Author: AbellMoney

Senior ministers and MPs have warned that the UK’s recent agreements with Donald Trump are dangerously fragile, after it emerged that the flagship deal to avoid US tariffs on pharmaceuticals has no detailed legal text beyond high-level political statements.
The “milestone” UK–US pharmaceuticals agreement announced earlier this month, under which the NHS is expected to pay more for medicines in exchange for zero tariffs on exports to the US, currently rests on little more than headline commitments set out in two government press releases. No underlying draft treaty or legally binding framework has yet been produced.
Concerns have intensified following Washington’s decision to suspend the £31bn “tech prosperity deal”, which had been promoted by ministers as a “generational step-change” in the UK–US economic relationship. The US said the agreement was paused because of a lack of progress by the UK in lowering trade barriers in other areas.
It has also emerged that concessions promised to British farmers as part of an earlier tariff deal with Trump, hailed by Sir Keir Starmer as “historic” in May, have still not been formally approved by the US despite a January implementation deadline looming.
The Department of Health said negotiators were now working through the detailed terms of the pharmaceutical agreement. When asked for the agreed headline conditions, the department referred to its own press release and a US government statement describing the arrangement as an “agreement in principle”.
Critics have pointed out stark differences between the two announcements. The UK described the deal as securing zero tariffs on pharmaceuticals, while the US statement focused on higher prices for medicines supplied to the NHS, suggesting costs could rise by around 25%.
David Henig, a trade expert, said the UK risked making concrete commitments in return for little more than political assurances from a president known for unpredictability. He warned that pressure from US companies threatening to pull investment could further undermine the integrity of the process.
Ordinarily, provisional legal texts would be agreed and scrutinised before public announcements are made. No such document currently exists for the pharmaceuticals deal.
Privately, ministers acknowledged unease about the stability of the arrangements. One described the UK’s emerging set of agreements with the Trump administration as “built on sand”, while another said volatility had become the “new normal” in transatlantic relations.
Layla Moran, chair of the health select committee, said the NHS was being put at risk by what she described as a naive belief that the Trump administration would act in good faith. She warned that a deal already expected to cost taxpayers billions could become even more expensive if it collapsed.
Liam Byrne, chair of the business and trade select committee, said restoring the suspended tech prosperity deal must now be a priority.
Government figures have sought to downplay the risk of the US reneging on the pharmaceutical agreement, arguing that the US drugs industry itself wants certainty. Officials also point to tangible gains, such as the UK avoiding 50% steel and aluminium tariffs imposed on other countries, and securing a reduced 10% tariff on car exports within quotas.
However, problems persist in implementing earlier commitments. Quotas for UK beef exports to the US have yet to be signed off, prompting warnings from farming leaders that agreed access could be delayed or used as leverage in future talks.
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union, said it was essential that promised reciprocal quotas were confirmed before the end of the year to avoid further uncertainty for producers.
While talks between UK and US officials are due to resume in January, critics argue that the lack of legal certainty surrounding recent announcements highlights the risks of relying on informal agreements with an administration known for abrupt policy shifts.
Read more:
MPs warn UK agreements with Donald Trump are ‘built on sand’

Shoppers are paying significantly more for Christmas food this year, with festive chocolate treats costing up to 70 per cent more than last Christmas and the price of a turkey rising by as much as £15, according to new research from consumer champion Which?.
The organisation analysed the cost of key ingredients for a traditional Christmas dinner alongside popular seasonal treats such as mince pies, sparkling wine and chocolates. It found that while overall grocery inflation figures appear to have eased, sharp price rises on individual festive items are hitting shoppers hard.
Chocolate products recorded the steepest increases. A Lindt Lindor milk chocolate truffles box at Asda has risen by 72 per cent, from £1.15 last year to £1.98, while Morrisons’ Lindt milk chocolate teddy tree decorations have jumped 71 per cent, from £3.50 in 2024 to £6 this year. Lindt products dominated the list of the biggest proportionate increases, followed by items such as Terry’s dark chocolate orange, Galaxy sharing blocks and Kinder multipacks.
Across the chocolate category as a whole, Which? found prices were up by an average of 14 per cent year on year. Reena Sewraz, retail editor at Which?, said headline inflation figures masked the reality facing shoppers. “Some individual items have shot up by more than 70 per cent compared with last year, which will come as a shock to many households planning their Christmas shop,” she said.
Rising cocoa prices have been a major driver of higher chocolate costs, with poor harvests in key growing regions blamed on extreme weather, including high temperatures and heavy rainfall.
While chocolate has seen the largest percentage increases, turkeys have delivered the biggest cash impact. A Tesco Finest free-range medium bronze turkey crown has increased by £14.95 to £68.77, a rise of nearly 28 per cent. Across all turkey products — including whole birds, crowns and smaller cuts — prices were up by an average of 4.7 per cent year on year.
Which? said turkey prices had been pushed up by a combination of bird flu outbreaks and rising costs faced by farmers. The traditional centrepiece of the Christmas dinner has also been losing popularity, with more shoppers opting for alternatives. This year, Waitrose confirmed it would no longer sell whole frozen turkeys, following a similar move by Marks & Spencer last Christmas.
Looking across the major supermarket chains, Which? found that Waitrose recorded the highest overall price increases in the run-up to Christmas, with prices up 6.2 per cent compared with last year. Asda was found to have kept increases lowest, at around 3 per cent.
Waitrose said some products discounted last Christmas had not been reduced this year, while Sainsbury’s said it was continuing festive promotions, including price-matched mince pies from £1.25 and discounted vegetable trimmings available through Nectar prices in the final days before Christmas.
Which? warned that while shoppers may be reassured by easing inflation headlines, many families will still feel the pinch at the checkout as they prepare for the festive season.
Read more:
Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

Rishi Sunak has defended the government’s Covid-era Bounce Back Loan (BBL) scheme against claims that it was plagued by excessive fraud, telling the Covid-19 Inquiry that the need to act quickly outweighed the risks.
The former chancellor said he was fully aware of the scheme’s vulnerabilities when it was launched in May 2020, but insisted that delaying it to introduce additional checks would have put hundreds of thousands of small businesses at risk of collapse.
“I keep hearing as if there were no checks done whatsoever, or that we didn’t know what we were getting ourselves into,” Sunak said while giving evidence to the inquiry. “Both of those narratives are completely wrong. Of course we knew the risks we were taking on.”
Bounce Back Loans allowed small businesses to borrow up to £50,000 with a 100 per cent government guarantee, meaning taxpayers would cover losses if companies defaulted. Nearly 1.5 million loans worth around £46 billion were issued, making it the largest of the government’s pandemic support schemes.
A report published last week by the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner, Tom Hayhoe, estimated that fraud and error in the scheme could total up to £2.8 billion, with £1.9 billion already flagged as fraudulent by lenders. The Public Sector Fraud Authority believes the final figure could be higher, as some types of fraud are not fully captured by current reporting methods.
Hayhoe’s report found that the scheme was launched in less than two weeks and relied largely on standard banking fraud controls. Although loans were capped at 25 per cent of turnover, lenders had to accept applicants’ declarations without independent verification. There were also no checks on whether businesses had genuinely been affected by the pandemic or how the funds were used.
Sunak acknowledged those weaknesses but said the speed of delivery was critical. He told the inquiry that around 40 per cent of all bounce back loans were issued in the first four weeks and that even a short delay could have caused widespread business failures.
“You could have lowered the ultimate fraud levels by waiting and building some of these checks,” he said. “But you have to then be confident that you were going to accept the loss of business that would result from that.”
He added that, at the time, there was no pressure to slow the scheme down. “Nobody was waving their hands saying, ‘Slow it down, more checks, more form filling,’” he said.
Sunak also argued that a fraud rate of around 4 per cent was broadly in line with other large government programmes, such as universal credit, working tax credit and housing benefit.
Following the scheme’s launch, the government did introduce additional safeguards, including systems to prevent companies from taking out multiple loans through different banks, which was against the rules.
Looking ahead, Sunak said that if a similar emergency scheme were needed again, better data on companies and improved systems would make the trade-off between speed and fraud prevention “less acute”. However, he warned that such trade-offs would never disappear entirely.
“But we shouldn’t ever think there is not going to be that trade-off,” he said. “There is.”
Read more:
Sunak defends Covid bounce back loans amid claims of excessive fraud

UK inflation eased more sharply than expected in November, falling to a ten-month low and increasing the likelihood that the Bank of England will deliver a fourth interest rate cut of the year.
Official figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed the consumer price index (CPI) rose by 3.2 per cent in the year to November, down from 3.6 per cent in October. The reading was below the Bank of England’s forecast of 3.4 per cent and the 3.5 per cent expected by City economists, marking the lowest inflation rate since March.
Core inflation, which strips out volatile energy and food prices and is closely watched by policymakers, also surprised on the downside, easing from 3.4 per cent to 3.2 per cent. On a monthly basis, prices fell by 0.2 per cent between October and November, signalling a renewed bout of disinflation.
Lower food prices were the biggest driver of the slowdown, according to the ONS. Monthly food prices fell by 0.2 per cent at a time of year when they typically rise, while annual food inflation eased from 4.9 per cent to 4.2 per cent. Inflation for alcohol and tobacco also dropped sharply, from 5.9 per cent to 4 per cent.
Clothing prices provided a further drag on inflation, with annual price growth turning negative at minus 0.6 per cent. This, combined with easing pressure across several consumer categories, helped pull overall inflation lower than anticipated.
Grant Fitzner, chief economist at the ONS, said the fall was broad-based.
“Inflation fell notably in November to its lowest annual rate since March,” he said. “Lower food prices, which traditionally rise at this time of the year, were the main driver of the fall, with decreases seen particularly for cakes, biscuits and breakfast cereals.
“Tobacco prices also helped pull the rate down, with prices easing slightly this month after a large rise a year ago. The fall in the price of women’s clothing was another downward driver.”
The data strengthens expectations that the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee will vote to cut the base rate from 4 per cent to 3.75 per cent at its meeting on Thursday. Economists and traders are forecasting a narrow decision in favour of a cut, following a series of recent indicators pointing to a cooling economy.
Earlier this week, official figures showed unemployment rising and the labour market weakening, while wage growth has continued to slow — developments that reduce inflationary pressure and increase the case for looser monetary policy.
Lower interest rates would provide some relief for households and businesses by easing borrowing costs, at a time when economic growth remains fragile and confidence subdued.
Read more:
UK inflation slows more than expected to 3.2%, boosting case for rate cut

The UK is set to rejoin the Erasmus programme, restoring access for British students to the EU-funded study, training and volunteering scheme five years after the country ended its participation following Brexit.
Ministers are expected to confirm the move this week, with UK students understood to be able to take part in Erasmus placements from January 2027. The government has declined to comment on the detail of ongoing talks with the European Union.
The decision marks a significant policy shift after the UK withdrew from Erasmus in December 2020 as part of its post-Brexit trade deal. At the time, the then prime minister Boris Johnson described leaving the scheme as a “tough decision”, arguing that participation had become “extremely expensive”. It was replaced in 2021 by the UK’s own Turing scheme, which funds international placements worldwide.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously signalled a desire to reset relations with the EU, suggesting in May that a youth mobility arrangement could form part of a broader agreement.
Student groups have long campaigned for the return of Erasmus. Alex Stanley, vice-president for higher education at the National Union of Students (NUS), said the move would be warmly welcomed.
“It’s fantastic that another generation of students will be able to be part of the Erasmus programme,” he said. “Students have been campaigning to rejoin Erasmus from the day we left. This is a huge win for the student movement.”
Erasmus, named after the Dutch Renaissance scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam, provides funding for participants to study, train or volunteer in another European country for up to a year. It is open not only to university students, but also to those in further education, apprenticeships and vocational training, as well as some school pupils.
In 2020, the final year of UK participation, Erasmus provided €144 million (£126 million) in EU funding to support 55,700 participants overall. That year, around 9,900 UK students and trainees went abroad, while 16,100 European participants came to the UK. Glasgow, Bristol and Edinburgh universities sent the most students, with Spain, France and Germany the most popular destinations.
By contrast, the Turing scheme allocated £105 million in the 2024–25 academic year, funding 43,200 placements worldwide. Of these, 24,000 were in higher education, 12,100 in further education and 7,000 in schools. The majority of participants were from England, with smaller numbers from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Ministers who introduced Turing said it was designed to reach more students from disadvantaged backgrounds and to provide greater support for travel costs than Erasmus. It remains unclear what will happen to the Turing scheme once Erasmus is reintroduced for UK students, or whether the two programmes will run alongside each other.
The return of Erasmus has also been welcomed by opposition politicians. Liberal Democrat universities spokesperson Ian Sollom described the move as “a moment of real opportunity and a clear step towards repairing the disastrous Conservative Brexit deal”.
If confirmed, the re-entry into Erasmus would represent one of the most tangible post-Brexit policy reversals to date, reopening pathways for cultural exchange, skills development and European collaboration for UK students.
Read more:
Erasmus scheme set to return for UK students from 2027

Labour’s flagship Employment Rights Bill has cleared its final parliamentary hurdle and is set to become law before Christmas, marking the most significant expansion of workers’ rights in a generation.
The legislation passed its final stage in the House of Lords after Conservative peer Lord Sharpe, the shadow business and trade minister, withdrew a last-minute amendment during parliamentary “ping pong”. The move removed the final obstacle to the bill’s passage.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer hailed the moment as a major milestone for employees across the country.
“This is a major victory for working people in every part of the country,” he said. “We have just introduced the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Today our plans passed through parliament, and will soon become law.”
The bill applies to England, Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland, and is expected to receive royal assent later this week. Most of its measures will require secondary legislation before they come into force.
Under the new law, workers will gain access to statutory sick pay and paternity leave from their first day in a job. The legislation also introduces strengthened protections for pregnant women and new mothers.
Labour had originally pledged to give employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one, but backed down in November following concerns from business groups. Instead, enhanced unfair dismissal protections will apply after six months of employment — now the bill’s most significant reform.
Trade unions welcomed the bill’s passage but warned against further dilution. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said it must now be implemented “without any further dilution or delay”.
“The bill has already been watered down far too much, not least the failure to ban fire and rehire and zero-hours contracts,” she said.
TUC general secretary Paul Nowak described the vote as a “historic day and an early Christmas present for working people across the country”.
“Finally, working people will enjoy more security, better pay and dignity at work thanks to this bill,” he said, urging the government to implement the reforms “at speed”.
The Conservatives, however, criticised the timing of the legislation, arguing it risks damaging employment.
“It is ironic that Labour’s job-destroying unemployment bill passed on the same day official figures confirmed unemployment has risen every month this government has been in office,” a party spokesperson said, referring to data showing unemployment rose to 5.1 per cent in the three months to October.
Shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith warned the bill would “pile costs onto small businesses, freeze hiring, and ultimately leave young people and jobseekers paying the price”.
Business groups including the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses said earlier this week that they remained concerned about aspects of the reforms, but accepted that with the six-month qualifying period retained, the bill should now be passed to provide certainty.
Employment lawyers said employers should now shift focus from speculation to implementation.
Florence Brocklesby, founder of Bellevue Law, said: “Regardless of views on the pros and cons of the reforms, employers will welcome certainty and the ability to plan. Implementation should be treated as a major project, with sufficient senior management and HR resource.”
She warned that the new six-month unfair dismissal threshold would require stronger hiring processes and early performance management, while the lifting of the compensation cap would be most significant for employers with large numbers of highly paid staff.
Jo Mackie, employment partner at Michelmores, raised concerns about uncapped unfair dismissal damages, saying they could “encourage claims and strike fear into employers”, potentially discouraging recruitment.
Dave Chaplin, chief executive of ContractorCalculator, said the reforms risked reducing permanent hiring among small businesses.
“For SMEs, a six-month cliff edge dramatically increases the risk of hiring,” he said. “The irony is that while the bill strengthens protections for those already in work, it raises the hurdles for people trying to get a job.”
With royal assent imminent, employers and employees alike are now bracing for one of the biggest shifts in workplace regulation in decades — with the real impact set to unfold as the reforms are phased in.
Read more:
Employment Rights Bill clears final parliamentary hurdle and set to become law

The AA has appointed advisers to explore a potential sale or stock market flotation, five years after the debt-laden roadside assistance group was taken private, as rival RAC also considers a return to public markets.
The AA, which is owned by private equity firms Warburg Pincus, TowerBrook Capital Partners and Stonepeak, has hired JP Morgan and Rothschild to review strategic options for the business, which is valued at around £5 billion. The process is understood to be at an early stage.
The move comes as the backers of the RAC are also assessing options, including a possible London listing as early as next year, in what could provide a rare boost to the UK’s subdued IPO market.
Warburg Pincus, TowerBrook, Stonepeak, the AA and JP Morgan declined to comment. Rothschild was approached for comment.
Founded in 1905 as the Automobile Association, the AA was owned by its members until it was demutualised in 1999. Its time as a listed company proved turbulent, largely due to heavy debts accumulated under previous private equity owners CVC and Permira, which acquired the business in 2004.
The AA floated in 2014 at 250p a share, with the price peaking at 416p the following year, before collapsing. In 2021 it was taken private by TowerBrook and Warburg Pincus at just 35p a share.
The group also endured management turmoil, most notably in 2017 when its executive chairman, Bob Mackenzie, was dismissed following a physical altercation with another director at a corporate awayday. Mackenzie later said the incident was driven by stress.
Today, the AA serves around 17 million customers. It reported revenues of £621 million for the six months to the end of July, up 6 per cent year on year, and pre-tax profits of £60 million, compared with £39 million a year earlier.
Crucially for potential investors, the company has reduced its leverage significantly. Net debt has fallen to 4.1 times earnings, down from 7.6 times just before it was taken private, putting it on track to reach a target of below four.
Jakob Pfaudler, the AA’s chief executive, said earlier this year that the group was entering a new phase, shifting its focus “from transformation to acceleration”.
At the same time, the RAC, owned by CVC Capital Partners alongside Singapore’s GIC and Silver Lake Partners, is said to be studying a potential IPO, also targeting a valuation of about £5 billion. A sale to another buyer remains an alternative option.
An RAC flotation would be a welcome development for the London market, which has struggled with a lack of new listings and a wave of takeovers in recent years. GIC and Silver Lake declined to comment, while CVC was approached for comment.
The RAC, founded in 1897 and one of the world’s oldest roadside assistance providers, has around 15 million customers. It reported revenues of £411 million in the first half of the year, an 8 per cent increase, and pre-tax profits of £62 million, up from £57 million a year earlier.
Its net debt stood at 4.6 times adjusted earnings at the end of June, down from 5.4 times a year earlier, reflecting a similar deleveraging trend to that seen at the AA.
The RAC was sold by Aviva in 2011 to buyout firm Carlyle for £1 billion, underlining how both of Britain’s best-known motoring organisations have repeatedly changed hands — and may now be poised for another shift in ownership.
Read more:
AA explores £5bn sale as RAC weighs London stock market listing

The proportion of people in Britain holding cryptocurrencies has fallen sharply, according to new research published by the Financial Conduct Authority, as the regulator unveils long-awaited plans to bring digital assets under formal supervision.
Research commissioned by the FCA found that just 8 per cent of UK adults now own cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin or ethereum, down from a peak of 12 per cent in 2024. The findings suggest that the boom in retail crypto ownership has lost momentum amid ongoing volatility and regulatory uncertainty.
However, while fewer people now hold digital assets, those who remain invested tend to own larger amounts. The proportion of crypto holders with investments worth between £1,001 and £5,000 rose by four percentage points to 21 per cent, while those with holdings valued between £5,001 and £10,000 increased by three points to 11 per cent.
At the other end of the scale, smaller holdings have become less common. The share of investors with crypto valued at £100 or less fell to 27 per cent, from 32 per cent last year, suggesting that rising prices for major cryptocurrencies may have pushed some casual or lower-value investors out of the market.
The research was based on a survey of 2,353 adults conducted between August and September and was released alongside a package of proposals from the FCA to create a comprehensive regulatory regime for digital assets.
Under the plans, crypto firms would be subject to rules covering market abuse, lending practices, custody, and standards for exchanges, bringing oversight of the sector closer to that applied to traditional financial services. While much of the UK crypto market remains unregulated, the FCA said its approach would mirror its supervision of conventional finance.
However, the regulator warned that regulation would not eliminate the inherent risks of investing in volatile digital assets.
“Creating a rule book for crypto cannot, and should not, remove all risk,” the FCA said. “Instead, it should ensure that anyone investing in crypto does so with their eyes open.”
The proposals follow legislation put forward by the government this week to bring cryptoassets formally within the FCA’s remit, with the aim of a full UK regulatory regime being in place by 2027.
Crypto firms have repeatedly warned that the UK risks falling behind the United States and the European Union, both of which have moved more quickly to establish clear frameworks for digital assets. Industry figures argue that delays could undermine Britain’s ambition to become a global hub for crypto and blockchain innovation.
The FCA’s data suggests that while enthusiasm among retail investors may be waning, significant sums remain invested in the sector — reinforcing the regulator’s view that clearer rules are needed as digital assets become more established within the financial system.
Read more:
Crypto ownership falls in UK as FCA prepares new digital asset rules

BGF has completed a £16.6 million minority investment in Workbooks, the mid-market software platform positioning itself as a practical alternative to traditional CRM systems by bringing sales, marketing, customer support and commercial operations into a single, integrated solution.
Workbooks serves hundreds of customers across the UK and the US, spanning a broad range of sectors. The platform has gained traction among mid-sized organisations looking to avoid the complexity, cost and fragmented add-ons often associated with enterprise CRM providers.
Customers cite Workbooks’ lower total cost of ownership, wide-ranging functionality and its ‘Shared Success’ onboarding and support methodology as key differentiators. The approach focuses on long-term partnership and adoption rather than one-off implementation.
The new funding will be used to accelerate go-to-market activity and product development, with particular emphasis on deepening integration across sales, operations and finance workflows. Workbooks also plans to build on its growing footprint in the US market.
John Cheney, chief executive of Workbooks, said the investment would allow the business to scale without compromising its customer-first philosophy.
“Our mission is simple: to give mid-market organisations an integrated platform that works the way their business works — without the complexity, hidden costs or bolt-ons that often come with alternative providers,” he said. “BGF’s backing helps us move faster, while staying true to what sets us apart.”
Workbooks’ service-led approach has been a recurring theme in customer feedback. One US-based customer described the experience as increasingly rare in the CRM market.
“The customer service we receive from Workbooks is exceptional,” the customer said. “The team is responsive and proactive, which is something you don’t often see today.”
BGF said Workbooks’ clarity of positioning and reduced implementation risk were central to its decision to invest.
Jack Teasdale, investment director at BGF, said: “Workbooks has carved out a strong position in the mid-market with a platform that goes well beyond sales CRM. Its onboarding model significantly reduces implementation risk, and customers consistently tell us the product is intuitive, flexible and easy to adopt. We’re excited to support the team as they scale.”
As part of the deal, BGF will take a seat on the Workbooks board while remaining a minority shareholder.
The investment adds to BGF’s growing portfolio of UK-based software and technology businesses focused on scalable growth, customer retention and long-term value creation.
Read more:
BGF invests £16.6m in Workbooks to fuel growth of its ‘no-BS CRM’ platform