Business

UK business leaders have urged the government not to increase employment costs in the upcoming Autumn Budget, warning that higher taxes could force small firms to raise prices and worsen inflation.

A new survey by Employment Hero found that 86 per cent of 1,000 business leaders are worried about what the Budget will mean for their companies, with 59 per cent saying they believe the government does not take the needs of small businesses into account when setting fiscal policy.

The concern comes after employer National Insurance contributions (NICs) rose from 13.8 per cent to 15.05 per cent in April — a move that many SMEs say has already strained their finances.

If Chancellor Rachel Reeves raises employment-related taxes again, business groups say it could “damage the government’s mission to drive economic growth and control inflation.”

Almost half of small and medium-sized businesses (49 per cent) said they would raise prices if employment costs increase, while 33 per cent said they would delay hiring and 24 per cent would consider redundancies, according to Employment Hero’s findings.

The report also noted that many small firms are still recovering from the effects of Reeves’s first Budget last year, which 72 per cent of leaders said negatively impacted their business.

Despite these concerns, Employment Hero’s data showed signs of resilience in the UK labour market, with employment rising 2.3 per cent month-on-month in October and up 1.9 per cent year-on-year.

Kevin Fitzgerald, UK managing director at Employment Hero, said the government must learn from past mistakes.

“When you tax small businesses, you tax everyone,” he said. “Higher costs lead to higher prices, fewer jobs, and less money in people’s pockets.”

Fitzgerald argued that SMEs — which employ the majority of the UK workforce — are key to reviving growth and tackling inflation.

“The Autumn Budget is an opportunity to show small firms that the government understands their role in the economy,” he said. “If ministers want to keep Britain working, they need to back small businesses — not burden them.”

Business leaders across the UK are pressing the Treasury to avoid further tax increases on employment and investment when Reeves delivers her Budget later this month.

Many fear that another round of tax hikes could fuel inflation, stunt job creation, and undermine confidence among smaller firms that are already contending with higher wage costs, energy prices, and borrowing rates.

With the Budget expected to focus heavily on fiscal tightening to fill a multi-billion-pound deficit, industry figures warn that punishing small firms could prove counterproductive — dampening growth at the very moment the government is seeking to reignite it.

Read more:
Business leaders warn Budget tax hikes could trigger higher prices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The government has launched a major review into youth unemployment, tasking former Labour health secretary Alan Milburn with investigating the growing role of mental health and disability in the rise of economically inactive young people.

Nearly one million people aged 16 to 24 in the UK are currently not in education, employment or training (Neets) — a figure that has alarmed ministers and policymakers. Milburn’s review will explore how to prevent young people from becoming trapped outside work or education, with findings expected to be published next summer.

The announcement comes just days after the Mayfield Review, led by former John Lewis chairman Sir Charlie Mayfield, warned that “young adults” aged 16 to 34 were at the heart of Britain’s “economic inactivity crisis”. His report found that the number of 16- to 34-year-olds who are long-term sick and inactive due to mental health conditions has risen by 190,000 since 2019, a jump of 75 per cent.

Launching the review, Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, said the UK faced a “crisis of opportunity” among its younger generation.

“We cannot afford to lose a generation of young people to a life on benefits, with no work prospects and not enough hope,” he said. “This demands more action to give them the chance to learn or earn.”

The government is expected to unveil a “youth guarantee” in this month’s Budget — a policy that would promise paid work to young people who have been on universal credit for 18 months or more without finding employment or education.

The Department for Work and Pensions said Milburn’s review would make “practical recommendations” to help young people with health conditions access training, education or jobs, “ensuring they are supported to thrive, not sidelined.”

The initiative comes amid a series of government efforts to tackle long-term sickness and economic inactivity. It follows the Timms Review, which is currently examining personal independence payments (PIP) — the benefit covering the extra costs of physical and mental disabilities.

Milburn, who served as health secretary from 1999 to 2003 under Tony Blair and now acts as the lead non-executive director at the Department of Health and Social Care, said his review would be “uncompromising in exposing failures” across employment, education and welfare systems.

“I will produce far-reaching recommendations for change to enhance opportunities for young people to learn and earn,” he said.

The surge in young people unable to work due to mental health problems has become one of the most pressing challenges facing the government. Economists warn that rising inactivity is eroding productivity and weighing on growth.

While successive governments have published reports diagnosing the problem, few have managed to reverse the trend. Critics say underfunded mental health services, combined with the pressures of insecure work and high living costs, have created a generation increasingly detached from the labour market.

Milburn’s findings are expected to feed directly into Rachel Reeves’s forthcoming Budget, which will include new spending pledges aimed at reducing inactivity and boosting youth employment.

The hope in Whitehall is that this review — combining insight from both the health and work sectors — will finally produce a joined-up plan to bring Britain’s lost young workers back into the economy.

Read more:
Alan Milburn to lead review into mental health’s role in youth unemployment

One in six UK employers expect artificial intelligence to reduce the size of their workforce within the next 12 months, according to a major new survey warning of growing disruption to white-collar employment.

Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) found that 62 per cent of those expecting job losses believed clerical, junior managerial, professional, or administrative roles would be the first to go as automation accelerates.

The findings, released ahead of this month’s Budget, are based on the CIPD’s latest Labour Market Outlook — a survey of more than 2,000 employers — and highlight the growing tension between AI-driven productivity gains and the threat to early-career jobs.

The impact is expected to be most pronounced among large private sector companies, where more than a quarter (26 per cent) of employers anticipate cutting headcount as AI takes hold. That compares with 17 per cent across the private sector as a whole and 20 per cent in the public sector.

The warning comes as firms weigh AI adoption against high employment costs and sluggish growth since last year’s Budget. Global tech and professional services groups have already begun restructuring.

Amazon said last month it would cut 14,000 corporate roles, citing generative AI as the most transformative technology since the internet, while PwC reduced its global workforce by 5,600 in the past fiscal year — its first major downsizing since the 2008 financial crisis — despite spending nearly $1.5 billion to expand its AI capabilities.

Recruiters say employers are becoming more cautious about hiring, as they look to balance cost control with efficiency gains from automation.

Separate research by ManpowerGroup, which tracks hiring plans across 42 countries, found the UK faces one of the sharpest recruitment slowdowns globally, hit by what it called a “perfect storm of cost pressures, AI disruption, and policy uncertainty”.

The CIPD said the government must ensure that workers most exposed to AI — particularly those in early-career or lower-level professional roles in finance, insurance, IT, and administrative services — are supported with retraining and upskilling programmes.

James Cockett, senior labour market economist at the CIPD, said AI offered “huge potential for improving productivity and performance” but warned it also risked “leaving many people behind”.

“Junior roles stand to be most affected by AI, but we need a national drive to retrain and upskill people of all ages and career stages,” he said.

Among employers expecting AI-related redundancies, a quarter (26 per cent) believe more than 10 per cent of their workforce could be cut within a year.

Overall, the net employment balance — the difference between employers planning to increase and those planning to reduce headcount — remains modest at +9. In the public sector, confidence has slipped further into negative territory, falling from –6 to –8.

A government spokesperson said ministers were focused on helping workers “take advantage of the huge opportunities” AI presents.

“We’re working with leading tech firms to train a fifth of our workforce in AI over the coming years and investing £187 million to bring digital and AI learning directly into classrooms and communities,” they said.

The government’s AI growth zones, they added, were already creating “thousands of new jobs and skills opportunities” across the UK, helping ensure that “working people can share in the benefits of AI.”

Read more:
One in six UK employers expect job cuts from AI in next year

The Conservative Party has pledged to scrap mandatory climate and sustainability reporting requirements and rein in regulators “with a tendency to go woke” in a dramatic effort to boost the number of companies listing on the London Stock Exchange.

Andrew Griffith, the shadow business and trade secretary, said that if the Tories win the next general election, they will “take a chainsaw” to the layers of green and social disclosure rules that have, in his words, “made British businesses less competitive and less agile.”

“If you care about the competitiveness of the UK, someone has to take a proper chainsaw to the volume of these extra reports. And that someone is going to be us,” Griffith said.

The plans mark one of the most radical proposed rollbacks of corporate regulation in recent years — and signal a sharp shift from the Labour government’s focus on green finance and ESG transparency.

Under the Conservatives’ proposals, mandatory ESG disclosures, including a company’s carbon footprint, diversity metrics and social governance data, would be made voluntary once again.

ESG rules were initially introduced as a voluntary standard, allowing firms to demonstrate transparency around sustainability, workplace culture and board governance. Over the past decade, however, the measures have evolved into complex mandatory frameworks administered by regulators such as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), HMRC, and Companies House.

According to government figures, compliance costs have spiralled, with businesses spending around £202 million annually on climate-related financial disclosures, plus an additional £100 million on energy savings and carbon reporting.

A KPMG study found the average sustainability report now runs to 83 pages, up from 70 pages in 2021, with some reports exceeding 200 pages.

“Some of our best firms are hamstrung by having to report against a dense thicket of ESG metrics, to be judged by self-appointed activists or regulators,” Griffith said.

Griffith said the Conservatives would also move to curb the powers of regulators, particularly where ESG requirements are seen as political or subjective.

He argued that excessive reporting and regulation had driven businesses away from London, citing rival financial centres such as New York and Singapore as jurisdictions with fewer disclosure burdens.

“The countries we’re losing listings to don’t have anything like this kind of onerous reporting,” Griffith said. “There’s no point in us being an outlier.”

In the US, Donald Trump’s administration previously scrapped federal ESG reporting mandates, a move that the Conservatives see as a precedent for deregulation in the UK.

The policy forms part of a wider Conservative strategy to revive London’s global competitiveness as a listings destination and signal a more pro-business, low-regulation environment.

Alongside the ESG rollback, Griffith said a future Tory government would also scrap stamp duty on home purchases, reverse Labour’s inheritance tax changes for family businesses, and review regulations that have contributed to so-called “de-banking” — where business or personal accounts are closed due to reputational or ESG-related concerns.

“Our proposals will defend freedom of expression and ensure that businesses can access banking facilities without running the gauntlet of woke middle managers trying to second-guess subjective ESG rules,” he said.

While the Conservatives argue the plans would cut red tape and encourage growth, critics warn that scrapping ESG requirements could damage Britain’s reputation among international investors and sustainability-focused funds.

Large institutional investors — including BlackRock, Aviva, and Legal & General — have said ESG disclosure remains a “core component of modern corporate accountability”, with transparency on environmental and social risk now seen as standard by global markets.

However, Griffith dismissed concerns that deregulation would allow companies to “dodge” climate commitments.

“I don’t think so,” he said. “Companies are still on the hook to shareholders for whatever they say. They will continue to act responsibly without the state micromanaging every report.”

The remarks come amid growing unease in the City about London’s ability to attract large listings, following high-profile defections such as Arm Holdings’ US float last year.

With business investment lagging and the UK’s regulatory environment seen as increasingly complex, the Conservatives are attempting to position themselves as the party of deregulation and growth, contrasting Labour’s emphasis on climate accountability and corporate transparency.

Whether the proposed ESG rollback would materially boost listings remains uncertain. Analysts warn that investor sentiment, market liquidity and geopolitical stability remain far greater influences than disclosure rules alone.

Read more:
Tories vow to ‘take a chainsaw’ to ESG rules to boost London listings

When Jonathan Reynolds announced sweeping tariffs this summer to shield Britain’s steelmakers from a flood of cheap imports, the reaction seemed almost universally positive.

“This government is unapologetic in our support for the UK steel sector,” declared Reynolds, then business secretary, promising to defend a “vital industry that underpins Britain’s industrial strength and national security.”

Gareth Stace, director-general of the industry body UK Steel, hailed it as “a tremendous outcome” that would stop foreign producers from “swamping the UK and driving our steel manufacturers out of business.”

But behind the scenes, the glow of unity quickly dimmed. Letters, emails and board minutes seen by The Sunday Times reveal an industry at war with itself — with primary steelmakers and smaller manufacturers accusing one another of self-interest as tariffs reshape Britain’s metal economy.

On one side stand the primary steel producers: heavyweights such as Tata Steel, British Steel, Celsa and Speciality Steel, which collectively employ about 10,000 workers and produce semi-finished materials like billets, slabs and blooms. They argue that protection is essential to defend British manufacturing from state-subsidised steel from Asia, particularly China.

On the other side are the “downstream” steel users — the firms that take these semi-finished products and turn them into everything from metal washers and car parts to construction mesh and polished kitchen counters. Together they support more than 300,000 jobs, and they say the new tariffs are pushing them to the brink.

Their case is simple: by making imported steel more expensive, the government is driving up their costs — in some cases to the point where manufacturing in Britain no longer makes economic sense.

“British steelmakers are deliberately and consciously seeking to damage downstream businesses, even though some are their customers,” said Stephen Morley, president of the Confederation of British Metalforming (CBM), which represents 200 firms employing 70,000 people.

Morley and a coalition of downstream trade bodies — including the British Constructional Steelwork Association, British Stainless Steel Association, and International Steel Trade Association (Ista) — claim the government’s decision was heavily influenced by Tata Steel, the Indian conglomerate that owns the Port Talbot steelworks in south Wales.

In a letter to trade minister Chris McDonald, Morley alleged that former business secretary Reynolds had acted after Tata “held a gun to the government’s head,” threatening to withdraw from its £1.25 billion plan to switch from coal-fired blast furnaces to cleaner electric arc furnaces unless stronger import protections were introduced.

Tata declined to comment, but UK Steel insists that protectionism is necessary given the “existential threat” posed by Chinese overproduction and the re-routing of exports through Vietnam and South Korea to avoid anti-dumping rules.

“We have to implement broader import controls,” said Peter Brennan, UK Steel’s director of trade and economic policy. “That’s what the US has done. That’s what the EU is doing. If we don’t, we’ll lose our steel industry.”

Downstream companies warn the consequences could ripple through construction, manufacturing and infrastructure. Britain simply doesn’t make enough steel to meet demand, forcing firms to import — now at inflated prices.

Richard Webster, chair of the British Independent Reinforcement Fabricators Association, said the UK produces only about 600,000 tonnes of steel reinforcement bars a year, far short of the 1.1 million tonnes needed for projects like housing and rail.

“Imports play a crucial role in keeping supply flowing to the construction industry,” he wrote to trade secretary Peter Kyle. “Tariffs could slow projects and undermine Labour’s growth ambitions.”

Simone Draper of Ista added that the changes had already caused “disruption and unexpected costs across the supply chain.”

There is growing fear that further tariff hikes — such as the EU’s planned 50 per cent levy and halving of tariff-free quotas due next year — could “strangle the metal manufacturing supply chain”, in Morley’s words.

Many companies sit uneasily between the two sides. Philip Jackson, managing director of Bright Steels in North Yorkshire, said his business both suffers from cheap imports and depends on them.

“A one-dimensional approach on safeguarding will penalise us,” he said. “We need a balanced policy that supports domestic producers without crippling the rest of the chain.”

To find that balance, Kyle has commissioned engineering consultancy Hatch to map Britain’s steel production capacity and demand over the next 25 years — an attempt to identify which products could be tariff-free without undermining UK mills.

For some in the industry, the stakes are more tangible than trade statistics. Kirsty Davies-Chinnock, a stainless steel specialist in the West Midlands, says tariffs threaten the invisible infrastructure that underpins daily life.

“Everyone in the UK comes into contact with my products at least 30 times a day,” she said. “From turning on a light switch to taking a vitamin, having a cup of coffee — right through to falling out of a nightclub at 3am and being handed a kebab over a polished stainless steel counter. You take that away, and you can’t have your coffee, your vitamins — or your kebab.”

It’s a vivid reminder that in the civil war tearing through British steel, it isn’t just furnaces and factories at stake — it’s the thousands of small businesses, builders, and manufacturers that rely on them every day.

Read more:
Jobs and kebabs on the line as UK steel sector turns on itself over import tariffs

The horse-racing industry is bracing for a £10 million rise in costs after being excluded from new business rate reliefs due to come into force next April — a move that coincides with fears of a fresh tax raid on betting in the upcoming Budget.

According to research by Colliers, racing yards are among several categories that will lose access to the current 40 per cent rates relief, facing average increases of more than £7,000 per yard — equivalent to a 40 per cent rise in total business rate bills across the sector.

The property consultancy estimates that around 300 training yards, covering about 90 per cent of the sector, currently benefit from the relief but will now be left out of the new system, which will apply only to venues “wholly or mainly” used for retail, hospitality, or leisure activities provided to the public.

The National Trainers Federation and the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) have begun working together to alert members to the changes and lobby for clarity ahead of the November 26 Budget.

The Treasury’s overhaul is part of its wider plan to make the business rates system “fairer and fit for the 21st century”, with permanent lower multipliers for smaller retail, hospitality and leisure premises with rateable values under £500,000.

However, this lower rate will be funded by a higher multiplier for all other commercial properties — including racing yards, laboratories, and large-scale facilities — when the new system takes effect from April 2026.

John Webber, head of business rates at Colliers, warned that many trainers could struggle to absorb the extra burden: “Trainers work on small margins and employ many people on low wages. The rise in employer National Insurance contributions and the national minimum wage has already hit them hard. To add increased business rates on top could push some over the edge.”

He added that while the Treasury’s relief plan was designed to support the high street, its exclusion of the horse-racing and betting industries risked “further damage to struggling local economies.”

The reform will also affect more than 6,000 betting shops, which Colliers estimates could collectively pay an additional £10 million a year in business rates compared to similar-sized retail outlets that qualify for relief.

The betting sector is already under pressure amid speculation that Chancellor Rachel Reeves will raise gambling duties in the Budget later this month — a move that industry bodies have warned could lead to widespread betting shop closures.

“Taxing the betting industry will not help the high street — it will only lead to more empty shops,” Webber said. “And the knock-on effects are significant: less money for bookmakers means less money flowing back into British horseracing.”

A Treasury spokesperson said the new system would make rates fairer overall, introducing lower rates for most retail, hospitality and leisure businesses while applying a higher charge to less than 1 per cent of high-value commercial properties.

“We’re making business rates fairer by introducing permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure from April, funded by a higher rate on the most valuable business properties,” the spokesperson said.

They added that the government remained committed to supporting the UK’s business environment: “We’ve capped corporation tax at 25 per cent — the lowest in the G7 — secured major trade deals with the US, EU and India, and seen interest rates cut five times since the election to help businesses across Britain.”

Treasury sources also stressed that the department “understands horseracing is part of the cultural fabric of the country” and has no plans to change the tax treatment of racecourse betting, which remains exempt from duty.

The horse-racing sector — which supports more than 85,000 jobs and contributes around £4.1 billion annually to the UK economy — now faces dual headwinds from both the rates overhaul and a potential betting levy increase.

Industry leaders warn that without targeted support, smaller yards and rural racing operations could face closures, dealing a further blow to Britain’s standing as a global centre of equine sport.

Read more:
Horse-racing industry faces £10m blow from business rates overhaul

The head of one of Britain’s best-known law firms has warned that Rachel Reeves’s reported plan to raise taxes on limited liability partnerships (LLPs) could drive professionals and entrepreneurs out of the UK, undermining London’s status as a global business hub.

James Libson, managing partner of Mishcon de Reya, said proposals to align LLP taxation more closely with standard employment rules risked punishing professionals who take on business risk and contribute significantly to the economy.

“Most people using LLPs are middle-class, upper middle-income people,” Libson said. “It means the attractiveness of living here is diminished. I’m not talking about the millionaires or billionaires — normal people will look for opportunities to work elsewhere.”

The Chancellor is said to be considering measures that would raise the overall tax burden on partnerships, following reports that senior Treasury officials believe the reforms could raise up to £1.9 billion by bringing LLPs in line with employer National Insurance contributions.

However, Libson described the potential changes as “dangerous and potentially destructive”, warning that they would worsen Britain’s brain drain just as rival financial and legal centres were growing more competitive.

“To equate partners and investors who operate through LLP structures as employees is to sell the proposition in completely the wrong way,” he said. “The reason the system works is because these are people investing in their business — they take risk, they put in capital.”

The Treasury has declined to confirm or deny that LLPs are being targeted in the November 26 Budget, though sources told the Financial Times that any increases would be “less severe” than first feared and may include exemptions for partners earning below a certain threshold.

The LLP structure, introduced in 2001, allows professionals to operate as partners rather than employees, offering both flexibility and tax efficiency. According to Companies House, there are now more than 50,000 LLPs across the UK, spanning law, accountancy, architecture, consultancy, and other professional services.

Critics argue that the system gives high earners an unfair advantage, but supporters say it underpins one of Britain’s most globally competitive sectors. A London School of Economics report found that the top 0.1% of taxpayers earned nearly half of all partnership income in 2020.

Libson insists the perception of LLPs as tax shelters for the ultra-wealthy is misleading. “These are not hedge fund billionaires,” he said. “They’re professionals building practices, employing hundreds of people, and keeping Britain competitive in legal and advisory services.”

Mishcon de Reya — founded in 1937 and known for representing Princess Diana in her divorce from the then Prince of Wales — reported £332 million in turnover and £111 million in pre-tax profits last year. The firm now employs more than 1,400 people, including 650 lawyers.

Reflecting a wider trend among professional service firms, Mishcon recently opened offices in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, joining rivals Addleshaw Goddard and Simmons & Simmons in expanding into the Gulf region, where lighter regulation and tax advantages are attracting international talent.

“With the strategies we are pursuing — private wealth, innovation, disputes — [the UAE] is an absolute hub,” Libson said. “More and more we’ve felt that London’s magnetism has diminished, while other centres of gravity are growing around the world.”

Libson said Mishcon’s immigration practice had seen a marked increase in professionals relocating to the Middle East — a reflection, he argued, of growing frustration with the UK’s tax and regulatory environment.

“From our own internal barometer, we’ve seen very significant traffic to the Gulf,” he said.

The warning comes as economists estimate that Britain’s top 1% of earners now contribute more than 30% of all income tax receipts, making their mobility a key fiscal risk.

Libson added that, while the government’s industrial strategy rightly highlighted professional services as a growth priority, policies targeting partnerships would send the opposite message.

“London is still the greatest city in the world — but the issue, as always, is execution, productivity and cutting through the bureaucracy that holds us back,” he said. “Other countries are doing that really well.”

Mishcon de Reya’s board recently appointed Dame Alison Rose, former NatWest chief executive, as non-executive chair, building on her advisory work in diversity and inclusion. Libson praised her appointment as a signal of the firm’s long-term vision.

“Alison is one of the most impressive people I’ve ever worked with,” he said. “Our diversity push has never been tokenism — it’s about creating an environment where people want to work. It’s a business decision as much as anything else.”

With the Budget just weeks away, City leaders remain anxious over the scale of Reeves’s planned tax rises. For firms like Mishcon de Reya, the outcome could determine whether London remains the beating heart of global professional services — or whether, as Libson warns, “normal people” begin to follow their wealthier clients abroad.

Read more:
Mishcon boss warns Reeves that LLP tax hike risks exodus of professionals

Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ reported plan to impose a 20% “exit tax” on the business assets of wealthy individuals leaving the UK has sparked a furious backlash from the financial sector, with critics warning it could drive away entrepreneurs and investors.

The proposed measure — described as a “settling-up charge” — would levy capital gains tax on the holdings of those relocating to low-tax jurisdictions. Treasury insiders reportedly believe it could raise around £2 billion in additional revenue.

But Nigel Green, CEO of deVere Group, one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory and asset management firms, called the proposal “reckless and self-defeating.”

“The government seems determined to make the UK an increasingly unattractive place for wealth creators,” Green said. “The introduction of an exit tax would accelerate the exodus of entrepreneurs, business owners and investors who already feel punished for their success.”

Green warned that the policy would damage Britain’s competitiveness at a critical time and could cost the Treasury more than it raises.

“This policy wouldn’t just fail to raise meaningful revenue; it would destroy confidence, reduce investment and, ultimately, cost the Treasury far more in lost economic activity than it could ever recoup through short-term taxation,” he said.

The firm has already seen a sharp rise in wealthy individuals reassessing their exposure to the UK, he added, amid fears the country is no longer friendly to business or enterprise.

“Investors and business leaders are already viewing the UK with increasing caution. They’re redirecting capital to economies that reward ambition and provide stability. Britain should be working to attract international wealth, not signalling that it intends to penalise it.”

Reeves’ expected Budget later this month comes as the UK faces slowing growth, weak business investment and declining consumer confidence. Analysts have warned that the Chancellor is set to oversee the fastest tax increases in over half a century.

Green argued that adding an “exit charge” to that mix would send a damaging signal to global markets.

“That alone would spook global capital, but combining it with an exit charge would send a message that Britain has given up competing,” he said. “The result would be a sustained erosion of confidence and a steady relocation of capital to rival jurisdictions.”

The deVere chief said the proposal reflects a short-term, politically driven mindset that risks undermining long-term prosperity.

“The abolition of the non-dom regime, rising corporate taxes and the highest personal tax burden in decades have already eroded confidence,” he said. “An exit tax would be the final signal that the UK is no longer open to wealth, investment or aspiration.”

Green urged the Chancellor to focus on policies that attract innovators rather than penalising success.

“Prosperous economies are built on encouraging growth, not constraining ambition. Imposing a departure charge is the economics of retreat,” he said.

He added that while an exit tax might appear politically expedient, it risks a “historic loss of wealth, talent and confidence” as capital moves to rival hubs such as Dubai, Singapore and Switzerland.

“Other financial centres are already benefitting from the UK’s self-inflicted policy drift. The country can’t afford to keep exporting its most productive citizens,” he warned.

Green also cautioned internationally mobile individuals and business owners to review their residency and succession plans before any such policy is enacted.

“This proposal adds urgency for globally active entrepreneurs to seek expert advice before further restrictions or taxes are imposed,” he said.

He concluded: “Instead of chasing those who decide, as is their right, to leave, the focus should be on persuading more to invest — ensuring that Britain remains a place where ambition and enterprise are rewarded, not punished.”

Read more:
Reeves’ ‘exit tax’ plan branded “reckless and self-defeating” by leading wealth adviser

Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not usually in the business of tutting at shoes. I’m not the keeper of the brogue, nor the patron saint of patent leather.

But when a man hosts a dinner at his own three-Michelin-starred restaurant to celebrate the newly knighted Sir David Beckham, and turns up in a tuxedo paired with gleaming white trainers — well, I start to wonder if the world hasn’t finally gone mad.

Now, of course, Gordon Ramsay owns the place. If anyone can decide the dress code at a table of his own, it’s the chef-proprietor himself. He can serve pigeon in a paddling pool and wear pyjamas if he likes. But ownership doesn’t equal immunity from taste. There’s a line between “relaxed contemporary cool” and “I’ve given up”. And I’m afraid, Gordon, that night you were teetering perilously close to the latter — in trainers, no less.

What made the spectacle even starker was the company. This wasn’t a boozy mates-only dinner down the King’s Road. It was a black-tie celebration for Beckham’s knighthood — the culmination of a decades-long campaign of service, brand management and quiet self-reinvention. And Sir David, to his eternal credit, turned up looking like a walking Bond franchise: the tux razor-sharp, the shoes mirror-bright, posture immaculate. Even, the now Lady Victoria, never knowingly underdressed, embodied old-school grace. Around the table, guests glimmered in black and silk, the dining room itself a temple of fine formality. Then there was Gordon,  beaming proudly, I’m sure for pone of his closest friends, but looking as if he’d dashed straight from the pass to the party without time to lace up.

Let’s not kid ourselves: trainers with a tux aren’t a bold fashion statement anymore. They’re the lazy man’s rebellion, the sartorial equivalent of mumbling at a job interview. Once upon a time, it was rock stars and artists who broke the rules; now it’s millionaires pretending to be effortless. And in the hallowed dining room of Restaurant Gordon Ramsay, where the sauces are reduced to the millisecond and the tablecloths are ironed flatter than the M25, that nonchalance rings hollow.

There’s an old idea that what you wear to dinner says something about how seriously you take the company you’re in. Dress up for the people you respect. Make an effort for the moment. And when that moment is the knighthood of one of Britain’s most famous men, perhaps a pair of Oxfords wouldn’t kill you. Beckham understood that instinctively. Ramsay, alas, looked like he’d mistaken “three-star” for “street-food pop-up”.

I’m not saying we should all resurrect the tailcoat. God knows no one needs more starch in their life. But some occasions, and this was one, still deserve their sense of ceremony. A knighthood isn’t just a social media milestone. It’s the country tipping its hat to a lifetime of excellence, captaining of England, his involvement in the 2012 London Olympics and numerous charities including His Majesty’s Kings Trust (formerly the Princes Trust). The dinner that follows should match that spirit of reverence. If the chef-host can’t be bothered to put on proper shoes, why should anyone else bother to polish their manners?

Of course, Ramsay might argue that he’s a man of modern tastes, that the Michelin world needs loosening up, that formality is for dinosaurs. Maybe. But there’s a world of difference between evolution and erosion. When everything becomes casual, nothing feels special. And part of the allure of fine dining — and indeed of honours, titles, rituals — is that they are special. That they demand something extra of us. A little theatre. A little respect. A little polish.

The irony is that Ramsay, of all people, understands precision. His entire empire is built on it — on the poise of a sauce, the placement of a garnish, the glint of a knife. He’ll bark at a chef for an overcooked scallop, but when it comes to footwear, apparently anything goes. Perhaps he thought the trainers were a cheeky modern touch, a wink to contemporary cool. But against the tableau of gleaming glassware, bow-tied guests and Beckham’s effortless suavity, it just looked … off. Like ketchup on foie gras.

Then again, maybe that’s the point. Maybe Ramsay wanted to telegraph that fine dining is evolving — that even at its summit, the rules are ready to bend. But there’s a danger in bending them too far. Because when even the guardians of refinement decide that effort is optional, the very idea of “special” starts to crumble. And if there’s anywhere that should still demand a bit of theatre,  a bit of occasion,  it’s the dining room of a three-star restaurant celebrating a newly minted knight of the realm.

In the end, this isn’t really about shoes. It’s about symbolism. The Michelin stars, the knighthood, the restaurant, the clothes, all of it speaks a shared language of aspiration. And in that language, trainers say something else entirely. They say: I don’t care that much. And perhaps that’s fine if you’re catching a flight or popping to Waitrose. But when you’re toasting Sir David Beckham under chandeliers, it feels just a bit … cheap.

So, Gordon — you own the restaurant, the name, and the night. But sometimes ownership carries responsibility. And on this occasion, when everyone else rose to meet the grandeur of the moment, your shoes let the side down. The food was I am sure was flawless, the wine divine, the conversation sparkling. But those trainers? They were the only thing in the room that didn’t quite fit.

Read more:
Sorry Gordon, whilst you own the restaurant, but trainers with a tux? really?