Category: Uncategorized

River Island has warned that it could collapse by the end of the summer unless landlords approve a proposed restructuring plan that would see the closure of 33 stores, significant reductions in rent, and a need for at least £10 million in funding by September.
In documents detailing the plan—first unveiled in June—the high street fashion retailer told creditors that unless the proposals are passed, it may run out of cash by the end of August, rendering it unable to pay its debts as they fall due. A vote on the proposals and a court hearing are expected next month.
Without landlord support, River Island said it would no longer be able to continue as a going concern and would be forced to enter administration or other insolvency proceedings.
The company blamed its deteriorating finances on “a sharp rise in the cost of doing business” and the ongoing shift toward online shopping, which has left its existing store estate misaligned with customer behaviour.
The high street staple, which trades from over 200 stores, has been battling a challenging retail environment despite a brief recovery in spring trading, helped by warmer weather. The uptick followed a difficult 2024 and early 2025, as UK households cut back on fashion spending to prioritise essentials such as food and energy bills.
River Island reported a £33.2 million loss in 2023, reversing a modest £2 million profit in 2022. Sales fell 19% to £578.1 million, according to the company’s latest filings at Companies House.
The restructuring plan includes £40 million in new funding from the Lewis family’s investment vehicle, which continues to control the business. In addition, River Island’s largest lender, Blue Coast Capital, has agreed to waive interest payments temporarily and extend the maturity date on £270 million in outstanding loans from 2027 to 2028.
A spokesperson for River Island said that discussions with stakeholders had been “positive” and that the company was “confident that we will achieve approval of the plan in the next few weeks.”
In January, the retailer implemented a cost-cutting programme, including redundancies at its London head office, affecting departments such as buying and merchandising.
River Island, which began trading as Lewis’s in the 1940s and later as Chelsea Girl, is the latest in a string of high street retailers to struggle with rising costs, falling footfall, and consumer belt-tightening. The company has long been a staple of UK high streets and shopping centres, targeting younger fashion-conscious consumers.
The retailer’s plight echoes that of Poundland, which recently announced its own restructuring plan. That proposal could result in the closure of up to 150 stores, the shuttering of two distribution centres, and the end of online operations, placing 2,000 jobs at risk.
If River Island fails to secure creditor support, it risks becoming the latest casualty of a retail sector under sustained pressure. Its possible collapse would send shockwaves through Britain’s fashion industry and retail employment landscape — and further accelerate the decline of the physical high street in the post-pandemic era.
Read more:
River Island faces collapse unless landlords approve urgent rescue plan

For centuries, land ownership has been a cornerstone of British wealth.
Today, in an era of inflation, political scrutiny, and shifting tax policy, UK farmland is once again in vogue—not merely as a legacy asset but as a strategic, tax-efficient investment for high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) and business owners seeking long-term capital protection.
Yet the rules underpinning this pastoral advantage are under threat. As Chancellor Rachel Reeves advances proposals to reform Agricultural Property Relief (APR), what has long been a discreet haven for generational wealth may soon face profound change.
The enduring appeal of land
Farmland continues to offer a powerful value proposition: scarcity, price resilience, and unparalleled tax reliefs. According to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), UK farmland values rose 7.3% in 2024, buoyed by investor demand, food security concerns, and the monetisation of natural capital through carbon credits and biodiversity offsets.
“Farmland offers both legacy and leverage,” says Henry Pemberton, a land advisor at Savills. “From a tax and wealth planning perspective, it has few rivals.”
The tax architecture: APR, BPR and CGT deferral
At the heart of farmland’s appeal are Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) — powerful tools that offer 100% relief from inheritance tax when structured correctly.

APR applies to land actively farmed or let out for agricultural use, provided it’s held for two years (or seven if let).
BPR can extend that protection to mixed-use or diversified estates that generate trading income, such as from holiday lets or renewable energy.
Capital Gains Tax (CGT) can often be deferred through hold-over or rollover relief, further increasing the asset’s efficiency in estate planning.

Sarah Allardyce, a tech entrepreneur, purchased 88 acres in Kent following a business exit in 2020. Combining regenerative agriculture with solar power and biodiversity credits, she structured her land investment to optimise reliefs.
Her strategy included:

APR on her farmland after two years of direct farming.
BPR on a consultancy operated from the property.
Income from a wildflower offset scheme leased to a local conservation group.

“I didn’t buy land for the subsidies,” she said. “But the tax reliefs certainly sweetened the model.”
The storm gathers: Reform proposals on the table
In her July 2025 Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves launched a consultation on overhauling APR — a move the Treasury says could raise £1.2 billion in additional IHT by 2030. Proposed changes include:

Restricting APR eligibility to working farmers, excluding passive investors.
Reassessing relief on non-agricultural activities, including renewable energy, glamping, and rewilding.
Limiting APR for land held in corporate or offshore structures.

Critics argue these reforms would penalise environmental stewardship, deter new entrants, and destabilise family-owned estates that rely on APR for intergenerational continuity.
Enter, the Jeremy Clarkson effect
Among the most vocal opponents is Jeremy Clarkson, whose Amazon Prime series Clarkson’s Farm has turned him into an unlikely agricultural advocate. In a recent episode, Clarkson railed against the idea that his farm might be deemed “inactive” under new rules.
“So let me get this straight,” he said. “I pay for the tractor, the barn roof, the seed, the diesel, I risk everything on the weather… and then the Chancellor tells me the land isn’t ‘active’ enough to qualify for relief? Madness.”
Clarkson has joined forces with the National Farmers’ Union and a coalition of rural MPs to resist the proposed changes, warning they will erode rural resilience and discourage sustainable innovation.
Case study: Family planning in the countryside
The Hunter-Bennett family, former logistics business owners, invested £6.5 million in a 400-acre Suffolk estate in 2022. With two adult children managing the estate full time, they secured full APR and BPR relief through a UK LLP and trust structure.
Now, amid the policy uncertainty, they are reviewing holiday let income streams and rewilding credits to ensure future eligibility.
“If these reforms go through as written, we may need to unwind parts of the trust or explore restructuring,” said trustee Mark Bennett.
Outlook: Tax shelter, but for how long?
Despite the turbulence, farmland continues to offer unmatched advantages: scarcity, cultural capital, diversification, and long-term tax sheltering. But the rules are no longer guaranteed. Savills has reported a 30% increase in farmland acquisitions via trusts and family investment companies in Q2 2025, as advisors rush to secure current reliefs before any legislative changes are enacted.
“What was once an evergreen shelter is now under audit,” says Pemberton.
Conclusion: Invest in land — but stay alert
Farmland still offers a uniquely British blend of prestige, protection, and performance. But the future of tax efficiency in the sector is under scrutiny, and the window to act may be closing.
For HNWIs and business owners seeking stability, the message is clear: invest in land — but do so with urgency, foresight, and a team that understands both the soil and the statute book.
Read more:
Fields of fortune: Why farmland remains a tax-efficient safe haven — for now

In the polished galleries of Mayfair and the rarefied auction houses of Sotheby’s and Christie’s, a quiet financial revolution is under way.
Britain’s wealthiest investors are increasingly channelling capital into fine art — not merely for aesthetic enjoyment, but as a shrewd, tax-efficient store of value.
Once considered the preserve of collectors and connoisseurs, art is now firmly on the radar of the financial elite. In 2023, the global art market was valued at over $65 billion, with the UK accounting for a substantial 17 per cent, making it the second-largest art economy after the United States. Amid economic turbulence, soaring interest rates, and volatile equity markets, high-end art has proven resilient, particularly at the top end of the market.
According to Deloitte’s 2024 Art & Finance Report, 85 per cent of wealth managers now consider art and collectibles to be viable components of a diversified wealth portfolio.
“Art is increasingly seen as an alternative hedge,” says Laura Kingsley, a wealth advisor at a Knightsbridge family office. “It’s less correlated to equities and, crucially, offers bespoke structures that make it extremely attractive from a tax perspective.”
The tax appeal of tangible beauty
Under UK tax law, fine art can qualify as a “chattel” — a tangible, movable item — offering potential capital gains tax (CGT) relief. Artworks sold for less than £6,000 may be exempt entirely due to the chattel exemption, while those sold above this threshold benefit from marginal relief, often resulting in a lower CGT liability than property or shares. Some pieces, particularly those made from materials expected to degrade, can even be classified as “wasting assets” and are therefore exempt from CGT altogether — though HMRC may contest this.
For inheritance tax (IHT) planning, placing artworks into trusts or corporate structures can defer or mitigate tax exposure. Schemes such as the Cultural Gifts Scheme and Acceptance in Lieu allow donors or their heirs to reduce tax liabilities by offering artworks to public collections, creating both fiscal and cultural value.
“These are powerful tools,” says Fiona Holder, an art tax advisor at Withers LLP. “They allow investors to reduce tax, enhance legacy, and avoid forced sales — all in one elegant move.”
The collector-turned-strategist
One London-based fintech entrepreneur, Amanda Sloane (name changed), began acquiring post-war British art in 2016, initially out of nostalgia. But as values climbed, her strategy evolved. Her £2.5 million collection now includes works by Bridget Riley, David Hockney, and Frank Auerbach, with a portfolio valuation of £4.1 million by 2025.
Key pieces are held in a Swiss bonded warehouse to defer VAT and simplify estate planning. The collection itself is owned via an offshore discretionary trust, shielding it from IHT, and she has donated a Hockney sketch through the Cultural Gifts Scheme, reducing her income tax bill by £180,000.
“At some point, you realise the art is working harder than your index fund,” she says. “Plus, I’d rather see a Hockney every morning than log into an ISA.”
Family offices embrace structured elegance
The Yewtree Family Office, based in Surrey and backed by third-generation property wealth, began investing in contemporary art in 2019. Their £6 million collection includes pieces by Yayoi Kusama, Banksy, and Lynette Yiadom-Boakye. Structured through a UK limited company, the artworks benefit from tax-deductible storage and maintenance costs. Pieces are insured, professionally inventoried, and circulated between private residences and public loans — bolstering both social standing and long-term valuation.
A gifting strategy via the Acceptance in Lieu scheme will eventually offset the family’s future IHT bill as assets pass to the next generation.
“Art offers more than returns,” the family said. “It tells a story. It represents legacy. And in today’s fiscal environment, it also offers protection.”
Caveats of the canvas
Despite its advantages, art investing is not without risk. Liquidity is a persistent issue — even high-value pieces can take years to sell. Valuations are subjective, and without proper documentation (known as provenance), artworks can become legally unsellable. Investors must also contend with market cycles, fashion trends, and forgery risks.
“There’s no Financial Services Compensation Scheme for a fake Rothko,” warns Holder. “This is not a DIY pursuit. You need experienced advisors who understand both the art world and tax code.”
Where money meets meaning
As regulatory scrutiny tightens and traditional tax strategies come under the spotlight, fine art offers a unique blend of discretion, diversification and durability. With the right structure and support, it can deliver not just capital preservation, but cultural resonance.
In an era where spreadsheets meet brushstrokes, it seems Britain’s wealthy are increasingly choosing to hang their assets on the wall — and let them work in silence.
Read more:
Brushed with value: How fine art is becoming the tax-efficient investment of choice for the wealthy

A few weeks ago, I was reading an article in The Times that explored a lesser-known quirk of the UK tax system—one that’s quietly influencing the decisions of high-earning professionals across the country.
It looked at the growing number of individuals choosing to structure their income to avoid crossing the £100,000 mark. At first glance, that might sound counter intuitive.
Surely earning more is always better? But what the article revealed—and what many of us are starting to understand more clearly—is that past a certain point, the financial reward for working harder or taking on greater responsibility can begin to diminish significantly. It’s a fascinating and somewhat troubling shift, and one that resurfaced in my mind over the weekend during a discussion with a group of friends.
The conversation wasn’t necessarily about salaries or tax, but as we spoke about career growth, financial planning, and what people’s next steps were, it came up again: that moment when earning more doesn’t always feel like moving forward.
There is a specific point in the UK income tax system—at £100,000—where the rules change dramatically. Not only do you start paying 40% tax on anything earned above that threshold (as part of the higher rate band), but you also begin to lose your tax-free personal allowance entirely. For every £2 you earn over £100,000, £1 of your personal allowance is withdrawn.
By the time your income reaches £125,140, it has been completely removed. This creates an effective marginal tax rate of 60% on the income earned between £100,000 and £125,140. In other words, for every extra pound earned in that band, you’re only taking home 40 pence. I’ve realised that for many people, this is a startling realisation.
What’s perhaps even more surprising is the psychological impact this has. As business leaders and professionals, we’re often driven by a desire to push forward, to do better, to take the next step—whether that’s in the form of a promotion, a larger project, or an increase in pay. But when the financial incentive becomes disproportionate to the effort, responsibility, and stress required, it creates a moment of pause. Should I say yes to that extra work? Is the reward really worth it?
And perhaps most crucially, could I be financially worse off for doing more?
This is especially relevant to a group now commonly referred to as HENRYs—High Earners, Not Rich Yet. Now I didn’t know who this group was when it was brought up over the weekend but it turns out these are individuals typically earning between £70,000 and £120,000, often working in demanding professional roles, raising families, paying mortgages, and contributing
significantly to the economy. On paper, they’re doing well. But the reality can feel very different. Rising childcare costs, higher interest rates, and escalating living expenses are squeezing everyone including this group, which is supposedly leading many to feel stuck between ambition and affordability. The £100,000 tax cliff only adds to that pressure, creating a sort of ceiling that feels artificial, and at times, punitive.
This isn’t just a financial issue; it’s also a cultural and operational one for businesses. If we know that employees may feel demotivated or discouraged from progressing because of how the tax
system affects their take-home pay, what does that mean for retention and progression? Are we unintentionally limiting talent growth by failing to recognise the true impact of taxation beyond the headline rates? And what can employers do to better support their teams in navigating these thresholds?
It starts with awareness. Too often, salary discussions focus solely on gross income, without consideration for how tax structure, benefits, student loans and allowances affect real-world outcomes. Employers need to understand that, for many professionals, crossing that £100k line isn’t a simple milestone—it’s a tipping point. For those managing compensation, offering more thoughtful payment packages that incorporate elements like pension contributions, flexible benefits, or tax-efficient perks can make a significant difference. It’s not just about paying people more, but about helping them make the most of what they earn.
As someone who has spent much of my career advocating for transparency and sustainability in business, I find this situation troubling. Our tax system should be designed to encourage success, not to discourage people from progressing. When individuals start to avoid promotions or extra responsibility because of what it will cost them financially, we’re heading in the wrong direction. I’ve always believed that contribution to society—whether through taxes, employment, or innovation—should be celebrated and supported. But that contribution must also feel fair and proportionate.
The truth is, the people most affected by this threshold are not the ultra-wealthy. They are the business owners, department heads, consultants, and professionals who work long hours, take on significant risk, and support others around them. Penalising them through overly complex and harsh tax rules sends the wrong message. It says: stay where you are. Don’t stretch. Don’t strive. And that’s something we can’t afford—economically or socially.
There’s no easy fix. Tax reform is complex. Talking openly about the realities professionals are facing is the first step. We should feel able to question systems that no longer serve us and to push for smarter, more compassionate frameworks that encourage ambition, reward responsibility, and support the middle layer of our workforce—not just those at the very top or bottom.
It’s not about avoiding tax or gaming the system. It’s about designing a fairer one—where effort and reward stay in healthy proportion, and where success doesn’t have to come at a loss.The £100k tax trap is just one example of where policy and lived experience are out of step. But it’s an important one. And for many professionals—whether they realise it yet or not—it’s already shaping decisions, shifting career trajectories, and redefining what success looks like.
As leaders, we owe it to our teams, and to ourselves, to understand that impact—and to think creatively about how we support ambition, not stifle it.
Read more:
The £100k Tax Trap: Why More Professionals Are Questioning the Value of Earning More

UK car and van production has fallen to its lowest level since 1953—excluding the pandemic shutdown—after a bruising six months for the automotive sector marked by uncertainty over US tariffs, factory closures, and confusion around new electric vehicle (EV) grants.
Figures released by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) show that car output fell 7.3% in the first half of the year, while van production plunged 45%, driven in part by the closure of Vauxhall’s Luton plant.
The slump leaves the UK auto industry at its weakest point in seven decades, despite a modest uptick in June following the implementation of a long-awaited US-UK tariff deal that reduced tariffs on UK-built vehicles exported to America from 27.5% to 10%.
Mike Hawes, SMMT’s chief executive, called the figures “depressing” and said he hoped the first half of 2025 marked “the nadir” for the industry. However, he warned that the UK was unlikely to return to its 2021 output of one million vehicles annually by the end of the decade.
“The government’s 2035 target of 1.3 million vehicles per year is quite some ambition from where we are,” Hawes said. “We clearly require at least one, if not two, new entrants to come into UK production to achieve it.”
One bright spot was the production of electrified vehicles, which rose by 1.8%. Battery electric, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid models now account for more than two in five vehicles produced in the UK.
However, the SMMT raised concerns about the lack of clarity around the government’s new EV grant scheme, which offers up to £3,750 for vehicles priced below £37,000. While the return of incentives was welcomed, the criteria for eligibility remain opaque.
Grants will be awarded based on the carbon footprint of the vehicle and its battery during production, and only to manufacturers with verified science-based targets—but the government has yet to publish clear thresholds.
“The difficulty is, we don’t know. Nobody knows—not even government—really knows yet which models and which brands will qualify,” said Hawes. “Your dealer cannot tell you whether the model you’re considering is eligible.”
He warned that with September being the second-biggest month for new car registrations, clarity was urgently needed.
A Department for Transport spokesperson said that dozens of models were expected to qualify for the new grant and that £650 million in funding would be awarded on a first-come, first-served basis. The government said it was engaging closely with manufacturers and had published guidance to support applications.
The UK’s second-largest export market for vehicles is the United States, and several manufacturers paused or scaled back production earlier this year amid uncertainty over President Trump’s shifting tariff policies.
The new US-UK tariff agreement, which took effect on 30 June, has already had a small positive effect on June production figures, according to the SMMT. However, Hawes stressed that sustained recovery would require long-term stability and greater policy clarity, especially around EV policy.
With the electric transition accelerating globally, the UK risks falling behind unless it can attract new investment in battery production, gigafactories, and domestic assembly.
“We’re seeing record EV production shares, which is a sign of strength. But the fundamentals are fragile,” said Hawes. “We need certainty, capacity and competitive conditions to turn recovery into growth.”
While the government remains optimistic that its EV grants and trade deals will provide a substantial boost, the SMMT’s warning paints a stark picture of an industry at a crossroads—caught between global headwinds and domestic policy delays, and in urgent need of momentum.
Read more:
UK vehicle manufacturing hits 70-year low as industry faces tariff turmoil and EV grant confusion

General Motors has reported a sharp fall in profits after taking a $1.1 billion hit from new import tariffs introduced under President Trump’s escalating trade war.
The US carmaker said its second-quarter core profit dropped by 32 per cent to $3 billion, and warned that the financial impact would worsen in the third quarter.
The Detroit-based company, which remains America’s largest carmaker by volume, attributed the drop to new duties on vehicles manufactured in Canada, Mexico, and South Korea—a key part of its global production network. Revenue also fell by nearly 2 per cent year-on-year to $47 billion.
In a letter to shareholders, Chief Executive Mary Barra said GM was taking aggressive action to mitigate the impact of the tariffs, including $4 billion of new investment in US assembly plants to reduce reliance on imports. The company expects to build more than 2 million vehicles annually in the US as it scales domestic production.
“We are working to greatly reduce our tariff exposure,” Barra wrote. “Despite the near-term pressure, we remain focused on a profitable, flexible future.”
Chief Financial Officer Paul Jacobson said the company still expects trade-related costs to reach as much as $5 billion, though GM aims to offset at least 30 per cent of that through a combination of manufacturing shifts, targeted cost savings, and pricing strategy.
Shares in General Motors fell sharply on the news, dropping 6.9 per cent to $49.52 in early trading in New York.
The second-quarter results were also impacted by higher warranty costs, which GM said were partly linked to software issues affecting early batches of electric vehicles. The company reported 46,300 EV sales in the second quarter, up from 31,900 in Q1, but acknowledged that EV sales growth is slowing across the US.
The pace of growth has been further complicated by the impending expiration of the $7,500 federal EV tax credit, set to end in September for many GM models under the rules of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Despite these challenges, Barra reiterated GM’s long-term commitment to electric vehicles.
“Even as EV growth moderates, we remain focused on a profitable electric future,” she said. “Our north star continues to be long-term EV leadership supported by our domestic battery strategy and a more adaptable manufacturing base.”
General Motors’ warning about deepening tariff costs underscores the pressure facing US manufacturers as they navigate an increasingly protectionist trade environment. Trump’s return to the White House has already prompted a number of companies to shift supply chains and expand domestic production in response to his administration’s aggressive tariff strategy.
While GM says it is confident the financial burden will ease as new bilateral trade agreements emerge, the short-term impact has clearly rattled investors—raising fresh concerns about the long-term cost of navigating geopolitically driven industrial policy.
Read more:
General Motors profits tumble by a third as Trump tariffs deliver $1.1bn blow

AstraZeneca has announced plans to invest $50 billion in the United States by the end of the decade, responding to mounting pressure from the Trump administration for global pharmaceutical firms to shift manufacturing and research operations to American soil.
The FTSE 100 company said the investment will help it reach its target of $80 billion in annual sales by 2030, with half of that revenue expected to come from the US, its largest market. Currently, AstraZeneca derives 42 per cent of its revenues from America.
A key component of the investment includes the construction of a new manufacturing facility in Virginia dedicated to the company’s growing portfolio of chronic disease treatments, including weight management and metabolic therapies. AstraZeneca described the project as the largest single investment in a facility in its history.
The announcement comes amid increasing political pressure from the White House, where President Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on pharmaceutical imports. The administration has launched an investigation into the reliance on foreign-produced medicines under the Trade Expansion Act, citing national security concerns. Trump has warned that tariffs could be imposed as early as the end of the month, beginning at a low rate before escalating significantly if companies do not shift operations to the US.
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick welcomed AstraZeneca’s commitment, stating that the investment aligns with the administration’s broader goal of ending American reliance on foreign pharmaceutical supply chains. “President Trump’s policies are focused on ending this structural weakness,” Lutnick said.
While the investment strengthens AstraZeneca’s position in the US, it also raises fresh questions about the company’s long-term commitment to the UK. Headquartered in Cambridge, AstraZeneca has declined to comment on reports that its chief executive, Sir Pascal Soriot, has privately expressed interest in relocating the company’s primary listing to the US. Although its American depositary receipts already trade in the US, a shift in listing could have significant implications for the UK stock market.
In January, AstraZeneca cancelled a planned £450 million expansion of its UK vaccine site, blaming the British government for missing a deadline to confirm funding support. At the time, the decision sparked a political row and renewed debate over the UK’s competitiveness in life sciences.
Soriot, who has led the company since 2012, warned in April that the concentration of pharmaceutical investment in the US was a signal that Europe must do more to support innovation or risk losing industry jobs to North America. In a statement released alongside Tuesday’s investment announcement, he said the new commitment “underpins our belief in America’s innovation in biopharmaceuticals.”
The company’s latest pledge builds on a $3.5 billion investment announced last November aimed at increasing its US-based supply capabilities. Analysts at JP Morgan, AstraZeneca’s joint house broker, said the expanded US footprint strategically positions the company to weather potential industry headwinds under the Trump administration, including drug pricing reforms and changes to clinical trial regulations.
JP Morgan estimated that around 80 per cent of the products AstraZeneca sells in the US are already manufactured domestically. The new investment could push that figure closer to full self-sufficiency. However, the bank does not believe that the investment makes a change in the company’s UK listing status more likely, pointing out that many large pharmaceutical firms have made similar US-focused investments without altering their market listings.
AstraZeneca’s announcement follows a broader trend among global pharmaceutical companies moving to reinforce their US operations. Swiss drugmaker Roche committed $50 billion to the US earlier this year, while Johnson & Johnson pledged $55 billion in new investment over four years. French company Sanofi has announced plans to invest at least $20 billion in the US by 2030, and Eli Lilly said in February it would build four new manufacturing sites, bringing its total US investment since 2020 to over $50 billion.
While some observers suggest that these investment plans were already in progress due to the scale and profitability of the US pharmaceutical market, the renewed urgency from the Trump administration has accelerated timelines and forced companies to make public commitments.
President Trump has accused pharmaceutical companies of profiteering and price gouging, saying in a White House address in May that the country would no longer tolerate such practices. He has proposed implementing “most favoured nation” pricing, tying drug costs in the US to the lower prices charged in other developed countries.
With the administration’s rhetoric and policies turning increasingly protectionist, AstraZeneca’s $50 billion commitment signals a significant pivot toward the US and underscores the geopolitical and economic factors reshaping the global pharmaceutical landscape. Whether Europe and the UK can respond with policies robust enough to compete remains to be seen.
Read more:
AstraZeneca to invest $50bn in US amid pressure from Trump administration

Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, has warned Chancellor Rachel Reeves that her government’s plans to roll back banking regulations could destabilise the UK’s financial system and risk triggering a future financial crisis.
Appearing before the Treasury select committee on Tuesday, Bailey said it would not be “a sensible” time to unwind safeguards such as bank ringfencing, which was introduced after the 2008 global crash to separate riskier investment banking from retail operations. The comments came in stark contrast to Reeves’ Mansion House speech, where she described the current regime as a “boot on the neck” of business.
Bailey, who now also chairs the Financial Stability Board, acknowledged that some policymakers may believe “the financial crisis is now way in the past” but stressed that from his perspective, “there remains a live threat to financial stability” that justifies retaining robust safeguards.
“For those of us who were veterans of sorting the problems of [the financial crisis] out, the risk is very much still there,” Bailey warned.
His comments came as new figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK government interest payments on debt surged to £16.4 billion in June, the second-highest figure for that month on record. The UK also borrowed £20 billion in June, outpacing forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, and adding pressure on the Chancellor ahead of the autumn budget.
Despite the spike in borrowing costs, Bailey downplayed the UK-specific risk, saying it was part of a wider global trend driven by market volatility, geopolitical uncertainty, and higher deficit spending across major economies.
“We’ve seen an increase in term premiums and steeper yield curves across the board,” Bailey said. “This is a global phenomenon—not unique to the UK.”
The yield on the 30-year gilt has climbed to 5.43%, up from 4.67% a year ago, while the US equivalent has also risen sharply to 4.93%.
Bailey also pointed to President Donald Trump’s renewed trade war and “reciprocal tariffs” policy as a key driver of market volatility, saying that investors were reducing their exposure to dollar-denominated assets in response.
“The most crowded trade in the market at the moment is short dollar,” Bailey said, citing conversations with major institutional investors.
The dollar index has fallen by nearly 10% since January, while a breakdown in long-established market correlations has created significant uncertainty across asset classes.
“Since Trump first floated his tariffs in April, we’ve seen breakdowns in established correlations,” Bailey said. “Markets are rebalancing in response.”
Although stock markets initially slumped, they have since rallied sharply. The FTSE 100 this week closed at an all-time high above 9,000, buoyed by global tech stocks and investor hopes of monetary easing later this year.
Reeves’ plan to review and potentially dismantle the ringfencing regime—a central pillar of post-2008 banking reform—has drawn criticism from financial experts and former regulators including Sir John Vickers, who designed the original framework.
While the Chancellor argues that deregulation is essential to reviving Britain’s sluggish economy, critics fear the move could expose the public to the same systemic risks that triggered the last banking crisis.
Bailey stopped short of directly criticising Reeves but made it clear he would not have used language that described regulation as “a boot on the neck of business.”
As the Labour government pushes forward with its pro-growth reform agenda, Bailey’s warning stands as a stark reminder that financial stability and long-term risk management remain a delicate balancing act—especially at a time of elevated borrowing costs and global market disruption.
Read more:
Andrew Bailey warns Rachel Reeves that City deregulation could reignite financial crisis

A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been hit with a £40,000 fine by the Home Office for hiring a man who allegedly forged his identity—despite the business following standard hiring processes and paying the employee through HMRC’s PAYE system.
Mark Sullivan, who runs Big Fry Fish & Chips in Egham, described the penalty as “devastating” and warned it could spell the end for his small business. The case has fuelled growing calls from business groups to reform civil penalty rules that treat large corporations and small independents alike, with no sliding scale for size or intent.
The fine was issued after a March 2024 raid by immigration officers, who removed an employee alleged to have used another person’s identity, including a forged passport. When the man was hired in early 2023, he provided a national insurance number, student loan repayment records, and housing benefit receipts. The only clerical error, Sullivan says, was not seeing the original passport.
“We owned up when we found out,” said Sullivan. “We told them what happened, but we were given no right to defend ourselves.”
A lawyer warned him that appealing the fine could double it to £80,000, so he opted to pay the reduced £28,000 within 21 days, though he maintains the hire was made in good faith.
According to Home Office correspondence, only original ID documentation—such as a genuine passport—is considered valid for right-to-work checks. Other paperwork like NI numbers or housing benefit letters are not sufficient proof of legal employment status.
Despite cooperating fully and receiving a £5,000 discount, Sullivan was told he could have received a further £5,000 off if he had reported his suspicions to the UK Visas and Immigration hotline. However, Sullivan says there were no red flags at the time.
“He had a bank account, a university education, housing benefit, a student loan. Where were the red flags for us?” Sullivan asked. “He was already working when he came to us.”
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has called the penalty structure “disproportionate” and warned that many small businesses live in fear of accidentally falling foul of complex and rigid immigration rules.
“This is a case of an honest mistake met with inflexible punishment,” said Craig Beaumont, FSB Executive Director. “Small employers are not immigration officers. They need a system that recognises genuine intent and treats them accordingly—not one that issues crushing fines that could threaten their survival.”
From July 2023 to March 2024, the Home Office issued 1,508 civil penalty notices, each potentially as high as £45,000 per illegal worker, following last year’s increase from the previous £15,000 ceiling. The policy applies uniformly, regardless of business size or turnover.
The case comes amid a broader crackdown on illegal working. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has vowed to pursue enforcement “on a completely unprecedented scale”, following deals with France over small boat crossings. In recent weeks, the UK’s largest food delivery firms have also been pressured to step up identity checks.
A government spokesperson said: “Employers are responsible for carrying out right to work checks and there is comprehensive guidance and support on how to do this. The checks are free and take minutes to complete, with businesses able to utilise digital ID verification technology.”
Yet many small businesses argue that the system still leaves them vulnerable to unintentional breaches—with high-stakes consequences and little room for explanation.
Sullivan’s case has now become a lightning rod for the debate over how immigration enforcement is balanced against the operational reality of running a small business.
“I’ve employed people all my life,” Sullivan said. “I’ve never employed anyone illegally on purpose. This is just an honest mistake that could cost me everything.”
Read more:
Chippie owner hit with ‘devastating’ £40,000 fine for alleged illegal hire amid crackdown