reputation for economic discipline.

“Fundamentally, people vote for the Conservatives when they want the grown-ups to be in charge of the economy,” he said. “That is the history of Conservative oppositions – they have succeeded when they have won over the confidence of the country on the economy.”

He added that Labour remains vulnerable on economic competence, citing Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s struggle to boost growth while maintaining fiscal discipline. In particular, he claimed Labour “lost some of its reputation with business” following last year’s £25bn National Insurance increase.

Osborne made the comments during an interview with The Telegraph at Coinbase’s London Crypto Forum, where he also called on the Conservatives to seize ground in the digital finance sector to neutralise Reform’s appeal.

Mr Farage has positioned himself as a crypto champion, pledging to establish a UK-backed Bitcoin reserve — a policy echoing moves in the US where Donald Trump has positioned America as a prospective “Bitcoin superpower”.

But Mr Osborne argued that the Conservatives should take the lead in positioning the UK as a pro-innovation financial hub. “We don’t have to worry too much about what Reform is saying, but just say some good things ourselves,” he noted.

Despite recent volatility — with crypto markets losing around $400bn after Mr Trump threatened China with 100 per cent tariffs — Osborne called on the UK to accelerate regulatory clarity, warning that Britain risks falling behind as the US, EU and UAE race ahead in fintech policy.

“One of Britain’s biggest strengths is financial services,” he said. “You don’t want major financial services activity to be happening in other jurisdictions because we are not allowing it here.”

With the Budget looming in November, Osborne also urged Ms Reeves to curb public spending rather than rely on tax rises alone to manage a £30bn shortfall in the public finances, claiming an over-reliance on revenue-raising measures would be “very damaging for the economic performance of the country”.

Despite internal Conservative divisions and a bruising electoral outlook, Osborne insists the Tories retain a pathway back to economic credibility if they focus relentlessly on fiscal responsibility, investment, productivity and pro-business growth strategies.

“We are the fiscally responsible, pro-business people – and we are prepared to take difficult decisions on public expenditure,” he said.

A spokesperson for Reform responded: “At the next election, we will present a rigorous and fully costed manifesto. Reform will never borrow to spend, as Labour and the Tories have done for so long; instead we will ensure savings are made before implementing tax cuts.”

Read more:
Osborne warns Reform UK ‘not fiscally fit to run the economy’