The UK government has reportedly issued a fresh order instructing Apple to enable access to encrypted iCloud backups for British users, narrowing an earlier demand that had sought global access.

The New Order

According to reports in the Financial Times, the Home Office served Apple with a new Technical Capability Notice (TCN) in early September requesting a mechanism to access encrypted cloud backups for UK citizens. TCNs are formal notices issued under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, a law that grants UK authorities the power to compel technology companies to make technical modifications to support lawful access to data.

The September notice reportedly differs from an earlier version issued in January by limiting the demand to British users only. The original order had requested access to encrypted iCloud data for users globally. At the time, that broader approach prompted some diplomatic and legal pushback, particularly from the United States.

How This One Differs From January’s Demand

The first TCN issued by the UK government sought a capability to unlock encrypted iCloud backups for any Apple user, regardless of nationality, if the user had enabled Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature. ADP is an optional setting that allows iCloud backups and other key data to be protected with end-to-end encryption, meaning not even Apple can decrypt the data.

That earlier order triggered an international dispute, with senior figures in the US government accusing the UK of overreach. In August, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told the FT that the UK had “agreed to drop” its demand that would have affected US citizens’ protected data.

This latest September order appears to be a UK-only version that avoids direct infringement on US users’ rights, but the technical implications are still contested.

Apple’s Position

Apple has repeatedly rejected the idea of building a backdoor into any of its systems. For example, as the company said in a statement responding to the latest reports: “As we have said many times before, we have never built a back door or master key to any of our products or services and we never will”.

Blocked

Since February, Apple has actually blocked new users in the UK from enabling Advanced Data Protection, and has said existing users will eventually be required to disable it to continue using iCloud. A company support page confirms that ADP remains unavailable in the UK, although it is still offered in other regions, including the US and the EU.

ADP expands the categories of iCloud data protected by end-to-end encryption from 14 to 23, e.g. covering device backups, Photos, Notes and more. Without it, Apple holds the encryption keys, allowing the company to comply with valid legal requests for data access. With ADP, only the user has the key, and data can only be decrypted on that user’s trusted devices.

What The Home Office Says

The Home Office has not confirmed the existence of the order. In a statement, a government spokesperson said: “We do not comment on operational matters, including, for example, confirming or denying the existence of any such notices. We will always take all actions necessary at the domestic level to keep UK citizens safe.”

In reality, UK officials have consistently argued that encrypted technologies (and apps) can obstruct investigations into serious crimes, terrorism, and child sexual abuse, and that investigative capabilities must evolve in line with technological change.

The Legal Process And The Secrecy Fight

Apple has challenged aspects of the January TCN through the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which is a specialist UK court that hears complaints about surveillance powers. In April, the IPT ruled against the Home Office’s attempt to keep the proceedings entirely secret, confirming Apple as the complainant and the Home Secretary as the respondent.

Campaign groups including Privacy International and Liberty have also mounted linked legal challenges, arguing that forcing Apple to weaken its encryption undermines users’ privacy and security. Those cases were due to be heard early next year, but the revised September order may now restart parts of the legal process.

Why This Is So Contentious (In Technical Terms)

End-to-end encryption ensures that data is only readable by the intended user. Critics of the UK’s approach say any attempt to introduce a backdoor, no matter how narrowly defined, undermines this principle and creates a new vulnerability. The point made by many critics is that if Apple breaks end-to-end encryption for the UK, it essentially breaks it for everyone and the resulting vulnerability could simply be exploited by all manner of bad actors, e.g. hostile states, cybercriminals and more.

Technical experts also argue that encryption systems can’t be designed with selective access for law enforcement without also weakening defences against broader threats. This has been a long-standing argument in the encryption debate, and is echoed by cryptographers, industry bodies and digital rights advocates.

The US Dimension

The earlier global demand strained relations between the UK and US governments. For example, key figures in President Trump’s administration, including Vice President JD Vance and DNI Tulsi Gabbard, reportedly urged the UK to abandon the request, warning that it could compromise data belonging to US citizens and damage transatlantic privacy agreements.

Also, during President Trump’s state visit to the UK in September, technology cooperation and investment were key topics. Around the same time, two US officials reportedly raised the Apple issue again. However, it’s been reported (by the FT) that the US is no longer pressuring the UK to rescind the latest order, which is most likely due to its narrowed scope.

Users

For now, UK users can’t newly enable Advanced Data Protection and those who already had it enabled before February are expected to lose access to the feature in the coming months. Apple has not set a public deadline, but its statement suggests existing users will eventually need to disable ADP to continue using iCloud services.

As noted earlier, the feature is actually designed to protect user data such as device backups, messages, photos, and documents, all of which are frequently targeted in data breaches. For example, when launching ADP, Apple cited industry research showing that global data breaches exposed more than 1.1 billion records in 2021, with personal data the most common target.

According to Apple’s own security whitepaper, even without ADP, iCloud still uses strong encryption standards and safeguards, but the ability for Apple to decrypt data under lawful request remains. In fact, with ADP enabled, Apple itself can’t access the data, even if compelled by authorities.

Reactions

Privacy groups have condemned the new order as a dangerous precedent. For example, Liberty and Privacy International have both warned that undermining encryption could affect not just privacy but also national security, by creating a mechanism that could be exploited by hostile states and criminal networks.

The UK’s data and security sectors have also expressed concerns that these policies could make the UK less attractive for tech investment. Also, companies required to disable privacy features in one country may be less willing to roll out services there, or may find it harder to meet customer expectations around security and compliance.

How It’s Being Framed

That said, the UK government continues to argue that TCNs are an essential part of modern law enforcement. For example, the Investigatory Powers Act, which came into force in 2016 and is sometimes referred to as the “Snoopers’ Charter” by critics, enables agencies to issue notices requiring companies to maintain technical capabilities to support interception, access, or decryption of data when authorised by a warrant.

Supporters of the law argue that it brings transparency and legal oversight to digital investigations. Opponents, however, say it gives the state too much power to interfere with private systems and sets dangerous global precedents. It’s worth noting here that the UK is one of only a few democracies that can legally issue binding demands to alter product security design.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

It could be said that the revised order is a tactical retreat rather than a change of position. For example, by narrowing its demand to apply only to British users, the UK government has stepped back from the diplomatic tensions caused by its earlier global request, but the core issue remains basically unchanged. At the heart of this case is whether it’s technically and ethically possible to give law enforcement selective access to encrypted data without weakening protections for everyone.

For UK businesses, the implications are not just theoretical. A climate where privacy features are disabled or restricted by law could make the UK a less competitive market for privacy-conscious users and global technology providers. If firms like Apple are required to re-engineer core security features for one jurisdiction, others may follow suit or withdraw certain services altogether. This not only risks fragmenting digital service offerings but also complicates compliance strategies for businesses handling sensitive customer data.

For campaigners and civil society groups, the revised notice confirms their fears that UK authorities are continuing to seek access to encrypted systems by design. Their argument, echoed by technologists, is that any backdoor (even if limited to one region) introduces a broader vulnerability. Once a system can be compromised by one party, it is inherently more exposed to exploitation by others, whether state-sponsored attackers or criminal groups.

From Apple’s perspective, enabling a backdoor anywhere sets a precedent everywhere. The company has positioned itself as a defender of user privacy and security, and any concession in the UK could undermine that stance globally. Its refusal to offer even a limited workaround suggests it sees this issue not as a local policy dispute but as a line it is unwilling to cross.

Whether or not the Home Office ultimately enforces the order, this case highlights the ongoing tension between national security objectives and the technical realities of encryption. It also raises difficult questions about sovereignty in the digital age, specifically, to what extent one country can demand changes to global technologies that affect millions of users.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal proceedings and linked legal challenges now take on renewed importance. With the order revised but not withdrawn, courts and campaigners will be watching closely to see how far the UK is willing to go to enforce access, and whether Apple is willing to comply. What happens next will shape the limits of lawful access not just in Britain, but in democratic societies worldwide.

Microsoft has launched a single unified Marketplace bringing together Azure Marketplace and AppSource, offering a central location for cloud services and AI applications integrated directly into the Microsoft ecosystem.

One Destination For AI And Cloud Procurement

On 25 September 2025, Microsoft announced the launch of Microsoft Marketplace, a new platform designed to simplify the way organisations discover, purchase, and deploy software across Microsoft’s cloud services. By combining the previously separate Azure Marketplace and Microsoft AppSource into a single platform, the company aims to give customers a more seamless experience for accessing both Microsoft-built and third-party solutions.

Trusted Source

According to Microsoft, the new Marketplace serves as a “trusted source for cloud solutions, AI apps and agents” that integrates directly with Microsoft Cloud offerings including Azure, Microsoft 365, Dynamics 365, Power Platform, and Microsoft Security.

Supports “Frontier Firms” Idea

The catalogue includes tens of thousands of listings across categories such as data and analytics, productivity and collaboration, and a range of industry-specific solutions. Microsoft says the launch supports its vision of enabling more organisations to become “Frontier Firms”, which is a term it uses to describe businesses that blend AI-driven tools with traditional work to accelerate innovation.

A Focus On AI Agents And Rapid Deployment

A key new component of the Microsoft Marketplace is the AI Apps and Agents category. This area of the Marketplace features more than 3,000 AI tools, including well-known Microsoft offerings like Microsoft 365 Copilot and Azure AI Foundry, alongside partner-developed applications. These agents are designed to automate tasks, enhance decision-making, and unlock operational efficiency across business functions.

Microsoft actually claims these tools can now be provisioned and deployed in under a minute! For example, Siemens, one of the launch partners, stated that it reduced AI app configuration times from 20 minutes to just 1 minute per instance using the Marketplace. The company also reported an eightfold increase in customer adoption through the new platform.

To make it easier for businesses to integrate AI into existing workflows, the new Marketplace also embeds selected solutions directly within Microsoft products. For example, Copilot agents are now accessible within the Microsoft 365 experience via an integrated Agent Store, while Teams apps, Azure models, and other tools are available in context where users work.

Streamlining Governance And Spending Management

Microsoft has positioned the Marketplace as a governance-friendly solution. This appears to be because all deployments are managed through a customer’s existing Microsoft Cloud environment and, therefore, IT teams can retain control over access, security, and compliance. Applications and agents installed from the Marketplace follow the organisation’s configured policies, helping to ensure consistency across teams and departments.

This integrated experience may be particularly important for organisations with pre-agreed Microsoft Azure Consumption Commitments (MACCs). Microsoft confirmed that any eligible purchases made through the Marketplace continue to count towards these commitments, allowing finance and procurement teams to optimise spending without risking overspend or compliance issues.

New Commercial Routes For Partners And ISVs

For Microsoft’s partner ecosystem, the Marketplace also opens new sales and distribution channels. For example, the company has expanded integration with major distributors such as Arrow, Crayon, Ingram Micro, Pax8 and TD SYNNEX, enabling them to embed Microsoft Marketplace listings into their own offerings.

Microsoft has also introduced a new feature called “resale enabled offers”, currently in private preview, which allows independent software vendors (ISVs) to authorise their partners to sell Marketplace listings on their behalf through private offers. This model aims to support co-selling strategies and increase the reach of third-party solutions.

According to Nicole Dezen, Microsoft’s Chief Partner Officer, more than six million people visit Microsoft Marketplace every month, and the number of customers purchasing AI products through the platform has recently doubled.

Strategic Context And Timing

The launch of the unified Marketplace is really part of Microsoft’s wider commercial strategy to embed AI into the core of enterprise operations, reduce procurement complexity, and support channel growth. It also arrives at a time when Microsoft is restructuring internally to put greater emphasis on AI execution and developer platforms.

By consolidating its marketplaces, Microsoft is aiming to remove fragmentation for both customers and software vendors, and to present a clearer integration path for AI agents, apps, and cloud services.

Comparison with AWS (And Others)

Microsoft’s move will likely be viewed in the context of Amazon’s Bedrock platform, which offers a catalogue of AI foundation models that can be accessed and deployed via Amazon Web Services. Bedrock is pitched as a simple, scalable way for enterprises to access large language models and build generative AI applications.

While Amazon focuses on model-level choices, Microsoft is emphasising agent-level integration and user experience inside Microsoft 365 and other products. This could give Microsoft an advantage among organisations already embedded in its cloud and productivity tools. However, buyers will still compare vendor flexibility, model variety, and pricing across platforms.

Benefits And Trade-Offs For Customers

For IT and procurement teams, the new Marketplace appears to offer a consolidated, governed route to access thousands of tools without the overhead of managing multiple platforms or bypassing security protocols. End users can gain access to approved apps and agents directly within their day-to-day workflows, thereby speeding up adoption and deployment.

Also, organisations already committed to Microsoft’s ecosystem may find they can deploy new AI tools faster, with fewer integration challenges. Microsoft’s claim of “one-minute deployment” and compatibility with enterprise security policies will appeal to large firms seeking rapid returns from AI investments.

However, some trade-offs remain. For example, the convenience of staying within the Microsoft ecosystem could lead to increased dependency on Microsoft services and commercial agreements, potentially limiting multicloud flexibility over time.

Risks, Challenges, And Criticisms

It’s worth noting here that the launch also raises some concerns around market dominance and vendor lock-in. For example, back in October 2023, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority concluded a detailed market investigation into cloud infrastructure services, highlighting structural barriers that hinder customer switching and favour the largest providers. While Microsoft has disputed aspects of that ruling, the creation of a unified Marketplace could increase reliance on its platform, reinforcing the very dynamics under review.

Security is another area of possible scrutiny. For example, as organisations adopt AI agents capable of autonomous action, there are growing concerns about how those agents interact with data, tools, and users. Microsoft has acknowledged these risks in its own technical documentation, warning of potential agent failure modes and security misconfigurations linked to the Model Context Protocol (MCP), which underpins many of the agent integrations.

Also, cybersecurity researchers have highlighted risks such as prompt injection, over-permissioned access, and insecure connectors. While Microsoft’s promise of secure provisioning through the Marketplace is intended to mitigate these risks, the responsibility for implementation, governance, and oversight remains with each customer.

Operational complexity may be yet another challenge for Microsoft. While the Marketplace promotes one-click deployment, lifecycle management of AI and cloud apps, such as patching, compatibility checks, and vendor due diligence, remains a resource-intensive task. Organisations will, therefore, need to align their internal processes with Marketplace activity, particularly where data residency, industry-specific compliance, or software licensing is concerned.

Only In The U.S. For Now

Microsoft has also confirmed that the Marketplace is initially available only in the United States, with global rollout to follow. International customers will, therefore, need to monitor catalogue availability, regional billing options, and data handling assurances closely, particularly for regulated sectors or cross-border deployments.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

UK businesses already using Microsoft 365, Azure, or Dynamics are likely to find immediate benefits in the new Marketplace (when it eventually rolls out here). For example, it simplifies procurement, shortens deployment times, and allows pre-approved AI tools to be delivered directly into users’ daily workflows without disrupting governance or procurement protocols. This could accelerate experimentation with Copilot extensions and industry-specific solutions, especially for organisations that need to show quick returns on AI adoption without introducing additional risk.

For Microsoft’s partners and independent software vendors, the move creates new opportunities and increased competition. With over six million monthly visitors and growing demand for AI solutions, the Marketplace now acts as both a distribution channel and a co-sell platform. Distributors embedding the Microsoft catalogue into their own storefronts could expand access further, although those in the partner ecosystem will need to adapt to Microsoft’s standards, pricing models, and resale mechanics.

For decision-makers, the challenge will be striking the right balance between speed and scrutiny. The promise of one-click AI agents is compelling, but responsibility for integration, oversight, and risk management stays with the customer. Organisations will still need to enforce least-privilege principles, vet vendors, monitor agent activity, and align Marketplace use with broader digital and security strategies. Those operating in regulated sectors may also need to carry out additional reviews to meet legal, contractual, or ethical obligations around data use and automation.

As previously mentioned, the global rollout will be another area to watch. UK organisations outside the United States will be looking closely at how quickly catalogue parity is achieved, whether billing and compliance frameworks are fully localised, and how Marketplace features such as resale enabled offers evolve once out of preview. For now though, the launch appears to mark a major consolidation of Microsoft’s cloud sales platform, one that could reshape how software is bought, sold, and used across the Microsoft ecosystem.

It’s been reported that Meta and analytics firms are quietly turning private AI chats into advertising fuel, with little user control and growing legal concerns.

From 16 December 2025, Meta will begin using users’ conversations with Meta AI to personalise ads across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger. There’s no opt-out, though the UK, EU, and South Korea are excluded for now. Meta claims sensitive topics like health and politics won’t be used.

Also, startup Profound says it has access to over 150 million real AI chats to help brands analyse how they appear in chatbot results. Experts believe the data comes from browser extensions that log chat content without clear user consent, which is a claim that Profound denies.

Privacy professionals warn that vague permissions like “read all data on websites” may breach UK GDPR and PECR rules, especially when users aren’t fully informed. Similar practices by firms like Onavo and Jumpshot have previously triggered regulatory action.

Businesses should treat AI chats as sensitive data, restrict browser extensions, and demand transparency from any vendor using AI interaction data.

A plan to scrap the UK’s Climate Change Act has triggered warnings over energy costs, investor confidence, and the future of net-zero innovation.

What Is The Climate Change Act?

Introduced in 2008 with near-unanimous cross-party support, the Climate Change Act (CCA) is the foundation of the UK’s statutory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It essentially created a legally binding framework for setting five-year carbon budgets, introduced a 2050 target for long-term reductions, and established the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC) to advise on progress and hold government to account.

Old Target

In 2019, the original 80 per cent emissions reduction target was amended to require the UK to reach net zero by 2050, a change that also became law. Under the current framework, ministers must now bring forward credible plans for meeting each carbon budget, which are reviewed and assessed by the CCC.

Emissions Have Fallen, Says Government

The CCC’s 2024 progress report states that emissions have now fallen by over 50 per cent compared to 1990 levels. In fact, the government’s own data appears to confirm this, showing that from 1990 to 2022, UK territorial emissions halved while GDP rose by nearly 80 per cent.

The structure created by the Act is widely credited with supporting the growth of offshore wind, driving policy clarity for low-carbon transport, and informing investment decisions across energy, infrastructure, and housing.

What Would Change If The Act Were Repealed?

The recent Conservative Party pledge to repeal the Act would, therefore, remove the legal requirement for the UK to meet its 2050 net zero target and end the system of binding carbon budgets. The CCC’s statutory advisory role would also be removed, taking away a major source of independent oversight.

Without the legal framework in place, ministers would still be able to propose emissions reduction plans, but would no longer be subject to any of the clear targets or formal timelines. The duty to develop cross-government adaptation planning would also fall away, with implications for flood risk management, heat resilience, and long-term infrastructure design.

Repeal would also disrupt the legislative alignment between net zero and other areas of policy, including planning rules, energy regulation, transport decarbonisation plans, and sectoral emissions targets.

What About Energy and Investment?

The UK is already moving towards cleaner energy, e.g. in 2024, low-carbon sources actually generated nearly 74 per cent of Britain’s electricity (up from 68 per cent the previous year). RenewableUK attributed this increase to record solar and wind output, combined with falling demand.

Progress

However, trade groups argue that this progress depends on investor confidence and clear legal and policy structures. Energy UK, for example, has described the Climate Change Act as “the legal bedrock that underpins billions of pounds of international investment,” warning that repealing it would “pull the rug out from under” clean energy growth.

Threat

The UK’s trade association for the solar and energy storage industry, Solar Energy UK, said the Act’s repeal would “threaten the UK’s energy security,” pointing out that solar is now the cheapest form of electricity. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) has also warned that weakening the legal framework could delay project approvals and increase financing costs for clean energy infrastructure.

Globally

For some context, at the global level, BloombergNEF reports that low-carbon energy transition investment reached a record $2.1 trillion in 2024. The UK currently attracts significant capital into offshore wind, grid upgrades, and energy storage, but industry sources have stated that future inflows will depend heavily on predictable, long-term policy (all investors like stability).

Trade and Carbon Border Risks

The EU’s ‘Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism’ (CBAM) is a new policy that puts a charge (tariff) on imports like steel and cement from countries with weaker climate rules. The idea is to stop companies moving production to places with cheaper, high-carbon processes and to encourage cleaner manufacturing globally. The hope is that, as the policy matures, countries with strong domestic carbon governance frameworks can get some preferential treatment, or at least avoid additional charges.

If the UK were to remove its primary legal climate framework, it may, therefore, face difficulties demonstrating continued equivalence with such EU climate regulation. This could expose UK exporters to new administrative burdens or competitiveness risks in carbon-intensive sectors.

Analysts have also highlighted the danger of reputational risks to the UK, i.e. a sudden change in legal commitments may reduce the UK’s leverage in future climate negotiations and make it harder to defend its Paris Agreement targets on the global stage.

Jobs and Regional Growth

The House of Lords Library (drawing on CCC analysis) estimates that between 135,000 and 725,000 net additional jobs could be created by 2030 through the transition to a low-carbon economy. Existing estimates suggest more than 250,000 jobs are already supported by energy transition activities across power, transport, and industrial sectors.

Many of these jobs are concentrated in regional clusters such as Teesside, Humberside, and the East Midlands, where offshore wind, carbon capture, and green hydrogen projects are underway. Trade unions and local authorities have consistently called for long-term certainty to support skills development and investment in supply chains.

Removing the Act would not instantly halt these efforts, but trade bodies argue it would increase uncertainty, potentially deterring future commitments and complicating project timelines.

Impact on Sustainability Tech and Innovation

The Climate Change Act is closely tied to the UK’s net-zero technology ecosystem. For example, it helps create long-term certainty that new low-carbon technologies will be needed and supported, such as green hydrogen, low-carbon heat, battery storage, sustainable fuels, and carbon capture.

Warnings

UK-based renewable energy supplier and tech company, Octopus Energy, has warned that repealing the Act would increase policy risk and make the UK less attractive for future clean tech investment. Also, other firms in areas such as smart grids, EV charging, and electrified logistics have also highlighted the need for legal certainty to support scale-up.

Could Affect Grant Funding Too

The UK’s national funding agency for science and innovation, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), has structured much of its energy and climate R&D around the 2050 net zero target. Grant funding programmes in areas like floating offshore wind, heat decarbonisation, and energy system digitalisation are aligned with CCA commitments. Repeal could, therefore, seriously affect future eligibility and co-funding models.

Also, the CCC’s 2024 progress report warns that several sectors remain underdeveloped, including low-carbon industrial processes, heat pumps, and agricultural emissions reduction. It notes that greater certainty is needed to unlock both public and private capital for innovation.

Harm Industry

Globally, clean tech markets are growing fast, with $1.7 trillion in technology-driven climate solutions deployed in 2024 alone. Analysts warn, therefore, that if the UK weakens its legal climate framework, it could lose industrial ground to jurisdictions offering more predictable pathways to commercialisation and export growth.

Challenges and Criticisms

The proposal to repeal the Climate Change Act has obviously attracted some criticism from a wide range of experts, commentators and institutions, many of whom have emphasised the potential economic, environmental and strategic implications.

For example, a joint letter signed by 124 parliamentarians from Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Green parties described the move as “reckless” and warned that it would damage the UK’s global credibility and economic resilience. They wrote: “Ripping up the Climate Change Act would create uncertainty, stifle innovation, and risk jobs.”

Former members of government, including previous ministers responsible for climate and energy, have also spoken out. Several have publicly defended the 2019 net zero target as a pragmatic, economically grounded goal supported by evidence and investment trends.

While repeal advocates argue that scrapping the Act would reduce bureaucracy and allow more flexible energy policy, critics have said it would simply remove the legal accountability that gives businesses the clarity to invest in the first place.

Others have also raised concerns that the move could weaken consumer and investor trust, particularly among institutions managing green finance and ESG-aligned portfolios, who rely on national legislation as a marker of climate risk.

Where Things Stand Now

Currently, the Climate Change Act remains in force and the UK’s sixth carbon budget, covering 2033–2037, is still legally binding and commits the country to a massive 78 per cent reduction in emissions by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.

Off Track

However, the CCC’s latest report warns that delivery plans for meeting this target are currently off track, with particular gaps in buildings, transport, and land use. However, it also highlights the growing economic and energy security benefits of continuing the transition at pace.

New Legislation Would Be Needed

It’s also worth noting here that if the Act were to be repealed, Parliament would need to pass new legislation and the outcome would affect not just emissions targets but the entire governance system that has structured UK climate action for more than 15 years.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Repealing the Climate Change Act would not simply remove a symbolic commitment, it would dismantle the legal framework that currently shapes and anchors much of the UK’s energy, industrial, and technology policy. The Act has become embedded in the operations of regulators, investment strategies, funding agencies, and long-term infrastructure plans. Taking it away would introduce a level of uncertainty that cuts across sectors.

For UK businesses, the most immediate consequence would be increased risk around investment planning. Sectors such as manufacturing, transport, construction, energy and finance all rely to some degree on the predictability that the Act provides. Without it, firms may delay decisions, reconsider capital allocations, or struggle to justify long-term net zero strategies to shareholders and investors. This is particularly relevant at a time when international capital is flowing into jurisdictions with strong, consistent frameworks.

Beyond business, the impact would also be felt across government departments, local authorities, and academic institutions whose plans and programmes are currently tied to the Act’s targets. A change in the legal foundation would not just affect high-level goals, but could also cut across planning policy, public procurement, grant funding, regulatory enforcement, and reporting standards.

Also, there is a wider concern that removing a well-established and legally binding framework at a time when global clean technology markets are expanding could make it harder for the UK to compete. Whether in securing supply chain investment, commercialising innovation, or exporting clean solutions, confidence in the UK’s direction of travel remains a critical factor.

While debate will certainly continue around the best route to net zero, the core question for many is not whether climate policy should evolve, but whether it should remain anchored in law. The decision to repeal or retain the Climate Change Act is likely to be seen not just as a political choice, but as a signal to markets, partners, and the next generation of innovators about the UK’s long-term direction.

Creating visuals with brand elements in Microsoft 365 CoPilot helps with brand consistency, increased productivity, and enhanced creativity by quickly generating branded content, managing brand assets, and offering AI-powered visual creation tools integrated into workflows.

[Note – To Watch This Video without glitches/interruptions, It may be best to download it first]

Avoid email mistakes with Gmail and Outlook’s Undo Send feature, a handy safety net for business communications. Here’s how:

For Gmail:

– After sending an email, look for the “Undo” prompt in the bottom left corner.

Click Undo before the time limit expires (5-10 seconds, or up to 30 seconds if set in settings).

– To change the undo time, go to Settings > See all settings > General > Undo Send, pick your cancellation period, and click Save Changes.

For Outlook:

– After sending an email, look for the “Undo” prompt at the bottom of the screen.

Click Undo within the set time frame (up to 10 seconds).

– To enable or adjust, go to Settings > View all Outlook settings > Mail > Compose and Reply, and set your preferred delay.

This feature gives you a crucial window to correct mistakes, ensuring accuracy and professionalism in your business emails.