BBC Business News Articles

First-time buyers – often cited as the lifeblood of the UK housing market – are becoming less likely to buy a home than movers, researchers predict.For more than a year, the highest proportion of sales were to people buying for the first time, according to property portal Zoopla.But the squeeze on mortgage lending and increased interest from movers will change the dynamic this year and next.The coronavirus crisis has changed conditions in the UK housing market.Four ways the property market ‘will be tougher’ for first-time buyers
First-time buyers in Scotland at ‘seven-year-low’
Lockdown led to many people reconsidering their domestic arrangements, particularly as they have spent more time working from home.Gardens and space, as well as proximity of family, have risen on the priority list. That has led some existing homeowners to look around for an alternative property.First-time buyers, in contrast, have seen their options squeezed as lenders tighten their criteria for granting a mortgage – demanding larger deposits and guarantees of secure employment.The result, according to Zoopla, is that home movers will become the more likely buyers at the end of this year and next year.Pent-up demand, and government incentives such as a stamp duty holiday, led to property portals and estate agents reporting a surge in interest when lockdown restrictions were lifted.This resulted in some people, like Alex Phillips, buying their first home.The 27-year-old teacher bought a terraced house in Newport in August, on the same street as the primary school he attended as a child.”The situation meant viewings were not straightforward, but it all went through in two months,” he said.”I did not want to be in limbo and for this to be a starting point.” He said a mortgage adviser helped him secure a home loan with a 10% deposit, which he said was “vital” for affordability.In August, agreed sales of homes with two bedrooms or fewer, excluding central London, were up 36% compared with the same month last year, according to property portal Rightmove.”These types of homes are finding a buyer within 53 days on average, which is seven days quicker than last year,” said Rightmove’s director of property data, Tim Bannister.’Driving force’This demand is expected to fade as mortgage restrictions feed through. Zoopla research suggested demand from first-time buyers was already dropping following the post-lockdown peak, whereas demand from movers was “holding steady” at 37% higher than pre-Covid levels.”First-time buyers have been a driving force of housing sales over the last decade,” said Richard Donnell, research and insight director at Zoopla. “They remain a key buyer group but lower availability of higher loan to value mortgages and increased movement by existing homeowners means a shift in the mix of home buyers into 2021.”

Your results

–

Amount of the United Kingdom that has housing you can afford

Range of affordable areas includes:
Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon and Belfast

No affordable areas

Search the UK for more details about a local area

low (£)

high (£££)

Affordable

Unaffordable

You have a big enough deposit and your monthly payments are high enough.
The prices are based on the local market. If there are 100 properties of the right size in an area and they are placed in price order with the cheapest first, the “low-end” of the market will be the 25th property, “mid-priced” is the 50th and “high-end” will be the 75th.

‘Bankers and people on benefits come to my door’ Video, 00:03:34’Bankers and people on benefits come to my door’

In June this year, Tellings Home Made Furniture Service “borrowed” £50,000 from a government Covid bail-out scheme.There was just one problem. The company isn’t real – the loan went to a criminal gang, who will never pay it back.Mark Telling, though, does exist and had no idea a company had been set up in his name.When we told him his personal details had been stolen to set up a bogus company to steal money from the government, he was horrified.”That’s crazy, shocking, it’s going to worry us to death,” he said.UK banks get 100,000 loan applications on first day
Arrest over £110k Covid small business loan fraud
Mark – who’s 47 and works in the building trade – and his partner are saving to buy a house.”I don’t know what else is to come,” he added.And Mark may be one of many. Victims could find themselves liable for the debt and have their credit rating badly affected.
Media playback is unsupported on your device

A BBC investigation has found criminals are setting up fake businesses on an industrial scale and successfully applying for government-backed Covid emergency loans – with no intention of paying the money back.They claim up to £50,000 on each application.The Bounce Back Loan Scheme – or BBLS – was announced in April and is designed to help small firms stay afloat during the crisis. The loans are 100% backed by the government and do not have to be paid off for six years. They are interest free for the first 12 months, and are administered by 12 banks.But we have uncovered evidence criminals are taking advantage of the system and could be making millions of pounds. ‘Scandal’One fraud expert, a retired detective, has called it a “scandal” and said we may never know the true scale of the problem.The Treasury insists banks are taking “appropriate precautions” and the government would take “criminal action against the most serious cases”.The revelations come after the head of the National Audit Office told the Guardian the BBLS was the “riskiest” of all the bailout measures.So, how does the fraud work?Gangs steal victims’ personal details using phishing emails or buying them on criminal forums. They then set up a bogus business in their name.After opening a business bank account they then apply for a Bounce Back Loan through the same bank.The rules state the scheme should only apply to firms set up before 1 March 2020. But we’ve seen successful applications for companies that were created as late as June.’Free money’We met a fraud investigator who has successfully infiltrated a criminal gang online. His work is highly sensitive so he asked to remain anonymous.He showed us the details of multiple people who had their personal details stolen, of businesses set up in their names and Bounce Back Loans applied for.Typically the criminals apply for the maximum of £50,000.The fraud investigator told us “it seems to be free money for the scammers”.”There are hundreds, possibly thousands of people involved, engaged in this. It’s going to cost us billions,” he said.We also obtained data from Companies House that indicates a sharp increase in the registration of new companies after the BBLS was announced. In early March registrations were running at 15,602 per week. After lockdown that figure halved to 7,571 per week. Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced the scheme on 27 April. Registrations then rose to a record 21,616 by the end of June. We don’t know how many of those new companies might be fake – or how many actually applied for a loan.Former detective and now civilian fraud and money laundering expert Martin Woods says the scheme was always vulnerable.”Criminals identified it as a fabulous opportunity,” he said, adding there were inadequate checks on the applications that were made.He added: “Ultimately, it will be our children and grandchildren who pay for this.”Acuris Risk Intelligence, which tracks online fraud, claims to have found more than 100 fake businesses set up by one criminal gang alone.Its CEO Joel Lange said: “This type of fraud could have been prevented by conducting even the most basic checks by the banks.”UK Finance, which represents the banking sector, rejected the criticisms, saying: “Lenders have a range of checks in place to detect and prevent fraudulent activity.”That includes “a cross-industry initiative to check if duplicate applications have been made”, it said.Everything BBC News discovered is being made available to the authorities.

Shadow justice secretary David Lammy has said that the introduction of a 22:00 curfew for pubs in England has led to people “bubbling out of pubs” at the same time.The Labour MP said that drinkers were “hanging around towns and they’re potentially spreading the virus”.Mr Lammy questioned the “science” behind the new restrictions, saying: “It’s not clear where that came from.”But the culture secretary said: “There is definitely science behind it.”Oliver Dowden, speaking to BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show, insisted: “That’s why we’re requiring people to be seated in pubs and restaurants, so that stops the flow of them to and from the bar.”We are reducing the closing times to stop people staying later and drinking.””And the point about all of this is that everyone has their part to play. If we all play by the rules, we can ensure that there are not further, more draconian restrictions,” the culture secretary added.Under the new restrictions, which came into force on Thursday, all pubs, bars and restaurants in England are to shut no later than 22:00 each night. They are also restricted to table service only.But concerns have been raised by both businesses and community groups that the new curfew encourages customers to all leave at once and to carry on drinking together at one person’s home.Brewer and pub chain Greene King told the BBC: “Without the usual slow ‘wind-down’ time that pubs would see with a gradual closure, customers were all leaving at once which presented more of a challenge for the pub teams managing people’s safety on exiting the premises. “We have also seen examples of people leaving our pubs to buy alcohol in shops to drink elsewhere,” its statement said.It is calling on the government to reconsider many of the measures – which were introduced since the number of Covid-19 infections started to increase again.They urged additional help for the hospitality industry: “The measures have not been well thought through and the combined impact of [the curfew], the challenges of table service-only and the fact that the government are unfairly targeting the hospitality sector has had a cumulative negative impact.”Pub chain operator Mitchells & Butlers, which runs brands like All Bar One, said it was too early to tell what impact the curfew might have on trade, although “it creates an additional challenge as it forces customers to leave all at once rather than dispersing gradually”.A spokesman said it presented an extra hurdle “in what are already very challenging and uncertain times for our industry”.The boss of the Wetherspoon pub chain has also questioned the introduction of the 22:00 curfew.Tim Martin said on Tuesday: “The main problem with the 22:00 curfew is that it’s another random and arbitrary move by the government, which lacks logic or scientific credibility.”He said that it would reduce sales for “hard-pressed” pubs and restaurants, while also increasing “the level of unsupervised socialising” at home and elsewhere.Speaking on the Marr show, Prof Mark Woolhouse, who sits on the government’s advisory body that models pandemics, said that modelling of the effect of the new curfew had not been carried out to his knowledge.He explained: “The models do not have the sort of granularity that you can explore in detail for closing times for pubs, or even different versions of the rule of six that we now have around the country.”So those sorts of things have to be judgement calls based on the public health evidence.”A spokeswoman for the Department for Business said: “These measures strike a balance between saving lives by protecting our NHS and the most vulnerable and minimising the wider impact on the economy and schools. She said the government had taken “immediate action” as the latest data suggested a “considerable rise” in the infection rate from within the hospitality sector in recent weeks.””We’ve acted decisively to support the hospitality sector throughout the coronavirus outbreak, and will keep all measures under constant review,” she added. After falling from their April peak, confirmed new coronavirus cases in the UK have been rising again since early August.On Sunday, the country recorded a further 5,693 cases and 17 deaths within 28 days of a positive test.The number of deaths recorded over the weekend tends to be lower than during the week because of reporting delays.

A Bank of England (BoE) policymaker has defended the potential use of negative interest rates, which could take the cost of borrowing below zero.Silvana Tenreyro told the Sunday Telegraph that evidence from other countries was “encouraging”.On Tuesday, the BoE governor played down the prospect of taking rates below zero, insisting it just needed to make sure it could do so if needed.The Bank has so far responded to the pandemic by cutting rates to just 0.1%. If interest rates are negative, the BoE charges for any deposits it holds on behalf of the banks. That encourages banks to lend the money to business rather than deposit it.In an interview with the newspaper, Ms Tenreyro – an external member of the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee – said that evidence from other European countries and Japan suggested that negative interest rates had succeeded in cutting firms’ borrowing costs and that banks would cope with the extra pressure on their finances, despite coronavirus.What are negative interest rates?The term “interest rates” is often used interchangeably with the Bank of England base rate.Described as the “single most important interest rate in the UK”, the base rate determines how much interest the Bank of England pays to financial institutions that hold money with it, and what it charges them to borrow.High Street banks also use it to determine how much interest they pay to savers, as well as what they charge people who take out a loan or mortgage.The Bank of England usually lowers interest rates when it wants people to spend more and save less.In theory, taking interest rates below zero should have the same effect. But in practice, it’s a bit more complicated.Read more about how negative interest rates work here.”There has been almost full pass-through of negative rates into lending rates in most countries,” Ms Tenreyro said.She added that “banks adapted well” and that their profitability had increased where the policy had been introduced.But earlier this week, BoE Governor Andrew Bailey played down the idea of taking rates below zero in the near future, and described the experience of other countries as a “mixed bag”.Mr Bailey said on Tuesday: “It would be a cardinal sin in my view if we said we had a tool in the box which we didn’t think could be operationally used.”Yes it’s in the tool bag, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to use negative rates,” he added.Rising virus rates threaten economy, warns Bank
Speedy return to workplace ‘not possible’
The Bank said in August that it was taking a closer look at the case for cutting interest rates even further. In September it also said that it would take a detailed look at how negatives interest rates might work in practice during the last three months of the year.It has already cut interest rates to 0.1%, a record low, and pumped billions of pounds into the UK economy in a bid to fight the coronavirus-induced downturn.’Interrupted’ recoveryMs Tenreyro also said that the potential for more local lockdowns could, however, slow down or “interrupt” the UK’s economic recovery.She suggested it will be shaped like an “interrupted, incomplete V”, at odds with other more upbeat forecasts.Speaking on a British Chambers of Commerce web conference on Tuesday, Mr Bailey also urged caution over the “hard yards ahead” as the UK faces a rising number of Covid-19 infections.He said: “The latest news, that we are seeing a very unfortunate, faster return of Covid-19, is extremely difficult news for all of us and the whole country.”That does reinforce the downside risks we have in our forecasts.”The Bank of England will do everything we can within our remit and powers to support the businesses and people of this country.”

My Money is a series looking at how people spend their money – and the sometimes tough decisions they have to make. Here, Jay and Hollie, a couple from Liverpool, document their spending during the coronavirus pandemic.Hollie is 23 and lives with her parents, while her boyfriend Jay, 27, lives at home with his grandad. They both want to move out to rent a place together, but Hollie says she’s too much of a spendthrift to save enough for a deposit on a flat. Hollie earns £1,300 a month working for a bank. She works four days on, four days off handling calls on fraud, disputes, and general customer service. Jay works in a bar and earns up to £16,000 a year. He was on leave the week of this blog. In their spare time, they both love gaming, going to theme parks and doing anything spooky – “any stereotypical goth stuff”. At the beginning of the week Hollie said she wasn’t hugely worried about the coronavirus risk. She has already had Covid-19 and lives with two people who work on Covid wards, so feels more at risk at home than when she is out and about. But by the end of the week, Hollie’s views had changed. Hollie and Jay kept their money diaries before the latest restrictions were announced for Merseyside.Over to Jay and Hollie…Hollie: So I’ve started the week by waking up and browsing on social media in bed. Regrettably for someone who spends a lot of effort trying not to spend too much money on online shopping, I happened to stumble across a couple of adverts for clothes that I REALLY liked. I purchased a crop top and tote bag from one company (£33.95) and a crop top and tote bag from another company (£38.70). I know that I really do not need two tote bags and I don’t even remember the last time I had the confidence to wear a crop top… but I really have no self restraint.I got out of bed in an urgent attempt to get off my phone and stop browsing clothes, and made my way into the city centre (£2.20 spent on bus fare) to meet a friend for some brunch. On the way, I stopped off at the nearest shop and purchased a pouch of tobacco (£20). For brunch, I bought a vegan club sandwich, a salted caramel latte with oat milk, a vegan chocolate cake and an iced tea. This came to £16.80. Total spend: £111.65Jay: We got the bus into town with Hollie, so I spent £2.20 on the bus fare. I then bought a pack of cigarette filters, which cost £1. I got myself a margarita pizza and a drink for £4.23 and played some games in the arcade whilst waiting for Hollie who was with her friend. Then I met up with them to play pool and have a drink. I bought mine, Hollie’s and her friend’s drinks, which came to £9.30.Total spend: £16.73My MoneyMore blogs from the BBC’s My Money Series:We’re looking for more people to share what they spend their money on. If you’re interested, please email [email protected] or get in touch via our My Money (World) Facebook group, or if you live in the UK, please join our My Money (UK) Facebook group and we’ll aim to contact you.Hollie: Jay and I decided to have a date day in Manchester. I bought a bottle of kombucha at the train station as I hadn’t had the chance to have my morning coffee and was getting pretty cranky! (£3… which made me even more cranky). After lunch (which Jay paid for) I introduced him to my favourite LGBTQIA+ bar and I treated us both to a pint each (least I could do and they were only £2each!). We ended up going to three more bars along Canal Street, stopping off for a drink in each bar. I paid £5.20 for two halves in one bar and Jay paid in the others. We then ended the night in a pub close to the train station, where I paid £10 for two pints just before heading home. We had our masks and hand sanitiser the whole time so we stayed sensible. Total spend: £22.20Jay: I booked two train tickets to Piccadilly Station (£19 for two). We got ready and jumped on the bus into town (£4.40 for two bus tickets) and headed straight to the station. Once we got to Manchester, we stopped off at a nearby bar and got a pint of beer each, which came to £9.60 altogether. We then walked around the corner to our favourite restaurant, which we had a booking for at quarter past twelve. In the restaurant we ordered two beers each, two burgers, mac and cheese and loaded fries. We hadn’t tried some of the food that we ordered yet so we decided to halve everything to share. All in all, food cost £50.10 (expensive but so worth it). After we finished our food, Hollie took us to the Gay Village for some drinks. I had not been before and Hollie really likes some of the bars there so we decided to have a bar crawl. Hollie bought me a couple of drinks while we were out, so I only paid for a spirit and a pint for us in one bar (£6) and a pint each for us in another (£8.30). I’ve always been wary and aware of the Covid risks, because I live with a vulnerable person, so I take extra precautions with regularly sanitising and keeping distance, but working in the hospitality industry I’m already at risk as it is. Total spend: £97.40Hollie: On Wednesday I had planned to go visit a friend for a catch up in a pub we regularly visit. I woke up and jumped on the bus straight into the city centre (£2.20). My friend was already waiting for me when I arrived, so I eagerly got myself a pint of cider (£2.55) and we ordered three small plates of food to share (£3.75). I bought myself another couple of drinks during the catch up (£8.20) and then stopped off at a nearby shop to buy some tofu before heading home. Whilst at the shop, some vitamin tablets caught my eye, so I ended up spending £1.98 on a block of tofu and £4 on vitamins for vegans. When I got home, I watched some TV with Jay and we ordered a takeaway, which he kindly paid for.Total spend: £22.68Jay: I got the bus into town with Hollie (£2.20) and while she met her friend I stopped off at a bar to have a couple of drinks (£9.40 on drinks). When we got home Hollie was going to cook us dinner, but I really wanted a cold drink and as the shops were closed at this point we decided to get a takeaway. I ordered a couple of cans of soft drink and we got some chips and garlic bread to share (£16.60).Total spend: £28.20Hollie: Today we decided to have a lazy day. I just needed to pop to the local shop to get some fruit and veg for the rest of the week so we took a trip around the corner and I spent £16.91 on all of the veg and a melon. I was planning on cooking us some food for dinner, but after my mum and stepdad came home and ordered a Chinese takeaway, me and Jay got major food envy so decided to also order one (paid for by Jay).Total spend: £16.91Jay: We spent the day watching TV and gaming. I wasn’t planning on spending any money today, but Hollie decided that she really wanted Chinese for dinner so I ordered us a takeaway, which came to £14.70.Total spend: £14.70Hollie: Today was my first day back working (from home) after a lovely six days off, so I woke up an hour before I was about to start work and made myself and Jay some cheese on toast and coffee. I love days when I am in work, because I just cook things that I already have in the house and I’m too busy to spend much money, but on this occasion I did spend £5 towards a collection for a colleague who has recently had a baby.Total spend: £5Jay: Hollie was back in work today, so I left her house at about 9:00 and headed back home. I spent the day gaming and watching films, talking to Hollie whenever she was on her break. I ate food that I had already bought from my food shop, so I did not spend any money at all today.Total spend: £0Hollie: Today was the first day that I did not spend any money on anything at all and I am really proud of myself. I woke up and had some honeydew melon and an oat milk coffee for breakfast and then cracked on with work. For lunch, I had some quick noodles with fried vegetables and then for dinner I made myself some vegan chicken nuggets, onion rings and gravy (random mix, I know). I then spent the last hour of the day before bed playing a few video games. Total spend: £0Jay: I woke up early and did my weekly food shop with my grandad. I ended up spending £38.25 on food and drink to last me until next Saturday, and then I headed back home. I decided to go meet my best friend in town just to get out for a bit. I got the bus into town (£2.20) and stopped off at a nearby shop to buy a can of energy drink and a 50g pouch of tobacco (£22.95). While I was with my friend, I ordered a panini and a beer (£3.99). After food, we moved to a different bar so that we could watch the football, and I bought another pint for £6. We then moved on to another bar to meet some of our work friends for a little while. All in all, I spent £23.41 on drinks. I left to go home at about 1:00, and as I had missed the last bus, I spent £9 on a taxi back. When I got in, I put a film on and fell straight to sleep.Total spend: £105.08Hollie: Today I woke up and had some melon and coffee for breakfast again, and then got to work. For lunch, I had some leftover garlic bread from a takeaway that my mum had ordered the night before with added jalapeños because I love a bit of spice in my life. I invited Jay over for dinner so he brought a bag of rice and I made us sushi and vegetable curry (super random mix but we are so indecisive and couldn’t choose between the two). We ate dinner together and then he left again because I had to get back to work. Total spend: £0Jay: Today I woke up at about 15:00 and decided I would spend the day watching TV and gaming. I chilled out for most of the day, and then Hollie invited me to hers for dinner. She needed some rice so that she could make sushi rolls for us, so I stopped off at a local shop and bought a bag of rice for £1.99. We ate sushi rolls and then I had to leave to go back home as she had to continue with work. Total spend: £1.99Total Hollie spent this week: £178.44 Total Jay spent this week: £264.10How do Jay and Hollie feel about their week? Hollie: I think I probably spent less than what I thought I would spend to be honest. I think I did pretty well in terms of not buying too many clothes or takeaways. It’s been a bit of a reality check as to how much we spend, especially on food and drink, and that we really need to cut down if we want to save up to move out any time soon! Jay: I was paying for most of our things, so that’s probably why Hollie feels as though she’s spent less. But I think writing things down has really helped us.Hollie: I had a Covid scare this week, turns out it’s just a chest infection but it really put things into perspective for me and I think now I’d rather stay in for a little while. Since doing this blog, Liverpool has gone into local lockdown so we can’t get buses unless going to work and there are no restaurants around by us. It’s also illegal for us to go into each other’s houses for the time being, so I think for the foreseeable it’ll just be a case of meeting up in the local pub every now and then. It’s not great but we make it work – we both ordered a Domino’s at the same time the other day and then just messaged each other our thoughts about it while eating! It’s a crazy time for everyone right now but I do know it’s for the best. People’s safety is a lot more important than us going out drinking.

A post-Brexit trade deal “can and must be made”, the organisation representing British businesses has said ahead of further UK-EU trade talks on Monday.Dame Carolyn Fairbairn, the boss of the Confederation of British Industry, said it was the time for “the spirit of compromise to shine through”. The Brexit transition period, in which the UK has kept to EU trading rules, ends on 31 December.The UK and EU are yet to agree a deal that will govern their future trade.Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said a trade agreement with the EU must be done by 15 October if it is going to be ready for the start of 2021. But despite this, talks have run into problems. There are still key points of disagreement – including, for example, on fishing.The next official round of talks – the ninth since March – begins on 28 September.The CBI carried out a survey of 648 companies which found only 4% said they would prefer no deal to be agreed on trade. And half of firms said the impact of dealing with the coronavirus had negatively affected their preparations for next year, when the transition period ends.”Next week Brexit talks enter the 11th hour,” said Dame Carolyn. “Now must be the time for political leadership and the spirit of compromise to shine through on both sides. A deal can and must be made.”Businesses face a hat-trick of unprecedented challenges – rebuilding from the first wave of Covid-19, dealing with the resurgence of the virus and preparing for significant changes to the UK’s trading relationship with the EU.”
Media playback is unsupported on your device

She added: “A good deal will provide the strongest possible foundation as countries build back from the pandemic. “It would keep UK firms competitive by minimising red tape and extra costs, freeing much-needed time and resource to overcome the difficult times ahead.”According to BBC Europe editor Katya Adler, one EU diplomat said the two sides were “90% there” on agreeing technical issues.The diplomat said the “remaining 10% is political” and “if that can’t be solved, then the 90% is irrelevant”.Analysis: So near and yet so far
What trade deals has the UK done?
Any trade agreement will aim to eliminate tariffs and reduce other trade barriers. It will also aim to cover both goods and services.If negotiators fail to reach a deal, the UK faces the prospect of trading with the EU under the basic rules set by the World Trade Organization (WTO).If the UK has to trade under WTO rules, tariffs will be applied to most goods which UK businesses send to the EU. This would make UK goods more expensive and harder to sell in Europe. The UK could also do this to EU goods, if it chooses to.

An airline union official says he believes that EasyJet is “hanging by a thread”.In a leaked recording obtained by BBC News, Martin Entwisle said the company was in a “really, really dire situation.”Mr Entwisle made the comment after a meeting with the airline’s chief financial officer, Andrew Findlay. EasyJet denies that Mr Entwisle’s claims in the recording reflect what EasyJet or its finance officer said. The meeting between Mr Entwisle, three other representatives of the pilots’ union Balpa and senior EasyJet management took place two weeks ago.In a subsequent presentation to EasyJet pilots, Mr Entwisle, an EasyJet captain and union rep, said, “I think the easiest way to put it is that the company is hanging by a thread. The situation is dire. “If we don’t have a good summer next summer and make a considerable amount of money, we really are going to be out of a job.”The recording comes from the presentation, which was given by the union officials to their members as part of a process to encourage them to take up the airline’s offer of part-time working in order to save jobs. The language used by union rep Martin Entwisle is stark. However his presentation to fellow pilots at Easyjet, which was recorded and leaked to the BBC, is a pitch.EasyJet and Balpa were, at the time, in the process of thrashing out a deal to mitigate redundancies.After a prior meeting with Easyjet management, Mr Entwisle’s overall message to colleagues is that these are such extreme times, that a deal, which would have seemed inconceivable six months ago, is their best bet. The recording does shine a light on just how bleak this winter will be for Easyjet. But there is nothing to suggest that the airline’s predicament is any worse than that of any of its competitors. Every airline has been burning cash for months and no-one can say when international travel will truly recover. They’ve all restructured and flight schedules have been dramatically scaled back in the short to medium term. It is vital for all of them that, by next summer, the situation has dramatically improved.Like all airlines, EasyJet had to take drastic measures in response to the pandemic. It placed around 80% of its pilots on the government’s furlough scheme, and secured a £600m loan from the Treasury’s emergency coronavirus fund. In May it announced that it planned to lay off up to 4,500 staff across Europe. But the recording highlights other measures that EasyJet has apparently taken. The airline, which at the start of the pandemic owned over 80% of its aircraft according to Mr Entwisle, has sold over 30% of them, and leased them back, to plough money into the company, and “more aircraft are about to be sold”.Mr Entwisle also said the winter is looking “dire” and will result in the airline cutting back significantly on its schedule. He claims that peak flying each day during the winter “is not going to exceed 90 aircraft in the UK.” The aircraft have all been allocated to bases but “some of it is absolutely horrendous – some bases are looking at in excess of 50 – 60% cuts, possibly this winter.”EasyJet has previously said it was closing its bases at Newcastle and two London airports, Southend and Stansted.Balpa announced on Friday that it had reached agreement with EasyJet to avoid any compulsory redundancies. Sixty pilots have left voluntarily, while 1,500 have opted for part-time working, around 75% of all pilots at the airline. In a statement EasyJet said: “The recording does not reflect what EasyJet or its chief financial officer said. We have been clear the whole industry has been impacted by the pandemic, however, EasyJet has taken a prudent approach to capacity and the right actions on cash preservation.”The airline continues to keep all liquidity options under review, but no decisions have been taken. “Winter flying is always significantly lower than summer and EasyJet will continue with its prudent and dynamic approach to capacity over the winter. No decisions have been taken and we will update the market in due course.”

UK shoppers may have lost a total of nearly £100m in unused vouchers during the coronavirus lockdown, the consumer group Which? has estimated.A survey of 2,000 adults suggested a quarter of people possessed a voucher that expired during lockdown.Many retailers contacted customers and offered to extend them – but a third of those with an expiring voucher did not get an extension and lost the money.Which? urged people who were unable to use their vouchers to contact the shop.It also warned of the risks of buying new vouchers because some well-known retailers had recently collapsed – and added that further coronavirus restrictions could make it difficult to spend them.Non-essential shops and businesses closed in March for several months, as part of the government’s lockdown restrictions to deal with the pandemic.Many shops automatically extended the time that customers could spend their vouchers – as well as extending their return periods.Shops eventually reopened throughout June (in Northern Ireland first, followed by England, Wales and then Scotland) with some long queues outside stores.’Contact the company’In its survey carried out in August, Which? found that nearly half of people with an expiring voucher had it automatically extended.One in seven – or 15% – of people with a voucher had to to request an extension, with one customer telling Which? that a company told them “hard luck, basically”.But 36% – which could equate to an estimated 3.1 million people, according to Which? – did not receive an extension on their shopping vouchers.Which? says the unspent vouchers were worth £31.70 on average, meaning around £98m was likely to have been lost across the whole of the UK.The consumer group advised anyone who has a voucher that expired during lockdown to contact the retailer.”If you have a voucher you were unable to use it is worth contacting the company,” said consumer rights expert Adam French.”Anyone considering buying a voucher should be aware of the risks, as some well-known retailers have collapsed in recent months and further coronavirus restrictions could make it difficult to spend vouchers and gift cards.”
Media playback is unsupported on your device

Singapore will be the first country in the world to use facial verification in its national identity scheme.The biometric check will give Singaporeans secure access to both private and government services.The government’s technology agency says it will be “fundamental” to the country’s digital economy.It has been trialled with a bank and is now being rolled out nationwide. It not only identifies a person but ensures they are genuinely present.”You have to make sure that the person is genuinely present when they authenticate, that you’re not looking at a photograph or a video or a replayed recording or a deepfake,” said Andrew Bud, founder and chief executive of iProov, the UK company that is providing the technology. The technology will be integrated with the country’s digital identity scheme SingPass and allows access to government services.”This is the first time that cloud-based face verification has been used to secure the identity of people who are using a national digital identity scheme,” said Mr Bud. Verification or recognition?Both facial recognition and facial verification depend on scanning a subject’s face, and matching it with an image in an existing database to establish their identity. The key difference is that verification requires the explicit consent of the user, and the user gets something in return, such as access to their phone or their bank’s smartphone app. Facial recognition technology, by contrast, might scan the face of everyone in a train station, and alert the authorities if a wanted criminal walks past a camera. “Face recognition has all sorts of social implications. Face verification is extremely benign,” said Mr Bud.Privacy advocates, however, contend that consent is a low threshold when dealing with sensitive biometric data. “Consent does not work when there is an imbalance of power between controllers and data subjects, such as the one observed in citizen-state relationships,” said Ioannis Kouvakas, legal officer with London-based Privacy International.Business or government? In the US and China, tech companies have jumped on the facial verification bandwagon. For example, a range of banking apps support Apple Face ID or Google’s Face Unlock for verification, and China’s Alibaba has a Smile to Pay app. Many governments are already using facial verification too, but few have considered attaching the technology to a national ID. In some cases that’s because they don’t have a national ID at all. In the US, for example, most people use state-issued drivers’ licences as their main form of identification. China hasn’t attempted to link facial verification to its national ID, but last year enacted rules forcing customers to have their faces scanned when they buy a new mobile phone, so that they could be checked against the ID provided. Nevertheless, facial verification is already widespread in airports, and many government departments are using it, including the UK Home Office and National Health Service and the US Department of Homeland Security. How will it be used?Singapore’s technology is already in use at kiosks in branches of Singapore’s tax office, and one major Singapore bank, DBS, allows customers to use it to open an online bank account. It is also likely to be used for verification at secure areas in ports and to ensure that students take their own tests.It will be available to any business that wants it, and meets the government’s requirements. “We don’t really restrict how this digital face verification can be used, as long as it complies with our requirements,” said Kwok Quek Sin, senior director of national digital identity at GovTech Singapore. “And the basic requirement is that it is done with consent and with the awareness of the individual.” GovTech Singapore thinks the technology will be good for businesses, because they can use it without having to build the infrastructure themselves. Additionally, Mr Kwok said, it is better for privacy because companies won’t need to collect any biometric data. In fact, they would only see a score indicating how close the scan is to the image the government has on file.