Business

A British deep-tech start-up promising to liberate AI-powered businesses from spiralling cloud bills has secured £1 million in pre-seed funding, in a deal that points to one of the most pressing margin headaches facing the SaaS sector.

Loc.ai, a London-based outfit building so-called “off-cloud” AI infrastructure, has closed the round under the leadership of Fuel Ventures, the prolific early-stage investor founded by Mark Pearson. The capital will be used to accelerate go-to-market efforts among SaaS and desktop software companies that are presently bleeding margin to the per-call billing model imposed by hyperscale cloud providers.

The pitch is straightforward, if technically ambitious. Rather than routing every user request through a remote data centre, and paying a fee to the likes of Amazon, Microsoft or Google for each one, Loc.ai shifts the artificial intelligence workload directly onto the customer’s own kit, be that a laptop, a workstation or dedicated edge hardware. The result, the company argues, is faster performance, far stronger data privacy and, crucially for chief financial officers, predictable fixed costs in place of variable cloud fees that scale unhelpfully with user growth.

Co-founder Joseph Ward did not mince words. “For years, we’ve handed control of our most critical AI infrastructure to companies we don’t own and can’t influence,” he said. “Inference costs keep climbing. Services get switched off without warning. Loc.ai exists so that developers, governments and businesses never have to accept those terms again.”

That message is landing at a moment when the economics of generative AI are coming under serious scrutiny. With AI no longer a bolt-on feature but increasingly the product itself, embedded in meeting tools, writing assistants, customer-support platforms and code copilots, every keystroke can trigger a billable event. For fast-growing software firms, the result is a cost curve that climbs in lock-step with usage, eroding the margin economics that have long underpinned the SaaS model.

Loc.ai is also tapping into Britain’s intensifying push for sovereign AI. Sensitive material, from boardroom transcripts to customer conversations, is at present routinely shipped through third-party cloud APIs sitting outside national jurisdiction. By keeping inference on-device, Loc.ai claims to remove that exposure entirely, leaving customers with full control over where their AI runs and where their data resides.

The technology is being made viable by the rapid maturation of consumer hardware. Modern laptops can now comfortably run open-source models in the seven to thirteen billion parameter range, sufficient, the company says, to power the bulk of enterprise and SaaS use cases without ever phoning home.

Loc.ai was selected for the inaugural cohort of the Google for Startups Accelerator 2025, a programme that has given the team early sight of the ultra-efficient models being designed by Google for consumer devices. That access has shaped the company’s road map and, the founders argue, positioned it for the architectures that will define the next decade rather than those dominating today’s headlines.

Ward and his co-founder Saif Al-Ibadi are not first-time operators. The pair previously built a deep-tech business applying generative design to defence and aerospace engineering, and counted the Ministry of Defence among their clients, delivering the UK’s first generatively designed rocket engine and reportedly slashing design times by more than ninety per cent. Their pedigree in resource-constrained AI has already been put to commercial use through a multi-year contract with B2Space, which has deployed Loc.ai’s agents at the edge of space and cut bandwidth costs by a similar margin.

Mark Pearson of Fuel Ventures said the firm was backing a problem that has fast become impossible to ignore. “Loc.ai is tackling a critical, margin-eroding challenge facing SaaS as AI usage scales,” he said. “Their deep-tech expertise and track record in deploying AI in constrained environments position them strongly to deliver sovereign AI at scale. We’re excited to support Joe and Saif as they help companies regain control over their technology and costs.”

For the CTOs, engineering chiefs and founders Loc.ai is courting, the proposition is simple: convert an unpredictable variable cost into a fixed one, regain control of sensitive data, and stop subsidising the hyperscalers’ growth with their own margin. With the pre-seed round now closed, the company is betting that an increasing share of the British software industry is ready to listen.

Read more:
British deep-tech start-up loc.ai raises £1m to break SMEs free from the cloud’s ‘inference tax’

A British-backed robotics start-up promising to replace ageing offshore vessels and crews with always-on underwater machines has emerged from stealth with $5m (£3.95m) in pre-seed funding, signalling fresh investor appetite for so-called “physical AI” plays targeting the world’s most stubbornly analogue industries.

Bubble Robotics, founded in 2025 by former engineers from NASA and ETH Zürich, has secured the round from Episode 1 Ventures, Asterion Ventures and Norrsken Evolve, following its incubation through London-based talent investor Entrepreneur First. The company is already sitting on more than $4m of signed letters of intent across offshore wind, subsea infrastructure and maritime security, suggesting commercial pull is running well ahead of the typical pre-seed playbook.

The pitch is straightforward, if ambitious. Today, inspecting an offshore wind turbine, a buried data cable or a section of seabed pipework typically demands a chartered vessel, a specialist crew and a daily bill that can climb to $100,000. According to Bubble’s founders, between 80 and 90 per cent of those costs are tied up in the boat and the people on it, rather than in the inspection itself.

“By removing that dependency, we unlock a step change in cost, safety and operational frequency,” said Jean Crosetti, chief executive and co-founder. “What used to be episodic becomes continuous.”

The plan is to dispense with vessel-based missions altogether and instead deploy fleets of resident autonomous robots that live at sea for months at a time, continuously inspecting, monitoring and gathering data without human intervention. Crosetti likens the model to the satellite constellations that have transformed earth observation over the past decade, only pointed downward into the water column rather than up at the atmosphere.

The timing reflects a wider inflection point. Cheaper edge computing, more capable on-device AI and the rapid expansion of low-earth-orbit satellite connectivity have, between them, made persistent unmanned operations technically feasible in a way they were not even three years ago. The macro pull is equally significant: the offshore energy sector alone is forecast to need an additional 600,000 workers by 2030, a shortfall that no graduate scheme is going to plug in time.

Bubble is selling its capability on a robotics-as-a-service basis, sparing customers the upfront capital expenditure and offshore mobilisation costs that have traditionally locked smaller operators out of high-frequency inspection regimes. Target use cases span the inspection of wind turbine foundations, cables, pipes and subsea structures; benthic mapping, photogrammetry and biofouling monitoring for climate and biodiversity clients; and mine countermeasures, unexploded ordnance detection and continuous surveillance for defence and maritime security buyers.

That last category is increasingly pertinent. Recent incidents involving subsea data cables in the Baltic and North Sea have pushed the security of underwater infrastructure up the agenda for European governments and Nato, exposing how thinly monitored much of it remains. Persistent autonomous systems offer a way to maintain a continuous presence around sensitive assets without committing scarce naval resources.

Alice Bentinck, co-founder of Entrepreneur First, said the founders had stood out from the moment they met at one of the firm’s kick-off weekends. “Patricia and Jean formed a team around a shared belief and complementary skill-set: Patricia with world-class technical credibility in robotics, Jean with unusual commercial instinct and intensity. Their pace of iteration throughout the programme and strong customer obsession make Bubble Robotics a company to watch closely.”

For the wider SME ecosystem, Bubble’s emergence is a useful data point. It suggests that capital is still flowing into deep-tech start-ups with credible commercial traction, even as more speculative AI plays cool, and that the long-promised convergence of robotics, AI and connectivity is finally producing businesses with revenue lines attached, not just demos.

Read more:
Bubble Robotics surfaces from stealth with $5m to build the ocean’s autonomous workforce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More than 300 pubs, bars and restaurants have served their last pint and plated their last cover since the start of the year, as Britain’s licensed trade groans under the combined weight of higher wage bills, stubborn energy costs and customers who are quietly drinking and dining at home.

Fresh analysis from CGA by NIQ, the market research group, shows the number of licensed premises across the UK slipped to 98,609 by the end of March, a net loss of 305 venues since December, or rather more than three closures every single day. Coming on top of the 382 sites lost between September and December, the figures mean the country has shed 0.7 per cent of its licensed estate in just six months.

It is a slow-motion contraction that is now accelerating. Casual dining has been hit hardest, with the number of restaurants in that bracket falling by 0.9 per cent in the first quarter alone. Bars, nightclubs, traditional pubs and social clubs have also gone to the wall as households defer the small discretionary treats, a Friday curry, a midweek pint, a birthday dinner, that have long propped up neighbourhood operators.

Behind the headline numbers sits a familiar but increasingly toxic mix of cost pressures. April’s rise in employers’ national insurance contributions, the upward ratchet on business rates and persistently elevated food prices have eaten into already wafer-thin margins. Energy bills, which many operators had hoped would ease this year, have instead been pushed higher by the war in the Gulf, with wholesale gas and fuel prices feeding through to suppliers and threatening another round of menu price rises that publicans are reluctant to pass on to bruised customers.

Karl Chessell, director of hospitality operators and food at NIQ, said confidence among both businesses and consumers remained stubbornly low and warned that “geopolitical crises are likely to cause more damage in the months ahead”. While many operators had “shown remarkable resilience”, he said, “thousands are now nearing breaking point”.

“Soaring costs have taken a heavy toll on hospitality in the first quarter,” Chessell added. “Without targeted support, more closures can be expected over the rest of 2026.”

The trade is now lobbying ministers in earnest for a sector-specific package, a permanent reduction in business rates for hospitality, a lower rate of VAT on food and drink in line with much of continental Europe, and a softening of the national insurance changes for smaller employers. Operators argue that the alternative is the slow hollowing-out of the British high street, with independents and chains alike disappearing from market towns and city centres at a rate not seen since the depths of the pandemic.

For now, the maths is brutally simple. Wages, energy and tax are all rising; footfall and spend per head are not. Until that equation shifts, through policy, peace or a meaningful rebound in consumer confidence, the country’s pubs, bars and restaurants will keep going dark, three a day, one local at a time.

Read more:
Three licensed venues a day are going dark as Britain’s hospitality sector buckles

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

Jamie Oliver has launched a withering attack on the government’s tax treatment of British entrepreneurs, warning that ministers are “battering” the very people who power the country’s hospitality sector and risk turning Britain into an economic backwater.

Speaking to Times Radio, the celebrity chef said the cumulative weight of recent fiscal measures was choking the life out of small operators and would, in short order, make the UK “less and less important, less and less relevant” as a destination for ambition and enterprise.

“If you just batter the entrepreneurs, you’re going to get nothing,” Oliver said. “There is a lack of understanding of the chemistry of what a bubbling, buoyant, optimistic, aspirational, cool country called Britain looks like.”

His intervention lands at a particularly raw moment for the hospitality trade, which has spent the past year absorbing a punishing trio of cost increases. Higher employers’ national insurance contributions, coupled with a sharply lowered threshold at which they bite, have hit operators hardest in the wage bill. Add to that successive rises in the national minimum wage and a steeper business rates burden, and the margins of independent cafés, sandwich shops and neighbourhood restaurants have been pared to the bone.

Oliver argued that without meaningful incentives for risk-taking, Britain would forfeit its reputation as a crucible for new brands and ideas. “There needs to be enough fat in the game for people to take risk, and the association with risk and then innovation and creativity and brands … that can be amplified and grown,” he said.

His sharpest criticism, however, was reserved for what he characterised as a tax regime blind to scale. The system, he said, draws no meaningful distinction between multinational chains and the corner shop. “What’s interesting is the tax system and the government see no difference between, say, Domino’s or Starbucks and Linda and Paul down the road that run a small independent sandwich shop.” Smaller operators, he added, are being “chocked out”.

Oliver knows the sharp end of the trade better than most. His Italian-themed restaurant chain collapsed into administration in 2019, and only at the end of last year did he set in motion the revival of the Jamie’s Italian brand through a franchise tie-up with Brava Hospitality Group, the owner of Prezzo.

He is far from a lone voice. Earlier this month John Vincent, co-founder of healthy food chain Leon, accused ministers of “totally killing the restaurant industry”. Vincent, who last year bought Leon back from Asda before shuttering 22 sites as part of a restructuring, has emerged as one of the sector’s most outspoken critics, arguing that the tax burden on restaurants has become unsustainable.

When Leon filed for administration, he told the BBC the maths spoke for themselves: “Today, for every pound we receive from the customer, around 36p goes to the government in tax, and about 2p ends up in the hands of the company. It’s why most players are reporting big losses.”

For an industry that has long served as a first rung on the entrepreneurial ladder, and a generous employer of young, low-skilled and part-time workers, the warning from two of its highest-profile figures could scarcely be sharper. Unless the Treasury finds a way to differentiate between the corporate behemoths and the family-run independents, Oliver’s verdict suggests, Britain’s hospitality landscape will be poorer, blander and a good deal less ambitious for it.

Read more:
Jamie Oliver warns ministers are ‘battering’ Britain’s entrepreneurs

Sir Keir Starmer is facing fresh calls to spearhead a new cabinet committee charged with shielding British businesses from the mounting cost of global economic shocks, after one of the country’s most influential lobby groups warned that the UK remains dangerously exposed to disruption.

In a report published on Sunday night, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said a decade marked by Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had laid bare the absence of meaningful contingency planning to insulate the UK economy when global supply chains seize up.

The intervention lands at a pointed moment. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz for two months in the wake of the Middle East war is expected to push British inflation higher in the coming quarter and is already squeezing supplies of components used across the food and heavy industry sectors.

Shevaun Haviland, director-general of the BCC, said small and mid-sized firms had been “permanently bruised” by the procession of global shocks and could no longer be left to absorb the consequences alone.

“The UK’s inadequate economic security has become a drag on growth, competitiveness and national strength; yet it is still not given the focus and urgency it demands. The wars in Ukraine and Iran have demonstrated how supply chains can be disrupted overnight. We now live in a world where trade interests may be weaponised and where failing to secure key raw materials means failing to grow.”

At the heart of the BCC’s recommendations is the creation of an economic security cabinet committee, chaired by the prime minister of the day, that would coordinate Whitehall’s response to trade disputes, retaliatory tariffs and attempts to lock British exporters out of foreign markets.

The proposal arrives in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision in February to strike down President Donald Trump’s so-called “liberation day” tariffs,  a ruling that has done little to soften the chilling effect his protectionist agenda has had on free-trading economies, many of which have been forced to design emergency retaliatory measures of their own.

The lobby group is also urging ministers to follow Brussels’s lead and forge a UK version of the EU’s “anti-coercion instrument”, introduced in 2023 and dubbed by some officials a “trade bazooka”. The mechanism would empower the government to impose import charges, and other punitive trade restrictions, on companies based in jurisdictions judged to be in breach of international trade commitments.

The numbers underline the case. The BCC estimates that more than 75 per cent of British manufactured goods sold overseas begin life with imported components, while imports and exports together account for around 60 per cent of UK gross domestic product. Few advanced economies, the report argues, are quite so reliant on the smooth running of someone else’s logistics.

Diversifying that supply chain, so that Britain is less dependent on a narrow band of suppliers for the raw materials underpinning the industries of the future, must become a strategic priority, the BCC says. Demand for lithium, copper and aluminium, the building blocks of electric vehicles, batteries and renewable infrastructure, is forecast to surge over the next decade as consumers and businesses move to greener products.

China’s near monopoly over the refining and processing of many of those critical minerals is, in the BCC’s view, the clearest illustration of why ministers should accelerate domestic production where possible and steer supply chains towards “friendlier” trading partners.

For Britain’s small and medium-sized exporters — many still nursing the scars of Brexit-related red tape and pandemic-era cost spikes, the message from Westminster’s business community is becoming impossible to ignore: in an era of weaponised trade, economic security is no longer the preserve of the Foreign Office. It is, increasingly, a board-level concern.

Read more:
Starmer urged to chair new cabinet committee on economic security as supply-chain shocks bite

L’Oréal has delivered a bullish set of first-quarter numbers, with chief executive Nicolas Hieronimus crediting the so-called “lipstick effect” for propelling demand across Europe as households reach for small, affordable pick-me-ups against a backdrop of geopolitical strain and persistent inflation.

The Paris-listed group, whose stable of brands spans Garnier, Maybelline, Lancôme and La Roche-Posay, reported like-for-like sales growth of 7.6 per cent in the three months to March, taking turnover to €12.2 billion (£10.4 billion) and comfortably eclipsing City forecasts. Shares jumped more than 8 per cent on Thursday, providing welcome relief to investors unnerved by the drumbeat of profit warnings from the wider luxury sector.

Europe did the heavy lifting. Like-for-like sales across the region rose 10.3 per cent to €4.4 billion, a performance Mr Hieronimus described as “the absolute demonstration of what we call the ‘lipstick effect’ or the dopamine effect of beauty”. Consumer research conducted by the business, he added, showed that even shoppers feeling the squeeze were willing to trade down on big-ticket purchases while continuing to spend on cosmetics “as compensation for a stressful climate and a psychological buffer”.

The theory, first popularised in the wake of the dotcom bust more than two decades ago, holds that lipsticks, fragrances and moisturisers offer a low-cost hit of luxury when wallets tighten, and has long been seized upon by beauty bosses as a defensive selling point to investors.

The figures stand in marked contrast to the mood music from elsewhere in the luxury aisle. LVMH, Kering, owner of Gucci, and Birkin-maker Hermès have all flagged concerns about the knock-on effects of the Iran war on consumer confidence. Mr Hieronimus said the direct hit to L’Oréal had so far been contained, with the Middle East accounting for less than 3 per cent of group sales and the main drag confined to travel retail.

There was further cheer from China, where the group reported mid- to high-single-digit growth after a bruising multi-year slowdown. Mr Hieronimus pointed to a “clear acceleration” on 2025, with L’Oréal pulling well ahead of the wider market. The North Asia region nevertheless slipped 4 per cent on a like-for-like basis to €2.7 billion, a reminder that the recovery remains uneven.

Analysts at Barclays called the underlying performance “very impressive”, singling out professional products and dermatological beauty as standout divisions. Premium haircare and fragrances drove market share gains across North America, North Asia and Latin America.

“Despite current geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainties, we are optimistic about the outlook for the global beauty market,” Mr Hieronimus said, adding that he remained “confident” the company would “continue to outperform and achieve another year of growth in sales and profit”.

For independent retailers and indie beauty brands watching from the sidelines, the read-across is instructive. While big-ticket discretionary spend is visibly cooling, the appetite for affordable treats appears remarkably resilient, a pattern that should give smaller operators in the personal care and wellness space cause for cautious optimism as they plot their own second-quarter trading.

Read more:
L’Oréal banks on the ‘lipstick effect’ as anxious shoppers reach for affordable luxuries

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