The Government’s headline-grabbing summer VAT giveaway has been dismissed as politically convenient window-dressing by the head of the UK’s night-time economy trade body, who argues that the country’s clubs, festivals and live music venues have once again been left to fend for themselves.

Michael Kill, chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA), launched a withering critique of the Great British Summer Savings scheme unveiled by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, which slashes VAT from 20 per cent to 5 per cent on a narrow band of family attractions, including theme parks, zoos, museums, children’s cinema tickets and kids’ meals, between 25 June and 1 September. The cut, ministers say, is designed to help households afford summer days out and bolster the hospitality sector through its peak trading window.

For an industry that has watched roughly a third of the country’s nightclubs disappear since 2017, however, the measure looks less like a lifeline and more like a snub. The full details of the chancellor’s family-focused VAT package made no mention of the late-night venues, festivals or grassroots music spaces that have been pleading for sector-wide tax relief for the better part of a decade.

“The Government’s latest VAT announcement is not just a missed opportunity, it is a glaring example of short-term thinking and a fundamental misunderstanding of the UK’s leisure and cultural economy,” Kill said. “While positioning this as support for families, the policy completely overlooks and effectively sidelines the night-time economy, including festivals, clubs, live music venues and late-night cultural spaces that have been fighting to survive under relentless financial pressure.”

A backbone, not a footnote

Kill’s frustration is rooted in hard numbers. NTIA data shows the UK lost roughly 1,940 licensed clubs between 2015 and 2025, a 26 per cent decline, while 26 per cent of British towns that previously had at least one nightclub now have none at all. Industry research published earlier this year warned that, without urgent intervention, Britain risks losing 10,000 late-night venues and 150,000 jobs by 2028.

The festival circuit is faring little better. More than 40 UK festivals were scrapped in 2024, with a similar tally lost in 2025 and a fresh wave of 2026 cancellations, including Red Rooster, Stone Valley South and WestworldFest, already announced as operators buckle under soaring production costs, post-pandemic debt and softer ticket sales.

“These businesses are not peripheral, they are the backbone of the UK’s global cultural reputation and a critical driver of jobs, tourism and economic activity,” Kill argued. “For years, we have consistently lobbied for a fair and meaningful reduction in VAT across hospitality, live events and cultural experiences. Instead, what we have been given is a narrow, temporary measure that cherry-picks certain activities while leaving the rest of the sector to absorb rising costs, punitive tax burdens and ongoing instability.”

The trade body has repeatedly pressed Treasury ministers for a permanent VAT cut from 20 to 10 per cent across hospitality and the cultural sector, a campaign that has gathered momentum after a string of nightclub closures prompted renewed calls for action.

Squeezed at every turn

Operators say the picture on the ground is bleak. April’s business rates reforms removed the 40 per cent Hospitality, Leisure and Night-Time Relief, pushing the typical rates bill for a £100,000 rateable-value venue from £28,800 to roughly £43,000. Combined with higher employer National Insurance contributions, a steeper National Living Wage and double-digit increases in utilities, the cumulative cost burden has tipped many otherwise viable businesses into the red.

A recent New Statesman investigation into the policies killing Britain’s nightlife painted a similarly grim picture, charting how successive Westminster decisions, from licensing reform to tax tinkering, have hollowed out the cultural infrastructure of British towns and cities.

“Festivals are being squeezed to breaking point. Grassroots venues are closing at an alarming rate. Clubs and late-night operators are facing unsustainable operating conditions,” Kill said. “And yet, once again, they have been completely sideswiped by policy that claims to support leisure and participation.”

A test of credibility

The political calculation behind the Great British Summer Savings scheme is straightforward. A targeted, family-friendly cut delivers a punchy headline, plays well with voters facing another stretched school holiday and concentrates the Treasury’s fiscal firepower on a tightly bounded window. The trouble, as Kill sees it, is that such tactical interventions cannot substitute for a coherent strategy.

“This is not just short-sighted, it is economically reckless,” he warned. “You cannot claim to support the visitor economy, regional growth and cultural output while actively ignoring the sectors that deliver it at scale. If the Government is serious about growth, it must stop delivering piecemeal, headline-driven interventions and start engaging with the full reality of the industries it relies on. That means meaningful VAT reform, long-term policy stability and a commitment to supporting the entire ecosystem, not just the parts that are politically convenient.”

Until then, Kill concluded, the summer VAT cut “will be seen for what it is: a superficial fix that fails the very industries it should be backing.”

For SME operators across hospitality and the cultural economy, the message from Whitehall is becoming uncomfortably familiar. The headline is generous; the small print is not.

Read more:
Nightlife chief brands Chancellor’s summer VAT cut a ‘superficial fix’ that abandons clubs and festivals

The traditional gear stick, that small, mechanical talisman of British motoring, is being quietly stripped out of new car ranges, and according to fresh forecasts it will be all but extinct by the end of the decade. The diesel engine, long the workhorse of the company car park, is heading for the same exit door.

Analysts at Vehicle Data Global (VDG) say the manual gearbox will disappear from mainstream UK showrooms inside the next three years, well ahead of the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles. Their argument is not sentimental; it is, as the report puts it bluntly, “hard economics”. Electric cars almost universally use single-speed automatic transmissions, and as the EV share climbs, manufacturers are increasingly reluctant to carry the research, development, certification and tooling overheads needed to keep manual variants on the price list for a shrinking pool of buyers.

For the UK’s small and medium-sized businesses, many of which still run mixed fleets of combustion and electrified vehicles, the implications are more than nostalgic. The transmission and fuel choices on offer over the next 36 months will reshape how SMEs specify company cars, train drivers, calculate residual values and plan capital expenditure on vans and pool vehicles.

The numbers behind the obituary

A market-wide review earlier this year found that just 23 per cent of new cars on UK forecourts now have a gear stick, down from roughly two-thirds a decade ago. Where buyers still have a genuine choice between manual and automatic on a petrol or diesel model, only 34 per cent opted for the manual in 2025, a sharp fall from 55 per cent as recently as 2019.

Diesel’s slide has been even more dramatic. Fewer than one in 20 new cars registered in 2026 (4.8 per cent) is a diesel, down from one in two just over a decade ago, according to the latest SMMT registration data. The reputational fallout from the 2015 emissions scandal, tightening clean-air zones and the rise of plug-in hybrids and pure EVs have all combined to push diesel out of the mainstream — a shift Business Matters has tracked in detail in its coverage of how British drivers are sending a “clear signal” in support of electric cars as petrol and diesel sales nosedive.

Ben Hermer, operations director at VDG, summed up the manufacturers’ calculus. “The moment is fast approaching when the economics of maintaining a manual transmission option don’t add up, given the R&D, certification and other overheads involved in developing and refining gearboxes, even if there remains some demand in the market,” he said. “Based on current trend data, between 5 and 10 per cent of cars will theoretically still be manual by 2030. But manufacturers will be looking hard at whether maintaining manual gearbox programmes for a shrinking share of the market makes economic sense.”

Analysis by CarGurus shows the squeeze in real time: just 67 of the 292 new models sold by the UK’s top 30 manufacturers are currently offered with a manual option, down from 197 models in 2016.

What it means for SME fleets and company car schemes

For finance directors and operations managers running small fleets, three practical consequences stand out.

First, residual values for manual diesels are likely to soften faster than the wider market as supply of replacement parts thins and used-buyer appetite narrows. Owner-managers approaching a vehicle refresh in 2027 or 2028 should not assume that today’s resale benchmarks will hold.

Second, driver training and recruitment policies will need a refresh. Auto-only licence holders cannot legally drive a manual car, and as Business Matters has previously reported in its business owner’s guide to volatile fleet costs in 2026, grey-fleet and pool-car policies are already a hidden compliance risk for many SMEs. With automatic-only learners now the fastest-growing segment of new drivers, employers will need to widen their definition of an “eligible driver”, or accept a shrinking talent pool.

Third, capital allowances, benefit-in-kind treatment and total-cost-of-ownership models will tilt sharply in favour of electrified vehicles. The 2030 ban is no longer a distant policy threat; it is a 36-month operational deadline that intersects directly with vehicle replacement cycles. SMEs that delay their transition planning risk being forced into a depleted second-hand market for manuals and diesels just as supply dries up.

Learners are already voting with their feet

The driving school sector is a leading indicator. Figures from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, set out in the DVSA Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25, show that of the 1,839,753 practical driving tests taken in 2024/25, some 479,556, 26.1 per cent, were in automatics. That is up from 23.4 per cent the previous year, 19.2 per cent in 2022/23 and a mere 6.9 per cent a decade earlier.

In other words, automatic tests have moved from fewer than one in 14 examinations ten years ago to more than one in four today, and trade body projections suggest the figure could touch a third by 2027.

Despite the popular belief that they are easier, pass rates in automatics remain stubbornly lower than for manuals: 43.9 per cent versus a 48.7 per cent overall average in the last fiscal year. The catch, of course, is that an auto-only licence is a one-way door. Holders are legally barred from manual cars, which can sting when hiring abroad in markets where stick-shift rentals still dominate and automatic surcharges remain steep.

The models still flying the flag

For motorists, and fleet buyers, who still want a third pedal, the choice is narrowing but not yet bare. Dacia leads the field, offering manual transmissions across its entire six-strong combustion range (only the Spring EV is auto-only). Ford, Hyundai, Kia, Skoda and Volkswagen all still field five or six manual options, while Porsche keeps a manual 911 in the catalogue as a halo product. Jaguar, Honda, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, Mini, Tesla, Land Rover and Volvo no longer offer a single manual variant in the UK.

Even Seat has thinned its line-up, with Ateca production ending in the past month. The direction of travel is unambiguous.

For SME owners weighing their next purchase, the message from VDG, the SMMT data and the DVSA’s own statistics is consistent: the era of the manual diesel, the so-called “motorway mile-muncher” beloved of sales reps under New Labour’s generous tax regime, is closing fast. The businesses that plan now for an auto-only, increasingly electrified fleet will be the ones least exposed when the showroom shutters finally come down on the gear stick.

Read more:
Manual gearboxes set to vanish by 2030 and diesel is tailgating its demise

Britain’s vending, coffee services and automated retail industry has quietly become one of the most resilient and technologically progressive corners of the UK economy, generating £3.78 billion in total revenue in 2025, according to the latest Census & Market Report from the Automatic Vending Association (AVA).

The figure represents year-on-year growth of 3.3% and leaves the sector trading 5% above its pre-pandemic 2019 baseline. Crucially, it has now comfortably outstripped the wider economy: the Office for National Statistics put annual UK GDP growth at just 1.4% for 2025. To put the scale of the sector into context, the UK’s machine-served food, drinks and snacks industry is now larger than the country’s entire biomass and hydroelectric generation industries combined.

For SME operators, who make up the backbone of the trade, the headline figures are even more encouraging. Traditional Vending and Office Coffee Service (OCS) revenues together reached £3.13 billion, with product revenues climbing 6.8% year-on-year to £2.28 billion — nearly 10% above pre-Covid levels. Average operator revenues rose by 7% on the year, and 90% are forecasting further growth in 2026.

Category by category, the numbers tell their own story

Cold beverage revenues were up 15.4%, food rose 12.2%, snacks gained 5.7% and hot drinks added 4.1%. After a decade in which vending was repeatedly written off as a “tired” channel, almost every consumable category is now in positive territory.

Smart fridges: the breakout format

The standout story of the year is the standalone smart fridge, which grew by roughly 50% in twelve months to reach 2,850 units in the field. These cashless-by-design units open with a tap of a bank card or mobile app, then automatically charge customers for whatever they pick up, using a combination of RFID tags, weight sensors and onboard cameras.

Their rapid roll-out reflects a structural change in the British workplace. With staffed canteens increasingly uneconomic in offices where attendance fluctuates wildly through the week, operators are filling the gap with technology that runs 24/7 and requires no till. The format is benefitting directly from the rise of hybrid work models, which has fundamentally reshaped what corporate occupiers expect from their food and beverage provision.

Micro-markets — open-plan, self-checkout convenience stores typically installed in larger offices, are following a similar trajectory, with installations up 8% to 785 sites.

Cashless: 95% coverage and twice the spend

Perhaps the most striking commercial story sits inside the payment terminal. Cashless technology is now fitted to 95% of all pay-vend machines in the UK, up five percentage points on 2024, and around 30% of the estate now accepts no cash at all.

Of all transactions on cashless-enabled machines, 84% are now cashless, with 62% completed by mobile phone, up from a barely-there 8% in 2017. Chip-and-PIN, by contrast, has collapsed from 47% of cashless transactions in 2017 to just 3% today. The trajectory mirrors a wider consumer shift, with Britain having decisively opted to pay with phones as the value of banknotes in circulation slips.

The commercial case is, frankly, no longer arguable. Cashless customers spend on average 100% more per transaction than those paying with coins — a multiplier that has itself doubled since 2018. With regulators now consulting on whether contactless card limits could go unlimited, the gap between coin and card looks set to widen further still.

Premiumisation and the rise of the £2.89 cup

The Coffee-to-Go segment turned over £645 million from a base of 33,200 machines, an 8% increase in fleet size. Pricing tells the premiumisation story: the average Coffee-to-Go cup sells at £2.89, against just £0.56 for a traditional vended hot drink, a 5.2x premium that operators are increasingly able to justify by trading up the quality of the serve.

Bean-to-cup machines continue to take share within traditional vending, and over 40% of new tabletop machines now ship with fresh liquid milk modules to deliver barista-style drinks at the press of a button. On the responsibility side, the AVA reports that 80% of cold drinks now meet low-sugar health standards, while single-use plastic cups have all but disappeared from the channel.

A cloud over a sunny report

David Llewellyn, chief executive of the AVA, said the 2025 Census confirmed an industry that “has not simply recovered from Covid, it’s transformed in the process.” He added: “This industry has always been underestimated, and while the rest of retail has been struggling with customer demands, vending and automated retail has been quietly growing by investing in technology that actually aids customer experience, raising its game on quality, and finding new opportunities to shine.”

Llewellyn was less complimentary about Westminster. The government’s proposed ban on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to under-16s, he warned, risks “potentially catastrophic” damage to operators’ top lines. “All AVA members currently adhere to voluntary guidelines not to sell these drinks in publicly accessible machines, meaning no young people are able to access high caffeine options,” he said. “We urge the government to reconsider this action and continue supporting this positive growth industry in the UK.”

For an SME-dominated sector quietly outperforming the wider retail landscape and the UK economy as a whole, the message to policymakers is clear: legislate twice, measure once.

Read more:
UK vending and automated retail sector hits £3.78bn as smart fridges and cashless tech outpace the wider economy

Facebook’s parent company has begun notifying staff worldwide that they are out of a job, with engineers and product teams bearing the brunt of a 10 per cent cull designed to bankroll a $145bn artificial intelligence spending spree.

Meta Platforms started handing out redundancy notices on Wednesday morning, kicking off one of the most aggressive restructurings in Silicon Valley this year. As many as 8,000 roles, roughly a tenth of the company’s global headcount, are expected to disappear as Mark Zuckerberg shifts the business onto a leaner, AI-first footing.

The cuts are heavily concentrated in the company’s engineering and product divisions, according to a Bloomberg report, with around 350 jobs in Dublin, Meta’s European headquarters, set to go. The Irish capital has long been a critical hub for the owner of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, hosting thousands of staff serving customers across the EMEA region.

Even before the redundancy letters landed, the wheels of internal change were already in motion. On Monday, some 7,000 employees were told they had been redeployed to newly formed teams charged with developing AI products, agents and assistants that will be threaded through Meta’s family of apps.

“We’re now at the stage where many orgs can operate with a flatter structure with smaller teams of pods/cohorts that can move faster and with more ownership,” Janelle Gale, Meta’s chief people officer, wrote in an internal memo seen by staff this week.

A $145bn bet on ‘personal superintelligence’

The job losses come as Meta pours unprecedented sums into the data centres, chips and engineering talent it believes will define the next decade of computing. At its most recent quarterly results, the company told investors it would spend up to $145bn on capital expenditure this year, more than double the $72bn it shelled out in 2025.

Where rivals such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon are funnelling much of that AI capability into cloud services they can sell to corporate customers, Mr Zuckerberg is taking a different path. The Meta co-founder is pursuing what he calls “personal superintelligence” — a hyper-personalised AI assistant designed to live inside Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and the company’s growing range of smart glasses and headsets.

Meta’s Muse Spark model, released in April, is the first significant product to emerge from its Superintelligence Labs unit, which was set up last June and stocked with high-profile hires poached from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind.

That spending has unnerved investors and weighed on the share price. Meta’s stock is down 8.4 per cent so far this year, even as the wider Nasdaq has put on 12.5 per cent, a divergence that, as Business Matters reported after the first-quarter results, reflects mounting unease over the lack of a direct revenue line attached to Meta’s AI bill. When pressed on the return on investment of the spending, Mr Zuckerberg told analysts on the Q1 earnings call that it was “a very technical question”, a line that did little to soothe nerves on Wall Street.

A wider AI-driven shake-out in tech

Meta is far from alone in trying to wring efficiencies out of its workforce while throwing money at AI. Intuit, the American owner of QuickBooks and TurboTax, is preparing to lay off around 17 per cent of its workforce, or roughly 3,000 staff. Amazon, Microsoft, Cloudflare and Jack Dorsey’s payments group Block have all announced major redundancy rounds this year, with Amazon’s own 16,000-job cull framed by chief executive Andy Jassy as a way to “remove bureaucracy”.

According to Layoffs.fyi, which tracks redundancies in the tech sector, more than 140 companies have laid off in excess of 111,000 employees so far this year, already closing in on the 124,636 cuts recorded across the whole of 2025.

For UK small and medium-sized businesses, the message from the world’s most valuable technology companies is unmistakable. Capital that once funded sprawling product teams is now being redirected into infrastructure, models and a much smaller pool of senior engineers. As consultancy giants such as McKinsey trim their own ranks on the same logic, British SME owners weighing their own AI strategies face an uncomfortable question: are they investing fast enough to keep up, or being lured into a costly arms race they cannot win?

Meta and Intuit were contacted for comment.

Read more:
Meta to axe 8,000 jobs as Zuckerberg doubles down on AI race

The chief executive of US fintech Bolt has mounted a robust defence of his decision to sack the company’s entire human resources department, telling a Fortune audience that the team “created problems that didn’t exist” and that those issues “disappeared” the moment he showed them the door.

Ryan Breslow, the 32-year-old co-founder who returned to the helm last year after a three-year absence, insisted the move was central to his attempt to drag the one-time darling of Silicon Valley back into “start-up mode”. The online checkout software business shed roughly 30 per cent of its workforce in April, its fourth round of redundancies in as many years.

“We had an HR team, and that HR team was creating problems that didn’t exist,” Breslow told delegates. “Those problems disappeared when I let them go.”

He argued that traditional HR professionals were better suited to the “peacetime” rhythms of larger, more mature businesses than to the bare-knuckle conditions of a turnaround. In their place, Bolt has installed a leaner “people operations” function, charged with employee training and day-to-day support rather than policy-making.

“We need a group of people who are very oriented around getting things done,” Breslow said. “There is just a culture of not getting things done and complaining a lot.”

The remarks land at a delicate moment for the company. Bolt’s valuation has plunged from $11 billion at the peak of the 2022 fintech boom to just $300 million, according to The Information, a humbling reset for a business once held up as the future of one-click commerce.

Breslow, who stepped away from the chief executive’s office in 2022 before returning in 2025, has made little secret of his view that the workforce he inherited had grown soft on venture capital largesse.

“There’s a sense of entitlement that had festered across the company,” he said. “People who felt empowered, felt entitled — but weren’t actually working hard. And this is the number one thing that I had to battle. Ultimately, most of those people just had to be let go.”

Bolt has confirmed that fewer than 40 staff were affected by the latest cull, which it said was driven in part by the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence. In a company-wide Slack message in April, Breslow reportedly told employees: “Developing products and operating in 2026 is very different than it was in prior years, and we need to adapt as an organisation to be leaner and more AI-centric than ever to keep up with competition.”

The comments echo a broader trend across the technology sector, with employers from Meta to Microsoft using AI investment as cover for sweeping headcount reductions. Recent CIPD research suggests one in six UK employers now expect AI to eliminate jobs within the next 12 months, with white-collar roles bearing the brunt.

For founders of smaller British businesses watching from afar, the Breslow doctrine will provoke equal measures of admiration and unease. Few would deny that bloated middle layers can hobble a growth-stage company, and the temptation to strip back in tougher times is real. But UK employment law offers far less latitude than the at-will culture of the United States, and dispensing with HR expertise carries reputational as well as legal risks.

Employment lawyers have long warned that getting redundancy wrong can prove ruinously expensive, particularly for SMEs without the budgets to absorb tribunal claims. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) continues to urge employers to follow a structured, transparent process, including meaningful consultation and fair selection criteria — protections that, in practice, are typically marshalled and monitored by an HR function.

Breslow’s broader argument, that growth-stage businesses must run leaner and faster in an AI-driven economy, is one that increasingly few in the City would dispute. The challenge for British founders is to translate that ambition into a culture that delivers results without falling foul of either employment law or staff morale. As the wave of AI-related layoffs sweeping global tech has shown, the line between bold restructuring and reckless cost-cutting is easily crossed.

Whether Bolt’s stripped-back, founder-led model can return the business to its former $11 billion valuation — or simply hasten its slide — will be one of the defining fintech stories of the year. As reported by Fortune, Breslow has slimmed the headcount from a peak of around 800 to roughly 100. For a man who once championed the worker-friendly four-day week, it is a striking volte-face — and one his remaining staff, and his investors, will be watching closely.

Read more:
Bolt boss defends sacking entire HR team, claiming staff ‘invented problems that didn’t exist’

Cheap chatbots are helping residents fire off forensic objections in minutes, piling pressure on already-stretched council planners and threatening the government’s flagship housebuilding pledge.

A new generation of artificial intelligence tools is being weaponised by opponents of housing and commercial schemes, producing torrents of detailed, policy-laced objections that are clogging town halls and slowing decisions across England.

The warning comes from Geoff Keal, chief executive of TerraQuest, the company that runs the national planning portal under a joint venture with central government. The portal handles roughly 95 per cent of all planning applications in the UK, giving Keal a near-unique vantage point on what is actually happening on the ground.

“They’re using AI to be able to provide better objection documents, much wider and much broader, which is slowing the system down, because obviously those things need to be dealt with in the right way,” Keal told Business Matters. “It’s certainly what we’re seeing local authorities suffer from.”

His comments will land awkwardly in Whitehall, where ministers have made unsticking the planning system central to their economic growth strategy and the pledge to deliver 1.5 million new homes during the current parliament, a target already under strain from a deepening construction skills shortage and rising build costs.

The £45 objection

Until recently, mounting a credible objection to a retail park, brownfield redevelopment or housing scheme typically meant hiring a planning consultant, often at a cost running into thousands of pounds. AI has collapsed that barrier almost overnight.

Objector.ai, one of a small but fast-growing crop of consumer-facing services, promises “strong, policy-backed objections in minutes” for £45 per full planning application, with a £249 crowdfunded option for residents who want to pool against bigger housing schemes. A rival, planningobjection.com, markets its “Planning AI” as a way to produce “persuasive, policy-centred objection letters … in just a few clicks, for a fraction of the cost of a planning consultant”.

Beyond the dedicated platforms, there is mounting anecdotal evidence of individual residents using general-purpose tools such as ChatGPT to submit hundreds of bespoke objections to a single application, each one tailored just enough to escape being dismissed as a duplicate.

For councils already buckling under workload, that creates a real-world problem. Officers cannot simply ignore submissions that cite the National Planning Policy Framework, local plans and case law, even when they suspect a chatbot has done much of the heavy lifting. Every objection has to be logged, weighed and, where material, addressed in committee.

The result is a system increasingly tilted against speed. According to the Home Builders Federation, the number of housebuilding sites granted planning permission in England last year fell to the lowest level since records began more than two decades ago, with average determination times stretching beyond 40 weeks against a statutory target of 13.

Defenders of digital democracy

Proponents of the technology argue this is, in fact, planning democracy working as it should. For years, well-resourced developers have been able to mount sophisticated arguments while ordinary residents have struggled to be heard in the language of policy that planning committees actually respond to.

Hannah George, co-founder of Objector, said the company was set up to help residents produce “high-quality, evidence-based objections … while reducing the number of invalid, repetitive or purely emotional submissions”. The platform, she added, advises against using generic AI tools to mass-produce letters and triages every application free of charge to decide whether there are valid grounds to object in the first place.

That argument is unlikely to satisfy housebuilders, who privately complain that even nominally well-drafted objections can be used to delay schemes long enough to wreck their economics, particularly for the small and medium-sized developers ministers say they want to back. Yet it does highlight the policy bind: the same tools that empower a parish to push back against an unloved retail shed also empower a handful of determined individuals to grind a 200-home scheme to a halt.

It is also worth remembering that pressure on the system pre-dates the chatbots. Labour has already pledged to face down what the Chancellor has called a culture of obstruction, with Rachel Reeves vowing to ease building rules and challenge ‘nimbys’ as part of the broader planning overhaul led by Angela Rayner. AI is now landing on top of a system that was already creaking.

The case for AI on the other side of the desk

If chatbots are creating the problem, they may also be part of the answer. Keal argues that AI can “speed up decision-making” in some areas, particularly the routine evaluation of submissions, although he cautions that large schemes involving parish councils, statutory consultees and wider community engagement remain stubbornly resistant to automation.

There are early signs of progress. Leeds City Council has piloted Xylo Core, an AI-enabled tool designed to help process planning applications, with officials reporting that planning officers saved an average of one day a week during the trial through “streamlining of administrative tasks” and faster access to planning data.

The wider regulatory mood is also shifting. The Planning Inspectorate, the agency that hears appeals against council refusals, has issued official guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in casework evidence, urging applicants and objectors alike to use the technology responsibly and to declare when tools such as ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot have played a significant role in drafting their submissions. Failure to do so, the Inspectorate warns, risks undermining the credibility of any case.

What it means for SME developers and British business

For SME housebuilders, commercial landlords and high-street operators planning to expand, the implications are uncomfortable but unavoidable. Schemes that might once have attracted a handful of handwritten letters can now generate dozens of forensic, policy-citing objections within days of a notice being posted, lengthening determination times and increasing holding costs.

Three practical conclusions are worth drawing. First, the era of low-friction local opposition is here to stay; planning strategies will need to assume sophisticated, AI-assisted objections as a baseline rather than a worst case. Second, early and genuine community engagement, the kind that takes place before an application lands, not after, is likely to become a more important commercial discipline, particularly for smaller developers without in-house PR teams. And third, applicants should expect councils and inspectors to start asking pointed questions about AI use on both sides of the planning fence.

Britain’s planning system has been creaking for years. The arrival of cheap, capable AI on the objector’s side of the desk does not change the underlying problem. It does, however, make the political and operational case for reform considerably more urgent, and the cost of getting it wrong considerably higher for the businesses that build, lease and trade from the buildings the country has yet to approve.

Read more:
AI-powered nimbyism is jamming Britain’s planning system putting 1.5 million new homes at risk

Britain’s small businesses, community energy co-operatives and rural entrepreneurs are being urged to step into the spotlight as the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) opens nominations for its inaugural Centenary Awards, with a flagship category dedicated to rooftop solar deployment.

The awards, marking 100 years of the countryside charity’s campaigning work, will culminate in a ceremony at the Houses of Parliament on 29 October 2026. Of the six categories on offer, the Best Rooftop Solar Solution award is likely to attract the keenest interest from the SME community, coming at a moment when government policy is decisively tilting in favour of putting panels on roofs rather than fields.

That shift in mood music is no accident. Earlier this year, CPRE warned that nearly two-thirds of England’s largest solar farms have been built on productive agricultural land, with a third sited on the country’s most valuable fields — a finding that has only sharpened ministerial appetite for unlocking the estimated 250,000 hectares of suitable commercial and domestic roof space across the UK. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has since signalled a step-change in support for commercial rooftop solar, including business rates relief running through to 2035 and streamlined planning for installations above 1MW.

For the small and medium-sized firms that have long viewed solar as the preserve of the deep-pocketed, the timing could scarcely be better. Businesses generated record volumes of clean power last year, with wind and solar driving the UK’s renewable electricity record — and a growing slice of that came from SME-scale rooftop arrays rather than industrial-scale developments.

CPRE has set a deliberately ambitious bar. Successful nominations should demonstrate some, or ideally all, of four hallmarks: meaningful local community involvement in choosing and approving the site; sensitive design that minimises visual impact on the surrounding landscape; long-term economic benefit for the host community alongside maximised energy efficiency; and the use of innovative solutions or technology to overcome site-specific challenges.

The judging panel reflects that breadth of remit. Emma Fletcher, Innovation Director at Octopus Energy, brings the perspective of one of the country’s most disruptive clean-power players, a business currently investing billions in renewables on both sides of the Atlantic. She is joined by Richard Alvin, Editor at Capital Business Media’s renewable energy title Turning Electric, and a long-standing chronicler of the SME energy transition; Noël Lambert, a founding director of community-finance pioneer Big Solar Co-op; and Juliet Loiselle, Publisher at Warners Group Publications.

It is a line-up calibrated to spot the difference between solar projects that simply tick the carbon box and those genuinely embedded in the communities they serve, a distinction that increasingly separates winners from also-rans in the commercial clean energy market.

Crewenna Dymond, CPRE’s director of communities and participation, said the awards were designed to surface stories that too often go untold.

“As CPRE marks its centenary, these awards are a chance to celebrate the remarkable people and projects already making a difference to our countryside. From innovative housing solutions to community green spaces, there is so much inspiring work happening across England that deserves recognition,” she said.

“Whether you are an individual, a business or a community group, we want to hear your story. Nominations are open to all, and we encourage anyone who cares about the countryside to get involved.”

That open-door approach matters. Recent years have seen a wave of investment commitments aimed at smaller commercial sites — including Electron Green’s pledge to invest up to £1bn to kickstart a solar electricity revolution for UK businesses — yet many of the most ingenious SME-led schemes remain virtually unknown beyond their immediate locality. The Centenary Awards offer an unusually high-profile platform to change that.

Nominations close on 30 June 2026, with winners and highly commended entrants invited to the parliamentary ceremony in October. Self-nominations are accepted, and full criteria are published on CPRE’s National Centenary Awards page.

For SME owners whose rooftop schemes have quietly transformed their balance sheets, their carbon footprints and, crucially in CPRE’s eyes — their communities, this is a rare opportunity to claim a slice of national recognition.

Read more:
Rooftop solar pioneers sought as CPRE opens nominations for Centenary Award

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

For all the column inches lavished on hoodie-wearing teenage coders and so-called “Silver Starter” retirees launching second-act ventures from the kitchen table, the typical British entrepreneur looks remarkably like the one who turned up at Companies House a quarter of a century ago. They are 43 years old, mid-career, and, by the looks of it, completely unmoved by fashion.

That is the central finding of a sweeping new study by company formation agent 1st Formations, which has crunched more than 9.2 million UK director appointments stretching back to the year 2000. Across 26 years of dot-com booms, banking collapses, a Brexit referendum and a global pandemic, the average age at which Britons take the plunge into running their own company has scarcely shifted, hovering between 41 and 44 throughout.

A stubbornly steady number

The data tracks a gentle drift upwards in the early years of the millennium, with the mean founder age sitting at 42 across 2000 to 2009 before nudging to 44 between 2010 and 2019. From 2011 right through to 2023, it parked itself stubbornly at 44, before easing back to 43 in both 2024 and 2025 – the first material decline in more than a decade.

The pattern holds with eerie consistency against the backdrop of the past quarter-century’s defining moments. The dot-com boom of 2000 produced an average founder age of 41. By 2008, with Lehman Brothers collapsing and the financial system in freefall, that figure had crept to 43. The post-recession recovery and the Brexit referendum vote of 2016 both registered 44. The pandemic year of 2020 did the same. And the current AI and green-energy gold rush, far from minting a wave of twentysomething founders, has so far produced an average age of 43, almost identical to the figure recorded at the dawn of the millennium.

The numbers cover an extraordinary span of would-be company directors, from 16-year-olds, the legal floor set by the Companies Act 2006, to a 110-year-old who took on a directorship in 2012. The average age of the oldest founder in any given year is 91, suggesting the entrepreneurial itch is one that lasts the best part of seven decades.

Why mid-career still wins

The picture is at odds with much of the cultural mythology around start-ups, which tends to oscillate between dorm-room prodigies and silver-haired second-acters. Yet the figures align with a broader truth about the country’s business base: small and medium-sized enterprises make up 99.9% of the UK’s private sector and employ roughly 16.9 million people, according to the latest Department for Business and Trade business population estimates. The economy’s beating heart, in other words, is run by people who have already spent a couple of decades in someone else’s payroll.

Graeme Donnelly, founder and chief executive of 1st Formations, argues that the sheer volume of data strips the romance out of the debate. “When you are analysing over 9 million data points, the noise of ‘trends’ disappears and the reality emerges,” he says. “British business thrives on experience. Today, the average age to start a business matches that of the millennium’s start.

“While younger generations enter the business world and veterans continue to grow, the heavy lifting of the economy is done by the 43 Club. These are professionals who have spent decades honing their craft before taking the leap.”

It is a useful corrective. The classic mid-life founder profile, a manager with a hard-won contact book, a mortgage to defend and a working understanding of cash flow, has long been the unglamorous engine room of British enterprise, even as media attention drifts elsewhere.

The Gen Z asterisk

That said, the picture at the edges of the dataset is changing fast. A Glassdoor-Harris poll cited in the study suggests 57% of Gen Z workers now run some form of side hustle, fuelled by social platforms that allow a teenager in a bedroom to test a product on a global audience for the price of a ring light. Business Matters has previously reported on the growing army of UK side-hustlers turning hobbies into income streams, as well as the broader entrepreneurship boom among young Britons, two-thirds of whom now say they intend to work for themselves.

At the other end of the spectrum, the rise of the so-called Silver Starter, older founders launching their first venture after 50, continues apace, supported in part by a significant uptick in over-50s drawing on the British Business Bank’s Start Up Loans scheme.

The slight dip in average founder age to 43 in 2024 and 2025 may yet prove the start of something more meaningful. The current cohort is starting businesses against a backdrop of accessible AI tooling, lower fixed costs and a sharp pivot towards the green economy, all of which lower the barriers that traditionally kept first-time founders in mid-career rather than their twenties.

What it means for SME Britain

For lenders, advisers and policy-makers wondering where to point their attention, the message from the 1st Formations data is more nuanced than the headlines suggest. The growth at the margins – teen side-hustlers and seasoned career-changers, is real and worth nurturing. But the Federation of Small Businesses’ latest data on the UK’s 5.5 million-strong small business population underlines that the country’s economic resilience still rests on the experienced middle: people who have done their time, know their market, and decide, somewhere around their forty-third birthday, that they would rather build something of their own.

Through dot-com, downturn, Brexit and Covid, that has been the one constant. Britain, it turns out, prefers its founders battle-tested.

Read more:
The ’43 club’: why Britain’s typical entrepreneur has barely aged a day in 25 years

Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses have been put on notice. From 19 June 2026, exactly one month from today, every organisation that handles personal data will, by law, be required to operate a formal complaints process. Those that fail to prepare risk regulatory action, reputational damage and the slow drip of customer trust eroding away.

The new obligations flow from section 103 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, the most significant reshaping of the UK’s data protection landscape since the post-Brexit settlement. And in a clear signal that the Information Commissioner’s Office is anxious to avoid a repeat of the GDPR scramble of 2018, deputy commissioner Emily Keaney has used the four-week countdown to issue a direct appeal to the smaller end of the market.

“There is still plenty of time to act, and the ICO is here to support you,” Ms Keaney said. “We know that smaller organisations are less likely to have formal complaints processes in place, and that is exactly why we have designed this guidance with you in mind.”

What the new law actually requires

For SME owners and finance directors who have not yet digested the detail, the statutory obligations are mercifully short. Under the new regime, every organisation must give individuals a clear and accessible route to raise a data protection complaint, whether by email, online form, telephone or post. Receipt of a complaint must be acknowledged within 30 days. Businesses must then, “without undue delay”, take appropriate steps to investigate, keep the complainant informed of progress, and communicate the outcome.

Crucially, there are no carve-outs. The rules apply to the corner shop with a customer mailing list just as much as to the FTSE 250 financial services firm. Privacy notices will also need updating to make clear that customers have a right to complain directly to the organisation before escalating to the regulator.

Why this matters more than it might look

On paper, the changes appear modest, a tweak to administrative housekeeping rather than the seismic shock that GDPR delivered seven years ago. But seasoned compliance professionals warn that complacency would be a mistake.

For the first time, individuals will have a statutory right to complain directly to the organisation handling their data, and to expect a structured response within a defined timeframe. That changes the calculus on everything from subject access requests to the handling of data breaches. The ICO has indicated that sectors generating the highest volume of complaints, healthcare, financial services, technology and retail, should expect particular scrutiny.

There is also a commercial logic at work. Resolving a grievance quickly and fairly tends to prevent it from metastasising into something more serious, whether a formal regulatory referral or a customer departure. As any SME operator who has watched a one-star Trustpilot review go viral can attest, the cost of getting the response wrong can dwarf the cost of getting the process right. The wider context is one of rising data risk, with the ICO already pressing the technology sector to embed privacy by design into AI products, a sign of how high the regulatory bar is climbing.

The ICO’s olive branch

The regulator’s tone this time is markedly different from the rather schoolmasterly approach that characterised the early GDPR rollout. The guidance, published in February following a public consultation that drew more than 85 responses, is studded with practical examples and worked-through scenarios pitched squarely at smaller firms without dedicated compliance teams.

“A data protection complaint can come from any customer at any time,” Ms Keaney noted. “Having a clear process means you can respond quickly, resolve issues fairly and protect the trust your customers place in you. We are not here to catch businesses out, we are here to help you get ready.”

That conciliatory framing should not, however, be mistaken for indefinite patience. Once the 19 June commencement date passes, the ICO will have the power to take enforcement action against organisations that fail to operate a compliant process, and the line between supportive regulator and active enforcer can move quickly.

A four-week action list

For business owners still unsure where to begin, the practical steps are reasonably straightforward. Decide who inside the business will own the complaints process and ensure they have the authority to investigate and respond. Build a simple, visible route for customers to raise complaints — usually a dedicated email address or web form, signposted in the privacy notice. Document the workflow, including how the 30-day acknowledgement deadline will be met. Train any customer-facing staff on what to do if a complaint lands in their inbox.

Owners who already operate under data protection frameworks will recognise much of this from existing good practice. For a refresher on the broader compliance landscape, our complete guide to GDPR compliance in the UK sets out the foundations, while our explainer on the difference between data controllers and processors is worth bookmarking for any business that shares customer data with third parties.

The bottom line

For Britain’s 5.5 million SMEs, the message from regulators is clear: 19 June is not a target, it is a deadline. The four weeks ahead are not an invitation to delay, but a window to prepare. Done well, the new complaints process is a modest piece of administrative plumbing that can quietly strengthen customer relationships. Done badly, or not at all, it is a regulatory exposure that few small businesses can afford to carry.

The ICO has, unusually, all but rolled out a welcome mat. The smart move for SME owners is to walk through the door before someone else knocks.

Read more:
ICO Warns SMEs: one month to comply with new Data Complaints Law

For an SME, the cruellest moment in any growth story is the one when a once-in-a-generation order lands on the desk, and the cash flow simply cannot stretch to fulfil it.

That, until very recently, was the predicament facing Packaging One, the family-run Cheshire manufacturer behind the patented MediaWrap protective packaging used to ship smartphones, laptops and other high-value electronics around the world.

The Middlewich-based firm has now closed a £4 million contract with one of the world’s largest technology companies, after a £700,000 loan from NatWest, guaranteed by UK Export Finance (UKEF) under its General Export Facility, provided the working capital needed to pay suppliers before overseas customer payments landed. Without that bridge, the multi-million-pound order would almost certainly have been turned away.

It is the kind of deal that neatly illustrates why Whitehall has spent the past three years recalibrating its export credit agency around smaller exporters rather than the headline-grabbing defence and infrastructure contracts of old. Referred to UKEF by the Department for Business and Trade, Packaging One was able to access the GEF’s partial government guarantee, typically covering up to 80% of a bank’s exposure, and convert it into the cash buffer the business needed to scale.

A patented product, a global pull

MediaWrap is no ordinary box. The patented and trademarked solution is designed to cradle delicate consumer electronics in transit, and it has won admirers from Silicon Valley to the manufacturing hubs of East Asia. Packaging One has now fulfilled orders across North America, Europe, the Middle East and East Asia, with North American demand in particular driving the latest expansion.

The numbers tell their own story. Turnover stood at £9.4 million in 2025 and the company is targeting £16 million by 2028, a roughly 70 per cent uplift over three years. At least 50 new full-time roles have been added at the Middlewich headquarters, and management is now scoping a manufacturing facility in the United States to shorten supply chains for its largest customer base.

It is a familiar pattern for UKEF-backed exporters. Earlier this year, Northamptonshire’s Pallite secured a £1.6 million UKEF-backed facility to meet global demand for its recyclable warehouse and packaging products, while athleisure brand Vanquish Fitness used a £1 million NatWest trade loan backed by UKEF to push deeper into the United States. The thread that runs through all three deals is the same: ambitious SMEs unable to fund the gap between order and payment, and a government guarantee that turns a “no” from the credit committee into a “yes”.

Why working capital matters more than ever

Cash flow has long been the silent killer of British export ambition. According to UKEF, more than £771 million has now been issued through the GEF scheme, the vast majority of it to SMEs. Yet awareness of the product remains stubbornly patchy, with many founders only stumbling across it through a referral from their bank or a chamber of commerce.

That is something UKEF is working hard to change. The agency has been rolling out faster digital onboarding, expanded eligibility and new SME-focused tools, a strategic shift covered in detail in our recent report on how UKEF is unveiling fresh tools to boost SME global trade. The agency delivered a record £14.5 billion of financing in its last reporting year, supporting more than 667 UK exporters and helping to sustain an estimated 70,000 jobs.

What the principals say

Kevin Ledwith, UKEF’s Export Finance Manager for Cheshire, said the case “shows perfectly why UKEF wants to support more SMEs to grow their exports. By backing them with our General Export Facility, we enable them to win and fulfil orders on the world stage, which means they can continue to sustain local jobs and growth.”

For Emma Chesworth, director at Packaging One, the practical impact has been immediate. “The support from UKEF and NatWest has enabled us to take on bigger orders than we could have managed before,” she said. “This has kickstarted a process: more projects, more people employed, and more local benefits.”

Rhys Lloyd-Jones, trade finance manager at NatWest Group, framed the deal as part of a wider pledge to British SMEs. “Supporting ambitious family businesses to grow internationally is central to NatWest’s commitment to helping the economy thrive,” he said. “By working with UK Export Finance, this funding solution has given Packaging One the confidence and working capital needed to fulfil an ongoing export contract with a major US brand and to expand into new global markets whilst boosting the local economy by creating jobs.”

The transaction forms part of NatWest’s £2 billion export lending package, which sits within the £11 billion UKEF-backed SME lending commitment made by the UK’s five leading banks, a pool of capital that, if properly drawn down, could measurably shift the dial on Britain’s stubborn export performance.

The bigger picture

Packaging One’s story is, in many ways, a microcosm of where Britain’s growth case now sits. The firm has a patented product, demonstrable international demand and a credible plan to double turnover. What it lacked, until UKEF stepped in, was the working capital to back its own success. That is precisely the gap the General Export Facility was designed to plug, and on the evidence of Middlewich, it is starting to do its job.

Read more:
Packaging power: how Cheshire’s Packaging One sealed a £4m export deal with UKEF backing

An Isle of Man trading-education platform has won a two-year trade mark battle against TikTok’s UK arm, in a ruling small business advisers say sets a powerful precedent for founders facing legal pressure from global tech giants.

In a decision likely to be studied across the SME community, a small financial-trading education business has seen off TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, the British arm of ByteDance, one of the world’s most valuable technology companies, in a two-year trade mark dispute before the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO).

TickTickTrader Ltd, an Isle of Man-based platform that trains aspiring futures traders, applied in April 2023 to register the mark ‘TickTickTrader’. The name is drawn from trading floor terminology: a ‘tick’ is the smallest permissible price movement on a futures exchange. TikTok’s legal team, drawn from one of the world’s largest law firms, opposed the application outright, arguing that the name was confusingly similar to its own globally recognised brand and risked diluting its reputation. An accompanying cease-and-desist letter gave the start-up 14 days to withdraw the application, abandon the name and sign undertakings.

For a company of around 50 employees, the demand was existential. It refused.

On 19 February 2026, Hearing Officer Mrs E Fisher dismissed both grounds of TikTok’s opposition in full and ordered TikTok to pay TickTickTrader’s costs. The appeal window has now closed and the decision is final.

‘Tick Tick’ is not ‘Tik Tok’

The Hearing Officer found the two marks to be visually and aurally similar only to a medium degree, and, crucially, conceptually dissimilar. Where TikTok evokes the sound of a clock, TickTickTrader was held to conjure the image of a trader methodically ticking off positions, gain by incremental gain. The word ‘trader’, the officer ruled, was neither irrelevant nor purely descriptive: it formed an integral part of the overall impression of the mark.

“I find there is no likelihood of direct or indirect confusion,” the decision states. The officer also rejected TikTok’s argument that consumers would assume TickTickTrader was a brand extension in the same family as TikTok Shop, TikTok Pay or TikTok Live, describing that logic as unconvincing. “I find that there is no link between the marks,” she wrote.

She added that buyers of education and training services, typically high-attention, considered purchases, were highly unlikely to confuse two marks with such clear visual, conceptual and commercial differences. TikTok’s reputation, however considerable, did not entitle it to monopolise the market.

Big tech, small business – and the cost of standing your ground

TickTickTrader fought the opposition with Trade Mark Wizards, the London-based intellectual property firm backed by Lord Sugar, who is also a director of the company. For Trade Mark Wizards, the case is emblematic of a wider pattern in which large corporations rely on the disproportionate commercial pressure of legal proceedings to push smaller rivals into surrender, regardless of the underlying merits.

It is a pattern this magazine has documented before, from Rolex demanding that a Devon children’s clock start-up change its name to the steady stream of cease-and-desist letters dropped on UK founders by global brands. As Business Matters has previously argued in its guidance for founders accused of trade mark infringement, not every claim is legally sound, and capitulating without a proper assessment can prove far more costly than fighting back.

Lord Sugar, director at Trade Mark Wizards, said the TickTickTrader case carried a familiar shape.

“I’ve been in business long enough to recognise this pattern straight away,” he said. “Big companies think they can throw their weight around and that smaller businesses will just roll over because they can’t afford the fight. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. What mattered here is that the claim didn’t stack up — and when it was properly tested, it failed. You don’t get to own every name that sounds vaguely similar to your own just because you’re a big brand. If you’re right, you’re right. If you’re not, you lose. Simple as that.”

Oliver Oguz, managing director of Trade Mark Wizards, was equally direct. “The playbook used to be simple,” he said. “If you’re a big company and a small business gets in your way, you throw lawyers at it and wait for them to blink. That playbook is finished. This decision is proof that the rules apply to everyone, regardless of how many zeros are in your legal budget. TikTok had every resource in the world at its disposal. They still lost because the facts didn’t support them.”

A board member of TickTickTrader described the moment the ruling came through.

“We were effectively being asked to give up our brand entirely. For a small business, that’s not just a legal issue, it’s your identity, your work, everything you’ve built. It would have been easy to walk away, but we knew the name meant something and we believed we were right to keep it. Having the right support around us made all the difference.”

What founders can take from the ruling

For start-ups and SMEs watching from the sidelines, the case offers three practical lessons. First, the UKIPO’s standard opposition process is structured, evidence-led, and decided on the law — not on the relative size of the parties. Second, a defence grounded in the genuine meaning and commercial context of a brand name can defeat a much larger opponent. Third, as our own legal contributors have long argued in pieces on brand protection and the power of IP, independent legal advice from specialists, rather than reflexive capitulation, is often the decisive factor in determining whether a name survives.

The UKIPO has confirmed that TickTickTrader may now proceed to full trade mark registration, which the company has also secured in several key global territories. TikTok has been ordered to pay £1,700 in costs. The figure is modest in headline terms, but reflects the tribunal’s clear view on the merits, and, for the wider SME community, the symbolism is anything but small.

Read more:
How a 50-person start-up beat TikTok at the IPO – with Lord Sugar in its corner

For nearly four decades, The Sunday Times Rich List has been the closest thing Britain has to a national league table of money. This year’s edition reads less like a celebration of enterprise and more like a departures board.

Revolut chief executive Nik Storonsky and the publicity-shy quant trader Alex Gerko have broken into the top 10 for the first time. But the headline story, according to the list’s compiler Robert Watts, is not who has arrived, it is who has gone.

As many as one in six of the individuals and families who appeared on the 2024 ranking are missing from this year’s edition, with the compiler warning that the figures lay bare the scale of Britain’s wealth exodus.

“Many foreign billionaires who have been living in the UK have… dropped out because they have moved away,” Mr Watts said.

The top of the table holds, but the cracks are widening

Sanjay and Dheeraj Hinduja, the British-Indian brothers behind the Mumbai-headquartered Hinduja Group, kept top spot with a combined fortune of £38bn. The rest of the podium was likewise unchanged, with the famously secretive property magnates David and Simon Reuben and Ukrainian-born industrialist Sir Leonard Blavatnik both still sitting on fortunes north of £25bn.

The most dramatic faller was Sir James Dyson. The inventor’s eponymous engineering empire was hit hard by Donald Trump’s swingeing tariff regime, and his estimated net worth nearly halved over the year from £20bn to £12bn, enough to send him tumbling from fourth to 13th. It is not the first time Sir James has tangled with policy: he has been one of the most vocal critics of Rachel Reeves’s inheritance tax changes, branding them “spiteful” and warning of the consequences for British family businesses.

City money muscles into the top 10

If old money is having a wobble, the new money minted in the City of London is flexing. Mr Storonsky cracked the top 10 in the same year his fintech juggernaut was finally granted a UK banking licence and clinched a $75bn valuation in a November funding round.

A place behind him in eighth sat Mr Gerko, the cerebral force behind XTX Markets, the quantitative trading shop that has quietly become one of the City’s biggest tax payers. His estimated fortune sits north of £16bn.

Both men were born in Russia, and both have renounced their citizenship in protest at Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine — a reminder that the City’s talent pool is global, and mobile.

A tale of two exoduses

The list’s real story, however, is in the gaps.

For the first two decades of this century, Britain’s super-rich enjoyed a near-uninterrupted bull run. Rich List wealth grew by close to 600 per cent between 2000 and 2022, according to The Sunday Times. That run is now over. The number of sterling billionaires in the UK peaked at 177 in 2022; this year’s tally of 157 was barely up on 2025.

Under the survey’s rules, foreign-born residents who leave automatically fall out of the rankings, while British citizens who emigrate remain. Both groups are now visibly thinning. Mr Watts said he had seen a “sharp rise in the number of British nationals now resident in Dubai, Switzerland and Monaco”, warning the “twin exoduses” represented a worrying development for the British economy and the public finances.

His unease is echoed by international data. The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report has the United Kingdom haemorrhaging high-net-worth residents at a faster clip than any other major economy, with the UAE, Italy and Switzerland the biggest beneficiaries.

“Will more of the wealthy now set up or grow their ventures overseas and in doing so create fewer jobs here?” Mr Watts asked. “How much tax – if any – will Rachel Reeves’ Treasury be able to extract from those affluent Brits who have now left the country?”

The Reeves effect

Critics increasingly point the finger at Whitehall. The Chancellor has been accused of accelerating departures with a string of measures aimed at ultra-high-net-worth residents and their assets.

In her first Budget in October 2024, Ms Reeves pressed ahead with the abolition of the non-domicile tax regime, slapped VAT on private school fees, raised capital gains tax and tightened several inheritance tax carve-outs. Her 2025 intervention added a so-called mansion tax on properties worth more than £2m and further narrowed the inheritance tax net.

Advisers say the cumulative effect has been a stampede. Research from consultancy Chamberlain Walker, cited by Business Matters, suggests around 1,800 non-doms left Britain in the months after April’s tax changes — 50 per cent more than the Treasury had pencilled in.

The casualties include some of the City’s biggest names: former Goldman Sachs International chief Richard Gnodde and steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, both long-standing Rich List fixtures, have moved on. Only one billionaire is recorded as having moved the other way in the past year — the new US ambassador to the Court of St James’s, Warren Stephens.

What it means for SME Britain

For the small and medium-sized businesses that read this magazine, the implications run deeper than schadenfreude over a few moving vans full of Old Master paintings.

Wealthy entrepreneurs are typically the angel investors, family-office backers and growth-stage cheque writers that smaller firms rely on when banks turn cautious. If they decamp to Dubai or Lugano, that capital tends to follow them. The same goes for the philanthropic giving, board memberships and mentoring that often anchor a city’s business community.

The harder question for the Chancellor, and for the firms that depend on a healthy ecosystem of British-based capital, is whether the additional tax raised from those who stay can outweigh the receipts and investment lost from those who leave. On the evidence of this year’s Rich List, that calculation is starting to look uncomfortable.

Read more:
Britain’s billionaires are voting with their feet – and the rich list proves it

After years of boardroom whispers, palace-intrigue rumours and one alleged attempted coup, the question of who will inherit Britain’s most famous yellow-painted family business has finally been settled, and it is not the son the City had been quietly pencilling in.

Lord Bamford, the 80-year-old chairman of JCB, has confirmed that his younger son George, not his elder son Joseph (known as Jo), will eventually take the wheel of the Staffordshire-headquartered digger maker. The disclosure, made in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, brings to an end one of the longest-running succession sagas in British family enterprise and reshapes the future of a group that turns over £6.5bn, operates 22 factories across four continents and employs 19,000 people worldwide.

“In terms of us remaining a family business, that is very important, and we do have plans,” Lord Bamford said. “I’m very lucky and highly privileged to be in charge of this business at the moment. I don’t intend to be forever. I am 80, for heaven’s sake.” Asked directly who would step into his shoes, he replied: “It will be George.”

From heir apparent to outsider

For the best part of two decades, Westminster watchers and the wider engineering community had assumed Jo Bamford was being groomed to take over. He joined the family firm in 2004, was appointed to the board in 2006 and rose through a succession of senior roles, including head of major contracts, a brief widely read in the industry as a finishing-school posting for a future chairman.

What changed, according to people familiar with the boardroom, was an episode in which Jo is said to have pressed his father to step aside. Lord Bamford, by all accounts, viewed the approach as an attempted coup rather than a constructive nudge. The fallout has been swift and unambiguous: George, the family’s third child, has since been installed as deputy chairman, a clear public signal that the line of succession had quietly been redrawn.

The succession is yet to be formally rubber-stamped at board level, but few in the sector now doubt the trajectory. For a privately held company of JCB’s scale, the choice of chairman is not merely a question of family harmony; it shapes capital allocation, factory footprints, R&D priorities and the firm’s political voice for a generation.

Who is George Bamford?

If Jo was the obvious candidate, George has been the unconventional one. Best known outside engineering circles for the Bamford watch brand, which he founded and which built a cult following customising Rolex, TAG Heuer and other luxury timepieces, he has spent the past two decades building his own commercial reputation in the lifestyle and luxury goods market.

He will retain ownership of the Bamford watch business, but JCB is now becoming his full-time job. Those who have worked with him describe a brand-builder with an instinctive grasp of design and marketing, attributes that may prove useful as the digger maker leans further into electrification, hydrogen power and the premiumisation of construction equipment.

The inheritance-tax backdrop

The Bamford succession is playing out against a tax backdrop that has rattled family businesses across the United Kingdom. From 6 April 2026, the Treasury’s reforms to agricultural and business property reliefs have introduced a £2.5m 100 per cent relief allowance, with qualifying assets above that threshold attracting an effective 20 per cent inheritance tax charge rather than full exemption.

For the United Kingdom’s 5.3 million family firms, the change has been seismic. As the House of Commons Library has set out, the reforms close what ministers regard as a loophole exploited by the ultra-wealthy, but critics argue that they catch ordinary trading businesses in the same net as estate-planning vehicles.

Speaking at a business conference in April, Jo Bamford warned that the new regime could push the family’s empire abroad. “The family tax… is a real problem,” he said. “It could quite easily become an American business. I love being in Britain. But I would say to a political party of any stripe, look, there’s only so much you can ultimately do.” Lord Bamford, a long-time Conservative donor who has also written cheques to Reform UK, has been similarly vocal about Whitehall’s direction of travel, concerns explored in our recent piece on Lord Bamford’s £300m family windfall and the wealth-tax debate.

A sector-wide reckoning

JCB is far from alone. From Dyson to Global Brands, blue-chip family-controlled firms have warned that the new regime could force restructurings, share sales or outright relocations to safeguard jobs and intergenerational ownership. Business Matters has tracked the broader fallout in its analysis of how the £2.5m cap is reshaping family-business planning, with more than half of surveyed firms already pausing investment.

For Lord Bamford, the calculation has long been about more than tax. JCB’s ownership structure, headquartered in Rocester since 1945, is the bedrock on which the company’s long-term capital expenditure programme rests — including the recent decision to double its Texas plant in response to United States tariffs. A clean succession line gives lenders, customers and 19,000 employees a clearer view of the next chapter.

The lessons for other founders

The Bamford story is unusual in scale but not in shape. Even the most polished succession plans can be derailed by sibling rivalry, mismatched ambitions and an incumbent who is reluctant to let go. As Business Matters has previously explored in our five steps to successful business succession planning, early, candid conversations with successors, ideally years before any handover, remain the single biggest predictor of whether a family firm survives the generational baton change.

For Jo Bamford, life outside the JCB chair is unlikely to be quiet. He has built a substantial second career in clean energy, founding the hydrogen fuel firm Ryze Power and stepping in to rescue Northern Ireland’s Wrightbus from collapse. Few City observers expect him to disappear from the FTSE conversation.

For George, the in-tray is daunting but enviable: a globally respected brand, a balance sheet that has weathered tariffs, war in Ukraine and a cooling construction market, and a workforce that has known only one family at the helm. The yellow JCB livery has carried the Bamford name for three generations. On the strength of his father’s words this week, it is on course to do so for a fourth.

Read more:
JCB succession: Lord Bamford anoints younger son George as heir to £6.5bn digger empire

Lidl GB has thrown its weight behind one of the most ambitious surplus food redistribution trials yet seen on the British high street, drafting in the consumer food-sharing app Olio alongside its long-standing charity partner Neighbourly in a move that could keep millions of additional meals out of the bin each year.

The German-owned discounter, which has been one of the fastest-growing grocers in Britain over the past decade, will switch on the new three-way model on Friday 15 May across 20 stores in London and the north of England. If the pilot delivers as hoped, Lidl expects a nationwide rollout by the end of 2026 — a step change that would see more than 5,000 tonnes of edible surplus, equivalent to roughly 11.9 million meals, redirected annually from landfill to people who need it.

The partnership is unusual in that it knits together two of the most prominent names in British food redistribution for the first time. Neighbourly, the Bristol-based social impact platform that already manages Lidl’s “Feed it Back” scheme, will continue to coordinate the pipeline. Olio, the London-headquartered app that has built a community of more than nine million users globally around the idea of sharing rather than binning leftover food, will plug its volunteer “Food Waste Heroes” into Lidl’s evening collection slots as a second tier behind charities.

In practical terms, registered Food Waste Heroes will arrive at participating stores after trading hours to collect chilled lines, including meat, fish and poultry, as well as Lidl’s popular bakery range. The food is then offered, free of charge, to neighbours through the Olio app — extending the reach of the redistribution network into the evenings, when charity partners traditionally find collections hardest to staff.

It is also a clear signal that the discount sector has no intention of being outflanked on sustainability. Lidl has already smashed its previous food waste target, cutting waste by more than 40% ahead of schedule, and has since raised the bar to a 70% reduction by the end of FY2030. According to WRAP, the government’s waste advisory body, only around 7% of retail and manufacturing food surplus in the UK is currently redistributed, leaving a significant prize for any retailer prepared to crack the logistics.

Matt Juden, head of sustainability at Lidl GB, framed the move as the next logical step in a programme the supermarket has been refining since 2016. “At Lidl GB, we believe that no good food should ever go to waste,” he said. “While we have already made massive strides in reducing our surplus, this extension of our Neighbourly-managed programme allows us to have even more impact. It ensures that we are reaching every corner of the communities we serve, making sure edible food stays on plates and out of the bin.”

The pilot also lands at a sensitive moment for retailers who collect surplus only in the evening. Recently concerns were raised by charities about Tesco’s evening-only collection policy, and Neighbourly’s chief executive Steve Butterworth was at pains to stress that the Lidl model would not crowd out third-sector partners. “Our mission has always been to ensure as much edible surplus food as possible goes to those in our communities that need it most,” he said. “By expanding the programme to evening collections and including Olio’s Food Waste Heroes, we are providing Lidl with a robust additional redistribution layer. This isn’t about diverting food away from charities, it’s about opening up new streams of chilled and fresh produce for them, while ensuring nothing goes to waste if a charity can’t make it.”

For Olio, the deal marks another significant institutional endorsement of a model the start-up has been quietly scaling since 2015. Co-founder and chief operating officer Saasha Celestial-One described the tie-up as a chance to push more surplus into hyper-local hands. “We’re delighted to be joining forces with Neighbourly and Lidl,” she said. “We’re looking forward to working together to maximise the amount of edible surplus that can reach local communities from Lidl stores, and making sure as little food as possible goes to waste. We’re excited to see the impact of the trial, and we know our volunteers will be thrilled to have the chance to rescue Lidl food via our app.”

The political and regulatory backdrop is also shifting in favour of redistributors. Ministers have signalled growing impatience with the volume of edible food still going to waste, with Labour recently backing a £15m rescue fund aimed at supporting food redistribution organisations and helping them invest in the logistics and technology required to handle bulkier, more perishable donations. Pilots like the Lidl-Olio-Neighbourly trial slot neatly into that direction of travel, demonstrating how the private sector can plug the gap without waiting for primary legislation.

Lidl GB has now donated more than 50 million meals through Feed it Back since 2016, linking every one of its UK stores to a local good cause. With the Olio extension layered on top, the discounter is making a calculated bet that combining the efficiency of a national charity partner with the long tail of a consumer-led app can finally close the awkward last-mile gap in surplus redistribution — and turn what is still one of the grocery industry’s most stubborn problems into a marker of competitive advantage.

Read more:
Lidl ropes in Olio and Neighbourly in landmark surplus food trial that could rescue 11.9 million meals a year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How UKEF’s insurance unlocks the bank

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

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

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

The ceiling problem every sme exporter knows

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

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

Why the middle east, and why now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who actually owns the tariff bill

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

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

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

A system creaking under the weight of claims

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

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

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

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

Refunds trickling out – and bank details missing

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

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

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

The next legal front: the 10% global tariff

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

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

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

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

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

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

For all the hand-wringing over privacy, Britain’s high streets, gyms and offices are about to be flooded with cameras hiding in plain sight.

The latest generation of so-called smart glasses, most notably Meta’s Ray-Ban range, has become one of the fastest-selling consumer electronics products in history, and the world’s largest technology companies are queuing up to follow suit.

The commercial momentum is undeniable. Meta has now shipped more than seven million pairs of its Ray-Ban smart glasses, made in partnership with Franco-Italian eyewear giant EssilorLuxottica, and the device accounts for more than 80 per cent of the global AI eyewear market, according to Counterpoint Research. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, told investors earlier this year that the glasses were “some of the fastest-growing consumer electronics in history”, a rare bright spot for a company that has spent tens of billions of dollars chasing the metaverse with limited return.

But the same product line is now sitting at the centre of a rapidly widening privacy row that could shape regulation, workplace policy and consumer trust for years to come, and which British SMEs, from beauty salons to cafés, are already being forced to think about.

A camera in every frame

The appeal of the device, on paper, is straightforward. The Ray-Ban model carries an almost invisible camera in the frame, small open-ear speakers in the arms, and a discreet indicator light. Wearers can take a photo, capture video, place a phone call or summon Meta’s AI assistant with a tap on the temple. For early adopters such as Mark Smith, a partner at advisory firm ISG, the attraction is mundane rather than futuristic. He wears his every day, he says, because they let him take a call or listen to a podcast while washing up without blocking out the room, and spare him from pulling out a phone to capture a moment while travelling.

The problem, as Smith himself concedes, is that nobody around the wearer can tell. The recording light is dim in daylight and easily missed. To the casual observer, the glasses look like any other pair of Wayfarers.

That ambiguity is now generating an uncomfortable run of headlines. Women have reported being approached on beaches, in shops and on the street by men wearing the glasses, who film their reactions to scripted pick-up lines or intrusive questions and then upload the clips for clicks. Victims often only discover the footage exists once it has gone viral — and any subsequent abuse with it. As photography in public places is broadly lawful in the UK, legal recourse is limited. One woman who asked for her secretly recorded video to be removed told the BBC she was informed by the poster that takedown was “a paid service”.

Lawsuits, content moderators and a Kenyan flashpoint

The reputational pressure on Meta has been compounded by the working conditions of those who train the AI behind the product. Content moderators in Kenya, tasked with reviewing footage captured through the glasses to build training data, alleged they had been required to watch graphic material including sexual activity and people using the lavatory. Two lawsuits followed from owners of the glasses themselves: one group claiming they had no idea such videos had ever been captured, another that they had not realised the footage was being shared back to Meta for human review.

The company has pointed to its terms of service, arguing that the possibility of human review in certain circumstances had been disclosed. A Meta spokesman, Tracy Clayton, told the BBC: “We have teams dedicated to limiting and combating misuse, but as with any technology, the onus is ultimately on individual people to not actively exploit it.”

That defence is unlikely to satisfy the regulators now circling the category. Meta is reportedly preparing to add facial recognition to a forthcoming version of the glasses, according to The New York Times, a feature that would allow wearers not just to record passers-by, but to identify them in real time.

The rest of Silicon Valley piles in

For all the controversy, the rest of Big Tech sees a market it cannot afford to miss. Apple is widely reported to be developing its own smart glasses, with Bloomberg suggesting a launch as soon as next year. Snap has confirmed a new, lighter pair of its Specs for 2026. Google, more than a decade on from the spectacular failure of Google Glass, pulled within two years of launch amid a furious privacy backlash, is preparing another attempt under its Android XR platform.

Analysts at Citigroup and researchers at UC Berkeley reckon as many as 100 million people could be wearing AI-enabled glasses within a few years. For investors, that points to a genuinely new product category, the first since the smartwatch. For regulators, public bodies and small businesses, it raises a far thornier question: how do you enforce existing rules against recording in courtrooms, hospitals, changing rooms, museums, cinemas and bathrooms when a meaningful slice of the population is wearing a camera on their face?

David Kessler, who leads the US privacy practice at international law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, says corporate clients are already wrestling with it. “There are some pretty dark places we could go here,” he said. “I’m not anti-technology in any sense, but as a societal matter… will I need to think [of being recorded] anytime I go out in public?”

What it means for British SMEs

For owner-managers in the UK, this is no longer a Silicon Valley curiosity. Anecdotes are mounting of customers and staff being caught off guard: the online influencer Aniessa Navarro recounted feeling “sick” when she realised mid-treatment that her beauty technician was wearing Meta’s glasses. The technician insisted they were neither charged nor recording, and were needed for prescription lenses — but the reputational risk for the salon is obvious.

Smaller businesses in hospitality, retail, healthcare, fitness and personal services should expect to revisit their acceptable-use policies, customer-facing signage and staff training. Under UK GDPR, covert recording of identifiable individuals on a business’s premises is likely to fall on the operator as well as the wearer once that footage is processed for any purpose beyond purely personal use. Insurers and trade bodies are likely to start asking questions.

Meta markets the product under the tagline “Designed for privacy, controlled by you”, and tells wearers not to record people who object and to switch the glasses off entirely in sensitive spaces. Those suggestions, by the company’s own admission, are honoured more in the breach than the observance. A growing genre of “prank” content sees young men in Ray-Bans persuading retail workers to smell candles laced with foul odours, getting members of the public to sign fake petitions, or filming themselves snatching food at drive-throughs.

A Google Glass moment, or a tipping point?

Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s chief technology officer, was asked on Instagram about “the stigma around people wearing smart glasses every day”. His answer leant heavily on the sales figures, arguing that the sheer volume shifted “suggest these are widely accepted”.

Not everyone is convinced. David Harris, a former Meta AI researcher now teaching at UC Berkeley and advising policymakers in the US and EU, believes the category is heading for the same wall that flattened Google Glass. “Technology like this is fundamentally an invasion of privacy and it’s really going to face more and more backlash,” he said.

The signs are already there. In December, a New York man posted a clip lamenting that a woman he had been filming on the subway had broken his Meta glasses. The internet did not commiserate. It crowned her a folk hero.

For Meta, for Apple, for Snap and for Google, the commercial prize from owning the face is enormous. But for an industry that has spent the past decade trying to rebuild public trust, betting the next platform on a device most bystanders cannot tell is a camera may yet prove the most expensive miscalculation of all.

Read more:
Smart glasses are ‘an invasion of privacy’, yet Meta is shifting them by the million

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tesco has suffered a significant setback in the long-running equal pay battle being waged by tens of thousands of its shop floor staff, after the Court of Appeal threw out the supermarket’s challenge to the way an Employment Tribunal had been assessing the value of jobs carried out by its customer assistants.

In a judgment handed down on 12 May 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed Britain’s biggest grocer’s appeal against the Tribunal’s approach to determining the job facts of customer assistants and warehouse operatives, a critical step in the so-called “equal value” process that underpins the entire dispute.

The ruling comes mid-way through a separate Employment Tribunal hearing in which Tesco is attempting to justify paying its predominantly female store workforce less than its largely male distribution centre staff. The supermarket has leant heavily on the argument that the differential reflects “market rates”, a defence lawyers at Leigh Day, who act for more than 16,000 claimants, insist cannot lawfully stand.

At the heart of the appeal was Tesco’s attempt to stop the Tribunal from relying on the company’s own training manuals and operational documents to establish what customer assistants and warehouse operatives are required to do day-to-day. For Britain’s SME employers and retail bosses watching closely, the Court of Appeal’s response will make uncomfortable reading.

The judges upheld the Tribunal’s approach, accepting that Tesco operates in a highly regulated environment, deploys sophisticated digital stock systems and maintains exhaustive training materials precisely to ensure work is carried out consistently across every one of its stores. The Court found Tesco had a “strong business need” for these roles to be performed in the same way throughout its operations, and that, absent clear evidence to the contrary, its own training documents could properly be treated as determinative of what staff were required to do.

The implications stretch well beyond Welwyn Garden City. The judgment effectively rejects attempts to force thousands of workers in mass equal pay claims to individually prove every nut and bolt of their roles when the employer has itself standardised the work. For any business with a structured operating model, supermarkets, hospitality chains, logistics operators and the wider SME retail community, the precedent is plain: your own training materials and operating manuals may be used as evidence against you.

The Court of Appeal also repeated earlier criticisms of Tesco’s evidential approach, raising concerns about both the nature and presentation of witness testimony deployed during the litigation. In a further blow to large employers, the judgment offered fresh guidance that tribunals in mass equal pay claims may, where appropriate, assess jobs more generically rather than insisting every single claim be picked apart on an overly individualised basis, a clarification that could substantially reduce the runway of delay and procedural complexity that often accompanies these disputes.

Kiran Daurka, employment partner at Leigh Day, said the ruling was a significant moment for access to justice. “The Court of Appeal has recognised the importance of removing unnecessary hurdles that prevent everyday people from accessing justice in complex equal pay litigation,” she said. “This judgment is a welcome clarification that, in large-scale cases involving sophisticated respondents like Tesco and other large retailers, tribunals can take a practical and proportionate approach to assessing jobs, which then mitigates against unnecessary complexity to delay or obstruct claims.

“Our clients have always maintained that these cases should focus on the reality of the work being done, not on creating artificial barriers that make equal pay claims impossible to pursue. This ruling will help future claims progress in a more streamlined and accessible way.”

For Tesco, and for every employer with a workforce split between front-of-house and back-of-house operations, the message from the Court of Appeal is unambiguous. The defence of “that’s just what the market pays” is wearing thin, and the documents sitting on a company’s own intranet may yet prove to be the most powerful evidence claimants ever need.

Read more:
Tesco loses court of appeal fight over equal pay job assessment in landmark ruling for SME and retail employers

British food marketers have been handed a stark warning after the advertising watchdog banned two high-profile campaigns promoting domestic beef and milk, ruling that the carbon footprint claims at their heart could not be substantiated.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint brought by Chris Packham, the broadcaster and environmental campaigner, against the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) over its taxpayer-funded Let’s Eat Balanced campaign. The decision is likely to send a chill through the marketing departments of food producers, processors and trade bodies that have increasingly leaned on green credentials to drive sales.

At issue were two adverts trumpeting British beef as having a “carbon footprint that’s half the global average” and British milk as producing emissions “a third lower than the global average”. Both campaigns referenced the “full lifecycle” of the produce, a phrase that has now proved their undoing.

The AHDB, which is funded by a statutory levy on farmers and growers, argued that consumers would reasonably have understood the figures to relate only to the journey from farm to retail. The board pointed to independent consumer research, commissioned after the investigation began, suggesting the majority of respondents interpreted the adverts in precisely that way.

The ASA disagreed. The regulator concluded that the adverts implied a cradle-to-grave assessment encompassing farming, retail, consumption and disposal, and that the evidence supplied fell short of supporting claims on that basis. The watchdog acknowledged the practical difficulty of producing post-retail emissions data but said that, where environmental claims are made, the burden of proof rests squarely on the advertiser unless caveats are made plain.

“We acknowledged the potential difficulties in producing post-retail emissions data,” the ASA said in its ruling. “The claims in the ads suggested those emissions were included, and we therefore expected the evidence provided to also include them. We therefore concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the full life cycle claims in the ads, which was how the average consumer was likely to interpret them.”

Mr Packham, the long-standing presenter of BBC’s Springwatch, had also alleged that the adverts misrepresented British beef as typically outdoor-grazed and made claims that could not be substantiated. The watchdog rejected five of his six points, ruling that images of cows in green pastures amounted to a “generic reflection” of British farming rather than a blanket assertion that all cattle live outdoors.

Will Jackson, the AHDB’s director of communications, struck a defiant note in response to the ruling. “Let’s Eat Balanced is doing what it was designed to do, providing clear, factual, evidence-led information about British food, nutrition and farming standards,” he said. He added that the board’s own consumer research “supports our belief that consumers were not misled by the information we shared in these two specific adverts”.

For the wider SME landscape, however, the ruling carries lessons that extend well beyond the farm gate. Small and mid-sized food businesses, from artisan cheesemakers to regional butchers, have increasingly built marketing around lower-carbon, locally produced credentials. The ASA’s intervention signals that broad-brush green claims, particularly comparative ones, will face robust scrutiny regardless of whether the advertiser is a multinational, a government-backed body or a family-run producer.

The decision also lands at a sensitive moment for British agriculture, which is grappling with the phasing out of EU-era subsidies, mounting input costs and growing consumer pressure on the environmental footprint of meat and dairy. Sector bodies will now need to weigh up whether the marketing benefits of headline carbon comparisons justify the regulatory risk, or whether more conservative, narrowly framed claims offer a safer path.

For marketers across the SME economy, the practical takeaway is straightforward enough. Lifecycle language must be backed by lifecycle evidence; comparative claims must be supported by robust, like-for-like data; and where caveats are required, they must be clear enough that the ordinary consumer cannot reasonably misread them. As the ASA has made plain, the test is not what the advertiser intended to say, but what the average reader took away.

Read more:
ASA bans British beef and milk adverts after Packham complaint over carbon claims

Mike Ashley’s retail empire has scored a notable courtroom victory after the Court of Appeal threw out a substantial damages award handed down in a protracted trademark infringement dispute, sparing the FTSE-listed group what could have proved a punishing financial blow.

The ruling brings to a head a long-running tussle between the Shirebrook-based discount sports chain, rebranded as Frasers Group in 2019, and Lifestyle Equities, the company that owns and licenses the Beverly Hills Polo Club marque. Lifestyle Equities had alleged that Ashley’s group infringed its trademark by flogging goods under the rival ‘Santa Monica Polo Club’ label, a claim it first lodged back in 2018.

Frasers had lost the underlying infringement case seven years ago but mounted a fresh challenge against the scale of damages it was ordered to stump up. At an appeal hearing in April, the retailer’s lawyers argued that the bill should be slashed because the third-party companies trading under the Beverly Hills Polo Club name, and on whose behalf Lifestyle Equities was attempting to recover losses, had never been officially registered as licensees in the United Kingdom.

The Court of Appeal duly sided with the high street giant, ruling that it was “too late” for Lifestyle Equities to retrospectively register the licences in question. With the original claim dating back to 2018 and the licensing arrangements stretching back nearly a decade, the court concluded that the additional claims “appear to be well out of time” and that allowing them through would amount to an “unprincipled windfall” for businesses that had not properly placed themselves on the public register.

Counsel for Frasers warned during the appeal that permitting such claims to succeed would expose accused infringers to ambush litigation, leaving defendants “suddenly confronted with a Trojan Horse full of licensees claiming damages” of whose existence they had no prior knowledge. Without strict adherence to public registration, the retailer’s legal team argued, the regime risked becoming “a charter of unjust enrichment”, allowing trademark owners to scoop up compensation for unregistered partners alongside their own losses.

The judgment represents a material win for Frasers, which has shrugged off a potentially eye-watering damages bill that, had it stood, would have set an awkward precedent for the wider retail sector. The decision is likely to be studied closely by intellectual property lawyers and brand owners alike, given the implications for how licensing arrangements must be formally documented to be enforceable in the British courts.

The legal win follows news first reported by City AM that the magic circle-adjacent law firm RPC has lost one of its highest-billing partners, Jeremy Drew, who represents Ashley personally, to Taylor Wessing.

The trademark victory comes hard on the heels of an extraordinary admission by Ashley, the man who founded Sports Direct in his native Burnham in 1982 and ran it as chief executive until handing the reins to son-in-law Michael Murray in 2022.

The 61-year-old billionaire has confirmed publicly for the first time that he engineered the downfall of his most prominent retail adversary, the former JD Sports executive chairman Peter Cowgill.

Cowgill stepped down from the FTSE 100 trainer chain in 2022 in the wake of a Competition and Markets Authority probe, triggered after leaked footage emerged of him in a clandestine car park meeting with Footasylum chief executive Barry Brown. The pair had been expressly barred from exchanging commercially sensitive information while JD Sports was attempting to acquire Footasylum, and the leaked footage led the CMA to impose fines of nearly £5m on the two businesses.

In an interview with the Financial Times last weekend, Ashley conceded that the footage had been obtained by one of his own employees and said he was “not hiding from the fact” that he was the architect of Cowgill’s removal, a candid acknowledgement that lifts the lid on one of the more colourful boardroom feuds in recent British retail history.

Read more:
Ashley’s Frasers group dodges hefty damages bill in trademark appeal victory

The share of new-build homes snapped up “off plan” before a single brick is laid has tumbled to its lowest level in more than a decade, in a fresh blow to the government’s ambition of delivering 1.5 million homes by the end of this parliament.

Research published by estate agency Hamptons reveals that just 33 per cent of new properties across England and Wales were sold prior to completion in 2025, down sharply from a peak of 49 per cent in 2016. The slide reflects a perfect storm battering the housebuilding sector, with buy-to-let landlords beating a retreat from the market, stubbornly high interest rates dampening buyer appetite, and construction costs continuing to spiral.

Off-plan sales have long served as the lifeblood of housebuilders’ cash flow, allowing developers to bank deposits and secure financing well before a project reaches completion. Their decline now threatens to push up the cost of capital across the industry at precisely the moment ministers are pressing for an acceleration in delivery.

The contraction has been driven, in large part, by the steady withdrawal of buy-to-let investors who have historically been voracious purchasers of off-plan stock, particularly flats in regeneration areas. The introduction of the 3 per cent second-home stamp duty surcharge in 2016 began the rot. That surcharge was hiked to 5 per cent at the end of 2024, and the Renters’ Rights Act, which came into force this month, has prompted a further wave of landlords to head for the exits rather than wrestle with rising costs and ever-tightening regulation.

First-time buyers, the other traditional mainstay of the off-plan market, are similarly hamstrung. Chain-free and typically flexible on timing, they have historically been natural candidates for purchases months ahead of completion. But higher borrowing costs, coupled with the closure of the government’s Help to Buy equity loan scheme in 2023, have squeezed many of them out of the picture entirely.

The pain is most acute in the flats sector, where investor and first-time buyer demand traditionally overlap. Just 22 per cent of new flats were sold off plan last year, a startling drop from 54 per cent in 2007.

Investors who remain in the game are increasingly looking north, where rental yields comfortably outstrip those available in the southern counties. In Oldham, Greater Manchester, an extraordinary 94 per cent of new flats were sold off plan last year, the highest share of any local authority in the country. London, by contrast, managed 65 per cent.

David Fell, lead analyst at Hamptons, warned that the structural shift away from high-density flats was creating fresh obstacles for ministers. “This move towards lower-density, house-led development is likely to make it harder for the government to significantly ramp up housing delivery,” he said.

Housebuilders, increasingly wary of carrying large blocks of flats on their balance sheets while they wait for buyers, are instead pivoting towards suburban housing schemes that sell more rapidly and limit exposure to rising financing costs. A Ministry of Housing assessment published at the end of March predicted the government would fall short of its 1.5 million target by some 400,000 homes.

The financial mathematics is becoming increasingly punishing for developers. Interest rates on construction loans are typically far higher than those attached to standard residential mortgages, meaning that every week a property sits unsold during the build phase adds materially to the cost base. Hamptons calculates that additional finance costs added £3,125 to the build cost per home last year, up from £2,934 in 2024. Roughly half of that increase, it says, is directly attributable to higher interest rates.

Material costs have piled further pressure on the sector. “Many of the materials needed to build new homes are highly energy-intensive, meaning their costs have risen far faster than wider inflation,” Fell added.

Separate research from the Home Builders Federation underlines the scale of the squeeze. The trade body calculates that the cost of building a new home has risen by an average of £76,000 since 2020, equivalent to 20 per cent of the total cost of constructing the average UK home. Some 40 per cent of that increase, it says, is attributable to government regulations and taxes, with the balance accounted for by material inflation and labour costs.

The financial consultancy RSM UK is among those calling for ministers to act decisively to revive momentum, with a particular focus on planning reform, lighter regulation and lower taxes on new construction.

Stacy Eden, partner and national head of real estate at RSM UK, said the picture was set to deteriorate further without intervention. “With costs set to escalate further due to the economic impact of the Iran conflict, the real estate industry urgently needs further support from government to make housebuilding more viable,” she warned.

For SME housebuilders in particular, who lack the deep balance sheets of the volume players, the squeeze on off-plan sales risks tipping marginal sites from viable to uneconomic, threatening both jobs and the government’s headline housing ambitions.

Read more:
Off-plan new home sales slump to 12-year low as landlords retreat and rates bite

Britain’s labour market is bracing for its sharpest contraction in years, with more than 160,000 roles forecast to vanish over the course of 2026 as anaemic growth and stubbornly high energy bills combine to squeeze employers across the country’s industrial heartlands.

The grim assessment comes from the Item Club, the independent forecaster that runs its projections through the very same economic model used by the Treasury to stress-test government policy. According to its latest analysis, a net 163,000 jobs will disappear this year, representing a 0.4 per cent decline in total employment and dealing a fresh blow to a workforce already feeling the strain of 18 months of cooling demand.

For Britain’s small and medium-sized employers, the report makes for sobering reading. The pain, the Item Club warns, will fall disproportionately on energy-intensive manufacturers, the construction trade and the high street, three sectors that between them prop up tens of thousands of SMEs and the supply chains that orbit them. As disposable incomes are eroded, consumer-facing businesses in retail, hospitality and food service are expected to feel a secondary shockwave.

“The hit will be felt in lower-income regions where consumers typically have less rainy-day savings, which will reduce spending in the retail and hospitality sectors,” said Tim Lyne, an adviser to the Item Club, in a candid assessment of how the downturn will play out beyond the M25.

The geographical pattern of the squeeze will be uneven and, in places, severe. Birmingham’s unemployment rate is forecast to climb from 6.7 per cent to 7.8 per cent over the year, while Glasgow is on course to break through the 5 per cent mark from a 4.3 per cent average in 2025. Cambridge stands as the lone exception among Britain’s major cities, with overall employment expected to edge modestly higher on the back of its knowledge-economy base.

Nationally, the jobless rate, which brushed 5 per cent at the close of last year, is heading for 5.1 per cent in the coming months, up from 4.9 per cent in the most recent official figures published by the Bank of England.

Official growth data due this week is expected to confirm that the economy expanded by around 0.3 per cent in the first quarter of 2026, a modest improvement on the 0.1 per cent recorded in the final three months of 2025, but hardly the kind of momentum that creates jobs at scale.

A separate survey from KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation lends weight to the gloomier outlook. Permanent placements across the economy fell in April at their fastest rate since the start of the year, while demand for temporary staff climbed to its highest level since 2023, as employers hedged their bets on hiring commitments.

Neil Carberry, chief executive of the REC, said the trend reflected a “preference for short-term staff at some firms who wanted to push ahead with business development and expansion plans” against an uncertain backdrop. “Businesses will be particularly concerned about the impact on inflation, their borrowing costs and any disruption to wider supply chains,” he added, alluding to the lingering aftershocks of the conflict in Iran.

For business owners, the message is one many will recognise from the past two years: keep options open, keep headcount flexible, and assume that the cost of capital will remain elevated for longer than is comfortable.

The Item Club expects the only meaningful employment growth this year to come from publicly funded corners of the economy, education, health and social care, but its analysts are blunt that this expansion is “unlikely to offset losses in larger, more demand-sensitive sectors”. In short: the state will hire, but it will not hire enough.

For SMEs, the most worrying signal in the report is the speed at which higher interest rates and elevated inflation feed through to recruitment freezes and redundancies. With wage settlements still running ahead of productivity gains, and with energy contracts due for renewal across thousands of mid-sized industrial businesses this summer, the path of least resistance for many owner-managers will be to thin payrolls rather than expand them.

One silver lining is the gradual improvement in economic inactivity rates, as more people who left the workforce during and after the pandemic are now returning to look for work. But with vacancies falling and the labour market loosening, that fresh supply of jobseekers may find conditions tougher than they were even a year ago.

The Item Club’s projections, drawn from the Treasury’s own model, are typically used by policymakers to scrutinise the government’s claims about its economic agenda. On this occasion, they offer ministers little political cover and Britain’s job creators even less.

Read more:
Britain set to shed 160,000 jobs as energy costs and stalling growth bite

Many employers assume that withdrawing a job offer before someone starts work is a low-risk decision.

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling suggests otherwise. It held that the withdrawal of a conditional job offer amounted to a breach of contract, even though the employee had not actually started work, and that the financial consequences can be significant.

The case of Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd is a timely reminder that a job offer, even one labelled “conditional”, can amount to a binding contract the moment a candidate accepts it.

What happened?

A candidate was offered a role as a project manager, subject to satisfactory references, a right to work check, and successful completion of a six-month probationary period. The offer letter referred to key terms such as salary and a start date, but it did not mention a notice period. The employer also agreed to contribute towards relocation costs.

The candidate accepted the offer by email and completed the new-starter paperwork, including providing referee details and the required right to work documents.

A few weeks later, the employer withdrew the job offer because of delays in the project. The candidate brought a claim for breach of contract, citing the withdrawal of the offer and failure to pay any notice pay.

What did the Employment Tribunal and EAT decide?

The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim. It held that the job offer was conditional and that the employer had not yet received references or completed the right to work checks (which required original documents). The contract had therefore not been formed.

The EAT disagreed. The key question was the nature of the conditions attached to the offer and whether they were:

• “Conditions precedent”, that is, conditions that must be satisfied before any contract is formed) or
• “Conditions subsequent”: whereby acceptance of an offer gives rise to a binding contract, but if the conditions are not satisfied, the contract terminates.

The conditions were grouped together in the offer letter, and one (passing the probationary period) could only be satisfied after employment began. As there had been no attempt to differentiate between the different conditions, this prevented the EAT from finding that they could be conditions precedent.

The offer letter included the key terms, both parties had treated the contract as binding, and the employer had started the onboarding process. Consequently, the employer did not have an unrestricted right to withdraw the offer for reasons unrelated to the conditions subsequent.

Finally, as the offer letter was silent on notice, the EAT had to imply a reasonable notice period. Taking into account the role’s seniority, the relocation requirement, and the lengthy interview process, it was concluded that three months’ notice would be a reasonable period, which the employer was required to pay.

What does this mean for your business?

The case highlights several practical steps employers should take when making job offers:

1. Labelling an offer “conditional” is not enough on its own and will not prevent a binding contract from forming or a breach of contract if the job offer is withdrawn. If you intend certain conditions to be met before a contract exists, those conditions need to be clearly spelled out, with pre-contract conditions listed separately from post-start conditions, such as probation.
2. Always include a notice period in the offer letter, covering both the probationary period and the post-probation standard notice period after probation has been successfully completed. If you don’t, the Employment Tribunal will imply one, and it may be longer than you’d expect.
3. Before withdrawing any offer, take legal advice to ascertain whether the job offer was conditional or unconditional. Depending on the seniority of the role and the implied or stated notice period, a successful breach of contract claim can mean significant compensation as well as considerable management time.
4. Finally, it’s worth reviewing your current offer letter templates to ensure key terms are included and that the conditional nature of any offer is clearly and correctly expressed.

A little extra care at the offer stage is far less costly than defending a claim if a job offer is withdrawn.

Read more:
Withdrawing a job offer can cost you more than you think

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retirement is meant to be the reward for a lifetime of corporate slog: long lunches, a forgiving handicap and the freedom to ignore a Monday morning inbox. For a small but growing band of senior British executives, however, the gilded sunset has proved rather less golden than the brochure suggested.

Bored, restless and quietly itching for a problem to solve, they have done what their younger colleagues might find unthinkable. They have gone back to work, and, more often than not, they are doing it for free.

The Sapient Foundation, set up last year, is the brainchild of Brendan Logan, a 72-year-old serial entrepreneur with three decades in telecommunications and four start-ups to his name. The trigger was a conversation with his old friend Larry Quinn, 69, who had reluctantly agreed to advise a local golf club on its governance, despite, as Logan tells it, having no interest whatsoever in the game. The reason? He had, in his own words, “nothing else to do”.

Quinn, who has co-founded and exited eight businesses, was clearly wasted on bunker disputes. Logan rounded up two more retirees of equal vintage: Eden Phillips, 61, formerly a software engineering manager at BT, and Mary Whatman, 62, a transformation specialist whose CV includes Bell Canada and Nortel. The Sapient Foundation was born.

In the year since, the quartet has worked with just over a dozen companies stretched across the UK and beyond. The model is unusual. Sapient looks at a client’s balance sheet, decides what the business can realistically afford, and charges accordingly. In several cases there is no upfront fee at all; instead, founders are asked to make a donation to one of the charities Sapient supports, but only once their company is generating revenue.

That arrangement suited DocComs, a London-based start-up developing an encrypted messaging platform for doctors. Co-founder Roseanna Jaggard, who runs the business with her husband Matt, had considered the various free online services on offer to founders, but found them generic. Sapient, by contrast, has been working with the team on an investment strategy tailored to the company’s clinical niche.

In its inaugural year, the foundation donated a four-figure sum to the Solidarity Teacher Training College, part of the Solidarity with South Sudan charity. Logan says other educational causes will follow.

The retirees are unapologetically picky about whom they help. Projects must genuinely interest them, and venture capital firms hoping to use the foundation as a back door to discounted consulting have been politely shown the door. Logan says one or two have “tried to pull a fast one”.

The recurring themes among Sapient’s clients are the trio that haunt almost every British SME: funding, technology and governance. Logan and his colleagues have used their address books to introduce founders to investors and capital sources they would never otherwise have reached.

One beneficiary is Oraczen, an agentic artificial intelligence company with offices in London and Texas. Co-founder Raghu Prasad credits Sapient with steering the business away from chasing broad AI opportunities and towards a more practical commercial wedge in contracts, procurement, supplier management and spend leakage. The intervention, Prasad says, helped the team “sharpen our focus very quickly” as they plan an expansion across the UK and Europe.

“In a traditional setting, advice of this depth and quality from senior telecom and enterprise experts would likely have cost us ten to twenty times more,” Prasad adds. “As an early-stage AI company building for enterprises across Europe and the UK, that level of access and strategic guidance would have been difficult to justify financially.”

The foundation operates under what Logan calls the “no heavy lifting” rule. Phillips, who spends a few hours a day on Sapient projects, still has time to tend his allotment, take guitar lessons and volunteer for Citizens Advice. The point, Logan insists, is that the work must remain enjoyable, the charities well funded and the queue of grateful founders steadily growing.

Britain’s SMEs have long complained about the cost and accessibility of senior strategic advice. It turns out the answer may have been sitting on the patio all along, quietly bored and reaching for the secateurs.

Read more:
The retired executives swapping the golf course for the boardroom – and charging next to nothing

Five of the world’s largest publishing houses have launched a class-action lawsuit against Meta Platforms in a Manhattan federal court, accusing the Mark Zuckerberg-led tech giant of pirating millions of copyrighted works to train its Llama artificial intelligence models, a development that throws fresh fuel on one of the defining commercial disputes of the AI era.

Elsevier, Cengage, Hachette, Macmillan and McGraw Hill, joined by the bestselling American author Scott Turow, filed proceedings on Tuesday alleging that Meta knowingly used pirated copies of textbooks, peer-reviewed scientific journals and novels, among them N.K. Jemisin’s The Fifth Season and Peter Brown’s The Wild Robot, to train the systems that now underpin the Silicon Valley group’s generative AI products.

The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and class-action status on behalf of a far wider pool of rights holders, marks the first time that academic and trade publishers have moved against Meta as a unified front. It also signals a deliberate escalation by an industry that, until now, has largely watched from the sidelines as authors, newspapers and visual artists fought their own corner.

Maria Pallante, president of the Association of American Publishers, did not mince her words. “Meta’s mass-scale infringement isn’t public progress, and AI will never be properly realised if tech companies prioritise pirate sites over scholarship and imagination,” she said.

Meta has signalled it will mount a robust defence. “AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use,” a spokesperson said. “We will fight this lawsuit aggressively.”

The case opens yet another front in a war that is rapidly redrawing the commercial map for content owners on both sides of the Atlantic. Dozens of plaintiffs, from The New York Times, which is pursuing OpenAI and Microsoft, to a coalition of authors, news outlets and visual artists, have already filed suit against the leading AI developers. The legal questions hinge on whether ingesting copyrighted material to produce new, “transformative” output qualifies as fair use under American law, and the early rulings have been anything but uniform. Two of the first judges to grapple with the issue reached opposing conclusions last year.

The first major scalp came when Anthropic, the AI company backed by Amazon and Google, agreed in 2025 to pay $1.5 billion (£1.18 billion) to settle a class action brought by a group of authors, a sum that could have ballooned into multiples of that figure had the matter gone to trial.

For UK small and medium-sized enterprises operating in publishing, marketing, education and the creative industries, the implications are far from academic. The absence of a coherent licensing regime has left British rights holders exposed to the same alleged practices, while AI-dependent businesses face mounting uncertainty over which models can be deployed without inheriting legal liability.

Benjamin Woollams, chief executive of TrueRights, argues the sector urgently needs commercial infrastructure capable of matching the speed at which AI models are being built. “Every one of these lawsuits points to the same underlying problem: there’s no standardised way to license creative work and likeness for AI,” he said. “Tech companies aren’t villains for wanting training data, and creators aren’t luddites for wanting to be paid, but the infrastructure to connect them simply hasn’t existed until now. This represents a huge opportunity for those in the industry to build a transparent and trusted licensing framework that allows innovation and creator rights to coexist commercially.”

He points to the influencer marketing economy, worth tens of billions of pounds globally and constructed almost entirely on rights licensing, as evidence that the commercial template already exists. “Brands and talent collaborate every day on an enormous scale. The commercial appetite for licensed content is there, the economic model is proven, and creators are increasingly aware of how their likeness and IP are used. What’s been missing in AI is a transparent, trusted way to license at the speed and scale these models require.”

Without such guardrails, Woollams warns, the drumbeat of litigation will only grow louder. “This sort of friction and litigation will continue to plague the industry, which will have negative knock-on effects on the kind of collaboration that should be powering the next generation of creative work, where AI platforms, advertisers and talent can actually build together.”

For Meta, the stakes extend well beyond the immediate price tag. A successful class certification could expose the group to claims from thousands of rights holders, while an adverse ruling would reverberate across an industry that has built its competitive edge on the unrestricted ingestion of vast corpora of human-authored work. For Britain’s SME publishers and creators, the case is a reminder that the rules of engagement with generative AI remain very much under construction, and that the courts, for now, are doing the drafting.

Read more:
Publishers take Meta to court in landmark AI copyright showdown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Rethinking Sales Helped Shape His Career

Most sales advice focuses on what to say. Abraham Pinchuck built his career by focusing on what not to say.

Instead of pushing products, he built a system around listening. Over time, that idea became the foundation of his work across multiple industries.

“Selling is a recipe for failure in sales,” he says. “If you focus on yourself, you lose. If you focus on the person in front of you, everything changes.”

From Brooklyn Beginnings to Business Foundations

Abraham Pinchuck grew up in Brooklyn, New York. His early years were shaped by sports, especially basketball. That competitive environment taught him discipline and consistency.

He later attended Bernard Baruch College, earning a degree in marketing and sales in 1991. Like many graduates, he entered the workforce with a traditional understanding of how sales worked.

That understanding would evolve quickly.

Real Estate: Early Lessons in Human Behavior

His first major step was in real estate. He worked on renovating properties and reselling them.

This wasn’t just about improving buildings. It was about understanding buyers.

What made someone choose one property over another? What details mattered most?

These questions helped him realize that decisions are driven more by personal priorities than by logic alone.

Manufacturing Experience and a Broader View of Business

Abraham later moved into food manufacturing. This chapter of his career lasted for many years and expanded his view of how businesses operate.

He learned how systems, processes, and efficiency impact results. Over time, he transitioned into consulting, helping manufacturers improve performance.

In that role, he saw a pattern.

Many businesses struggled not because they lacked effort, but because they focused on the wrong things.

A Shift Toward Coaching and Sales Development

Eventually, Abraham moved into the insurance space, where he now works as a self-employed consultant. He trains agents in Medicare Advantage (MAPD) and life insurance.

These are demanding fields. High rejection rates and complex products make success difficult.

But Abraham doesn’t teach traditional selling techniques.

“Learning to listen to people, ask good questions, and identify what is important to them—that’s what actually works,” he says.

His approach focuses on understanding before offering solutions.

The Mindset Change That Made the Difference

One of the most important lessons in Abraham’s career came from his own mistakes.

“Biggest obstacle was not realizing that in order to be successful I needed to focus on the people I’m helping, not me,” he says.

That realization changed how he approached every conversation.

Instead of thinking about outcomes, he focused on the process. Instead of trying to convince, he worked to understand.

This shift made his results more consistent over time.

How He Applies This Approach Today

Abraham’s work today centers on helping others adopt the same mindset.

He trains agents to slow down conversations, ask better questions, and pay attention to what clients actually care about.

“Being a great listener and having a genuine desire to help people,” he says, “that’s the difference.”

He also emphasizes long-term thinking. His personal benchmark is steady improvement, with a goal of increasing results by 20% each year.

This kind of growth, he believes, comes from habits—not shortcuts.

What Drives Results in a Competitive Industry

In a field where many rely on scripts and pressure tactics, Abraham focuses on relationships.

One of his main growth strategies is simple.

“Referrals,” he says.

When clients feel understood, they are more likely to trust—and more likely to recommend.

This creates a more stable and sustainable path for growth, especially in industries like insurance.

Influence, Learning, and Staying Grounded

Abraham credits part of his approach to the influence of Dale Carnegie, known for his work on communication and human connection.

But he also relies on his own experience.

“Look at my past success,” he says. “That helps me stay grounded.”

Reading is another key part of his routine. It helps him continue learning and refining his approach.

Life Outside of Work

Outside of business, Abraham focuses on staying active and balanced.

He enjoys hiking, bodybuilding, pickleball, and traveling. These activities support both physical and mental discipline.

They also reflect the same consistency he applies in his work.

A Practical Idea That Scales Across Industries

Abraham Pinchuck’s career has taken him through real estate, manufacturing, and insurance. Each industry is different, but one idea has remained constant.

Understand people first.

“Have a genuine desire to help people,” he says. “That’s what works.”

It’s a simple concept. But applied consistently, it has shaped his career—and the way he helps others build theirs.

Read more:
Abraham Pinchuck Built Success by Changing How Sales Works

The taxman’s reliance on private debt collectors has reached fresh heights, with HMRC spending more than £5.2m in a single month with its principal recovery partner, a sum that critics warn is being prised from already battle-worn small businesses.

Analysis by the Parliament Street think tank of HMRC’s transparency disclosures shows the department paid TDX Group £5,289,528.65 in February 2026, the company’s debt recovery and insolvency management arm. That marks a leap of just over £2m on January’s bill of £3,236,829.26, and dwarfs the £4,070,045.89 spent in December.

The escalation comes as Chancellor Rachel Reeves leans ever harder on tax compliance to plug Treasury gaps, with wage growth across the wider economy continuing to flatline.

For TDX Group, the boom in government instructions has translated into healthy returns. The company’s most recently filed accounts at Companies House reveal turnover climbing from £63.2m to £79.7m over the past two financial years, with operating profit doubling from £3.7m to £7.5m in the same period.

That trajectory is unlikely to reverse soon. In the Autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor confirmed that 5,000 additional HMRC compliance officers would be phased in by 2029-30, a recruitment drive the Treasury expects to deliver around £7.5bn a year in extra yield once fully operational. A further 500 officers were rubber-stamped at the Spring Statement 2025, with hiring beginning in the 2025-26 financial year.

For smaller firms, already wrestling with employer National Insurance rises, stubborn borrowing costs and softer consumer demand, the intensified pursuit of arrears is being felt acutely.

Kenny MacAulay, chief executive of accounting software platform Acting Office, said the figures would land badly with owner-managed businesses already on the ropes. “These figures will rub salt in the wound of struggling businesses forced to tackle higher taxes, operating costs and surging interest rates,” he said. “Faced with sizeable overheads, companies will be looking to make use of AI and technology to cut costs and balance the books.”

Patrick Sullivan, chief executive of the Parliament Street think tank, was more pointed. “It beggars belief that the Chancellor’s debt collectors are raking in millions whilst hardworking taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet,” he said. “It’s time for a radical rethink of government expenditure, with a clampdown on millionaire debt collectors who are getting rich at the expense of working people.”

TDX Group declined to comment on the specifics of its arrangements, citing the confidentiality of its contractual relationships.

A spokesman for HMRC defended the department’s approach, stressing that enforcement was a last resort. “Most customers meet their tax responsibilities, with 90 per cent paying in full and on time,” he said. “We take a supportive approach to dealing with customers who have tax debts and do everything we can to help those who engage with us to get out of debt, including offering instalment plans.”

Businesses trading in the UK increasingly rely on specialist VAT compliance support providers such as VAT Number UK to avoid registration delays, filing issues and mounting HMRC pressure.

For SME owners weighing whether the squeeze will ease any time soon, the direction of travel from Whitehall suggests otherwise. With thousands more compliance officers set to come on stream and outsourced collection activity scaling rapidly, the cost, both financial and reputational, of falling behind on a tax bill is rising fast.

Read more:
HMRC’s monthly debt collection bill balloons to £5.2m as compliance crackdown bites British businesses

The dust hangs thick in the air at Sharp Group’s recycling facility in Rainham, east London, where the relentless rumble of hoppers and conveyor belts sets a punishing tempo. It is, by any measure, an unforgiving place to earn a living, and increasingly, that is the problem.

The family-run skip and waste management business, which processes up to 280,000 tonnes of mixed recycling a year, depends on 24 agency workers stationed along its rapid conveyor belts. They sift, in real time, through a procession of debris that ranges from old trainers and VHS cassettes to slabs of concrete. It is the sort of work that few are queueing up to do, and the figures bear that out. Annual staff turnover at the plant runs at 40%, mirroring an industry-wide retention crisis that is now forcing British SMEs to confront a question once reserved for car factories and Amazon warehouses: can robots do this instead?

For Sharp Group, the answer may be taking shape on the line itself. A humanoid robot known as Alpha, the Automated Litter Processing Humanoid Assistant, is being trained to pick through the waste stream alongside the human pickers it may one day replace. Built by China’s RealMan Robotics and adapted for British recycling conditions by London-based TeknTrash Robotics, Alpha represents an unusual bet on humanoid form factors in an industry that has, until now, leant towards bespoke automated kit.

“The attraction of a humanoid is that you can put it here and it stays here,” says Chelsea Sharp, the plant’s finance director and granddaughter of founder Tom Sharp. “It will pick all day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It’s not going to apply for a holiday, it’s not going to have a sick day.”

That blunt commercial logic sits against an equally blunt safety case. Work-related injury and ill-health in the waste sector run 45% higher than the national average across other industries, and the fatality rate is a sizeable multiple of the broader workforce. Sharp Group is proud of its own safety record, but the maths of recruitment in such an environment is becoming increasingly difficult to defend.

“The belt is moving all the time, you’re constantly picking. I go through a lot of pickers because they just aren’t up to the job,” says line supervisor Ken Dordoy. The firm rotates staff through different waste streams every 20 minutes, with periodic stoppages built in for respite, a regime that speaks volumes about the strain involved.

Alpha, for now, is no quick fix. It is in the early stages of an exhaustive training programme, with a plant worker wearing a VR headset alongside the robot to demonstrate what good picking looks like. The dual challenge, TeknTrash founder and chief executive Al Costa explains, is teaching the machine first to identify objects on a moving belt, and then to lift them reliably. His firm’s HoloLab system feeds Alpha a torrent of data from multiple cameras, generating millions of training data points a day.

Costa is candid about the gap between marketing hype and operational reality. “The market thinks these robots are prêt‑à‑porter, that all you need to do is plug them into the mains and they will work flawlessly. But they need extensive data in order to be effectively useful.”

The humanoid approach has the advantage of slotting into existing infrastructure without expensive plant redesign, no small consideration for SMEs operating on the thin margins typical of the recycling sector. The alternative, increasingly favoured by larger operators, is wholesale retrofitting with bespoke automated kit.

Colorado-based AMP, which runs three of its own plants and supplies equipment to dozens of facilities across Europe and the UK, takes that route. Its systems use air jets to fire items into chutes, with AI continuously sharpening the machine’s ability to identify and sort materials. “Our robots are much more efficient than humans, probably eight or 10 times the pace,” chief executive Tim Stuart says. “The AI technology and jets have really increased the capacity and efficiency and accuracy of what we can do.”

California’s Glacier, co-founded by Rebecca Hu‑Thrams, deploys mounted robotic arms paired with AI vision. She is quick to note the sheer unpredictability of the material her machines must contend with. A leaking beer can may threaten sensitive equipment; her customers, she adds, have seen “unbelievable things like hand grenades and firearms coming through their facility”. The proposition, she says, is improvement at scale: “As our models learn from more than a billion items, the AI gets better and better. And we’ve always designed our technology so it works not just for big urban plants, but for the semi‑rural facilities running on much tighter budgets.”

For all the differences in approach, the conclusion across the industry is converging. The labour-intensive model that has propped up British waste processing for decades is reaching the end of its useful life. Academics studying the sector see the same trajectory. Professor Marian Chertow of Yale University argues that “robotics coupled with AI-driven vision systems offers the greatest potential for improving material recovery, worker experience, and economic competitiveness in the recycling sector”.

That leaves the awkward question of what happens to the people currently doing the picking. Chelsea Sharp does not pretend the work is anything other than gruelling. “This is a really dirty place to work. You can see the dust, you can hear the noise. It’s not that nice.” Her stated plan, however, is reskilling rather than replacement. “The plan is to upskill those staff. They’ll be maintaining and overseeing the robots. And it brings those same people away from any dangers, including the unpleasant environment, heavy lifting and noise.”

Whether the rest of the sector follows Sharp’s lead, or whether automation ushers in a quieter, leaner workforce by default, will become clear over the next few years. What is no longer in dispute is that the British recycling line of 2030 will look nothing like the one running in Rainham today.

Read more:
Humanoid robots step onto the recycling line as waste firms battle 40% staff turnover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Stephen Fry has launched a £100,000 personal injury claim against the organisers of a major London technology conference, in a case that should give every events business and SME conference organiser pause for thought on public liability and venue safety.

The 68-year-old broadcaster and author is suing CogX Festival Ltd and creative agency Blonstein Events Ltd after he fell roughly two metres from the stage at the O2 Arena in September 2023, sustaining multiple fractures to his right leg, pelvis and ribs. Court documents lodged on his behalf reveal that Sir Stephen had just delivered a keynote address on artificial intelligence when he stepped off the stage into what he later described as “nothing but a six-foot drop onto concrete”.

The legal filings allege that the incident “was caused by the negligence and/or breach of statutory duty of the Defendants, its servants or agents, in failing to ensure that the stage and backstage area were safe, adequately lit and properly protected to prevent a fall from height”.

Keith Barrett of Fieldfisher, the law firm acting for Sir Stephen, said: “It’s very unfortunate that court proceedings were necessary, but the Defendants do not accept Sir Stephen’s account of events, and we have had to ask the court to determine who is responsible for his injury and losses.”

A spokesman for CogX said the company was “unable to comment while the legal process is ongoing”, adding that the team had been “deeply concerned” when the accident occurred and continued to wish Sir Stephen a full recovery. Blonstein Events Ltd, meanwhile, struck a more combative tone, stating that no court proceedings had yet been served and that both the company and its insurers were “confident that our defence will be successful as we were in no way responsible for this incident”.

The case lands at a delicate moment for Britain’s £70 billion business events sector, which has worked hard to rebuild bookings since the pandemic and is now under renewed scrutiny over duty-of-care obligations to speakers, exhibitors and delegates. For the thousands of SMEs that operate within the conference, festival and corporate hospitality supply chain, from production houses and staging contractors to venue managers and creative agencies, the dispute is a sobering reminder of how quickly a flagship event can turn into a balance-sheet liability.

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005, organisers carry a clear statutory duty to assess and mitigate fall risks on raised platforms. Public liability cover for events of this scale typically starts at £5 million, but legal costs, reputational damage and the disruption of a contested claim can dwarf any insurance pay-out. Industry insurers have been warning for some time that premiums are hardening, particularly where risk assessments, lighting plans and edge protection are not properly documented.

Sir Stephen, who relied on a walking stick for several months after the fall, told BBC Radio 2’s Claudia Winkleman in December 2023 that he considered himself fortunate. “The person treating me told me he was treating a patient who had fallen on the same day as me, half the distance, and would never walk again. So I really praise my lucky stars. If it had been the spine or the skull, who knows.”

Greenwich Council confirmed at the time that it had been alerted to the incident and was considering whether to open a formal investigation. The outcome of the High Court action, and any regulatory follow-up, will be watched closely by event organisers, venues and their underwriters.

For SME operators in the events space, the message is unambiguous. Robust risk assessments, certified edge protection, properly briefed stage management and watertight contractual indemnities between principal contractors and sub-contractors are no longer nice-to-haves. They are the difference between a profitable event and a six-figure claim.

Read more:
Stephen Fry’s £100,000 lawsuit against tech conference puts events industry liability under the spotlight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Santander has doubled the financial firepower it commits to the University of Sunderland each year, signing a renewed partnership agreement that will channel £100,000 annually into scholarships, bursaries and start-up grants until the 2026-2027 academic year.

The deal, agreed between the Spanish-owned high street lender and one of the North East’s largest universities, builds on a near eight-year relationship that has already supported hundreds of Sunderland students. For Santander, it represents a further bet on the regional higher education sector at a time when many universities are tightening belts in response to mounting financial pressure.

Under the new arrangement, Sunderland will distribute ten £1,000 Brighter Futures Awards to ease day-to-day financial pressure on undergraduates, alongside six £5,000 Education Awards to cover tuition fees, course materials and accommodation. A further 120 £250 Employability Awards will help students meet the unexpected costs that come with launching a career, from interview travel to placement essentials. Six £5,000 Entrepreneurship Awards complete the package, open to students, staff and graduates seeking to grow fledgling businesses.

All Sunderland students, graduates and staff will also gain access to Santander Open Academy, the bank’s free global e-learning platform offering online courses, grants and expert-led content designed to align learners with skills currently in demand across the labour market.

Sir David Bell, the University’s Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive, sealed the agreement alongside Santander UK’s National Partnerships Director, Jonathan Powell.

“Our partnership with Santander Universities has been running for nearly eight years and has brought immense benefit to students and staff alike,” Sir David said. “These new awards will provide the next generation of Sunderland’s most talented people with the opportunity to achieve even greater success in the future. I am enormously grateful to Santander Universities for the continuing trust and faith they have in our university.”

For Santander, the Sunderland tie-up is part of a far larger global education programme that has assisted nearly 8.3 million people and businesses over the past three decades. The bank has invested more than €2.5 billion through collaboration agreements with over 1,000 universities and institutions across 13 countries, with £115 million committed to UK university partnerships alone since 2007.

Mr Powell said the renewed deal reflected an unusually productive working relationship. “At Santander we believe strongly in the power of collaboration, and that has been strongly evident in our partnership with Sunderland. This new agreement provides more opportunities for people to prosper through our support of education, employability and entrepreneurship.”

The commercial logic for the bank is as much about brand visibility on UK campuses as it is corporate philanthropy. With graduate banking competition fierce and customer acquisition costs rising, sustained presence at universities offers Santander a route to a generation of future current account holders, mortgage borrowers and small business banking customers.

The impact on individual recipients is already visible. Among the dozen students recently presented with £60,000 of Santander Education and Entrepreneurship awards was Kirsty Knott, a 2010 Business and Financial Management graduate from Ryton, who has used a £5,000 Entrepreneurship Award to develop Expansions Coaching, a podcast and emerging events business she runs alongside her husband Anth. The venture is preparing to launch face-to-face networking through the Crack on Club, a small business meet-up at the Twenty Twenty Bar in Newcastle from 14 May.

Kieran Harley, 25, a first-year Electronic and Electrical Engineering student from Sunderland, was awarded one of six £5,000 Santander Education Awards. As a carer for his mother who also works part-time, he said the funding would directly translate into reduced working hours and more time to focus on his degree.

“My long-term goal is to work in the renewable energy sector, and winning the award will make a significant difference to my studies,” he said. “The Santander Education Award will allow me to reduce my working hours, giving me more time and flexibility to focus both on my degree, and to better support my mum.”

For Sunderland, which has built a reputation for widening participation among students from non-traditional backgrounds, the doubling of Santander’s commitment is a welcome counterweight to a sector grappling with frozen tuition fee income, falling international student numbers and rising operating costs. With more than half of UK universities now reporting deficits, corporate partnerships of this scale are becoming increasingly central to balancing the books — and to keeping the door open for students who would otherwise struggle to fund their studies.

Read more:
Santander doubles University of Sunderland support to £100,000 a year in renewed partnership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grosvenor, the property company controlled by the Duke of Westminster, has broken ground on a £40m repositioning of The Hive in Manchester’s Northern Quarter, in a move that takes the group’s directly managed flexible workspace model outside London for the first time.

The Lever Street landmark, which extends to 78,000 sq ft, will be reimagined as a destination office building anchored by 25,500 sq ft of flex space and a hospitality-led amenity offer. Ground-floor units fronting Lever Street will house a deli and a restaurant, both run by what Grosvenor describes as “well-known Manchester names”, with a launch pencilled in for autumn 2026.

For Grosvenor’s UK property arm, the project is the most visible test yet of a regional strategy launched in 2020 that now stretches across roughly 500,000 sq ft in Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Leeds. The portfolio is currently 90 per cent let, a figure that compares favourably with a regional office market still wrestling with hybrid working and a flight to quality.

The group has appointed x+why, the B Corp-certified workspace operator, to run more than 22,000 sq ft of the flex floors under a management agreement. The deal extends a partnership that began in 2023 at Fivefields, Grosvenor’s social-impact workspace in Victoria, and signals a growing appetite among traditional landlords to plug operating expertise into their own buildings rather than cede space to third-party flex providers on conventional leases.

Interiors will be designed by x+why’s in-house team, whydesign, with a deliberate nod to local craftsmanship. Pieces by Manchester-based furniture designers and artists including Aiden Donovan, Jesse Cracknell, Matt Dennis and Mima Adams will be woven into the scheme, while elements from the fit-out installed by previous tenant The Arts Council are to be repurposed, a small but pointed gesture towards the building’s creative heritage.

The bet on Manchester reflects a wider conviction inside Grosvenor that the city’s office market remains one of the most resilient outside the capital, underpinned by a deep talent pool, inward business migration and a structural shortage of grade-A space. The landlord’s nearby Ship Canal House is, it says, close to full occupancy following a run of new lettings and renewals.

Fergus Evans, office portfolio director at Grosvenor Property UK, said the Hive scheme typified the group’s regional playbook of taking “a prime asset in a great location and repositioning it to meet the evolving needs of today’s occupiers”. He added: “Manchester continues to perform strongly for us, and our investment in The Hive reflects sustained demand for well-located, high-quality offices, particularly from the city’s growing digital and creative economy. Combining x+why’s experience in creating design-led, community-focused workspaces with our approach to active asset management, we are well placed to deliver a distinctive, flexible offer that responds to local demand.”

Rupert Dean, chief executive and co-founder of x+why, said the operator was “delighted to be partnering with Grosvenor again to bring The Hive into its next chapter”. He added: “The Northern Quarter is one of the most exciting and entrepreneurial parts of the UK, and The Hive will reflect that energy, offering a workspace that is not only functional, but inspiring and socially driven.”

For SMEs and scale-ups in Manchester’s digital and creative cluster, the very occupiers Grosvenor and x+why are courting, the arrival of a higher-end, hospitality-led flex product on Lever Street is likely to sharpen competition with established players such as WeWork, Bruntwood and Department, and could nudge headline rents in the Northern Quarter higher when the doors open next autumn.

Read more:
Grosvenor takes flex workspace model out of London with £40m bet on Manchester’s Northern Quarter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britain’s technology industry is bleeding female talent at an alarming rate, with nearly 90 per cent of women abandoning the sector within ten years of joining, according to fresh research from Akamai that lays bare the scale of an inclusion crisis costing the UK economy up to £3.5bn a year.

The findings paint a damning picture of an industry that has long trumpeted its diversity credentials yet continues to lose women at the precise moment they should be ascending to its upper ranks. More than half of those who depart do so within five years, while the average tenure for a woman in tech now stands at just six years, a figure that suggests the sector’s much-vaunted pipeline initiatives are pouring talent straight into a leaky bucket.

Crucially, this is not a problem of recruitment. Women are walking away mid-career, typically when their experience and expertise are at their most valuable. The reasons cited will be wearily familiar to anyone who has tracked this issue over the past decade: poor working conditions, inadequate remuneration, a paucity of role models in senior positions, and workplace cultures that remain stubbornly resistant to flexibility and genuine inclusion.

Elizabeth Anderson, chief executive of the Digital Poverty Alliance, argues the problem extends well beyond the corporate balance sheet. “There is a clear and often overlooked link between digital exclusion and the retention of women in the tech sector,” she said. “When workplaces fail to provide inclusive, accessible environments — whether through equitable access to tools, flexible working, or supportive cultures, it can reinforce barriers that disproportionately impact women and ultimately drive them out of the industry.”

Anderson warns of a feedback loop with national consequences. “If the people designing and delivering technology do not reflect the diversity of those using it, we risk embedding exclusion into the digital services that underpin everyday life,” she said, pointing to the 19 million Britons still living in digital poverty. “Representation in tech is therefore not just a workforce issue, but a critical factor in ensuring technology works for everyone.”

The numbers reinforce her case. Women account for roughly a quarter of the UK technology workforce, but only a sliver progress to leadership roles, evidence, the research suggests, of structural barriers that calcify the higher up the ladder one looks.

For SMEs in particular, the exodus represents a bottom-line problem as much as a moral one. Sheila Flavell CBE, chief operating officer of FDM Group, believes the answer lies in coordinated action between Whitehall and industry. “The findings that almost 90 per cent of women leave the tech industry within a decade highlight a challenge we can no longer ignore,” she said. “Upskilling and reskilling women in digital skills must be a priority.”

Flavell is calling for clearer routes into technical and leadership positions, alongside targeted investment in artificial intelligence and digital training. She is particularly insistent on the need to support women returning to work after career breaks. “This also means providing dedicated pathways for women returners looking to re-enter the workforce after a career break, ensuring experienced talent is not lost to the tech sector.”

The economic stakes are considerable. The loss of mid-career women is feeding directly into Britain’s chronic technology skills shortage, with the resulting drag on productivity estimated at between £2bn and £3.5bn each year. Much of that expertise is not lost altogether, it is migrating wholesale to financial services, education and healthcare, sectors that have proved more accommodating of senior female talent.

There is, however, a glimmer of opportunity for employers prepared to act. A substantial proportion of women who have left the industry indicated they would consider a return under improved conditions: better pay, transparent progression, flexible working and cultures that move beyond box-ticking inclusion. For the SMEs and scale-ups that dominate Britain’s technology landscape, that represents a sizeable pool of experienced talent ready to be recaptured, provided they are willing to overhaul the structures that drove these women away in the first place.

The question now is whether Britain’s tech sector treats this latest evidence as another statistic to be filed away, or as the wake-up call it so plainly is.

Read more:
Britain’s tech sector haemorrhages female talent as nine in ten women quit within a decade

Britain’s employers have been saddled with a £28bn increase in their National Insurance Contributions bill over the past year, a figure that is £4bn higher than the Treasury’s own forecast and one that accountants warn is already forcing redundancies across the high street.

Figures compiled by UHY Hacker Young, the national accountancy group, show that the total cost to employers of NICs rose by 24 per cent in the 12 months to 31 March 2026, climbing from £116bn to £143.9bn. The leap followed the Chancellor’s decision to raise the main rate of Employers’ NIC from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent on 6 April last year, a policy sold as a targeted measure to shore up the public finances but which critics argue has become a stealth tax on jobs.

Phil Kinzett-Evans, partner at UHY Hacker Young, said the overshoot could not be explained away by wage inflation alone. “The increase in NIC has caused real pain for UK businesses and I’m not sure that the policymakers recognised or admitted this when they increased the tax,” he said.

While Whitehall has cushioned the blow for the public sector, with roughly £5bn earmarked to offset the higher bill, including £515m ring-fenced for local authorities, private employers have been left to absorb the hit themselves. For many, that has meant either passing costs on to customers through higher prices or taking the knife to headcount.

The consequences are already visible in the labour market. A string of high-profile redundancy announcements in hospitality and retail over recent months have been explicitly blamed on the NIC increase, and recruitment activity has slowed as firms think twice before taking on new staff. Research by Reed, the recruitment firm, found that 46 per cent of businesses said the tax rise would influence their hiring decisions.

Kinzett-Evans added that the timing has been particularly unfortunate, arriving just as employers brace for the additional compliance costs baked into the Employment Rights Act. “It’s now fairly widely recognised that the level of tax in the UK has got too high,” he said. “Businesses need to see a sensible economic plan that sees a reduction in the business tax burden.”

With the Chancellor under growing pressure from business groups to ease the squeeze ahead of the next fiscal event, the question of who ultimately pays for the NIC rise, shareholders, staff or shoppers, is fast becoming one of the defining economic debates of the year.

Read more:
Employers hit with £28bn National Insurance Shock as rate rise bites harder than treasury forecast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British businesses racing to embed artificial intelligence into their products risk leaving millions of disabled consumers behind unless they bring them into the design process from the outset, according to fresh research from the Business Disability Forum (BDF).

A poll of 1,032 disabled UK adults, conducted with Opinium, found that two in five (40%) believe designing, developing and testing AI products with disabled people is the single most effective way to make the technology genuinely accessible. The same survey identified more user-friendly interfaces (38%), better information about how AI can support disabled users (37%) and stronger onboarding support (36%) as further priorities.

For SMEs in particular, many of whom are weighing how, and how quickly, to integrate AI into customer-facing tools, the findings carry a clear commercial message. Roughly one in four people in the UK will experience disability at some point in their lifetime, representing a significant share of the consumer base and the workforce. Building products that fail to accommodate that audience is, increasingly, a competitive liability as well as an ethical one.

The research suggests considerable optimism about what the technology can deliver. More than a third of disabled adults said AI tools could help by improving communications (38%) and online experiences (34%). Other anticipated benefits included better access to healthcare information (33%), education (32%), digital content (32%), support for independent living (31%), improved customer experience (25%) and better access to employment (24%).

That optimism, however, is tempered by significant scepticism. One in five disabled UK adults (20%) said they did not believe AI products would help them at all, while a further 18% said they simply did not know, a sizeable trust gap that businesses will need to close if they want adoption to follow investment.

A parallel Opinium poll of 2,000 UK adults found broadly similar attitudes across the wider population, with 34% agreeing that co-designing AI products with disabled users would improve accessibility, evidence that inclusive design is increasingly viewed as a mainstream expectation rather than a niche concern.

Lara Davis, communications director at Business Disability Forum, said the stakes were considerable. “There is the potential for AI products and tools to make a radical and positive difference to disabled people’s lives, but there is also the risk that disabled people could be left behind,” she said. “With AI developing at pace and one in four people experiencing disability at some point in their lives, this is not an issue that we can afford to overlook.”

Davis urged firms to “actively consult with their disabled consumers to make sure they are involved in the design, development and testing of AI products”, alongside providing better access to information and advice about the technology more generally.

Lucy Ruck, who leads BDF’s Tech Taskforce, was equally direct. “AI has the capacity to transform lives, but only if we get inclusion right from the start,” she said. “Making sure that disabled people are active participants in shaping this technology isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s how we build AI that genuinely serves everyone.”

The forum has set out four recommendations for businesses and developers. They are urged to involve disabled people throughout the AI lifecycle, on the basis that inclusive design removes barriers for everyone, not only disabled consumers. They should publish clear information about the accessibility features of their AI products, in formats tailored to differing communication needs. Compatibility with assistive technology, on which many disabled users rely daily, must be tested rather than assumed. And ethical judgement and meaningful human oversight should be built into both the tools themselves and the content they generate, with inclusive training data used to reduce bias and stereotype.

For SME founders and product leaders, the message is one that has been heard before in other waves of digital transformation: retrofitting accessibility is invariably more expensive, and less effective, than designing it in from the start.

Read more:
Disabled consumers must shape AI from the start, business leaders warned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After 15 transformative years at the helm of the world’s most valuable company, Tim Cook is stepping aside as chief executive of Apple, with hardware engineering chief John Ternus set to inherit one of the most coveted seats in global business.

The Cupertino-based group confirmed on Monday that Cook, 65, will become executive chairman of the board on 1 September, with Ternus, senior vice president of hardware engineering, promoted to chief executive on the same date. The succession, approved unanimously by directors, caps what insiders describe as a patient, long-planned handover rather than a hurried passing of the baton.

Cook will remain chief executive through the summer, working alongside his successor to ensure a seamless transition. In his new chairman’s role, he is expected to focus on global policy engagement, a brief that has grown increasingly weighty as Apple navigates tariff regimes, artificial intelligence regulation and geopolitical pressure on its supply chain.

“It has been the greatest privilege of my life to be the CEO of Apple,” Cook said in a statement. “John Ternus has the mind of an engineer, the soul of an innovator, and the heart to lead with integrity and with honour. He is without question the right person to lead Apple into the future.”

The numbers behind Cook’s tenure make for arresting reading. Since succeeding the late Steve Jobs in 2011, Apple’s market capitalisation has swelled from roughly $350bn to $4tn, a gain of more than 1,000 per cent. Annual revenue has almost quadrupled, climbing from $108bn in the 2011 financial year to more than $416bn in 2025. Cook has added Apple Watch, AirPods and Vision Pro to the firm’s hardware roster, while the Services division he championed now generates more than $100bn a year,  a standalone business that would rank inside the Fortune 40.

For British SMEs that built livelihoods around Apple’s ecosystem, from App Store developers in Shoreditch to hardware resellers on the high street, Cook’s legacy has been the steady expansion of a platform that now reaches 2.5 billion active devices across more than 200 countries. Apple’s global retail footprint has more than doubled during his reign.

Ternus, who has spent almost a quarter of a century at the company, represents a return to the engineer-led tradition established by Jobs. He joined Apple’s product design team in 2001, rose to vice president of hardware engineering in 2013 and entered the executive suite in 2021. His fingerprints are on every major product line, from iPad and AirPods to the recent MacBook Neo and the iPhone 17 range, including the ultra-slim iPhone Air that launched last autumn.

“I am profoundly grateful for this opportunity to carry Apple’s mission forward,” Ternus said. “Having spent almost my entire career at Apple, I have been lucky to have worked under Steve Jobs and to have had Tim Cook as my mentor.”

A Mechanical Engineering graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Ternus cut his teeth at Virtual Research Systems before joining Apple. He has overseen the transition to Apple-designed silicon, the push into recycled aluminium and 3D-printed titanium, and the evolution of AirPods into an over-the-counter hearing aid, a rare example of Big Tech hardware being cleared as a bona fide medical device.

In a further reshuffle, Arthur Levinson, Apple’s non-executive chairman for the past 15 years, will step back to become lead independent director when the new regime takes effect. Ternus will join the board the same day.

“Tim’s unprecedented and outstanding leadership has transformed Apple into the world’s best company,” said Levinson. “We believe John is the best possible leader to succeed Tim.”

Cook’s departure from the chief executive’s office closes a chapter defined as much by stewardship as by showmanship. Where Jobs dazzled, Cook disciplined — turning a maverick product house into an operational juggernaut, reducing Apple’s carbon footprint by more than 60 per cent against 2015 levels even as revenue roughly doubled, and placing privacy at the heart of the brand proposition. Whether Ternus can continue that trajectory while reigniting the pace of hardware breakthrough will define the next era in Cupertino, and reverberate through every business, large and small, that lives within Apple’s orbit.

Read more:
Cook hands Apple’s reins to Ternus as engineering chief prepares for top job