Rolls-Royce has brushed aside investor jitters over the war in Iran, telling shareholders it remains firmly on course to deliver at least £4 billion of underlying operating profit this year, with engine flying hours running 15 per cent ahead of pre-pandemic levels.

The Derby-based aero-engine giant used its annual general meeting this week to draw a line under several weeks of share-price turbulence triggered by Donald Trump’s decision to launch military action in the Middle East. Since hostilities began, the stock has shed close to 20 per cent of its value, sliding from an all-time high of £13.63 and wiping more than £20 billion off the company’s market capitalisation. Shares clawed back 2.9 per cent in early trading on Thursday to stand at £11.06.

The market’s anxiety has been understandable. Rolls-Royce’s civil aerospace division leans heavily on long-haul carriers operating through the Gulf, and the threat of a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz raised the spectre of jet-fuel shortages, route cancellations and a fresh bout of pain for an engine maker still scarred by the pandemic-era grounding of the global fleet.

Yet the picture painted by chief executive Tufan Erginbilgic, now nearly three and a half years into his turnaround, is one of remarkable resilience. In the first four months of the year, engine flying hours have run ahead of internal forecasts. In the three months to 31 March, large engine flying hours rose 5 per cent to reach 115 per cent of 2019 levels. The company is sticking to its full-year guidance of 115 to 120 per cent.

Crucially, Rolls-Royce reported a “significant recovery” in Middle Eastern airline activity, with flying hours on the Airbus A350, powered exclusively by the company’s Derby-built Trent XWB, its single largest revenue line, having “fully recovered to pre-conflict levels”. Carriers, it said, had moved with unexpected speed to redeploy aircraft into other growth markets, leaving far fewer planes parked than analysts had feared. Qatar Airways is the world’s second-largest A350 operator after Singapore Airlines, with both running substantial Gulf traffic.

The group also pointed out that the bulk of aircraft currently grounded for economic reasons, chiefly fuel-cost pressures, are narrow-body, short-haul jets, a segment Rolls-Royce does not serve.

For Erginbilgic, the message to shareholders is that diversification is doing its job. Civil aerospace remains the engine room, but the defence arm, supplying powerplants for the Eurofighter Typhoon, Royal Navy warships and submarines, and several US military programmes, is buoyant amid heightened Western defence spending. The power systems division, which builds diesel engines and generators for everything from data-centre backup to German and Polish army fighting vehicles, is benefiting from the global data-centre boom and rearmament across Nato. A fourth, emerging leg, small modular nuclear reactors, formally backed by the UK government, adds longer-dated optionality.

The reaffirmed guidance points to underlying operating profit of £4 billion to £4.2 billion this year, with free cash flow of £3.6 billion to £3.8 billion.

“We have had a strong start to the year. Operational performance has been strong across the group,” Erginbilgic said. “With our diversified portfolio of three high-performing businesses, we are creating a more resilient and agile Rolls-Royce that is better equipped to respond to changes in the external environment. The conflict in the Middle East has created uncertainty for the industry. We are taking the necessary actions and expect to fully mitigate the current financial impact of the disruption to our business.”

For SME suppliers across the Midlands aerospace cluster, many of whom rely on Rolls-Royce’s order book to keep their own production lines moving, the reaffirmed guidance will be welcome reassurance that the engine maker’s recovery story remains firmly intact, geopolitics notwithstanding.

Read more:
Rolls-Royce holds nerve on £4bn profit target as flying hours soar past pre-pandemic peak

Mark Zuckerberg’s pledge to deliver “personal superintelligence” fails to calm Wall Street as the social media group lifts its 2026 capital expenditure forecast by another $10bn, even as an algorithm overhaul drives record time spent on Instagram and Facebook.

Meta Platforms wiped roughly 7 per cent off its share price in after-hours trading on Wall Street last night after the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp jolted investors with another sharp increase in its artificial intelligence spending plans, even as a sweeping algorithm overhaul drove record engagement across its apps.

The Silicon Valley group, run by Mark Zuckerberg, said it now expected capital expenditure to come in at between $125 billion and $145 billion in 2026, up from the $115 billion to $135 billion range it had pencilled in only months earlier. The revised guidance pushed shares down $46.62, or 7 per cent, to $622.50 in extended trading in New York, despite first-quarter sales and profits that comfortably beat City and Wall Street forecasts.

The reaction underlines the growing unease among shareholders over Big Tech’s escalating AI arms race, with the world’s largest technology companies pouring tens of billions of dollars into data centres, custom chips and machine-learning talent in a bid not to be left behind, a dynamic that is increasingly setting the cost of doing business for smaller rivals and the digital advertising market on which countless British SMEs now depend.

Zuckerberg sought to reassure the market that the spending would pay off, arguing that Meta’s algorithm changes were already translating into stickier users and a more lucrative advertising business. The chief executive said improvements to content ranking had lifted “real time” spent on Instagram by 10 per cent in the first quarter, while video engagement on Facebook climbed by more than 8 per cent globally, the biggest quarter-on-quarter jump in four years.

Susan Li, chief financial officer, told analysts that Meta had doubled the length of user interactions used to train Instagram’s recommendation systems during the period, allowing its AI models to “develop a deeper understanding of user interests”. Engineers had also accelerated the speed at which fresh posts were surfaced, using “more advanced content understanding techniques” to identify content that might appeal to a user “even if they haven’t engaged with a lot of similar content”.

More than half a billion users on each of Facebook and Instagram are now consuming AI-translated videos after the company began auto-dubbing clips into a viewer’s local language, a move designed to widen the pool of recommendable content and, ultimately, monetisable inventory. Across Meta’s family of apps, daily active users hit 3.56 billion in the first quarter.

The increased engagement is feeding directly into the advertising machine that still generates the lion’s share of Meta’s revenues. Total ad impressions rose 19 per cent year-on-year in the period, as the group’s automated, AI-powered ad platform, which lets brands personalise campaigns at scale, continued to gain traction with marketers, including the small and mid-sized advertisers that increasingly account for the bulk of its long tail.

Zuckerberg used the earnings call to set out his most ambitious vision yet for the technology, telling investors that Meta intended to build AI agents capable of delivering “personal superintelligence” to billions of people. He said he wanted Meta’s products to “understand people’s goals specifically and then be able to just go work on them for them, and check back in”, whether those goals related to health, learning, relationships or careers.

“Literally every person in the world is going to want some version of it,” he said, suggesting that consumers would be “willing to pay a lot of money to have premium or high compute versions” — a hint that Meta is preparing to layer subscription products on top of its traditionally ad-funded model.

AI models, Zuckerberg added, would help Meta to “develop a first principles understanding of what you care about and what each piece of content in our system is about, so that way, we can show you more useful things for what you’re trying to accomplish.”

The bullish tone on AI sat uneasily, however, with the group’s plans to cut roughly 8,000 staff, or 10 per cent of its workforce, in May. Pressed on whether the technology would ultimately replace human workers, Zuckerberg insisted his view differed from much of Silicon Valley.

“My view of AI is very different from many others in the industry,” he said. “I hear a lot of people out there talk about how AI is going to replace people instead. I think that AI is going to amplify people’s ability to do what you want, whether that’s to improve your health, your learning, your relationships, your ability to achieve your personal career goals, and more.”

Li told analysts she was “unsure about the optimal workforce size” for the company, but said management was determined to use AI tools to “substantially increase our productivity”. She added: “We’re approaching this with a bias for wanting to use these tools to build even more products and services than we would have before. At the same time, we’re making very significant investments in infrastructure, and we are very focused on continuing to operate efficiently. So I think we will be continuously evaluating how we’re structured, just to make sure we’re best set up to deliver against our priorities over the coming years.”

For all the angst over capital spending, the underlying numbers were strong. Meta reported first-quarter revenue of $56.3 billion, ahead of Wall Street’s $55.58 billion consensus. Net income jumped 61 per cent year-on-year to $26.8 billion, well clear of the $17.2 billion analysts had pencilled in, although the figure was flattered by an $8 billion tax benefit linked to the US tax reform package signed into law last July.

The question now facing shareholders is whether Zuckerberg’s vast bet on AI infrastructure will deliver the productivity gains and new revenue lines needed to justify the bill, or whether, as some on Wall Street fear, the social media empire is about to enter another costly chapter of the metaverse playbook, only this time with a different acronym.

Read more:
Meta’s $145bn AI splurge spooks investors despite engagement surge

The John Lewis Partnership has been hauled before the High Court by the past and present owners of Brent Cross shopping centre in north London, in a dispute that could redraw the lines between bricks-and-mortar leases and the digital tills that now run through them.

Hammerson, the FTSE 250 landlord that owns Brent Cross today, and Standard Life, its predecessor, allege that the employee-owned retailer has been underpaying its rent for more than a decade by failing to count click-and-collect transactions as part of its in-store takings. The claim, lodged at the High Court last December and first surfaced by the *Financial Times*, hinges on the wording of a lease drafted in 1972, four years before Brent Cross even opened its doors and decades before the world wide web entered commercial use.

John Lewis has been one of the centre’s anchor tenants since 1976. The 125-year lease it signed obliges the partnership to pay a base rent of £30,000 a year plus a turnover top-up: 0.75 per cent of sales between £4m and £10m, rising to 1 per cent on anything above £10m. Industry sources put the store’s annual takings at around £50m, which would imply a rent bill of roughly £475,000 a year, a modest sum in modern retail terms, and a reminder of just how favourable these deals could be.

Such generous arrangements were common for anchors. In the heyday of the British shopping centre, landlords routinely offered cut-price rents to the John Lewises, BHSs and Marks & Spencers of the world on the basis that their mere presence would pull in footfall, lift surrounding rents and de-risk the entire scheme. Half a century on, those legacy leases are now being stress-tested against a retail landscape their drafters could not have imagined.

At the heart of the case is the meaning of “gross receipts”. Hammerson and Standard Life argue the term should capture online orders collected at the Brent Cross store, online orders fulfilled from the store, and in-store orders dispatched later from a John Lewis delivery depot. They point to lease language that already takes in “mail, telephone or similar orders received or filled at or from” the premises, alongside orders that “originated and/or are accepted at or from the demised premises” regardless of where delivery ultimately takes place.

John Lewis is not commenting publicly, but court papers show it is contesting the claim. Sources close to the partnership argue that a lease drafted before the internet existed cannot, as a matter of common sense, have intended to scoop up e-commerce.

That view has support across the property industry. “The sale occurs at the click, not the collect,” one rival landlord told *Business Matters*, “and the landlord should be benefiting from the ‘halo’ sales when shoppers come in to pick up their orders. You can’t argue there was intent to include click-and-collect in the lease because the internet didn’t exist in the seventies.”

The case is not solely about definitions. Hammerson has also taken aim at the way John Lewis has been reporting its numbers. Under the lease, the retailer must supply an audited sales certificate, signed off by its accountants. The landlord claims that for the past 12 years those certificates have come with a striking caveat: that the accountants’ examination “was not such as to constitute an audit”. Nor, it says, have the certificates included a breakdown of sales. The landlords “consider it likely” that some of those certificates have omitted sums that should have been included.

The remedy being sought is far-reaching. The claimants want the court to compel John Lewis to produce a detailed sales breakdown for every year since 2013, with backdated rent, interest and costs to follow if the figures show click-and-collect was excluded.

For SME retailers and landlords watching from the sidelines, the implications are considerable. Turnover-linked rents, once a niche feature of anchor tenant deals, have spread rapidly through high streets and retail parks since the pandemic, as landlords have offered flexibility in exchange for a slice of the upside. How the courts interpret half-century-old wording could set a benchmark for far more recent agreements that are similarly silent on omnichannel trading.

It also raises a more uncomfortable question for retailers running hybrid operations. If a click-and-collect order is fulfilled from a back-of-store stockroom, is the shop a shop, a warehouse, or both? The answer matters not just for rent, but potentially for business rates, insurance and even planning classifications further down the line.

A trial date has yet to be set. Whatever the outcome, the case is likely to be studied closely by every property director, finance chief and retail lawyer with a turnover lease in the bottom drawer.

Read more:
John Lewis dragged into High Court over click-and-collect rent at Brent Cross

Aidan and Howard Barclay, the eldest sons of the late Sir David Barclay, have narrowly sidestepped bankruptcy after striking an eleventh-hour deal with creditors that has prompted HSBC to abandon its pursuit of the brothers through the High Court.

At a hearing on Tuesday, the bank’s counsel Matthew Abraham told Judge Burton that HSBC was now seeking to have its bankruptcy petitions dismissed following the approval of an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA), the formal alternative to bankruptcy that allows debtors to settle obligations with creditors on agreed terms.

“In the circumstances, the petitioner seeks dismissal of the petitions following approval of the IVA,” Mr Abraham told the court. The arrangement, the court was told, had been waved through at a virtual creditors’ meeting the previous Tuesday. Judge Burton said she was “content in the circumstances” to grant the dismissal. The terms of the agreement remain confidential.

For Aidan, 70, and Howard, 66, the ruling brings a measure of personal reprieve after a wretched run for the once-formidable Barclay business empire, though it does little to mask the scale of value that has bled away from a fortune painstakingly assembled by their father and his late twin, Sir Frederick, through decades of debt-fuelled acquisitions.

HSBC filed its bankruptcy petitions against the brothers in December, citing substantial sums owed in the wake of the family’s logistics business going under. The bank has so far recovered just £1.2 million of a £143.5 million secured loan from the administration of Logistics Group, the parent company behind the Barclay-owned parcel carriers Yodel and ArrowXL.

Logistics Group tipped into administration in March 2024 after HSBC pulled the plug on its facility and the business proved unable to repay. The collapse was a hammer blow not only to the family’s balance sheet but to thousands of SME retailers who relied on Yodel as a low-cost alternative to the dominant carriers.

At an earlier hearing in late March, HSBC had raised “various issues over assets, who owns them and where they come from”, pointed language that hinted at the bank’s reservations about the brothers’ initial proposals to creditors. That those concerns appear to have been resolved sufficiently to secure approval marks a notable, if quiet, victory for the Barclay camp.

The IVA is the latest chapter in the unwinding of one of Britain’s most secretive business dynasties. The family has, in short order, lost control of a series of trophy assets including The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph and The Very Group, the online retailer formerly known as Shop Direct.

Last month, Axel Springer, the Berlin-based media group behind Bild and Politico, agreed to acquire Telegraph Media Group for £575 million, seeing off a competing bid from Lord Rothermere’s Daily Mail and General Trust. The sale brought to a close a protracted ownership saga that began when Lloyds Banking Group seized the Telegraph titles in 2023 over unpaid debts owed by the Barclay family’s holding companies.

For Britain’s SME community, the Barclay saga is more than a tabloid spectacle. It stands as a cautionary tale of the perils of leverage, the speed at which a long-built empire can unspool when lenders lose patience, and the practical utility of the IVA mechanism for owner-operators staring down personal liability for corporate debts. Restructuring practitioners have long argued that IVAs remain underused by directors of failed businesses who too often default into formal bankruptcy at significant personal and professional cost.

Whether the brothers’ arrangement holds, and what it ultimately yields for HSBC and the wider creditor pool, will not be known for some time. But for now, at least, Aidan and Howard Barclay live to fight another day.

Read more:
Barclay Brothers swerve bankruptcy with eleventh-hour creditor pact

Grosvenor, the property company controlled by the Duke of Westminster, has broken ground on a £40m repositioning of The Hive in Manchester’s Northern Quarter, in a move that takes the group’s directly managed flexible workspace model outside London for the first time.

The Lever Street landmark, which extends to 78,000 sq ft, will be reimagined as a destination office building anchored by 25,500 sq ft of flex space and a hospitality-led amenity offer. Ground-floor units fronting Lever Street will house a deli and a restaurant, both run by what Grosvenor describes as “well-known Manchester names”, with a launch pencilled in for autumn 2026.

For Grosvenor’s UK property arm, the project is the most visible test yet of a regional strategy launched in 2020 that now stretches across roughly 500,000 sq ft in Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Leeds. The portfolio is currently 90 per cent let, a figure that compares favourably with a regional office market still wrestling with hybrid working and a flight to quality.

The group has appointed x+why, the B Corp-certified workspace operator, to run more than 22,000 sq ft of the flex floors under a management agreement. The deal extends a partnership that began in 2023 at Fivefields, Grosvenor’s social-impact workspace in Victoria, and signals a growing appetite among traditional landlords to plug operating expertise into their own buildings rather than cede space to third-party flex providers on conventional leases.

Interiors will be designed by x+why’s in-house team, whydesign, with a deliberate nod to local craftsmanship. Pieces by Manchester-based furniture designers and artists including Aiden Donovan, Jesse Cracknell, Matt Dennis and Mima Adams will be woven into the scheme, while elements from the fit-out installed by previous tenant The Arts Council are to be repurposed, a small but pointed gesture towards the building’s creative heritage.

The bet on Manchester reflects a wider conviction inside Grosvenor that the city’s office market remains one of the most resilient outside the capital, underpinned by a deep talent pool, inward business migration and a structural shortage of grade-A space. The landlord’s nearby Ship Canal House is, it says, close to full occupancy following a run of new lettings and renewals.

Fergus Evans, office portfolio director at Grosvenor Property UK, said the Hive scheme typified the group’s regional playbook of taking “a prime asset in a great location and repositioning it to meet the evolving needs of today’s occupiers”. He added: “Manchester continues to perform strongly for us, and our investment in The Hive reflects sustained demand for well-located, high-quality offices, particularly from the city’s growing digital and creative economy. Combining x+why’s experience in creating design-led, community-focused workspaces with our approach to active asset management, we are well placed to deliver a distinctive, flexible offer that responds to local demand.”

Rupert Dean, chief executive and co-founder of x+why, said the operator was “delighted to be partnering with Grosvenor again to bring The Hive into its next chapter”. He added: “The Northern Quarter is one of the most exciting and entrepreneurial parts of the UK, and The Hive will reflect that energy, offering a workspace that is not only functional, but inspiring and socially driven.”

For SMEs and scale-ups in Manchester’s digital and creative cluster, the very occupiers Grosvenor and x+why are courting, the arrival of a higher-end, hospitality-led flex product on Lever Street is likely to sharpen competition with established players such as WeWork, Bruntwood and Department, and could nudge headline rents in the Northern Quarter higher when the doors open next autumn.

Read more:
Grosvenor takes flex workspace model out of London with £40m bet on Manchester’s Northern Quarter

The British Business Bank has committed $20m to Ineffable Intelligence, the London-headquartered artificial intelligence venture, as part of a landmark $1.1bn seed round that ranks as the largest in European history.

In a move that signals a sharpening of the Government’s industrial strategy around frontier technology, the state-owned development bank has co-invested alongside the Sovereign AI Fund, the Treasury-backed vehicle established to keep strategically significant AI businesses anchored on these shores. The Sovereign AI Fund has put in further capital on top of the Bank’s contribution, although the precise figure has not been disclosed.

The British cheques sit within a syndicate that reads like a who’s who of Silicon Valley capital. Sequoia, Lightspeed, NVIDIA, Index Ventures, Google, EQT, Evantic, Flying Fish, DST Global and BOND have all joined the round, lending weight to the argument that Britain remains capable of attracting deep-pocketed foreign investors to its homegrown technology champions despite persistent concerns about the country’s appetite for risk.

Ineffable Intelligence is the brainchild of David Silver, the University College London professor widely regarded as one of the most influential reinforcement learning researchers of his generation. Silver previously ran the reinforcement learning team at Google DeepMind and is credited with pivotal work on AlphaGo, AlphaZero, AlphaFold and AlphaProof, the systems that successively rewrote what machines were thought capable of in domains ranging from board games to protein folding and mathematical reasoning.

His new venture has set itself a deliberately audacious mission: to build what Silver calls a “superlearner”, a system capable of discovering knowledge from its own experience rather than relying on the data humans feed it. If realised, the technology would represent a step change beyond today’s large language models, which remain heavily dependent on training material drawn from the internet.

For the British Business Bank, the investment marks the latest in a steady cadence of AI commitments. The lender has now made nine AI deals over the past twelve months, with recent backing for autonomous driving outfit Wayve and conversational AI specialist PolyAI. The Bank has also been a quietly significant force behind the commercialisation of British academic research, supporting almost a quarter of all university spinout deals struck between 2022 and 2024.

Charlotte Lawrence, managing director of direct equity at the British Business Bank, described Silver as “a generational talent who has consistently been on the cutting edge of AI development“. She added: “Ineffable Intelligence has the potential to produce a paradigm shift in our scientific and technology landscape, and we are incredibly excited to be supporting him and his team in this endeavour.”

George Mills, the Bank’s investment director, said the company was tackling “one of the most significant opportunities within AI”, citing potential applications spanning advanced problem solving and new product development. “The UK produces world-class AI talent, and we are pleased to back strategically important businesses to scale and stay in the UK,” he said, in remarks that will be read as a pointed reminder of the Government’s determination to stem the flow of British intellectual property to American owners.

Josephine Kant, head of ventures at Sovereign AI, was equally bullish. “Very few founders in the world could credibly set out to build a superlearner, a system that discovers new knowledge from its own experience rather than ours. David is one of them,” she said. “From AlphaGo to AlphaZero to AlphaProof, he has spent nearly two decades turning reinforcement learning from a research idea into the results the rest of the field builds on. Ineffable is being built in the UK, and that matters.”

The deal arrives at a delicate moment for British technology policy. Ministers have repeatedly stressed their ambition to position the country as a global hub for safe, sovereign AI development, but they have faced criticism for the relative scarcity of late-stage growth capital available to scaling deep-tech businesses. A seed round of this magnitude, anchored by domestic public capital and topped up by the world’s most prolific venture investors, will be cited by Whitehall as evidence that the strategy is beginning to bear fruit.

For SME founders watching from the sidelines, the headline figures may feel a world away from their own funding realities. Yet the structural shift is significant: the British Business Bank’s growing willingness to write meaningful equity cheques into frontier technology businesses, in concert with private capital, suggests a more interventionist posture that could in time filter down to a broader cohort of high-growth British companies.

Read more:
British Business Bank backs record-breaking Ineffable Intelligence raise as UK doubles down on superintelligence ambitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britain’s technology industry is bleeding female talent at an alarming rate, with nearly 90 per cent of women abandoning the sector within ten years of joining, according to fresh research from Akamai that lays bare the scale of an inclusion crisis costing the UK economy up to £3.5bn a year.

The findings paint a damning picture of an industry that has long trumpeted its diversity credentials yet continues to lose women at the precise moment they should be ascending to its upper ranks. More than half of those who depart do so within five years, while the average tenure for a woman in tech now stands at just six years, a figure that suggests the sector’s much-vaunted pipeline initiatives are pouring talent straight into a leaky bucket.

Crucially, this is not a problem of recruitment. Women are walking away mid-career, typically when their experience and expertise are at their most valuable. The reasons cited will be wearily familiar to anyone who has tracked this issue over the past decade: poor working conditions, inadequate remuneration, a paucity of role models in senior positions, and workplace cultures that remain stubbornly resistant to flexibility and genuine inclusion.

Elizabeth Anderson, chief executive of the Digital Poverty Alliance, argues the problem extends well beyond the corporate balance sheet. “There is a clear and often overlooked link between digital exclusion and the retention of women in the tech sector,” she said. “When workplaces fail to provide inclusive, accessible environments — whether through equitable access to tools, flexible working, or supportive cultures, it can reinforce barriers that disproportionately impact women and ultimately drive them out of the industry.”

Anderson warns of a feedback loop with national consequences. “If the people designing and delivering technology do not reflect the diversity of those using it, we risk embedding exclusion into the digital services that underpin everyday life,” she said, pointing to the 19 million Britons still living in digital poverty. “Representation in tech is therefore not just a workforce issue, but a critical factor in ensuring technology works for everyone.”

The numbers reinforce her case. Women account for roughly a quarter of the UK technology workforce, but only a sliver progress to leadership roles, evidence, the research suggests, of structural barriers that calcify the higher up the ladder one looks.

For SMEs in particular, the exodus represents a bottom-line problem as much as a moral one. Sheila Flavell CBE, chief operating officer of FDM Group, believes the answer lies in coordinated action between Whitehall and industry. “The findings that almost 90 per cent of women leave the tech industry within a decade highlight a challenge we can no longer ignore,” she said. “Upskilling and reskilling women in digital skills must be a priority.”

Flavell is calling for clearer routes into technical and leadership positions, alongside targeted investment in artificial intelligence and digital training. She is particularly insistent on the need to support women returning to work after career breaks. “This also means providing dedicated pathways for women returners looking to re-enter the workforce after a career break, ensuring experienced talent is not lost to the tech sector.”

The economic stakes are considerable. The loss of mid-career women is feeding directly into Britain’s chronic technology skills shortage, with the resulting drag on productivity estimated at between £2bn and £3.5bn each year. Much of that expertise is not lost altogether, it is migrating wholesale to financial services, education and healthcare, sectors that have proved more accommodating of senior female talent.

There is, however, a glimmer of opportunity for employers prepared to act. A substantial proportion of women who have left the industry indicated they would consider a return under improved conditions: better pay, transparent progression, flexible working and cultures that move beyond box-ticking inclusion. For the SMEs and scale-ups that dominate Britain’s technology landscape, that represents a sizeable pool of experienced talent ready to be recaptured, provided they are willing to overhaul the structures that drove these women away in the first place.

The question now is whether Britain’s tech sector treats this latest evidence as another statistic to be filed away, or as the wake-up call it so plainly is.

Read more:
Britain’s tech sector haemorrhages female talent as nine in ten women quit within a decade