Sky Business News Articles

Anyone who struggles to connect the events in financial markets to the lives of ordinary people should take a look at today’s goings-on in the bond market.
It was big news when, back in July, the European Union’s leaders agreed to set up a €750bn (£684bn) recovery fund, known as Next Generation EU (NGEU), to help the bloc dig its way out of the economic crisis caused by COVID-19.

The agreement was the first time that the EU’s member states had agreed to a principle of massive collective borrowing – something that eluded them even during the financial crisis and the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis that followed.
The package has the potential to transform the lives of millions of Europeans.
The big question is how investors will respond and whether they will be prepared to lend to the EU in sufficient quantities.

Advertisement

Today, the markets got a good idea, with the EU launching the first auction of bonds under its Support to Mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) programme. This is a scheme separate from NGEU and is seeking to raise up to €100bn (£91bn) that can be used by 16 EU member states – led by Italy, Spain, Poland and Portugal – to keep people in their jobs during the crisis.

As this was a first, demand for the bonds was being watched closely, with the EU looking in the first auction to raise €17bn (£15.5bn) from the sale of 10 and 20-year bonds.

More from Business

The outcome was stunning. Orders totalling €233m (£212m) were received, with the 10-year bonds attracting orders of €145bn (£132bn), a record for a single issue in the Eurozone sovereign debt market. Analysts had speculated that demand for the bonds might top €100bn (£91bn) but few had expected it to reach the eventual level seen.
As Matthew Cairns, a strategist at Rabobank, told Reuters: “That is absolutely spectacular. It shows the market and it shows the EU that there is going to be demand for these bonds.”
Antoine Bouvet, senior rates strategist at ING, added: “This is sending a strong signal that they can upsize their issuance without much difficulties.”
That is good news for the EU when it is seeking to raise €30bn (£27bn) from sales of this instrument before the end of the year and, more especially, because the SURE scheme is widely seen as a trial run for the much bigger NGEU – bond issuance for which is due to launch next year.
The two schemes are set to make the EU one of the smallest issuers of sovereign debt to one of the largest as the bloc seeks to raise its borrowings to as much as 15 times the present level.
The pricing of the issue has yet to be confirmed but Reuters said the 10-year bond would carry a negative yield, in other words, investors will be paying the EU for the right to lend to it. That sounds a good deal for the EU but bear in mind the yield will still be higher than that on the equivalent duration of sovereign debt issued by Germany – the EU’s most important borrower and certainly one of its most creditworthy.
While today’s issue is good news for the EU, there remain a plethora of questions regarding how the bloc will emerge from the pandemic. Already, as social restrictions are tightened across a number of EU countries, some economists are wondering whether the €750bn (£684bn) the NGEU hopes to make available will be enough to tide the economy over should a full second lockdown be imposed.
There are also, predictably enough, questions over how the money will be spent. This was a question that has already been raised as the EU thrashed out terms of the NGEU, with the so-called ‘frugal four’ – Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden – all demanding that money should be disbursed through the scheme via loans and not grants. There is scepticism that Italy and Spain, the biggest single recipients of both the SURE programme and the NGEU, will be able to spend the money sensibly.
Both have poor so-called ‘absorption rates’, in other words, they are not terribly good at spending money paid to them by the European Commission.
In the same vein, a wider question is whether the EU is capable of using the recovery fund not just to help its economy recover from COVID, but also drive growth for the future.

Image: Ursula von der Leyen has said she wants 37% of NGEU spent on meeting the EU’s climate change targets
Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, has already said she wants 37% of NGEU spent on meeting the EU’s climate change targets – something that has been opposed by some major coal mining countries, notably Poland and the Czech Republic, who fear their economies will be harmed by a dash for green energy and away from fossil fuels.
There is a danger that these arguments hold up the launch of NGEU.
Sphia Salim, interest rates strategist at Bank of America, told clients last week that a delay to NGEU should not necessarily have a major market impact but that they should nonetheless be prepared for the risk of markets thinking that the project could be rejected.
She added: “We would emphasise that the frugal four are the key actors to watch. They do not need the NGEU funds and…hence they are not in a hurry to get a deal done.”
So there are still plenty of risks for the EU as it seeks to get these programmes off the ground.
Yet there is also an opportunity for the EU should it get this right. Many EU politicians and Commission mandarins have long dreamt of a time when the euro could match, or even supercede, the mighty US dollar as a global reserve currency.
Creating a big, liquid instrument in NGEU bonds would be a step towards achieving that, even though the size of the market will still be dwarfed by that of US Treasuries, the deepest and most liquid securities market in the world.

The US Department of Justice has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google’s parent company Alphabet for using “illegal means” to keep its monopoly power.
The lawsuit is set to be the biggest in almost two decades and has drawn comparisons to a 1974 case against AT&T, which – after a six-year legal battle – was forced to divest its subsidiaries into individual companies.

The last comparable antitrust lawsuit was filed against Microsoft in 1998, which Reuters said cleared the way for “the explosive growth of the internet” as the scrutiny the company received prevented it from thwarting the competition.

Image: The lawsuit has bipartisan support in Washington DC
Google has not responded to the charges, brought by the Department of Justice and 11 states, which include “unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services”.
The complaint against the company states: “Two decades ago, Google became the darling of Silicon Valley as a scrappy startup with an innovative way to search the emerging internet. That Google is long gone.

Advertisement

“The Google of today is a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet, and one of the wealthiest companies on the planet, with a market value of $1 trillion and annual revenue exceeding $160 billion.

“For many years, Google has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising – the cornerstones of its empire.”

More from Google

“Google is now the unchallenged gateway to the internet for billions of users worldwide,” the report adds of the company whose name had become a by-word for web searches.
“As a consequence, countless advertisers must pay a toll to Google’s search advertising and general search text advertising monopolies; American consumers are forced to accept Google’s policies, privacy practices, and use of personal data; and new companies with innovative business models cannot emerge from Google’s long shadow.
“For the sake of American consumers, advertisers, and all companies now reliant on the internet economy, the time has come to stop Google’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition.”

Image: It follows months of scrutiny of the largest technology companies
It follows a congressional report which accused Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google of monopolising the digital market and recommended antitrust laws be used to break up these companies.
The lawsuit marks a rare topic which has bipartisan support between the Trump administration and the Democrats.
All of the 11 states’ attorneys general are Republicans, but the move was also praised by progressive Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who had previously tweeted that she wanted “swift, aggressive action” to “#BreakUpBigTech”.
However it also comes weeks before the US election and, according to Reuters, could be seen as a political gesture by Donald Trump who has often accused the large technology companies of suppressing conservative views.
Separate lawsuits are also expected into Google’s broader business outside of search, including its digital advertising businesses.

Household essentials including teabags and cereals will be sold via refillable containers at a trial sustainability Asda store.
The new outlet – opened in Middleton, Leeds – also features loose and unwrapped produce, paper wrapping, and recycling points throughout.

Asda hopes the store will encourage people to reduce, reuse and recycle – saving an estimated one million pieces of plastic from being used each year.

Image: Refill zones feature 30 household essentials
Big brands are on board with the initiative, with products from PG Tips, Kellogg’s, Radox and Persil among those that shoppers will be able to take home in their own refillable containers to cut down on waste.
Heinz products, alongside Asda’s own brand canned products, will be sold without outer plastic packaging.

Advertisement

There are also 53 fresh produce items which are being sold loose, as well as flowers wrapped in paper.

Recycling points for shoppers will also be available for items that are more difficult to recycle, such as crisp packets, plastic toys, cosmetics packaging, and toothpaste tubes.

More from Asda

This trial store will also feature a community zone, allowing for partnerships with charities.
The first will be a three-month collaboration with the Salvation Army, featuring a “drop and shop” outlet for customers to donate clothing and unwanted items.
The supermarket has also launched Greener at Asda Price, a promise ensuring that unwrapped and loose fruit and vegetables will not cost more than packaged versions across all of its stores.

Image: Recycling points for items more difficult to recycle will be available for shoppers
Roger Burnley, the chief executive of Asda, said: “Today marks an important milestone in our journey as we tackle plastic pollution and help our customers to reduce, reuse and recycle.
“We have always known that we couldn’t go on this journey alone, so it is fantastic to work in tandem with more than 20 of our partners and suppliers who have answered the call to test innovative sustainable solutions with us.”
Initiatives within the new store that prove successful could be rolled out across more Asda sites in 2021.
The company, which was purchased from Walmart earlier this month in a £6.8bn deal, has pledged to produce zero carbon emissions by 2040 and has also committed to reducing waste by 50%.

The UK’s unemployment rate could overtake the Bank of England’s (BoE) predicted peak of 7.5% as the coronavirus pandemic continues, one if its policymakers has warned.
Monetary Policy Committee member Gertjan Vlieghe said that, at the height of the pandemic, more than 30% of the private sector workforce was on furlough – the government’s programme to avoid mass job losses after non-essential shops were closed and the country was told to work from home in March.

More than two-thirds of those workers have returned, Mr Vlieghe said, but this still leaves more than two million people (9%) who are not yet back at work.
By point of comparison, he said, the global financial crisis saw a net 3.3% of the workforce lose their job, in the 1990s recession it was 3.8%, and in the 1980s recession it was 6.6%.

Coronavirus crisis: Where jobs are being lost in the UK economy

Mr Vlieghe said: “To be clear, we do not expect the 9% of private sector workers who are currently on furlough to lose their jobs.

Advertisement

“We expect many of them to either be re-employed by their current employer, or to find new work relatively quickly.”

“But our August central forecast was for unemployment to reach a peak of 7.5%, implying aggregate net job losses on the same scale as in the global financial crisis.

More from Covid-19

“The fact that redundancies are rising sharply and the number of vacancies is only at around 60% of its level at the start of this year makes it difficult to see a scenario where all of the remaining furloughed workers are reintegratedseamlessly into the labour force.
“There is huge uncertainty about the scale of job losses, in both directions, but in my view, the risks are skewed towards even larger losses, implying even more slack in the economy than in our central projection.”

Image: Gertjan Vlieghe is a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee
Last week, it was revealed that unemployment rose to a three-year high over the summer and there were more redundancies than at any time since 2009.
Despite this, Mr Vlieghe insisted it was “misleading” to think that, without government restrictions, the economy would have continued to function as normal.

Tracking the UK economy’s recovery from lockdown

“The hypothetical country that ignores public health but saves the economy does not and cannot exist,” he said.
“This is because the majority of the damage to the economy arises from restrictions that people voluntarily impose on themselves in order to protect their health, not from restrictions that the government imposes.
“In a country where the virus is more widespread, people will cut their spending more as they avoid crowded places, cutting back on travel, hospitality, leisure, culture, what we have started to call ‘social spending’.
“On the other hand, a country that puts in place a range of measures to contain the spread of the virus will experience less of an economic hit, as people are relatively more willing to engage in social spending if it is associated with much lower health risks.”
However, he warned that the trade-off between the economy and public health was more stark at the extremes – for example, keeping everyone at home until a vaccine was found would be good for public health, but would come at an “enormous cost” to the economy.

Liverpool and Manchester United are in talks about a bombshell plot involving Europe’s biggest football clubs to join a new FIFA-backed tournament that would reshape the sport’s global landscape.
Sky News has learnt that financiers are assembling a $6bn (£4.6bn) funding package to assist the creation of what could become known as the European Premier League.

More than a dozen teams from England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are in negotiations about becoming founder members of the competition.
As many as five English clubs could sign up to join it, with a provisional start date said to have been discussed as early as 2022.
Sources said that FIFA, football’s world governing body, had been involved in developing the new format, which is expected to comprise up to 18 teams, and involve fixtures played during the regular European season.

Advertisement

The top-placed teams in the league would then play in a knockout format to conclude the tournament, with prize money for the winners expected to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds each year.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Neville: European Premier League talks ‘obscene’

One football industry figure said that a formal announcement about the plans was possible as soon as the end of this month, although on Tuesday a number of key details – including the full list of participating clubs – had yet to be finalised and the plans could still fall apart.

More from UK

The source described it as “potentially the most important development in world club football for decades”.
According to insiders, a handful of English sides have been approached about joining the league, with the other candidates comprising Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur.
It is not thought that any of the English clubs has yet signed legally binding terms to join, and it was unclear which member of the so-called “big six” would miss out if only five are ultimately involved.
The news will drop a fresh bombshell into the fracturing landscape of English football, which has spent recent weeks at loggerheads over proposals – engineered by Liverpool and Manchester United – to hand more power to the biggest clubs while providing a coronavirus bailout for teams below the top flight.
A blueprint, dubbed Project Big Picture, would have seen the Premier League reduced in size from 20 to 18 clubs, reducing the number of domestic top-flight fixtures each season.
The plan, denounced as “a backroom deal” by government ministers, was rapidly abandoned last week.
If the latest plans bear fruit, they would effectively constitute the European super league that has been subject to on-off discussions for many years.
The giant Wall Street bank JP Morgan is in talks to provide $6bn (£4.6bn) of debt financing to help launch the European Premier League, with the proceeds repayable from future broadcast income generated by the tournament, according to a football executive.

Image: Liverpool defender Virgil van Dijk, left, competes for the ball against Manchester United’s Andreas Pereira
Other banks are expected to join the financing of the new project, which would become one of the world’s richest annual team sports competitions if it gets off the ground.
Each of the founding teams is expected to earn fees paid hundreds of millions of pounds to participate, with clubs such as Manchester United and Real Madrid receiving the biggest sums for joining.
They added that the European Premier League was likely to feature either 16 or 18 teams – meaning a likely minimum of 30 matches for each club, based on a format of round-robin home and away fixtures – although that is said to be among the details being finalised ahead of a formal announcement.
If the discussions are successfully concluded, the European Premier League would effectively usurp UEFA’s Champions League competition, which has been a mainstay of the continent’s football calendar for decades.
It was unclear whether the new tournament had the backing of UEFA, the European governing body, although some insiders claimed that it did not.
If it did have UEFA’s support, it is likely to be unveiled as an enhanced version of the Champions’ League and an example of unprecedented cooperation between two governing bodies which have historically found themselves in opposition on key issues affecting football’s global governance.
However, football insiders said that if UEFA was not involved, the new tournament would represent an “incendiary” move from FIFA that would undermine the European governing body’s principal annual revenue-generating tournament.
In that scenario, there could be a string of legal challenges to prevent it from getting off the ground, given the complexity of existing tournament agreements involving Europe’s top clubs.

Image: Manchester United and Liverpool are two of the clubs backing the plans
One source cast doubt on the prospect of a successful launch of the European Premier League without UEFA’s backing, particularly before 2024, when the existing Champions’ League structure is expected to be revamped.
UEFA declined to comment.
Other clubs which are said to have been invited to take part in the new league include Barcelona and Atletico Madrid, according to Voz Populi, a Spanish publication.
Real Madrid has been one of the principal architects of the European Premier League’s creation, with a plan to get the new competition launched as rapidly as possible.
Paris Saint-Germain, Juventus and Bayern Munich are also likely to have been approached.
Key Capital Partners, a Spanish finance house, and Florentino Perez, the veteran Real Madrid president, are also understood to have been driving forces behind the latest project.
Mr Perez and Gianni Infantino, the FIFA president, were reported last year to have held talks about reforming elements of the club game.
The latest version of the European Premier League project is understood to have been in gestation for well over a year.

Image: Lionel Messi’s Barcelona are said to have been invited to take part in the new league
Providence Equity Partners, a global private equity firm which owns companies in Britain such as Ambassador Theatre Group, is understood to have held talks about becoming a shareholder in the new league, but football sources cast doubt on whether it was still involved.
Talk of a European Super League has been a ubiquitous feature of football politics for many years, but has invariably faded amid trenchant opposition from national football associations, politicians and supporter groups.
An earlier iteration of the current project was reported by German news outlets to have been drawn up almost exactly two years ago, and featured 11 “founder” teams with a number of “guest” teams.
As part of that blueprint, the founder clubs could not be relegated for 20 years, although the remaining teams would be subject to being replaced depending upon their league position at the end of each season.
A version of those rules is expected to form part of the new league, according to insiders, with a possible cap on agents’ fees also said to have been one of the ideas under discussion.
Such an American-style approach to European football would reflect the sport’s shifting power-base following an influx of US-based owners into the English game during the last 20 years.

Image: Cristiano Ronaldo’s Juventus are likely to be invited to join the European league
Manchester United, whose largest shareholder remains the Glazer family, is listed in New York; Arsenal is owned by a US-based businessman; and Liverpool’s parent company, Fenway Sports Group, is in the process of being taken public through a Special Purpose Acquisition Company.
Despite being named in leaked documents about the proposed league, Bayern Munich, the current Champions’ League holders and German Bundesliga champions, denied any involvement in the plans in 2018.
According to people close to the latest plans, the European Premier League would not be a breakaway in the sense of ending clubs’ involvement in their domestic leagues.
Nevertheless, its creation would have profound implications for the value of domestic broadcasting and sponsorship rights across Europe, at a time when the finances of the entire football pyramid have been hit hard by the COVID-19 crisis.
English Premier League clubs have complained that they are collectively losing more than £100m every month, while many EFL clubs have warned that they will not be able to survive much longer without fans in attendance, unless they receive emergency support.
Earlier this month, the EFL rejected a £50m grant proposed by the Premier League.
Sources said the result of the new format, if it gets off the ground, would be to give England’s wealthiest clubs greater leverage in future negotiations with the Premier League and with broadcasters and sponsors.
They added that the possibility of outright club defections from domestic leagues was not on the new tournament’s “short-term agenda”.

Image: Robert Lewandowski of Bayern Munich celebrates after scoring a goal
Nevertheless, a decision to join the new European tournament will leave its participants exposed to the suggestion that they were enriching themselves at the expense of domestic rivals, exacerbating the already-vast financial gulf between teams at the top and bottom of the Premier League.
That risks particular damage to clubs’ reputations during an economic crisis which has resulted in the UK’s unemployment rate increasing and millions of people becoming concerned about their livelihoods.
One person close to the project said there would need to be “very substantial” solidarity payments built into the European Premier League structure to demonstrate that its creation would benefit the wider game.
Even that, though, is unlikely to be sufficient to appease critics of the biggest clubs, who have long-sought to find ways of preventing ‘smaller’ sides breaking their stranglehold on the domestic leagues – as Leicester City, did, for example, in 2016, when it won the Premier League.
Central to the new league would be the question of whether its fixtures are played in the existing slots allocated to Champions’ League matches, or whether the prize of drawing vast live audiences in Asia and the US, as well as Europe, means there is an attempt to play them throughout the day at weekends.

Gary Neville joins calls for overhaul of English football to save struggling clubs

It emerged (this month) that Liverpool and Manchester United were leading a quest to reform the Premier League by cutting the number of teams from 20 to 18 and giving the so-called ‘big six’ and other long-standing shareholders in the top flight enhanced voting rights that would effectively hand them outright control.
The League Cup, currently sponsored by Carabao, and the Community Shield, would also have been expunged from the calendar or played without the involvement of clubs taking part in European competitions.
Their plot was immediately denounced by the Premier League and the government, leading to a statement from all 20 clubs that they would reject Project Big Picture.
Gary Neville, the former Manchester United and England defender, said the extent of the divisions about how to reform and financially protect the game meant that an independent football regulator should be established.
The prospective involvement of some of the top flight’s elite clubs in a European super league format would help to explain their desire to curb the number of domestic fixtures to which they are committed.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘I want sustainable football clubs’

Ministers have applied pressure to the Premier League to formulate a financial rescue package for lower league clubs, but those talks have been far from straightforward, with some top-flight executives complaining that they are being held to a different standard to wealthy companies in any other industry.
One football insider also raised the prospect of legal challenges to the new league from excluded rival clubs, although one club source said they were confident that they were able to strike a deal that could not be overturned.
The Champions League’s existing format is said to be locked in place until 2024, with an expansion possible after that, although its name, and existence, would be cast into doubt if the continent’s elite clubs decided to abandon it.
The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the potential shake-up of football.
In Italy, CVC Capital Partners, the former owner of Formula One motor racing, is in exclusive talks alongside fellow investment firm Advent International to take a stake in the commercial rights to the country’s Serie A league.
A number of alternative structures have been proposed in England to inject funds into the financially struggling lower leagues, including a plan tabled by TPG Capital, a private equity firm, to acquire an equity stake in the EFL.
Liverpool, Manchester United, JP Morgan and Providence all declined to comment, while Key Capital Partners could not be reached for comment.
FIFA has been contacted for comment.

Huawei’s founder saw his personal wealth decline by 10% over the past year as the tech company fought security battles with western governments, according to a new league table of China’s billionaires.
The list, published by the Hurun Research Institute, showed Ren Zhengfei’s fortune fell 10% to $2.8bn (£2.16bn) amid the US trade war with Beijing and a spying row that left Huawei frozen out of lucrative 5G work in several countries, including the UK.

The league table showed that China’s richest people with strong links to the digital sphere did best, as those whose wealth was founded in traditional areas such as manufacturing exports were hit by the country’s coronavirus lockdown at the beginning of the year.

Image: Alibaba founder Jack Ma’s fortune rose 45% to $58.8bn (£45.3bn)
Topping the table, for the third year in a row, was Jack Ma – founder of e-commerce giant Alibaba.
Surging demand for online shopping and other services during the height of the pandemic – and continued consumer caution – swelled his fortune by 45% to $58.8bn (£45.3bn).

Advertisement

He retains an 11% stake in the US-listed firm despite stepping down from running the company just over a year ago.

Closing the gap, at number two, was Ma Huateng, founder of Tencent, which is behind the popular WeChat messaging service.

More from China

Image: Tencent’s interests include Riot Games and messaging app WeChat
His wealth was estimated at $57.4bn (£44.3bn) – a rise of 50% on August 2019.
Zhong Shanshan shot straight to the third spot following the flotation of his bottled water brand Nongfu.
The table showed his fortune at $53.7bn (£41.4bn).

Image: Zhong Shanshan was estimated to have a $53.7bn (£41.4bn) fortune. Pic: Shuttertock
Almost 2,400 individuals made the cut – a rise of 32% on last year – and the signs are that its billionaires will continue to flourish given China’s V-shaped economic recovery from the COVID crisis to date.
Rupert Hoogewerf, Hurun Report chairman and its chief researcher, said: “This year has seen the biggest wealth increase in the 22 years of the Hurun China Rich List.
“(A) stock markets boom and a flurry of new listings have minted five new dollar billionaires in China a week for the past year.”
He added: “China’s rich-listers added $1.5trn, the equivalent of half the UK’s annual GDP, to take them to $4trn, more than the GDP of Germany, the fourth biggest economy in the world.”

The maker of top cleaning brands including Dettol and Cillit Bang, Reckitt Benckiser (RB), has reported a recovery in condom sales thanks to relaxed coronavirus restrictions.
The FTSE 100 company, which has been among the few winners in the COVID-19 crisis to date thanks to its household hygiene and healthcare products, reported a 9.5% lift in net revenue to £3.5bn during its third quarter.

RB said that was mainly driven by continued strong demand for disinfectants – with sales of Dettol-branded sprays, wipes and liquid up more than 50% on the same July-September period last year.

Image: The company has been ramping up production of disinfectants in light of the coronavirus crisis. Pic: RB
Like-for-like sales were almost 20% higher in the company’s hygiene business and 12.6% up in its health division, which includes Durex condoms and Mucinex cold medicine.
RB had pointed to a sharp drop in demand for condoms during the spring virus lockdowns across Europe.

Advertisement

But it said on Tuesday: “Following a more challenging first half of the year, relaxations of social distancing regulations resulted in improved demand for our sexual well-being products, including Durex, which saw double digit growth in revenue.

“This has been particularly pronounced in markets where the rate of pandemic infection has materially improved.”

More from Business

A re-tightening of restrictions could threaten that recovery.
Nevertheless, RB raised its full-year net revenue outlook to a low double digit increase.
Shares, up by almost a fifth in the year to date, rose by 2.6% at the open.
RB told investors that its investment plans, including ramping up production in surface disinfectants, were on track.

Where jobs have been lost in the UK

Chief executive Laxman Narasimhan said: “Our plan to rejuvenate sustainable growth at RB is gaining momentum, and thanks to the exceptional efforts of the RB team, we are beginning to see the positive impact that the transformation is having on the business.
“The strong momentum in the first half has continued in Q3 and we are on track to deliver low double digit like-for-like net revenue growth for the full year.”

Passengers flying from Heathrow to Italy and Hong Kong will now be able to get a coronavirus test at the airport with results in just one hour.
From Tuesday, people flying to the two destinations will be able to book a private test online for £80.

The ‘LAMP’ tests will be carried out at Terminals 2 and 5 – and are quicker to process than the NHS PCR ones as they do not require samples to be sent off to a laboratory.
Airport bosses say they will expand to antigen testing in the coming weeks, but did not reveal if other countries would be added to the scheme.

Image: Heathrow already has a testing facility for returning passengers, but its not being used
Both Italy and Hong Kong currently require all UK passengers to provide a negative coronavirus test result before they are allowed in.

Advertisement

It comes after Heathrow revealed a large test-on-arrival facility for passengers returning to the UK in August.

The testing centre is still empty because the government is yet to approve its use, which would mean Britons could reduce mandatory 14-day quarantine periods to between five and eight days.

More from Covid-19

Heathrow’s new rapid testing centre is being backed by the same firms as the previous one.
Aviation services company Collinson and logistics firm Swissport described the new pre-departure testing regime as a “crucial next step toward keeping the travel industry moving while limiting the spread of the virus”.
Heathrow’s chief executive John Holland-Kaye said: “These facilities will make it easier for passengers going to those countries to get a test and have the potential to provide a service for arriving passengers.

Image: The government is yet to approve the original testing centre for use
“Ultimately, we need a common international standard for pre-departure testing, and we welcome the UK government’s recent announcement that it wants to take a global lead in establishing this.
“We will work with them to make this happen as soon as possible, so that we protect livelihoods as well as lives.”
David Evans, joint chief executive officer at Collinson, added: “With countries around the world adding the UK to their list of high-risk countries, we need to find a way to work with governments, leading travel brands and other commercial entities to safely open up travel out of the UK.”

The energy price cap will be extended until the end of next year, the government has announced.
It means around 11 million households will continue to save on gas and electricity bills, according to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).

It said the cap had saved customers around £1bn – around £75 to £100 a year for a typical household on a default energy tariff.
Four million more households with pre-payment meters on default tariffs will also come under the cap’s protection in January.
Business and Energy Secretary Alok Sharma said: “The energy price cap has been vital in ensuring customers do not pay too much on their bills, which is why we are keeping it in place for at least another year.

Advertisement

“Switching energy supplier to find the best value deals is still the best way to save on bills, but this government is determined to make sure all customers are treated fairly and get the protection they deserve.”

The cap on bills started in January last year and was aimed at ending what Theresa May, prime minister at the time, called “rip off” prices.

More from Business

It is calculated using a formula that includes wholesale gas prices, energy suppliers’ network costs and costs of government policies, such as renewable power subsidies.
It is adjusted twice a year and is aimed at helping those who are least likely to shop around, such as elderly people.
BEIS said around 2.8 million electricity and 2.1 million gas customers switched suppliers in the first six months of this year.
But this leaves more than half of households on standard variable or default tariffs where, without the cap, they would “likely still be paying excessive charges”.
In August, energy regulator Ofgem recommended extending the cap, as it announced the level for October 2020 until March 2021 would be £1,042 for typical users paying by direct debit.
Ofgem’s chief executive, Jonathan Brearley, said it would “continue to protect consumers in the difficult months ahead as we work with industry and government to build a greener, fairer energy system”.
Richard Neudegg, head of regulation at Uswitch.com, said: “The only way to escape high bills and ensure you’re not paying more for your energy than you should is by switching to a cheaper deal.”
He said there was currently a £186 difference between the price cap and the cheapest fixed deal on Uswitch.com, describing this as a “significant saving for anyone who is out of contract with their supplier”.
Peter Earl, head of energy at Comparethemarket.com, added: “There is a real risk that the British public interpret the government’s extension to the price cap as an endorsement that the cap is an affordable price to pay for energy, when it reality it should be considered the absolute ceiling that people pay.
“There are currently 191 energy tariffs on the market cheaper than the £1,042 price cap, and as the temperature drops and people turn the heating up a notch or two, switching to a competitively priced one or two year fixed-rate deal is an effective way for households to lock-in a cheaper energy deal.”

Ireland’s government has agreed to return the country to the highest level of coronavirus restrictions from midnight on Wednesday.
Cabinet ministers agreed with the measures to contain COVID-19 during a meeting at Government Buildings in Dublin.

It means Ireland will go to Level 5 coronavirus restrictions – the most severe – which had been recommended by health experts to halt the surge in COVID-19 cases.
The new restrictions, which come under the government’s Living with Covid plan, will be in place until 1 December.
Although the Cabinet has agreed to a review of the restrictions after four weeks, the Irish Times reports.

Advertisement

Reports say that the measures will stop short of a full national lockdown – as schools are reportedly set to remain open, and elite-level sports will be allowed to continue.

Although, non-essential retailers and hairdressers will close and pubs and restaurants will only be able to serve takeaways.

More from Covid-19

Prime Minister Micheal Martin is set to address the nation this evening, with Sky’s Ireland correspondent Stephen Murphy previously describing the measures as a “surprise move”.

Image: Restaurant owner Paul Cadden fears he will have to let go of up to 20 staff
Some of the restrictions differ from what the government set out would happen under Level 5.
According to RTE News, construction will keep going and people will be able to go out to exercise within 5km of their homes.
No visitors to private homes are permitted but outdoor meetings with one other household for things such as exercise, and within the 5km limit, are allowed.
The original Level 5 plan said no social or family gatherings should take place in other settings.
Weddings will remain capped at 25 guests until the end of the year, instead of going down to six.
A reduction in off-licence opening hours is also reportedly under consideration.
The government is thought to have been influenced by a letter from The National Public Health Emergency Team (Nphet) which suggested a three-week lockdown wouldn’t control the virus for very long.

Which tier is my area?

According to reports, Nphet advised a six-week lockdown would keep the virus at bay for the month of December including Christmas.
Ministers are hoping the restrictions will ensure businesses are up and running by Christmas.
It’s also hoped the country could lessen restrictions to Level 3 by the end of November, RTE News reports.
Paul Cadden, owner of the Saba restaurant chain in Dublin, said he will have to let staff go as a result of the announcement.
He told Sky News’ Ireland correspondent, Stephen Murphy: “I’ll have to lay off 20 staff in the coming days.
“The whole industry is really shocked tonight, although it had been on the cards all day.
“The industry put the shoulder to the wheel and helped flatten the curve throughout this, so it’s a really tough blow.
“We’re very fortunate here, delivery and collection is our model and that will help bring us through.
“I’d just say to people to please get out there, order deliveries, buy vouchers and support your local restaurant so they’re still around next year.”
Analysis: By Ireland correspondent Stephen Murphy
Just two weeks ago, the Irish government rejected expert advice to move to Level 5 restrictions. That now looks like a bad error in judgement.
In the past fortnight, the surge in Irish Covid-19 cases has gathered pace with frightening speed. In the last week, the record for daily cases in Ireland has been broken four times.
The National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET) had no choice but to again urge the government to go to Level 5 – but now for a longer period of six weeks. This time, the government has acquiesced.
Parallels are inevitably being drawn with Ireland’s harsh lockdown of the spring. But the new restrictions differ in their scope, with schools to be kept open and protections for industries like construction.
It’s not quite as bad as the first lockdown, and the Irish government certainly won’t use the word, but try telling a weary public that as the winter kicks in, and families are kept apart, businesses go to the wall, unemployment soars and people are kept to a 5km radius of home on pain of being fined.
If it looks like a lockdown and talks like a lockdown, the odds are… it’s another lockdown.
Will it be worth it? Well, the government has been forced to take this drastic step due to those soaring case numbers, as well as the growing pressure on the health system, at a time of the year when it comes under immense strain at the best of times.
The public, for the most part, can see the rationale behind this move. What it wants now is a cogent, and well-communicated, exit strategy. There has to be an end in sight.
And the question will linger for Micheal Martin’s government: If they had taken the expert advice a fortnight ago, could this have been avoided?