Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How UKEF’s insurance unlocks the bank

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

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

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

The ceiling problem every sme exporter knows

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

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

Why the middle east, and why now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who actually owns the tariff bill

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

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

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

A system creaking under the weight of claims

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

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

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

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

Refunds trickling out – and bank details missing

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

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

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

The next legal front: the 10% global tariff

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Fiona McCoss, business is not about hustle culture or rigid corporate structures, it’s about creating sustainable success through intuition, connection, and embodied leadership.

As founder of Wild Feminine Retreats and creator of the Wild Feminine Facilitator Training, she has built a thriving international community supporting women to reconnect with themselves, their bodies, and their creativity. From transformational retreats in Greece and Ibiza to mentoring female entrepreneurs around the world, McCoss has developed a business model rooted in what she calls “feminine business”, one that values nervous system regulation, pleasure, flexibility, and authentic human connection over burnout and one-size-fits-all formulas.

What do you currently do at your business?

My core offerings are my signature Wild Feminine Facilitator Training, one-to-one mentorship, and immersive retreats. Right now, I’m supporting 16 women through the current training cohort while preparing to host retreats in Crete and my online Wild Feminine Solstice Festival, which reaches over a thousand women globally.

No two days are ever the same. One day I may be teaching a masterclass, another focused on strategy, marketing, or client mentorship. What matters most to me is intimacy and genuine connection. I don’t see clients as names on a spreadsheet, I know their stories, their families, their dreams, and often even their pets’ names.

Together, we work on everything from nervous system healing and feminine leadership to pleasure, emotional expression, and business sustainability. My work is centred around helping women reconnect with themselves in a world that often encourages disconnection and over-performance.

Who do you admire?

Honestly, the women I work with who are mothers.

I’m child-free by choice, and I’ve chosen to pour my creative energy into the businesses and communities I’ve built. But I witness every day the depth of work many mothers are doing, not only raising children, but consciously breaking generational patterns and creating emotionally healthier environments for their families.

They’re teaching their children about boundaries, emotional literacy, consent, and self-worth in ways previous generations often didn’t experience. That level of self-awareness, sacrifice, and devotion deserves far more recognition and support than society currently gives it.

Looking back, is there anything you would have done differently?

I probably would have studied business or economics earlier on. When I first started, I had to teach myself everything from scratch and invested heavily in coaches and programmes to understand how to build a sustainable company.

Some of those investments were invaluable. Others weren’t.

What I eventually realised was that many traditional business formulas simply didn’t align with how I wanted to work or live. I had to create my own blueprint, one that balanced success with sustainability and nervous system health.

Personally, I’d also remind myself to enjoy the process more. Entrepreneurship can easily become an endless pursuit of the next milestone. I’m still learning to slow down and appreciate the beautiful moments along the way.

What defines your way of doing business?

The way I run my business is deeply rooted in feminine principles, which looks very different from traditional business culture.

For me, feminine business means working cyclically rather than mechanically. It means understanding energy, nervous system regulation, intuition, pleasure, creativity, and sustainability. I structure my work around what allows me to operate at my best, not around rigid nine-to-five expectations.

It’s also about rejecting performative hustle culture. You won’t find aggressive sales tactics or “bro marketing” here. I believe business can be deeply successful without burnout, urgency, or constant pressure.

My approach blends intuition with strategy. I trust what feels aligned while also applying systems and structure that genuinely support growth. Ultimately, I want to build businesses that support life, not consume it.

What advice would you give to someone starting out?

Get support early and build slowly.

I often describe feminine business as a “slow burn” model. It takes time to build sustainable momentum, but once it’s established, it creates something far more enduring than overnight success culture.

Too many people leave corporate seeking freedom and accidentally recreate the same stress and burnout patterns inside their own businesses. That’s why structure, systems, and support matter so much.

I’d also ask people to be honest with themselves: do you truly have the resilience and vision to build something long-term? Entrepreneurship is incredibly rewarding, but it’s also deeply challenging. Without a strong “why,” it becomes very difficult to stay committed when things get hard.

And finally, don’t let fear stop you. Most people regret the opportunities they didn’t take, not the ones they did.

What are your favourite things to do outside of work? How do you maintain a healthy work/life balance?

Pleasure and spaciousness are priorities in my life, not rewards I “earn” after overworking.

I’ve intentionally designed my business to support balance. I don’t check my phone before 8am or after 7pm, I avoid client calls on Mondays, and I don’t start desk work before 10am. These boundaries allow me to stay regulated, creative, and present.

Outside work, I love gardening, dancing, redecorating our home in Somerset, and spending time outdoors. Earlier this year, my partner and I bought a house in Frome, so I’ve been planting flowers and creating a space that feels nourishing and grounding.

And when I travel for retreats, I always stay a few extra days, preferably near a beach.

Read more:
Getting to Know You: Fiona McCoss, founder of Wild Feminine Retreats

In a move that has set the M&A community talking on both sides of the Atlantic, eBay has firmly slammed the door on a $55.5bn (£40.9bn) unsolicited takeover approach from American video games retailer GameStop, branding the bid “neither credible nor attractive”.

The rejection, communicated in a sharply worded letter from eBay’s board to GameStop chief executive Ryan Cohen, will come as little surprise to anyone with a passing acquaintance of the relative scale of the two businesses. GameStop, the bricks-and-mortar gaming chain that found cult status in 2021 as the original “meme stock”, is roughly a quarter of the size of the online auction house it is attempting to swallow, a David-and-Goliath dynamic that City analysts have long viewed as a near-insurmountable hurdle.

In its rebuff, the eBay board cited “uncertainty” over how the deal would be financed, alongside concerns about “the impact of your proposal on eBay’s long-term growth and profitability”. Directors also pointed to “operational risks, and leadership structure of a combined entity”, as well as questions over “GameStop’s governance”, a pointed reference, observers will note, to a company whose share price has historically been driven as much by social media sentiment as by retail fundamentals.

GameStop had attempted to bolster the credibility of its overture with a commitment letter from TD Securities for roughly $20bn of debt financing. Yet that prospective debt pile is precisely what gave eBay’s board, and a chorus of independent analysts, pause for thought. Sucharita Kodali, retail analyst at Forrester, told Business Matters the proposition was hardly “a terribly good offer”, warning that it would saddle the auction giant with GameStop’s borrowings at a moment when eBay is finally finding its feet again.

That recovery is no idle boast. Despite the well-documented competitive squeeze from Amazon, Etsy and, more recently, the Chinese disruptor Temu, eBay posted net profits of $418.4m in 2025, more than treble the $131.3m delivered the year before, even as sales softened. The board insists its turnaround strategy is bearing fruit and is in no mood to surrender the upside to an opportunistic suitor.

Mr Cohen, however, is unlikely to retreat quietly. The GameStop chief, who built his fortune through online pet retailer Chewy before becoming the unofficial figurehead of the meme-stock movement, claimed last week that eBay could be transformed under his stewardship into a credible challenger to Amazon. He has also signalled his willingness to bypass the boardroom and take his proposition directly to eBay’s shareholders, a hostile gambit that would set the stage for one of the more colourful takeover battles of the year.

For Britain’s SME owners watching from across the Atlantic, the saga is more than a transatlantic curiosity. eBay remains a vital sales channel for thousands of small British retailers, many of whom built post-pandemic businesses on its platform. Any prolonged ownership dispute, or a deal that materially loaded the company with debt, could have tangible consequences for the fees, listing policies and seller protections those firms depend on.

For now, eBay’s chairman and chief executive will be hoping the matter ends here. The bookies, and most of Wall Street, are betting it won’t.

Read more:
ebay rebuffs GameStop’s surprise $55.5bn swoop

National Grid has unveiled what amounts to the most ambitious capital programme in its history, pledging a further £70bn over the next five years to rewire the energy systems of Britain and the north-eastern United States.

The FTSE 100 utility, which has spent the past two years reshaping itself into a pure-play networks business, said the fresh commitment would accelerate its march towards a net-zero electricity system on both sides of the Atlantic. The announcement, made alongside its full-year results, builds on a record £11.6bn of capital expenditure in the prior year and signals that the group sees no let-up in the structural demand for grid investment.

Of the headline figure, some £31bn will be funnelled into UK electricity transmission, expanding capacity to absorb the surge of offshore wind, solar and nuclear coming on stream this decade. The company described the spend as the foundation of a “decarbonised electricity network” by the 2030s, and the bill will, in part, be underwritten by Ofgem’s new RIIO-T3 framework, which has formally cleared the way for the heavier outlay.

Across the Atlantic, £17bn has been earmarked for New York and a further £12bn for New England, with around 60 per cent of the US allocation flowing directly into National Grid’s own networks. The group expects a 10 per cent uplift in returns from its asset base by the 2030/31 financial year on the back of the programme.

Zoe Yujnovich, who took the helm as chief executive earlier in the year, said the company was “embarking on the largest investment programme in our history… to modernise and expand energy networks across the UK and the US Northeast, networks that underpin economic growth, strengthen energy security and enable the transition to a cleaner, more flexible energy system.” She added that the group was “building the skilled workforce needed to deliver this investment at pace, creating thousands of jobs across our markets” — a message likely to play well in Westminster and Whitehall, where ministers have been pressing infrastructure operators to demonstrate the employment dividend of the green transition.

The growth ambitions came against a softer revenue backdrop. Total turnover slipped four per cent to £17.6bn from £18.3bn the previous year, a decline the company attributed to storm-related costs and the divestment of its renewables arm and US grain liquid natural gas business. Pre-tax profit, however, jumped to £4.2bn from £3.6bn, while earnings per share rose eight per cent to 78p.

Shareholders were rewarded with a final dividend of 32.1p, taking the full-year payout to 48.9p, a 3.8 per cent increase pegged to UK inflation. The market responded warmly, with shares climbing 1.5 per cent in early trading to 1,297p, leaving the stock up 11.9 per cent since January and comfortably outpacing the wider FTSE 100.

Looking ahead, National Grid expects UK electricity transmission revenue to rise by roughly £850m in the year ahead, with RIIO-T3 doing much of the heavy lifting. In New England, top-line growth of around $450m is forecast, driven by rate resets, though partially offset by the costs of the expanded build-out. New York is expected to follow a similar trajectory.

For SMEs reliant on a stable, predictable power supply, from manufacturers wrestling with energy-intensive processes to data-hungry tech firms, the scale of the commitment is significant. A more capacious, modern transmission network underpins the kind of long-term industrial planning that has been sorely lacking since the energy shock of 2022, and it puts hard numbers behind the government’s grid-connection reforms.

Yujnovich struck an appropriately customer-focused tone in her closing remarks. “Through… transforming our capabilities we will be able to meet the rapidly growing demand and enable a more efficient energy system, one that supports long-term affordability and reliability for customers,” she said.

For investors, the calculation is straightforward: a regulated, inflation-linked income stream married to a multi-decade capex story. For the wider economy, the prize is a grid finally fit for the century it has to serve.

Read more:
National Grid commits record £70bn to power the next decade of energy networks

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

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

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

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

A camera in every frame

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

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

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

Lawsuits, content moderators and a Kenyan flashpoint

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

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

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

The rest of Silicon Valley piles in

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

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

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

What it means for British SMEs

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

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

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

A Google Glass moment, or a tipping point?

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

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

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

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

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

Britain’s economy delivered a rare piece of good news this morning, with the Office for National Statistics reporting that GDP expanded by 0.3 per cent in March, comfortably ahead of City forecasts and capping a first-quarter growth rate of 0.6 per cent.

The figures, the last to capture activity before the outbreak of the Iran war began rattling global markets, point to a services-led upswing that has handed the Chancellor a brief reprieve as she braces for what most economists agree will be a far bleaker summer.

According to the ONS, the services sector, still the engine room of the British economy, grew by 0.8 per cent over the quarter, with production nudging up 0.2 per cent and construction rising 0.4 per cent. Wholesale, computer programming and advertising were the standout performers.

“Growth picked up in the first quarter of the year, led by broad-based increases across the services sector,” said Liz McKeown, director of economic statistics at the ONS. “Within that, wholesale, computer programming and advertising performed particularly well.”

For the country’s 5.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises, however, the headline number masks a far more uncomfortable reality. The March print captures only the opening days of the conflict; April and May data, when they land, are expected to reveal the full cost of the disruption ripping through the Strait of Hormuz and into global supply chains.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves seized on the figures to defend her fiscal strategy, telling reporters that “now is not the time to put our economic stability at risk”.

“Today’s figures show the government has the right economic plan,” Reeves said. “The choices I have made as Chancellor mean our economy is in a stronger position as we deal with the costs of the war in Iran. This government is getting on with the job of building an economy that is stronger, more resilient, and prepared for the future.”

Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride was quick to puncture the mood, arguing that “the chaos surrounding the Labour leadership is destabilising Britain’s economy”. His intervention reflects mounting nerves in Westminster, where Sir Keir Starmer is fighting to hold his position amid backbench unrest.

Forecasters have already sharpened their pencils. Capital Economics has slashed its 2026 UK growth projection, with deputy chief UK economist Ruth Gregory warning that “prolonged political instability” represents “an extra downside risk” to her outlook.

“We would be very surprised if growth doesn’t weaken from May as the temporary boost from stockpiling unwinds and the squeeze on households’ real incomes from higher energy prices intensifies,” Gregory said. “In our adverse scenario, the economy suffers a mild recession. So the economy will probably give whoever is Prime Minister a rough ride.”

The energy picture is doing most of the damage. Brent crude has surged by roughly 50 per cent since March on fears of sustained supply disruption, and as a net energy importer Britain is more exposed than most of its G7 peers. Higher import costs are expected to filter rapidly into inflation, while weakening global demand threatens to weigh on the export book just as Britain’s manufacturers had begun to find their feet.

For SME owners, the practical consequences are already taking shape. Survey data shows consumer confidence has fallen sharply since the conflict began, and business investment, which had been showing tentative signs of recovery, is widely expected to stall as boardrooms wait for clarity on energy costs, interest rates and political direction.

The Treasury is understood to be poring over the latest figures ahead of an energy support package for businesses and households, with smaller firms in energy-intensive sectors lobbying hard for targeted relief.

Compounding the uncertainty, Reeves herself is reportedly weighing whether she could remain in her current role under a new Labour leader should Sir Keir be forced out. Bond traders are already pricing in a leftward shift, with gilt yields reflecting expectations that fiscal rules could be loosened and the current government’s growth policies quietly shelved.

For now, Sir Keir has dug in. Following Tuesday’s King’s Speech, in which he promised to “tear down” the status quo and pursue a “radical agenda”, the Prime Minister has cited the war as reason enough to remain at the helm. Whether anxious backbenchers, and equally anxious business owners, will share that assessment over the coming weeks remains very much an open question.

Read more:
UK economy defies gloom with surprise March growth as Iran war clouds outlook

Health goals don’t collapse in one moment. They erode. Tuesday the routine slips. Wednesday sleep is poor. By the following month, meals are reactive and the plan that felt solid in January has quietly disappeared. Nobody decided to stop. Things just drifted.

Weight management works the same way. Effort alone rarely explains the gap between intention and result. Biology runs a parallel process, one that operates independently of how motivated someone feels on a given morning. For a growing number of people, the real question is how habits and clinical support can fit together without making daily life feel like a medical programme.

Oral semaglutide changes part of that picture. A tablet format may remove one barrier for people who struggle with injections, which is why the Wegovy oral pill has entered the wider discussion. Worth examining what that actually means in practice.

UK Regulatory Status and Anticipated MHRA Approval Timeline

Semaglutide as an oral tablet for weight management is still developing in the UK, not a settled patient route yet. The FDA approved oral semaglutide 25mg in December 2025. In the UK, the 7.2mg Wegovy pen cleared MHRA review in April 2026. The oral tablet? No confirmed UK decision yet.

Private access and NHS routes may move at different speeds. They often do. Costs will vary depending on provider, assessment structure, and what follow-up looks like in each case. Anyone researching this now is doing so before full availability lands. That context matters for setting realistic expectations.

What the MHRA Approval Means for UK Patients

Approval of an injectable format does not automatically transfer to an oral one. Each formulation goes through its own process. What the injectable approval does show is that regulators have assessed higher-dose semaglutide for obesity under a separate formulation. That is useful context. It is not a guarantee of timeline for the tablet.

For people trying to understand how a tablet format might fit into their daily routine, the Wegovy pill is a clinical question first, not a lifestyle upgrade. Eligibility, medical history, side effects, and follow-up need proper review before any decision gets made. That review shapes whether treatment is appropriate, not just available.

Individual response varies. Clinical history, existing conditions, other medications. All of these shape what a prescriber recommends. Two people with similar health profiles may end up on different treatment paths depending on which format fits their actual daily life. That fit matters more than most people expect when treatment is meant to run for months.

Clinical Evidence from the OASIS-4 Trial and Efficacy Outcomes

Sixty-four weeks. Daily oral semaglutide 25mg. OASIS-4 participants recorded notable body weight reductions across the study period. Entry criteria: BMI 30 or above, or 27 and above where weight-related health conditions were present.

Two participants on the same protocol for the same duration can produce different outcomes. The trial cannot control for everything. Data supports efficacy. It does not promise a specific number on any individual’s scale. Starting from that position is more useful than starting from best-case projections.

What the trial does confirm: oral delivery of semaglutide produces clinically relevant weight reduction in eligible adults. Wegovy tablets work through the same receptor pathway as the injectable form. That is the foundation.

How Oral Semaglutide Compares to Injectable Wegovy

Wegovy by injection: 2.4mg, once weekly. Wegovy tablets: 25mg, once daily. GLP-1 receptor agonist action in both cases, influencing appetite and glycaemic control through the same biological mechanism. Outcomes appear to sit in a comparable range across available trial data.

Adherence drives the choice here, not pharmacology. Some people may not want to inject themselves at home over an extended period. Not a weakness. A real barrier that determines whether treatment starts at all. Removing the needle may reduce the training requirement, the anxiety, and the logistical weight of managing an injectable long-term.

Starting a format that gets maintained beats starting a theoretically better format that gets abandoned. That distinction is clinical, not just practical.

Dosing, Administration, and Safety Considerations

Empty stomach. Non-negotiable. Oral semaglutide 25mg needs 30 minutes clear before food or other medications. Built into how the tablet absorbs. Cannot be worked around.

Treatment starts low. Dose titrates upward over several weeks to reach 25mg. Standard for GLP-1 therapies. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation show up commonly in the early weeks. Most run mild to moderate. Many settle as adjustment progresses. Clinical assessment covers contraindications, medical history, and suitability before any prescription is issued. That step is where appropriateness gets determined, not after.

Practical Adherence Strategies for Daily Oral Dosing

Same time. Every morning. Before food. Before anything else. Vague plans to take it “in the morning” produce missed doses by week three. A single smartphone alarm, set once, removes the daily decision. It fires. The tablet gets taken. This is where daily routine does more than motivation.

Pill organisers add a physical confirmation layer. One glance replaces the need to remember. Useful on the mornings when memory is not reliable.

Missing one daily dose may carry less individual impact than missing a weekly injection. That is the maths. Across a full month, though, irregular patterns accumulate. Week one habits tend to stick. Week four corrections rarely do.

UK Access Pathways, Cost Considerations, and Patient Journey

Private prescription routes may move ahead of NHS funding. Costs will vary by provider, assessment model, and follow-up structure. These details should become clearer as approval progresses.

If approval is confirmed, GPhC-registered online pharmacies with clinician oversight may become one access route. A typical regulated process would involve clinical consultation, eligibility review, and a prescription only where criteria are met.

Weight management over the long term comes down to whether the format, the routine, and the clinical structure hold together across months. A treatment route can look strong on paper and still fail if it does not fit the morning, the workday, the meal pattern, and the person using it.

That is why the conversation around tablets matters. Not because a different format removes the need for assessment, follow-up, or daily habits. It does not. But for some patients, a routine that feels easier to keep may make the whole structure easier to maintain.

Read more:
How Everyday Habits Can Shape Long-Term Health Goals

Global oil stockpiles are emptying at the fastest pace ever recorded as the war in the Middle East tips the world into a deepening supply deficit, in a development that threatens to derail the recovery of Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses just as they were beginning to find their footing.

The International Energy Agency has warned of an “unprecedented supply shock” following the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow shipping lane that until recently carried roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas. The destruction of energy infrastructure across the Gulf has compounded the damage, leaving traders, hauliers and manufacturers scrambling to absorb costs that were unthinkable only six months ago.

The Paris-based agency now expects a shortfall of around 1.8 million barrels a day to materialise this year, a dramatic reversal of the 410,000-barrel surplus it had forecast as recently as last month. The shift has come even as the economic damage of the conflict pulls demand sharply lower.

“With global oil inventories already drawing at a record clip, further price volatility appears likely ahead of the peak summer demand period,” the IEA cautioned.

Global supply is forecast to fall by an average 3.9 million barrels a day this year to 102.2 million, on the assumption that tanker traffic through the strait gradually resumes from the end of June. Even on that optimistic footing, the market is expected to remain in deficit until the final quarter.

Markets have whipsawed since hostilities between the United States and Iran erupted, with Brent crude, the international benchmark, surging to as high as $126 a barrel from just $60 at the start of the year. On Wednesday evening Brent snapped a three-day winning streak, sliding 2 per cent to $105.63 in its sharpest one-day retreat in a week. Even so, the benchmark is up 73.6 per cent year-to-date, a move that has rippled through every corner of the British economy from the haulage yards of the Midlands to the petrol forecourts of the south coast.

The IEA estimates that 246 million barrels have been drawn from inventories since the war began, leaving a perilously thin buffer against further shocks. In March the agency, which represents 32 member countries, released 400 million barrels of strategic reserves as a “stop-gap measure” in a co-ordinated bid to steady nerves.

Producers outside the Middle East have been pumping flat out to plug the gap. Forecasts for supply growth from the Americas have been raised by more than 600,000 barrels a day since January, to 1.5 million barrels a day this year, with Texan shale operators and Brazilian deepwater producers leading the charge. It has not been enough. Global supply slumped by a further 1.8 million barrels a day in April to 95.1 million, taking total losses since February to 12.8 million barrels a day. Output from Gulf states affected by the closure of the strait is running 14.4 million barrels a day below pre-war levels.

For Britain’s SME community, the second-order effects are arguably more punishing than the headline oil price itself. The IEA expects the economic fallout, rising inflation, slower growth and a sharp squeeze on household budgets, to drag global oil demand down by 420,000 barrels a day this year. That compares with a forecast decline of just 80,000 a day last month and projected growth of 850,000 barrels a day before the war began. It is the rapidity of the reversal, rather than its absolute scale, that has unnerved policymakers.

“Escalating demand destruction is underpinned by a surge in oil prices since the start of the war,” the IEA said. “Slower economic growth in both OECD and non-OECD countries is also beginning to weigh on consumer and industrial consumption.”

Fatih Birol, the agency’s executive director, last month described the current squeeze as the worst energy crisis the world has ever faced, eclipsing the oil shocks of the 1970s. “We are indeed facing the biggest energy security threat in history,” he said.

For owner-managed businesses already absorbing higher employment costs, stubborn inflation and fragile consumer confidence, the message from Paris is sobering. With warnings that the conflict could push Britain to the brink of recession, the next quarter is shaping up to be the most demanding test of SME resilience in a generation.

Read more:
Oil stocks drain at record pace as Iran war chokes global supply

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Platforms has suffered a significant legal setback in Europe after the bloc’s highest court ruled that national regulators have the power to enforce compensation arrangements between online platforms and news publishers for the use of their journalism.

The Court of Justice of the European Union, sitting in Luxembourg, found in favour of Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM, which Meta had accused of overstepping its remit by setting the price the social media group must pay for displaying snippets of press articles on Facebook and Instagram. The judgment is likely to embolden newspaper groups across the continent, including in the UK, that have long argued they are negotiating from a position of structural weakness against a handful of dominant American technology platforms.

“The court finds that a right to fair compensation for publishers is consistent with EU law, provided that that remuneration constitutes consideration for authorising their publications to be used online,” the judges said in their ruling.

Meta had argued that the Italian measures were incompatible with the rights publishers already enjoy under European copyright law, and that allowing national regulators to dictate commercial terms amounted to regulatory overreach. The company, which owns WhatsApp alongside its flagship social platforms, said it would study the judgment in full and “engage constructively as the matter returns to the Italian courts”.

For Britain’s beleaguered publishing sector, where regional titles in particular have been hollowed out over the past decade as advertising revenue migrated to Silicon Valley, the ruling will be watched closely. Although the UK is no longer bound by Court of Justice decisions following Brexit, Westminster has been drafting its own framework for compelling platforms to strike commercial deals with news publishers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. The European judgment provides political cover for ministers minded to take a firmer line.

The European Publishers Council was quick to claim victory. Angela Mills Wade, its executive director, said the ruling acknowledged “the economic reality that publishers cannot negotiate on equal terms with dominant online platforms without transparency, access to relevant data, and safeguards against coercive behaviour”.

“This crucial decision comes at a time when AI-driven and platform-mediated uses of journalistic content are rapidly expanding,” she added. “This important ruling will pave the way for fairer negotiations with gatekeepers which have been abusing their dominance by refusing to negotiate in good faith. Quality journalism depends on the ability of publishers to recoup the investments required to produce trusted news and information.”

The decision lands at a fraught moment for relations between the technology industry and the creative economy. Earlier this month, five of the world’s largest publishing houses, including Elsevier, Hachette and Macmillan, filed a class-action lawsuit against Meta in a New York federal court, alleging that the Silicon Valley group pirated millions of books and academic articles to train Llama, its large language model. Works cited in the complaint include N. K. Jemisin’s award-winning novel The Fifth Season and Peter Brown’s bestselling children’s book The Wild Robot.

Meta has vowed to fight the case “aggressively”, but the action is symptomatic of a broader reckoning. Anthropic, the AI start-up backed by Amazon and Google, last year became the first major artificial intelligence company to settle such a claim, agreeing to pay a group of authors $1.5 billion to resolve litigation that the company’s lawyers feared could have run into many billions more had it gone to trial.

For owner-managed publishers, freelance journalists and the broader content economy, the direction of travel is becoming clearer. After two decades in which platforms harvested editorial output largely on their own terms, the legal pendulum is swinging, slowly, but unmistakably, back towards those who produce the work in the first place. Whether the compensation flowing from rulings such as this one will be enough to sustain quality journalism is a separate, and arguably more difficult, question.

Read more:
Meta dealt blow by EU court in landmark ruling on publisher payments