Business

Allica Bank has been named the UK’s most recommended business bank in the 2026 UK Banking & Finance Awards, underlining its rapid ascent as one of Britain’s most prominent fintech challengers.

The recognition, awarded by RFI Global, is based entirely on feedback from more than 4,000 UK businesses, offering a direct measure of customer satisfaction in a sector increasingly shaped by competition from digital-first lenders.

The accolade marks a significant milestone for Allica Bank, which has positioned itself as a specialist lender to established small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), typically those employing between five and 250 people.

Chief executive Richard Davies said the award reflected the bank’s core strategy of focusing on underserved mid-sized businesses. “Our ambition has always been to be the most recommended business bank in the UK, so this recognition from our customers is incredibly meaningful,” he said. “It shows we’re building something that genuinely works for established businesses.”

The recognition comes at a time of strong momentum for Allica, which was recently valued at close to $1.2 billion following a $155 million Series D funding round, securing its status as one of the UK’s latest fintech unicorns.

Since securing its banking licence in 2019, the lender has expanded rapidly by combining proprietary technology with relationship-led banking, a hybrid model aimed at differentiating it from both traditional high street banks and purely digital competitors.

Davies said the bank is continuing to invest heavily in its core product suite, including current accounts, savings and lending. “We’re building a business bank that is more helpful, more integrated and more powerful than ever before,” he added.

Allica’s growth strategy has focused on addressing structural gaps in SME finance, particularly around access to flexible lending products.

The bank recently launched a business overdraft offering aimed at improving cashflow management for SMEs, at a time when access to overdraft facilities has declined sharply. Industry data shows overdrafts now account for just 5% of SME lending, down from 31% in 1998, highlighting a significant contraction in traditional bank support.

This retrenchment by larger lenders has created an opportunity for challenger banks to capture market share, particularly among established SMEs that require more tailored financial solutions.

Research from Oxford Economics suggests Allica’s lending activity is already having a measurable impact on the wider UK economy.

In 2024, the bank’s financing supported more than 84,000 jobs and contributed £5.8 billion to UK GDP. For every £1 million in loans issued, the analysis indicates the bank generated £2.4 million in economic output, alongside 35 jobs and £600,000 in tax revenues.

Davies emphasised the importance of this segment, noting that established SMEs account for roughly a third of UK employment and economic output. “They need a banking partner that understands their needs and supports their growth,” he said.

Allica’s rise reflects a broader shift in SME banking, where challenger institutions have steadily eroded the dominance of traditional lenders by offering more flexible products, faster decision-making and technology-driven services.

With customer recommendation now a key differentiator in a crowded market, the award signals growing trust among business customers—an area where legacy banks have often struggled in recent years.

As competition intensifies and SMEs continue to navigate a complex economic environment, lenders that combine digital capability with sector-specific expertise are likely to play an increasingly central role in supporting UK business growth.

Read more:
Allica Bank named most recommended business bank as fintech unicorn momentum builds

Artificial intelligence is emerging as a new source of legal and financial pressure for UK businesses, with more than a third now reporting a rise in low-merit claims generated using AI tools, according to new research from Irwin Mitchell.

The study, based on a survey of more than 80 senior in-house lawyers, highlights how AI is reshaping the litigation landscape—creating not only new efficiencies, but also new risks. Businesses say AI-generated claims are increasing legal workloads, absorbing senior management time and driving up costs at a moment when many organisations are already operating under tight margins.

Around 35% of in-house legal teams reported an uptick in claims, particularly from customers, where AI tools are being used to produce lengthy, highly structured legal arguments. While many of these claims lack substantive merit, they are often sophisticated enough to require detailed review and formal response.

Katie Byrne, Head of Commercial Dispute Resolution at Irwin Mitchell, said these claims are rarely successful but still impose a material burden on businesses.

“In-house teams are dealing with a growing volume of AI-generated, low-merit claims. Many are lengthy, legalistic and built from templates. Businesses say they rarely stand up, but they still consume time and budget, and are driving greater spend on cyber cover and claims handling,” she said.

The result is a growing layer of administrative and legal friction, particularly for mid-sized firms without extensive internal legal resources.

Alongside the rise in AI-generated claims, the research underscores a broader shift in legal risk priorities. Data protection and privacy breaches are now seen as the most significant AI-related litigation threat, cited by 55% of respondents.

Cyber insurance costs are also rising sharply. Nearly 70% of businesses reported higher premiums, while two-thirds said they are either expanding their cyber cover or reassessing liability limits in response to evolving threats.

This reflects growing concern at board level that AI, while improving productivity, also introduces new vectors for data leakage, misuse and compliance failures.

Despite the challenges, businesses are increasingly deploying AI themselves to manage the rising complexity of disputes. The research found that 64% of legal teams are already using AI tools to support litigation workflows, particularly in areas such as document review, disclosure and early case assessment.

More than half (51%) have also introduced internal governance frameworks to regulate the use of AI in legal processes, reflecting a growing emphasis on responsible deployment.

Byrne said the response from leading organisations is not to resist AI, but to integrate it strategically.

“Boards shouldn’t panic—they should prepare. The immediate priorities we’re seeing are clear governance for AI use, staff training to avoid data leakage, and practical triage to separate credible claims from AI-padded complaints,” she said.

The findings point to a wider evolution in how UK businesses view legal risk. Litigation is increasingly seen as an operational necessity rather than a reactive last resort, with 69% of respondents describing it as a strategic investment.

This shift is being driven by a combination of factors, including rising cyber threats, regulatory complexity and supply chain disruption. Cyber-related risks were cited most frequently (35%), followed by supply chain issues (21%) and regulatory divergence (17%).

Environmental and greenwashing claims are also gaining prominence, identified as the leading ESG-related legal risk by 33% of respondents.

The report also highlights mixed adoption of alternative litigation funding. While just over half of businesses use it occasionally, concerns around cost, complexity and loss of control continue to limit wider uptake.

Looking ahead, the intersection of AI and legal risk is expected to intensify. As generative tools become more accessible, the volume of automated claims is likely to increase further, forcing businesses to invest more heavily in both defensive and operational capabilities.

For UK firms already navigating economic uncertainty, the emergence of AI-driven litigation represents another layer of cost and complexity, one that will require a more sophisticated, technology-enabled approach to legal risk management.

Read more:
AI-generated legal claims add to cost burden on British businesses

Businesses across South Wales are being invited to apply for grants of up to £1.5 million under a new funding programme designed to drive economic growth and job creation in the wake of Tata Steel UK’s transition to greener steelmaking.

The Economic Growth & Investment Fund, administered by Neath Port Talbot Council on behalf of the UK Government and Tata Steel, is now open to companies operating in Neath Port Talbot, Swansea and Bridgend. The scheme offers grants ranging from £300,001 to £1.5 million to support expansion, innovation and long-term investment.

Backed by more than £11.7 million in total funding, the initiative forms part of a broader package aimed at reshaping the regional economy as Port Talbot undergoes one of the most significant industrial transitions in decades.

The fund is explicitly geared towards sectors expected to play a central role in the region’s future economy. These include advanced manufacturing, engineering, renewable energy, digital technologies and industries aligned with the emerging green economy.

Eligible businesses can apply for support to fund capital investment projects such as new machinery, facility upgrades, technology adoption or diversification initiatives. The objective is to help companies increase productivity, unlock new revenue streams and create high-value employment opportunities.

Applicants will be required to demonstrate clear economic impact, including measurable job creation, private sector investment and innovation within their respective industries. Match funding will also be mandatory, ensuring businesses have a financial stake in the projects they propose.

The launch comes as South Wales continues to adjust to the structural changes brought about by Tata Steel’s decarbonisation strategy, including the shift towards electric arc furnace technology and reduced reliance on traditional blast furnaces.

Steve Hunt said the transition represents a pivotal moment for the local economy, with the fund offering a critical opportunity to support businesses ready to scale and adapt.

He emphasised the importance of strengthening local supply chains and building resilience, noting that the council aims to back ambitious firms capable of delivering long-term economic benefits across the region.

The initiative sits within a wider programme led by the Port Talbot Tata Steel Transition Board, which has already allocated £122 million to support workers, businesses and regeneration efforts.

Jo Stevens described the fund as a clear example of collaboration between government and industry to support communities through industrial change.

She said the investment would help attract new businesses, stimulate growth and create high-quality jobs, reinforcing the government’s commitment to safeguarding the future of steelmaking while supporting economic diversification.

Rajesh Nair confirmed that Tata Steel UK is contributing £5 million to the fund, underlining its intention to remain a key stakeholder in the region’s long-term development.

He said the funding would help attract new businesses, encourage innovation and support skills development as the area transitions towards a more sustainable industrial base.

The company’s involvement reflects a broader strategy to mitigate the economic impact of decarbonisation while fostering new opportunities in clean industry and advanced manufacturing.

The fund will operate through a competitive application process, with proposals assessed on economic impact, value for money, deliverability and innovation.

Priority is expected to be given to projects that align with regional growth strategies and demonstrate the potential to generate lasting economic value.

For businesses in South Wales, the scheme represents one of the most significant funding opportunities currently available, offering both capital support and a platform to participate in the region’s industrial transformation.

As the UK accelerates its transition to a low-carbon economy, initiatives such as this are likely to play a crucial role in ensuring that traditional industrial heartlands are not only protected, but repositioned for future growth.

Read more:
Tata Steel transition fund opens with grants of up to £1.5m for Welsh businesses

Nearly 400 UK employers have been fined for failing to pay the legal minimum wage, with thousands of workers left out of pocket as enforcement action intensifies ahead of further pay rises this spring.

According to government figures, 389 businesses have been ordered to repay more than £7.3 million to around 60,000 employees who were underpaid. In addition, firms have been hit with financial penalties totalling £12.6 million, highlighting what ministers described as a continued crackdown on non-compliance.

High-profile organisations named among those penalised include Busy Bees, Norwich City Football Club, Hays Travel and Costa Coffee, underlining the breadth of the issue across sectors ranging from hospitality to childcare and travel.

The enforcement action comes just weeks before minimum wage rates are set to rise again in April 2026, affecting around 2.7 million workers across the UK.

From next month, the National Living Wage for workers aged 21 and over will increase from £12.21 to £12.71 per hour, equivalent to an annual salary of £24,784.50 for a full-time worker, representing a £900 increase.

Younger workers will also see significant uplifts. The National Minimum Wage for those aged 18 to 20 will rise from £10 to £10.85 per hour, following a 16 per cent increase last year. This latest rise will add around £1,500 annually for full-time employees in that age bracket.

Meanwhile, the rate for 16- and 17-year-olds will increase to £8 per hour, and apprentice rates will also rise in line with these changes depending on age and experience.

The government has signalled its longer-term ambition to simplify the system by eventually introducing a single adult rate, removing the current distinction between age groups.

Despite clear legal requirements, underpayment of wages remains a persistent issue. Employers are required by law to pay at least the statutory minimum rates, regardless of whether staff are paid hourly, salaried or on piece rates.

Breaches can occur for a variety of reasons, including miscalculating working hours, failing to pay for training time, deducting uniform costs incorrectly, or administrative errors, but enforcement bodies have increasingly taken a tougher stance.

Failure to comply is a criminal offence, with HM Revenue & Customs responsible for investigating complaints and issuing penalties. Businesses found in breach must not only repay workers in full but also face fines of up to 200 per cent of the underpayment.

Workers who believe they have been underpaid can report concerns directly to HMRC or seek guidance from Acas.

The issue of wage compliance comes against a backdrop of ongoing cost-of-living pressures, with campaigners arguing that even full compliance with statutory minimums does not necessarily equate to a living income.

Alongside the legal framework sits the voluntary “Real Living Wage”, set by the Living Wage Foundation, which aims to reflect the actual cost of living. As of October 2025, this stands at £14.80 per hour in London and £13.45 across the rest of the UK.

The foundation estimates that its recommended rate is worth £2,418 more annually than the legal minimum for UK workers, rising to over £5,000 in London, highlighting a significant gap between statutory pay floors and real household costs.

The latest enforcement figures suggest regulators are stepping up scrutiny as wage levels rise and labour market pressures persist. For employers, the message is increasingly clear: compliance is not optional, and the financial and reputational risks of getting it wrong are growing.

With minimum wage rates continuing to climb and the government signalling further reforms to simplify the system, businesses face increasing pressure to ensure payroll systems, contracts and working practices are fully aligned with legal requirements.

As the labour market evolves, and as public and political focus sharpens on fairness in pay, enforcement action of this scale is unlikely to be the last.

Read more:
Nearly 400 firms fined as minimum wage breaches hit 60,000 workers

The UK government has unveiled a major intervention in the steel market, setting an ambitious target to produce up to 50 per cent of the steel used domestically while imposing steep new tariffs on imports in a bid to protect the struggling industry.

Under the plans, import quotas will be reduced by 60 per cent from July, with any steel brought into the UK above those limits facing a punitive 50 per cent tariff. The move represents one of the most assertive steps taken by ministers in recent years to bolster domestic manufacturing capacity amid intensifying global competition.

Announcing the measures in Port Talbot, Business Secretary Peter Kyle said the strategy was designed to both strengthen UK industrial resilience and counter what he described as “anti-competitive behaviour” in global steel markets.

He confirmed the government aims to increase the proportion of British steel used in the UK economy from around 30 per cent to 50 per cent, although no specific deadline has yet been set for achieving the target.

The introduction of a 50 per cent tariff on excess imports marks a significant escalation in trade policy. While tariffs are paid by importing firms, the additional costs are typically passed through supply chains, potentially raising prices for manufacturers, construction firms and ultimately consumers.

Ministers insist the policy is not protectionist but rather a necessary safeguard in a market distorted by global overcapacity and subsidised production, particularly from overseas producers able to undercut UK manufacturers.

A transitional arrangement is being considered to soften the immediate impact, with contracts agreed before 14 March potentially exempt from the new tariffs for imports arriving between July and September.

The UK steel sector has broadly welcomed the announcement, having long called for stronger measures to shield it from cheaper imports and volatile global pricing.

Gareth Stace, head of industry body UK Steel, said the strategy represents a long-overdue shift in policy.

He said the UK had lacked a coherent industrial plan for steel for years, despite its central role in national security, infrastructure delivery and the transition to low-carbon energy systems. He added that a clear domestic strategy was essential if the sector is to survive and grow in an increasingly competitive global market.

Trade unions also cautiously backed the move. The GMB said the announcement was welcome but stressed that key questions remain around ownership structures, particularly at major sites such as Scunthorpe, and the long-term technological direction of the industry.

However, the policy has drawn sharp criticism from opposition figures, who argue the tariffs risk increasing costs across the wider economy.

Andrew Griffith warned that higher import costs could ripple through key sectors such as construction, potentially reducing infrastructure investment and placing additional pressure on UK manufacturers already facing tight margins.

The concern reflects a broader economic tension: while tariffs may support domestic producers, they can also raise input costs for downstream industries that rely on competitively priced materials.

The intervention comes at a critical moment for the UK steel industry, which has faced years of financial strain driven by high energy costs, global oversupply and shifting demand.

Although recent government support has helped reduce energy costs for intensive users, UK producers still face higher bills than many European and US competitors. That gap could widen further if global energy markets remain volatile.

Fears are growing that the ongoing conflict in the Middle East could push oil and gas prices higher for longer, increasing operating costs for energy-intensive industries such as steelmaking.

The government’s push to increase domestic steel production also reflects broader strategic concerns. Ministers are keen to ensure the UK retains sovereign capability in critical industries, particularly as geopolitical tensions expose vulnerabilities in global supply chains.

This is underscored by the government’s direct involvement in key steel assets, including sites in Scunthorpe and Rotherham, where public funds are currently being used to maintain operations that might otherwise have ceased.

At the same time, investment in new technology is beginning to reshape the sector. At Port Talbot, Tata Steel is developing an electric arc furnace, which will recycle scrap metal to produce steel with significantly lower carbon emissions — a key component of the UK’s net zero ambitions.

The success of the government’s strategy will ultimately depend on whether it can strike a balance between protecting domestic producers and maintaining competitiveness across the broader economy.

While boosting local production could strengthen supply chain resilience and support jobs, the risk remains that higher costs could dampen demand and investment elsewhere.

For now, the policy signals a decisive shift towards a more interventionist industrial strategy — one that places steel at the heart of the UK’s economic, environmental and national security priorities.

Read more:
UK sets 50% domestic steel target as tariffs ramp up on imports

Innovate UK is set to overhaul its funding strategy, shifting away from broad-based support for hundreds of thousands of “innovators” each year to concentrate its £1.1 billion budget on a smaller pool of high-potential companies.

The government’s innovation agency said the move is designed to accelerate the growth of early-stage technology firms capable of scaling into globally competitive businesses, with ambitions to create more UK success stories on the scale of chip designer Arm.

The strategic pivot marks a significant departure from Innovate UK’s previous ambition to support “a million innovators” annually. While the agency reached around 450,000 individuals in 2024, only a small proportion received direct financial backing, prompting concerns that resources were being spread too thinly to deliver meaningful economic impact.

Tom Adeyoola, who took over as executive chair last year, said the shift reflects a more targeted approach focused on outcomes rather than volume.

“It is a shift from a focus on quantity and funding projects to supporting companies and ensuring that they realise their potential,” he said. “We want to help businesses move from breakthrough ideas to becoming industry leaders that drive economic growth.”

Under the new strategy, Innovate UK will scale back or eliminate several longstanding grant schemes, including the widely used Smart Grants programme, which Adeyoola described as too broad due to its “stage agnostic” and “sector agnostic” design.

In its place, the agency will introduce more tightly defined funding streams aligned to specific sectors and stages of business growth. Programmes such as Women in Innovation will also be refocused to support female-led firms with high-growth potential rather than providing generalised support.

The agency has identified six priority sectors from the government’s industrial strategy where it believes the UK has a “genuine right to win”. These include advanced manufacturing, life sciences and digital technologies — spanning areas such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors and quantum computing.

At the same time, Innovate UK is launching a new concierge-style support service, “Velocity”, aimed at helping selected companies navigate funding, regulation and commercialisation challenges more effectively.

A key pillar of the revised approach will be the expansion of targeted funding initiatives such as the £100 million Growth Catalyst scheme, which provides grants covering up to 70 per cent of early-stage project costs and up to 45 per cent for larger research and development programmes.

The agency will also refocus its Business Growth advisory service and more closely align its network of Catapult centres, applied innovation hubs, with the needs of specific companies rather than broader sector engagement.

Adeyoola said Innovate UK would play a more active role in identifying market demand and matching it with emerging technologies, effectively acting as a bridge between research, entrepreneurship and commercial opportunity.

“We will spend more time identifying where demand exists and then supporting the entrepreneurs and academics best placed to meet that demand,” he said.

Central to the strategy is a renewed emphasis on leveraging private investment. Innovate UK believes that its technical validation and endorsement can act as a signal to investors, reducing risk and unlocking additional capital for high-growth firms.

“A key measure of success over my four-year period will be the amount of private capital flowing into companies coming through our system,” Adeyoola said.

To support this, the agency plans to strengthen links with major public finance institutions including the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund, while continuing to deliver approximately £1 billion of innovation programmes on behalf of other government departments.

While the new approach is designed to create globally competitive businesses, it raises questions about access to support for smaller or earlier-stage innovators who may fall outside the new criteria.

Innovate UK argues that concentrating resources will ultimately deliver greater economic returns, helping the UK compete more effectively in critical technologies and strengthen its position in an increasingly competitive global innovation landscape.

The strategy signals a clear shift in government thinking, from fostering widespread participation in innovation to backing fewer, more scalable companies capable of delivering outsized growth and long-term economic impact.

Read more:
Innovate UK pivots funding to back high-growth firms and future ‘industry giants’

Britain’s second-largest pub operator, Greene King, is set to sell around 150 managed pubs and convert a further 150 into tenanted or franchise venues as part of a sweeping overhaul of its estate strategy in response to mounting economic pressures.

The move, described by chief executive Nick Mackenzie as a “strategic reaction” to a rapidly “changing operating environment”, reflects the deep structural challenges facing the UK hospitality sector, from rising employment costs and persistent inflation to weakening consumer spending.

Greene King currently operates approximately 1,500 managed pubs alongside a further 1,000 leased and tenanted sites. Under the new plan, a significant portion of its directly managed estate will be either divested or transitioned into lower-cost operating models, allowing the group to concentrate investment into what it describes as its “core portfolio”.

The decision comes at a time when pub operators are grappling with a convergence of financial headwinds. Labour cost increases, including higher National Insurance contributions and minimum wage rises, have significantly raised operating expenses, while elevated energy prices and supply chain costs continue to squeeze margins.

At the same time, consumers, facing their own cost-of-living pressures, are cutting back on discretionary spending, particularly in areas such as dining and social drinking.

Although the government has introduced temporary business rates relief for pubs, industry leaders have repeatedly warned that the measures fall short of addressing the scale of the challenge.

Greene King’s own financial performance underscores these pressures. In the 12 months to December 2024, the company reported revenues of £2.45 billion, up 3.2 per cent year-on-year, but swung to a pre-tax loss of £147.1 million. Net debt, excluding lease liabilities, stood at £2.1 billion, with debt servicing costs rising to £110 million.

Central to Greene King’s strategy is a shift away from capital-intensive managed pubs, where the company owns and operates the business, towards leased, tenanted or franchise models, where independent operators run the pubs while Greene King retains ownership of the property.

This transition reduces operational complexity and cost exposure, while providing more stable, predictable income streams through rent and supply agreements.

Mackenzie said the restructuring would allow the company to “maximise the potential and profitability” of its estate while adapting to evolving market conditions.

“The whole market is changing; consumer dynamics are changing, and the economics of running pubs have shifted significantly over the past few years,” he said.

All pubs earmarked for sale or conversion will be placed into a newly created division during the transition period. While no fixed timeline has been set, disposals are expected to take place over the medium term, with a “substantial proportion” of proceeds reinvested into the retained managed estate.

Alongside the estate reshaping, Greene King is also planning to close around 20 pubs, broadly in line with its typical annual closure rate.

While the company has not disclosed how many jobs may be affected, it said it would seek to redeploy impacted staff across its wider business wherever possible. The group currently employs around 40,000 people.

The restructuring follows earlier indications that cost pressures could lead to further efficiencies, including potential job reductions, as the business seeks to restore profitability and improve margins.

Greene King was acquired in 2019 for £4.6 billion by CK Asset Holdings, the investment vehicle controlled by billionaire Li Ka-shing. The current strategy forms part of a broader plan to reposition the business ahead of its 2030 growth ambitions.

The company’s portfolio includes well-known pub brands such as Hungry Horse, Chef & Brewer, Farmhouse Inns and Flaming Grill, as well as brewing operations behind labels including Old Speckled Hen and Abbot Ale.

By concentrating resources on higher-performing sites and adopting a more flexible operating model, Greene King aims to grow market share, enhance customer experience and improve financial resilience in what it describes as an “increasingly dynamic” and challenging environment.

The move is emblematic of a wider shift across the UK pub and hospitality sector, where operators are increasingly prioritising efficiency, capital discipline and adaptability as they navigate a prolonged period of economic uncertainty.

Read more:
Greene King to sell 150 pubs as operator reshapes estate amid mounting cost pressures

The Peter Jones Foundation (PJF) has teamed up once again with advisory firm FRP to launch the 2026 National Entrepreneur of the Year competition, aiming to uncover and support the next generation of UK business talent.

The initiative, which returns following a successful 2025 programme, is designed to champion young entrepreneurs aged between 16 and 21, with a particular emphasis on those from under-served and under-represented communities. Organisers say the competition is not only about identifying promising ideas, but equipping young founders with the practical skills, confidence and networks needed to scale their ventures.

Applicants will be required to submit an application alongside an elevator pitch video outlining their business concept. Successful candidates will progress to one of six regional semi-finals hosted by FRP across the UK, where they will present their ideas to a panel of judges drawn from the business community.

In addition to the competitive element, participants will gain access to enterprise bootcamps delivered by PJF, providing hands-on support in refining business models, improving pitching techniques and developing commercial awareness, a key differentiator from more traditional pitch competitions.

Each semi-final winner will receive a £1,000 grant and secure a place in the national final, where finalists will pitch to a high-profile judging panel chaired by Peter Jones CBE alongside Geoff Rowley, chief executive of FRP. The overall winner will receive a £10,000 grant, with the runner-up awarded £5,000, while all finalists will benefit from ongoing mentorship and support.

The programme has built a strong track record of nurturing early-stage entrepreneurial talent. Previous participants include Ross Bailey, founder of Appear Here, which has gone on to raise more than $20 million in venture capital, and David Humpston of ViewPoint Videos, one of the youngest recipients of a Virgin StartUp loan. More recently, Miah Maddock-Hodgins, founder of MCR Education Hub, has used the platform to scale an inclusive education business supporting young people outside mainstream schooling.

Last year’s competition attracted hundreds of entrants from across the UK, with £21,000 in grants awarded. The 2025 title was won by Liam Harte for Rephobia, a virtual reality therapy platform designed to support individuals dealing with phobias, an example organisers say reflects the growing sophistication and social impact of youth-led businesses.

Peter Jones said he was looking forward to seeing the calibre of talent emerging from this year’s intake, noting the competition continues to highlight the ambition and creativity of young entrepreneurs across the country. Geoff Rowley added that the programme plays a critical role in helping young people “take their entrepreneurship up a level”, describing participants as the future innovators and job creators of the UK economy.

The relaunch comes at a time when fostering entrepreneurial talent is increasingly seen as central to long-term economic growth, particularly as younger generations look beyond traditional career paths and towards building their own ventures.

If you are an entrepreneur between the ages of 16 and 21 who is interested in applying for the competition, click HERE and submit your entry by Friday 15th May 2026.

Read more:
Peter Jones Foundation and FRP relaunch national entrepreneur of the year competition for 2026

PwC’s US chief executive has delivered a stark warning to senior staff, declaring that partners who resist artificial intelligence “have no place” at the firm as it rapidly reshapes its business model to adapt to technological disruption.

Paul Griggs, who took over as US CEO in May 2024, said the professional services giant is moving decisively towards an AI-first operating model, with automation set to fundamentally alter how tax, audit and consulting services are delivered, and priced.

In comments reported by the Financial Times, Griggs made clear that no one within the organisation would be exempt from the transformation, warning that those unwilling to embrace AI would ultimately be left behind. He said any partner who believed they could opt out of the shift “is not going to be here that long”, underlining the urgency with which the firm is pursuing change.

At the heart of PwC’s strategy is a move away from the traditional billable-hours model that has long underpinned the economics of the Big Four. Instead, the firm is developing AI-powered tools capable of delivering services directly to clients without the need for constant human involvement.

Some tax and consulting services are being converted into automated platforms that clients can access independently, with pricing expected to shift towards subscription-based models rather than time-based billing. This marks a significant departure from the labour-intensive structure that has historically relied on large teams of junior staff carrying out routine analytical and administrative tasks.

The firm is set to formalise this direction with the launch of “PwC One”, a new AI platform offering clients access to a suite of automated services. Initially covering areas such as mergers and acquisitions due diligence and complex tax advisory, the platform is expected to expand rapidly as PwC builds out its AI capabilities.

The move reflects a broader existential challenge facing the professional services sector. Advances in generative AI and automation are increasingly capable of handling tasks that were once the preserve of consultants and analysts, raising questions about the long-term viability of traditional advisory models.

For firms like PwC, Deloitte, EY and KPMG, the risk is twofold. Not only could AI reduce the need for large workforces, but it could also enable clients to bring more capabilities in-house, bypassing external advisers altogether. In response, PwC is attempting to reposition itself as both a provider of expertise and a developer of scalable technology solutions.

Griggs’ comments also point to a cultural shift within the firm, where adaptability to AI is becoming a core expectation rather than a specialist skill. Senior staff are being told that embracing automation is no longer optional, but essential to maintaining relevance in a rapidly evolving market.

Industry experts say the shift is inevitable. Raj Abrol, chief executive of Galytix, described AI as a transformative force in risk management and decision-making, particularly in an era defined by economic and geopolitical uncertainty. He noted that the ability to process and interpret vast datasets in real time is becoming a critical competitive advantage for organisations navigating increasingly complex environments.

Kenny MacAulay, chief executive of accounting platform Acting Office, was more blunt, arguing that AI scepticism is incompatible with modern business leadership. He said firms that fail to integrate AI quickly risk falling behind competitors who are already leveraging automation to improve efficiency and client outcomes.

PwC’s aggressive stance highlights how quickly AI is moving from experimental technology to operational necessity. As the firm accelerates its transition, the message to its workforce is unambiguous: adapt to the AI-driven future, or risk being replaced by those who will.

Read more:
PwC warns AI sceptics ‘have no place’ as firm accelerates shift to automated services

The UK government has stepped back from one of its most controversial proposals on artificial intelligence and copyright, signalling a decisive shift towards market-led licensing and greater transparency rather than sweeping legal reform.

In its long-awaited Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, published in March 2026, ministers confirm they will no longer pursue a broad copyright exception for AI training with an opt-out mechanism — a policy that had triggered fierce opposition from across the UK’s creative industries.

Instead, the government is opting for a more cautious, evidence-led approach, prioritising transparency obligations and allowing a nascent but rapidly expanding licensing market to develop. The move marks a significant recalibration of policy at a time when the UK is seeking to position itself as both an AI superpower and a global creative hub.

At the heart of the report is a clear admission: the government’s preferred option, allowing AI developers to use copyrighted material unless rightsholders explicitly opted out, failed to win support.

The consultation attracted more than 11,500 responses, with the overwhelming majority of creators, publishers and rights organisations rejecting the proposal outright.

Ministers now concede that a broad exception “with opt-out is no longer the government’s preferred way forward”, citing strong industry opposition, lack of consensus, and insufficient evidence on economic impact.

This represents a notable victory for the UK’s creative sectors, from publishing and music to film and photography, which argued that such an exception would effectively legalise uncompensated use of their work by generative AI systems.

The report lays bare the fundamental policy dilemma: how to balance AI-driven economic growth with the protection of intellectual property.

On one side sit AI developers, who require vast datasets, often including copyrighted material, to train large language models and generative systems. On the other are creators whose works underpin those systems but risk being displaced by them.

The government acknowledges that modern AI models are typically trained on “billions of copyright works”, raising complex questions about fairness, consent and competition.

Yet it also highlights uncertainty around the economic benefits of reform, noting limited evidence that loosening copyright rules would materially increase AI investment in the UK.

In effect, ministers are choosing to pause rather than gamble.

Rather than legislating, the government is placing its bets on licensing, a market-based mechanism already beginning to take shape.

A growing number of deals between AI firms and content owners, particularly in publishing, music and image libraries, suggests a commercial model is emerging. However, the report acknowledges this market is still “new and evolving” and lacks transparency.

Crucially, ministers have ruled out direct intervention for now:

“We propose not to intervene in the licensing market at this stage… and will keep market-led approaches under review.”

This position aligns closely with industry sentiment across both creative and technology sectors, which broadly favour voluntary, negotiated agreements over statutory schemes.

However, it also raises important questions, particularly for SMEs and individual creators, about bargaining power and equitable remuneration.

Among those welcoming the shift is Tom West, CEO of Publishers’ Licensing Services (PLS), who sees licensing as both practical and scalable.

West said: “We welcome that the government has listened to the strong response it received from across the UK’s creative industries to its consultation and has stepped back from its preferred option of a copyright exception with an opt out and is to review the transparency of AI inputs, which would further boost licensing.

Whilst we await further clarity from the government on the long-term direction of its copyright policy, PLS will continue to serve our publishers and work with our partners on market-based, industry-backed AI licensing solutions.

This approach is already being put into practice. At the London Book Fair last week, PLS launched the first stage of a new collective licensing solution designed specifically to support the use of published content in AI. It was met with strong interest and positive feedback from publishers and industry partners, with publishers already beginning to sign up. The solution offers a practical, scalable way for AI developers to access high-quality content while ensuring creators are paid and retain control over how their work is used.

The case has not been made for the introduction of a new copyright exception. There is no market failure and a dynamic licensing market for the use of content in AI has developed and continues to grow. Any copyright exception for generative AI would jeopardise these licensing solutions, removing the ability of large and small rightsholders to receive payment for the use of their works in AI and reducing control over their content.

PLS welcomes the government’s engagement on this critical issue. We share a commitment to a mutually beneficial outcome and invite the government to work closely with us to help further develop and promote licensing options that support rightsholders of all sizes and AI developers seeking high-quality, trusted content.”

If licensing is the economic mechanism, transparency is the regulatory lever.

More than 90% of consultation respondents supported requirements for AI developers to disclose the sources of training data.

The government agrees, in principle, but stops short of immediate regulation. Instead, it proposes:
• developing industry-led best practice
• monitoring international frameworks (notably the EU AI Act)
• considering future legislation if needed

Transparency is seen as essential to enable enforcement, licensing and trust, particularly given that creators often have no visibility over whether their work has been used.

For UK businesses, particularly SMEs, the implications are nuanced.

For creators and publishers
• greater protection in the short term
• stronger negotiating position in licensing deals
• ongoing challenges around enforcement and visibility

For AI startups and developers
• continued legal uncertainty
• potential cost barriers to accessing training data
• reliance on licensed or overseas-trained models

For the wider economy
• slower regulatory clarity
• reduced risk of over-regulation
• continued dependence on global AI ecosystems

The report explicitly notes that SMEs on both sides, creators and developers, face disproportionate challenges under the current system.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the report is its tone: cautious, iterative, and deliberately non-committal.

The government repeatedly emphasises the need for more evidence, more international alignment, and more market development before taking decisive legislative action.

With ongoing litigation in the US, new rules emerging in the EU, and rapid advances in generative AI, the UK risks being pulled in multiple directions, economically, legally and politically.

This is not a resolution, it is a holding position.

By stepping back from sweeping reform, the government has bought time. But it has also shifted responsibility onto the market to prove that licensing can work at scale, fairly and efficiently.

If it can, the UK may yet carve out a balanced model that supports both innovation and creativity.

If it cannot, the debate over copyright and AI will return, sharper, louder, and far harder to resolve.

Read more:
UK government backs away from AI copyright overhaul as licensing emerges as the battleground