One in three blocked from paying with notes and coins during pandemic
Which? is calling for urgent action to protect the millions of people who depend on the critically endangered cash network, as new research from the consumer champion shows more than a third of consumers have been blocked from paying with cash since the start of the pandemic.
In a survey of 2,000 people, 34 per cent reported being unable to pay with cash at least once when trying to buy something since March, when coronavirus restrictions were first introduced.
Respondents were most likely to be refused the option of paying in cash when shopping for groceries, which accounted for more than a quarter (28%) of incidents.
This was followed by leisure activities such as going to a pub or restaurant (24%) and buying cleaning products (21%).
In one particularly concerning incident reported to Which?, a diabetic man in urgent need of food because his blood sugar levels had dropped was refused service in two restaurants that had gone cashless because of coronavirus.
The figures are highly concerning given the significant numbers of people that still need cash to pay for essential goods and services, particularly now that the UK is once again under tough coronavirus measures.
Five per cent of respondents said they rely on cash, which equates to more than two and a half million people in the UK. 13 per cent, equivalent to seven million people, also said they would struggle without it.
Taken together, this means that 10 million people are not ready – or able – to give up cash.
Furthermore, 40 per cent, representing 22 million people, said that they viewed cash as an essential backup.
The survey also highlighted how rapidly the coronavirus outbreak has changed the way many people pay.
More than half (53%) of people said they had replaced some or all of their cash use since the first lockdown. Of these, just under half (46%) said that their declining cash use was as a result of shops prohibiting or discouraging it.
The potentially serious consequences of businesses refusing cash have been highlighted by the experience of consumers who have reported their problems to Which?.
In November, James Boswell, who is diabetic, stopped off at a service station in urgent need of food after getting stuck in traffic for several hours on the M25, which meant his blood sugar levels dropped.
Despite explaining his situation, the first food outlet he tried, a Nando’s restaurant, refused to serve him as he only had cash with him. The same happened at another restaurant, El Mexicana, but eventually he was able to pay in cash at KFC.
Which? also heard from Linda Blacker, from Southampton, who was unable to board a Bluestar bus after she attempted to pay with a banknote. This was despite having her foot in a brace on account of a broken ankle, and was on her way to see her GP to get a sick note at the time.
Meanwhile, two in five shoppers (42%) told Which? they were using less cash because they thought card payments were safer, a notion that prompted some businesses to encourage contactless payments or go entirely cash free in response to the pandemic.
This approach was first taken at the start of the pandemic, when there were mixed messages about the safety of cash, but since then the Bank of England has provided clarity on the issue.
It advised during the first lockdown that the risk from banknotes is ‘no greater than touching any other common surface, such as handrails doorknobs or credit cards’, and in November concluded that ‘any risk from handling cash should be low,’ particularly compared with ‘hightouch’ objects such as shopping baskets, self-checkout touchscreens or products for sale.
Given the low level of risk, combined with the significant number of people who still rely on it, Which? is encouraging shops to continue to accept cash to ensure that people, particularly those who are vulnerable, are not left in a position where they have no other way to pay.
The consumer champion is currently working with retailers to develop an initiative to protect consumers who want or need to continue shopping with cash.
Which? welcomes the government’s proposal for the FCA to be given the responsibility to oversee the protection of access to cash in the UK. However, the issue of acceptance must also be addressed.
The consumer champion is also calling on the government to make the regulator responsible for tracking the number of UK businesses accepting cash and at what rate this is changing, in order to determine what action is needed and when.
Failure to do so risks undermining legislation on protecting cash access announced by the government in last year’s budget, and the FCA and government need to work together to ensure cash remains a viable payment option.
Jenny Ross, Which? Money editor, said: “Cash is still a vital way to pay for millions of consumers, so to see such a high proportion of people report that they have had difficulty spending it is very concerning, particularly now we have entered another lockdown.
“We have repeatedly warned about the consequences that coronavirus will have on what was an already fragile cash system, but nowhere near enough action has been taken by the government or the regulator to understand the scale of this issue.
“The government, which is still yet to introduce legislation to protect cash it promised almost a year ago, must urgently make the FCA responsible for tracking cash acceptance levels. Failure to do so will see the cash network crumble and leave millions of people abandoned.”
Lidl has narrowly beaten Aldi to be named the cheapest supermarket of 2020, according to Which? analysis.
The consumer champion tracked the price of 45 popular branded and own-label products such as Hovis bread, Knorr stock cubes and free-range eggs in eight major supermarkets for at least 100 days between January and December 2020.
In a year when saving money became more important than ever for many households, Which? calculated the average price of each item over the year and the total average cost of all 45 items in the trolley. Lidl was the cheapest, with the basket costing £42.67 on average.
Aldi, where the same basket of items cost £43.01 on average, was the second cheapest – with just 34p separating the German rivals
In recent years, Aldi and Lidl have significantly grown their market share in the UK, but this is the first time they have been included in Which?’s annual study, which now includes own-label items as well as branded ones.
Asda was the third-cheapest supermarket with the same basket of items costing £48.71 on average, however this is still over £5 more than Aldi and Lidl.
Waitrose was the most expensive supermarket in 2020. The average cost of the 45 items on Which?’s shopping list was £68.69, around 60 per cent (£26.02) more than a similar shop at Lidl.
Which? found there were stark price differences between popular own-label products at Waitrose and Lidl. For example, Waitrose’s own-label cooked and peeled cold water prawns would set customers back £4.60 on average, however the equivalent at Lidl only cost £1.99.
Waitrose’s own-label six pack of very large free-range eggs would cost customers £2.47 on average, whereas a similar product is almost half the price – £1.27 – at Lidl.
Ocado was the second most expensive supermarket of 2020 (£66.83), while Sainsbury’s was the third-priciest retailer (£56.38). Asda (£48.71), Morrisons (£53.61) and Tesco (£53.30), as well as the discounters, all came in cheaper.
The pandemic caused a huge upheaval for supermarkets in 2020, as they had to adapt quickly to supply issues caused by panic buying, staff absences in stores and further up the supply chain, and expanding online delivery services.
Neither Aldi nor Lidl offer a full delivery service and would have struggled to compete with supermarkets who ramped up their delivery service at the start of the pandemic, however Aldi offered food parcels for home delivery to help vulnerable people get essential goods.
Natalie Hitchins, Head of Home Products and Services at Which?, said: ““Many households have been under financial pressure due to the pandemic, so getting value for money on their weekly shop has become more important than ever.
“Our analysis shows that customers do not have pay over the odds for their groceries.
“Customers looking to save money this new year and cut down on the cost of their weekly shop should consider shopping around for the best prices.”
Supermarket
Average cost of trolley (45 items)
Lidl
£42.67
Aldi
£43.01
Asda
£48.71
Tesco
£53.30
Morrisons
£53.61
Sainsbury’s
£56.38
Ocado
£66.83
Waitrose
£68.69
Which? also conducts a monthly price analysis for all the major supermarkets. In 2020 Aldi was the cheapest supermarket for six out of the eight months it was included in the price analysis, whereas Lidl was the cheapest supermarket twice.
However, Lidl narrowly beat Aldi to be crowned cheapest supermarket of the year as the methodologies differed. For the monthly price analysis, Which? tracks the price of a range of products, which vary each month, and uses an average to find the cheapest supermarket for the month.
To determine the cheapest supermarket of the year, Which? tracked a selection of 45 items available for at least 100 days in 2020 and added the individual averages.
Passengers travelling to Scotland from abroad will be required to have proof of a negative test taken a maximum of 72 hours before travel.
The new public health requirement, to be introduced as soon as practically possible, aims to strengthen current safeguards against imported cases and in particular protect against new strains of coronavirus such as those identified in Denmark and South Africa.
People arriving into Scotland will have to take the pre-departure test (PDT) up to 72 hours before leaving the country they are in. Those coming from countries not on the quarantine exemption list will still be required to self-isolate for 10 days on arrival.
Non-essential travel to or from Scotland is currently illegal and will not immediately change with the introduction of pre-departure testing.
Transport Secretary Michael Matheson said: “Travel into or out of Scotland is currently illegal and that will remain the case while we work to suppress the new strain of COVID-19.
“The Scottish Government has been consistently clear about the risks associated with international travel and the importance of public health measures in helping to stop the spread of coronavirus. That is why we have been in regular dialogue with the UK Government and the other devolved administrations about what further measures can be put in place, including the introduction of pre-departure testing (PDT).
“The requirement for pre-departure testing will add to our suite of public health measures as we seek to help drive down transmission of the virus to safeguard health, protect the NHS and save lives.
“It is important to emphasise that this additional measure does not remove the requirement for all passengers arriving from countries not on the quarantine exemption list to self-isolate for ten days, even with a negative test.
“Likewise, all passengers will continue to have to complete a Passenger Locator Form and, of course, they will be subject to national lockdown restrictions, which currently bar people from leaving their home or other fixed address without a reasonable excuse for doing so.
“As the UK Government has made clear, there are still some outstanding issues to address and it is important that we consider the implications, but we are keen to implement this as soon as it is possible.”
Edinburgh Airport Chief Executive Gordon Dewar is less than pleased:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1347544474197614592
International arrivals required to prove negative COVID-19 test result before departure for England
all international arrivals to England, including UK nationals, required to present a negative COVID-19 test taken up to 72 hours prior to departure
passengers will be subject to an immediate fine of £500 if they fail to comply with the new regulations on pre-departure testing
all passengers arriving from countries not on the government’s travel corridor list will still be required to self-isolate for 10 days, regardless of test result
passengers will still be required to fill in a passenger locator form and be subject to national lockdown restrictions
Passengers arriving from all international destinations will be required to present a negative COVID-19 test result before departing for England to help protect against new strains of coronavirus circulating internationally.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has announced that from next week inbound passengers arriving by boat, plane or train will have to take a test up to than 72 hours before departing the country they are in, to help protect against the new strains of coronavirus such as those seen in Denmark and South Africa.
Today’s (8 January 2021) decisive action is in response to the changes seen in the transmission of the virus both domestically and across the globe. Pre-departure testing will protect travel and will provide an additional layer of safety from imported cases of coronavirus on top of the mandatory 10 day self-isolation for arrivals, helping identify people who may currently be infectious and preventing them from travelling to England.
A negative pre-departure test reduces the risk of someone travelling whilst infectious, acting as another safeguard to prevent imported infections. Passengers arriving from countries not on the government’s travel corridor list must self-isolate for 10 days regardless of their pre-departure test result to provide further robust protection from those travelling from high-risk countries.
Prior to departure passengers will need to present proof of a negative COVID-19 test result to carriers, as well as their passenger locator form. The UK Border Force will conduct spot checks on arrival into England to ensure that passengers are fully compliant.
The move further bolsters existing protective measures which helped to safely enable international travel last year, with self-isolation for new arrivals and travel corridors remaining critical in reducing the risk of imported cases from high-risk countries.
Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps said: “We already have significant measures in place to prevent imported cases of COVID-19, but with new strains of the virus developing internationally we must take further precautions.
“Taken together with the existing mandatory self-isolation period for passengers returning from high-risk countries, pre-departure tests will provide a further line of defence – helping us control the virus as we roll out the vaccine at pace over the coming weeks.”
National lockdown restrictions which came into force on 6 January 2021 remain in place meaning everyone must stay at home unless travelling for a very limited set of reasons, including for work.
Permitted travellers will need to take their test up to 72 hours before departure, and this will apply irrespective of whether a country is on the travel corridor list. The government will set out the standards that these tests will need to meet and what proof passengers will need to present.
Passengers arriving into England who have successfully demonstrated a negative result prior to departure from a country not on the travel corridor list will still have the option to reduce the self-isolation period from 10 to as little as 5 days by paying for a test through the Test to Release scheme. The scheme requires a test to be taken on or after the fifth full day since leaving a country not on the travel corridor list.
Passengers will be required to show their negative test result before boarding, and transport operators will deny boarding if necessary. On arrival back into the UK, Border Force will check passengers test results through the current spot check regime, to ensure that individuals are compliant with the new rules, and passengers will be subject to an immediate fine of £500.
There will be a limited number of exemptions, including for hauliers, children under 11, crews and for those who travelling from countries without the infrastructure available to deliver the tests. Further exemptions will be set out on GOV.UK.
Those who travel indirectly from South Africa must self-isolate for 10 days.
All travellers will still be required to complete a passenger locator form before arrival into England. This is critical in being able to track the virus in case of any local outbreaks, and those who fail to complete a passenger locator form will be subject to an increased fine of £500.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“The decision to introduce mandatory testing for people travelling to the UK is a positive step for protecting public health and building confidence that travel is safe, but further detail is needed for how this will work.
“Travellers and airlines urgently need clear information from the government on what type of tests are required and how to access them. There will be a lack of testing capacity in some locations, leaving people at risk of not being able to access a test in time for their flight. This may mean they’re unable to board their flight and have to pay hundreds of pounds for a new one or worse, are left stranded, as most airlines are currently shutting down or reducing flight schedules.”
Out of date Baileys liqueur, potato peelers and a mop and bucket are among the worst Christmas gifts consumers have received, as new Which? research reveals Londoners and younger generations were the most likely to give away Christmas gifts last year.
The consumer champion surveyed more than 2,000 members of the public in February 2020 on what they did with unwanted Christmas presents they received last year.
Around one in five (19%) admitted they had given away or sold one or more gifts they had received last Christmas.
Those from younger generations were most likely to give away presents. Which? found three in ten (28%) of those aged between 18 and 34 years old gave away or sold at least one present they received last year, compared to nearly one in five (17%) aged between 45 and 54 years, and one in 10 (12%) aged 55 years and over.
Londoners were also more likely to find a new home for their presents compared to the rest of the UK – a third (32%) of those from the capital said they gave away or sold disappointing gifts compared to the UK average of one in five (19%).
Which? found women were more likely than their male counterparts to give away or sell their presents – a quarter (24%) of women decided to find a new home for their disappointing presents last year compared to one in seven (15%) men.
The consumer champion also asked people about the worst Christmas gifts they have ever received. Among them was a carpet cleaner, a sleeve ironing board, used potato peelers and out of date Baileys Irish Cream liqueur – which was thankfully poured down the sink.
One former school cleaner told Which? she felt “very insulted” when she received a plastic bucket, mop and pink rubber gloves one Christmas. Another person was less than impressed when they received “Mr & Mrs” cushion covers from an ex-boyfriend.
Most retailers extend their return policy during the festive period, so if you’ve received a disappointing gift you may be able to exchange it for another item or a voucher if you have a gift receipt. However, customers should carefully consider whether to accept vouchers, as they could become worthless if the retailer goes under.
The buyer is often the only one who can request a refund or exchange, however, retailers may allow gift recipients to return gifts in exchange for a gift card, voucher or credit note so long as the item was marked as a gift at the time of purchase.
If you don’t have a gift receipt, you could consider donating your gift to charity or selling it on a secondhand marketplace such as eBay or musicMagpie.
Adam French, Which? Consumer Rights Expert, said:“Whether it is out of date booze or kitchen utensils, many of us have been left wondering how to get rid of an unwanted Christmas gift – and our research shows a fifth of people choose to give their presents away.
“We’d always advise requesting a gift receipt so the recipient has the option to exchange the present if they are disappointed.
“Often only the buyer can request a refund or exchange. But if the item was marked as a gift when ordered, the retailer’s returns policy may enable a recipient to return or exchange it.”
Which? advice on what to do with unwanted gifts is available here:
Which? reveals best and worst shops for furniture and homeware
In a difficult year for retailers, high-quality products and five-star customer service proved the difference between the winners and losers in Which?’s survey of the best and worst shops for furniture and homeware.
With many people turning their attention to home improvements in the period between Christmas and New Year, the consumer champion surveyed thousands of members in August who had recently bought items ranging from cushions and lamps to beds and sofas.
Which?’s experts asked for their views on value for money, customer service and product quality, as well as their experience with deliveries and returns.
In a list of almost 50 shops including Argos, Ikea, John Lewis, Marks and Spencer and TK Maxx, the lowest rated of all the retailers in the Which? survey was Harveys (58%), which went into administration in June and has now stopped trading.
Customers told Which? they were particularly unimpressed by Harveys’ product range/availability, its after-sales service and performance on returns. One unhappy customer said the company “Did not deliver the sofa as promised, they had very poor customer service and could not tell us if the sofa was in the warehouse or even in the country”.
Furniture store Dwell (60%) fared only slightly better in the rankings, receiving poor ratings for its product range/availability and quality of products.
One Dwell customer, who had bought bedside cabinets, said: “I didn’t receive the service I expected from Dwell, the online store wouldn’t apply a discount so I ordered over the phone, and had trouble getting a firm delivery date. The goods arrived damaged although when I eventually got to speak to someone they did give me a discount.”
DIY store Homebase (62%) came third from bottom, with product range/availability and quality both only receiving two out of five stars from customers. Staff were given three stars for their helpfulness and knowledge. One shopper told Which? “the store is quite depressing” although several noted the layout was good for maintaining social distancing.
John Lewis & Partners (84%) was the top rated retailer for homeware and furniture.
The well-loved department store had customers raving about its after-sales service, product guarantees and warranties, and customer service. When explaining their experiences shoppers used words like “reliable”, “trustworthy” and “consistent”.
In second place was specialist kitchenware supplier Lakeland (83%).
Shoppers gave it five stars for its range/availability, product quality, staff helpfulness, after-sales service and guarantees. One customer summed up their experience by telling Which?: “Products aren’t cheap but are always of excellent quality. Service is first class.”
Ikea (80%) came in joint third place. Best known for its flatpack furniture, shoppers gave it top marks for value for money. While the in-store shopping experience was described as a “day out” by one shopper, another complained about the “marathon trek which is difficult to shortcut” and instead opted for home delivery as a result.
Also in third place were TK Maxx and Homesense (80%). Shoppers gave the stores a full five stars for value for money. Many said they were good for store browsing, using words like “unique” and “unusual”. However not all customers were convinced as one shopper said the store could be “chaotic”.
Marks and Spencer (79%) was the joint-fifth highest rated for furniture and homeware. Shoppers gave it a full five stars for product quality and staff helpfulness as well as for its warranty or guarantees. Many shoppers used words like “convenient” or “easy” to describe their experience.
When it came to Amazon (75%), customers gave the online marketplace a full five stars for product range and ease of delivery. One shopper who had bought kitchenware praised the “tremendous range of goods and the fast and reliable delivery”. However, other customers criticised the excessive use of packaging.
Customers rated Argos (73%) highly for value for money, ease of delivery and staff knowledge. Many of those surveyed noted that the Argos website is easy to navigate, however some found that products were at times out of stock.
Overall, three in 10 shoppers told Which? that cost was the most important factor when choosing a retailer to buy their furniture and homeware from. One in five (18%) customers looked for the shop that had the best range.
Gareth Shaw, Head of Money at Which?, said: “Spending so much time at home this year has inspired many of us to upgrade our interiors – and the challenges of this year have really emphasised the differences between retailers that offer a great experience and customer service, and those that don’t.
“If you’re investing in new furniture and homeware, our research shows it’s worth looking beyond enticing deals and buying from a retailer you can rely on.”
Which? reveals the UK’s favourite walks to blow away the cobwebs over the holidays
The Buttermere Circuit in the Lake District has been named the UK’s top-rated walk in a survey of more than 50 popular routes, ranging from gentle strolls to full-day hikes.
With the UK continuing to face coronavirus restrictions, limiting opportunities for socialising indoors over the festive season, Which? has revealed the UK’s favourite walks, as voted for in a survey of nearly 3,000 Which? members.
The Buttermere Circuit in the Lake District, a 4.5 mile lakeside walk, took the top spot of the table, receiving a walk score of 88 per cent.
It was awarded five stars for scenery, thanks to its combination of a rippling silver lake next to dramatic mountains. Visitors also rated it favourably for accessibility, peace and quiet, and places of interest available on the route.
It was followed by Helvellyn, a tough eight-hour hike up the third-highest peak in the Lake District.
It received a walk score of 87 per cent, with hikers giving it five stars for its stunning scenery and views from the Striding Edge Ridge. While not one for the faint of heart – Which? recommends only experienced walkers tackle this route – the path is well trodden, and the chances of real danger are slim. Which? gave this walk five out of five for difficulty though, and facilities along the route are limited to non-existent, so walkers should come prepared.
The Rhossili Headland in Gower and Solva to St David’s route in Pembrokeshire, both coastal walks in Wales, also received walk scores of 87 per cent.
These routes were both ranked two out of five for difficulty, making them both nice options for a pleasant but invigorating stroll. Those who enjoy a bite to eat or a drink as part of their walk should head to Rhossili, awarded five stars by visitors for food and drink, while nature fans will be rewarded on the walk from Solva to St Davids, where they may even spot grey seals and porpoises – an indication as to why visitors gave it five stars for wildlife.
Receiving the third highest score – and the accolade of Scotland’s best walk – was the Anstruther to Crail stretch of the Fife Coastal Path, with a score of 86 per cent.
A comfortable saunter between two fishing villages, this route was given five stars for peace and quiet and should only take a couple of hours to complete. The path is clearly waymarked too, allowing walkers to find their way easily while making the most of the views across the Firth of Forth.
Other routes also receiving 86 per cent were the Botallack Mine Walk in Cornwall, the Craster, Dunstaburgh and Low Newton Circuit in Northumberland, and the Old Man of Coniston in the Lake District.
Dunseverick Castle to the Giant’s Causeway was named Northern Ireland’s best walk, receiving a score of 85 per cent and five stars for both scenery and places of interest.
The five-mile route, including a descent down the 162 Shepherd’s Steps to take in the view of the 40,000 basalt columns at the end, is well-maintained and was rated two out of five for difficulty by Which?, with visitors also awarding it four stars for facilities along the way.
Ben Lomond in Scotland was also given a score of 85 per cent, along with High Force & Low Force in the Durham Dales, Housesteads to Steel Riggs along Hadrian’s Wall, and the Mawddach Estuary in Wales.
Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said:“Whether you’re looking for easygoing strolls to fill the space between Christmas and the new year, or you’re after a breathtaking hike to help you shake the dust off your feet after this year, our rundown of the country’s favourite walks should provide plenty of inspiration.
“While coronavirus restrictions might prevent us from travelling to some of the farther-flung destinations on our list, the good news is that we are truly spoiled for choice when it comes to stunning walks across the UK, meaning there are walks to be enjoyed wherever you are in the country.”
Seven days before Britain was due to crash out of the European Union, a deal has been agreed:
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: It is four and a half years since the British people voted to take back control of their money, their borders, their laws, and their waters and to leave the European Union.
And earlier this year we fulfilled that promise and we left on Jan 31 with that oven-ready deal.
Since that time we have been getting on with our agenda.
Enacting the points based immigration system that you voted for and that will come into force on Jan 1.
And doing free trade deals with 58 countries around the world.
And preparing the new relationship with the EU.
And there have been plenty of people who have told us that the challenges of the Covid pandemic have made this work impossible.
And that we should extend the transition period.
And incur yet more delay.
And I rejected that approach precisely because beating Covid is our number one national priority and I wanted to end any extra uncertainty and to give this country the best possible chance of bouncing back strongly next year.
And so I am very pleased that this afternoon that we have completed the biggest trade deal yet, worth £660 billion.
A comprehensive Canada style free trade deal between the UK and the EU, a deal that will protect jobs across this country.
A deal that will allow UK goods and components to be sold without tariffs and without quotas in the EU market.
A deal which will if anything should allow our companies and our exporters to do even more business with our European friends.
And yet which achieves something that the people of this country instinctively knew was do-able.
But which they were told was impossible.
We have taken back control of laws and our destiny.
We have taken back control of laws and our destiny. We have taken back control of every jot and tittle of our regulation. In a way that is complete and unfettered.
From Jan 1 we are outside the customs union, and outside the single market.
British laws will be made solely by the British Parliament.
Interpreted by UK judges sitting in UK courts.
And the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will come to an end.
We will be able to set our own standards, to innovate in the way that we want, to originate new frameworks for the sectors in which this country leads the world, from biosciences to financial services, artificial intelligence and beyond.
We will be able to decide how and where we are going to stimulate new jobs and new hope.
With freeports and new green industrial zones.
We will be able to cherish our landscape and our environment in the way we choose.
Backing our farmers and backing British food and agricultural production.
And for the first time since 1973 we will be an independent coastal state with full control of our waters with the UK’s share of fish in our waters rising substantially from roughly half today to closer to 2/3 in five and a half years’ time after which there is no theoretical limit beyond those placed by science or conservation on the quantity of our own fish that we can fish in our waters.
And to get ready for that moment those fishing communities we will be helped with a big £100m programme to modernise their fleets and the fish processing industry.
And I want to stress that although of course the arguments with our European friends and partners were sometimes fierce this is, I believe a good deal for the whole of Europe and for our friends and partners as well.
Because it will not be a bad thing for the EU to have a prosperous and dynamic and contented UK on your doorstep.
And it will be a good thing – it will drive jobs and prosperity across the whole continent.
And I don’t think it will be a bad thing if we in the UK do things differently, or a take a different approach to legislation.
Because in so many ways our basic goals are the same.
And in the context of this giant free trade zone that we’re jointly creating the stimulus of regulatory competition will I think benefit us both.
And if one side believes it is somehow being unfairly undercut by the other, then subject to independent third party arbitration and provided the measures are proportionate, we can either of us decide – as sovereign equals – to protect our consumers.
But this treaty explicitly envisages that such action should only happen infrequently and the concepts of uniformity and harmonisation are banished in favour of mutual respect and mutual recognition and free trade.
And for squaring that circle, for finding the philosopher’s stone that’s enabled us to do this I want to thank President von der Leyen of the European Commission and our brilliant negotiators led by Lord Frost and Michel Barnier, on the EU side Stephanie Rousseau as well as Oliver Lewis, Tim Barrow, Lindsay Appleby and many others.
Their work will be available for scrutiny, followed by a parliamentary vote I hope on Dec 30.
This agreement, this deal above all means certainty.
It means certainty for the aviation industry and the hauliers who have suffered so much in the Covid pandemic.
It means certainty for the police and the border forces and the security services and all those that we rely on across Europe to keep us safe.
It means certainty for our scientists who will be able to continue to work together on great collective projects.
Because although we want the UK to be a science superpower, we also want to be a collaborative science superpower.
And above all it means certainty for business from financial services to our world-leading manufacturers – our car industry – certainty for those working in high skilled jobs in firms and factories across the whole country.
Because there will be no palisade of tariffs on Jan 1.
And there will be no non-tariff barriers to trade.
And instead there will be a giant free trade zone of which we will at once be a member.
And at the same time be able to do our own free trade deals as one UK, whole and entire, England, NI, Scotland and Wales together.
And I should stress this deal was done by a huge negotiating team from every part of the UK, and it will benefit every part of our United Kingdom, helping to unite and level up across the country.
And so I say again directly to our EU friends and partners, I think this deal means a new stability and a new certainty in what has sometimes been a fractious and difficult relationship.
We will be your friend, your ally, your supporter and indeed – never let it be forgotten – your number one market.
Because although we have left the EU this country will remain culturally, emotionally, historically, strategically and geologically attached to Europe, not least through the four million EU nationals who have requested to settle in the UK over the last four years and who make an enormous contribution to our country and to our lives.
And I say to all of you at home.
At the end of this toughest of years.
That our focus in the weeks ahead is of course on defeating the pandemic.
And on beating coronavirus and rebuilding our economy.
And delivering jobs across the country.
And I am utterly confident that we can and will do it.
By today we have vaccinated almost 800,000 people and we have also today resolved a question that has bedevilled our politics for decades.
And it is up to us all together. As a newly and truly independent nation.
To realise the immensity of this moment and to make the most of it.Happy Christmas to you all.
That’s the good news from Brussels – now for the sprouts.
Commenting on today’s announcement of the UK and EU today reaching a deal, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said: “The UK’s deal with the EU is great news for Scotland’s businesses. There are huge opportunities ahead – not just with this exceptional access to the EU market, but also in new markets right around the world.
“We have an agreement on fisheries which will ensure that our fishermen, and our coastal communities, will flourish outside of the EU’s unfair Common Fisheries Policy. The UK will once more be a sovereign coastal state.
“The deal protects famous Scottish products such as whisky, Arbroath Smokies and Orkney cheddar.
“People in Scotland will benefit from a wide range of social security and healthcare rights while travelling, working and living in the EU.
“Now, Scottish businesses need to get ready. The UK Government has been preparing intensively, and working with businesses, and that will continue. The Scottish Government also needs to do its bit and take action in devolved areas – we have given the Scottish Government nearly £200 million to prepare for Brexit.
“The United Kingdom will always be a welcoming, outwards-facing nation. Our European neighbours are our friends, and that will not change. EU citizens will continue to be an important part of many of Scotland’s communities. This is a historic moment for us all.
“There are enormous opportunities ahead of us, and we all need to make the most of them.”
The UK remains a trusted partner. We will stand shoulder to shoulder to deliver on our common global goals.
But now let's turn the page and look to the future.
To all Europeans I say: it is time to leave Brexit behind.
EU President Ursula von der Leyen said: “We have, finally, found an agreement. It was a long and winding road. But we have got a good deal to show for it.
It is fair and balanced. And it is the right and responsible thing to do for both sides.
The negotiations were very tough. But with so much at stake, for so many, this was a deal worth fighting for.
We need to avoid major disruptions for workers, companies and travellers after 1 January 2020.
It will protect European interests.
It is also – I believe – in the UK’s interests.
It will lay a solid foundation for a new beginning with a long-term friend. And it means that we can finally put Brexit behind us.
Europe will be able to move on.
Throughout this period, the European Union has demonstrated great unity, drawing on the strength of 450 million people and the largest single market in the world.
The Agreement we have reached clearly shows how much this matters.
Chapter by chapter, line by line.
Let me give you three examples:
First: Competition in our Single Market will be fair and remain so.
The EU´s rules and standards will be respected.
We have effective tools to react if fair competition is distorted and impacts our trade.
Secondly: We will continue cooperating with the UK, in all areas of mutual interest.
For example in the fields of climate change, energy, security and transport.
Together we still achieve more than we do apart.
And thirdly: We have secured five and a half years of full predictability for our fishing communities and strong tools to incentivise it to remain so.
Of course, this whole debate has always been about sovereignty.
But we should cut through the soundbites and ask ourselves what sovereignty actually means in the 21st century.
For me, it is about being able to seamlessly do work, travel, study and do business in 27 countries.
It is about pooling our strength and speaking together in a world full of great powers.
And in a time of crisis it is about pulling each other up – instead of trying to get back to your feet alone.
The European Union shows how this works in practice.
And no deal in the world can change reality or gravity in today’s economy and today’s world. We are one of the giants.
The EU is well prepared for Brexit.
We know this deal will not stop disruption altogether.
We have been working closely with authorities and businesses to make sure they are ready.
We have set aside EUR 5 billion in our new budget to support all of the people, regions and sectors affected by Brexit.
So now is the time to turn the page and look to the future.
The United Kingdom is a third country. But it remains a trusted partner. We are long standing allies. We share the same values and interests.
Whether it be the COP26 summit in Glasgow or the upcoming UK G7 and Italian G20 presidencies:
The European Union and the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder to deliver on our common global goals.
This moment marks the end of a long journey.
I would like to thank our Chief Negotiator, Michel Barnier, and his team, and Stéphanie Riso for their tireless efforts, their endurance, their professionalism.
I also want to thank David Frost and Tim Barrow for having been tough but fair negotiating partners.
And I am grateful to all our Member States and the European Parliament for their trust and their support. I will now convene the College.
Ladies and Gentlemen, at the end of successful negotiations I normally feel joy. But today I only feel quiet satisfaction and, frankly speaking, relief.
I know this is a difficult day for some.
And to our friends in the United Kingdom I want to say: parting is such sweet sorrow.
But to use a line from TS Eliot: What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a beginning.
So to all Europeans I say: It is time to leave Brexit behind. Our future is made in Europe.
Thank you so much.
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said in a statement: “It beggars belief that in the midst of a pandemic and economic recession Scotland has been forced out of the EU Single Market and Customs Union with all the damage to jobs that will bring.
“A deal is better than no deal. But, just because, at the eleventh hour, the UK Government has decided to abandon the idea of a no-deal outcome, it should not distract from the fact that they have chosen a hard Brexit, stripping away so many of the benefits of EU membership.
“And while we do not yet have full details on the nature of the deal, it appears major promises made by the UK Government on fisheries have been broken and the extent of these broken promises will become apparent to all very soon.
“People in Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, but their views have been ignored.
“This is a far harder Brexit than could have been imagined when the EU referendum took place, damaging and disrupting this nation’s economy and society at the worst possible time.
“We are doing everything we can to mitigate against the consequences of the UK Government’s actions – but we cannot avert every negative outcome.
“We know that businesses are already struggling under the burden of COVID-19, and are now faced with the need to prepare for this hard Brexit in little more than a week’s time. We will do all we can to help them and are issuing updated information and advice and urge those most affected, including businesses, to prepare.
“Scotland did not vote for any of this and our position is clearer than ever. Scotland now has the right to choose its own future as an independent country and once more regain the benefits of EU membership.”
Rocio Concha, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Which?, said: ““The news of a deal means that consumers can breathe a sigh of relief, as they will avoid the cost of a no-deal Brexit to their pockets and their consumer rights.
“Crucially, the announcement that people will continue to benefit from zero tariffs on goods from the EU is positive for consumers, as many will be keeping a close eye on their finances heading into the new year.
“Even with a deal, people may still see fundamental changes compared to what they have been used to. We will be closely scrutinising the details of the deal when it is published to establish the true implications for consumers and continuing to provide advice to help people navigate this new landscape.”
Which? reveals the grocery products that you could be paying too much for
Shoppers who regularly buy Persil laundry detergent, Andrex toilet paper and Kenco Millicano coffee could be overpaying by up to £3 per item as a new Which? investigation reveals the shocking price differences between supermarkets on popular products.
The consumer champion analysed thousands of prices across six months at major UK supermarkets – Aldi, Asda, Lidl, Morrisons, Ocado, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose – including both own label and branded items.
Which? experts found big variations in the price of the same branded groceries at different supermarkets. The pricing analysis also showed how prices on some items fluctuate dramatically even at the same supermarket chain – exposing one of the most common tricks of supermarket pricing.
Persil non-biological washing liquid had the biggest price difference of any branded product in the investigation, and was on average £2.98 more at Morrisons than at Lidl.
Andrex Supreme Quilts toilet tissue had the second biggest average price difference, costing £2.60 more at Waitrose than at Morrisons, which offered the cheapest average price.
Waitrose and Ocado were the most expensive on average for Kenco Millicano coffee, which was £2.06 less on average at Aldi. Waitrose also charged the most for Hellmann’s Real Squeezy Mayonnaise, which was £1.87 less at Sainsbury’s, and PG Tips Pyramid Tea Bags, which were £1.87 less at Asda.
Out of all the products Which? included in its pricing analysis, Persil non-bio also had the biggest price variation within the same supermarket chain – alternating fairly regularly between £5 and £10 at Morrisons across the six month period. Which? found the price also varied at several other supermarkets – by as much as £4 at Tesco, £3.50 at Asda and £3 at Ocado.
Other products that varied significantly at the same retailer included PG Tips Pyramid tea bags, which fluctuated by £2.77 at Ocado, and Twinings English Breakfast and Twinings Every Day Tea Bags, which both changed by £2.65 at Sainsbury’s. Andrex Supreme Quilts toilet tissue paper fluctuated by £2.65 at Waitrose.
By dropping a price on a popular item and advertising it as a discount before raising it for a short while and then dropping it again, supermarkets give the illusion that shoppers are making a saving. In reality, shoppers buying at the higher price are paying more than they should to compensate for the times the price is lower.
When it came to non-branded items, Which? found price differences that were even more stark. Own-brand prawns were on average £3.28 more at Ocado and Waitrose than at Aldi – the biggest price difference across supermarkets of any product in Which?’s investigation.
There were also yawning gaps between the supermarkets on prices for own-label salmon fillets which varied by £2.26 on average between Waitrose and Aldi.
Olive oil varied by £1.81 between Ocado and Waitrose where the price was the same, and Aldi. Beef sirloin steak was around £1.72 more at Ocado than Lidl and Aldi where the price was also the same. Similarly an equivalent ready meal of chicken korma with pilau rice was £1.51 more at Ocado than at Aldi and Lidl, where the price was also the same.
While Which? used experts to ensure that the own-brand products were as comparable as possible based on a range of factors including weight, quality and other industry data, they will inevitably differ in terms of quality, freshness, and taste across different supermarkets.
Quality, range, customer service, store layout and convenience are also important factors, and may lead some consumers to choose a more expensive supermarket for their weekly shop.
Despite often being the most expensive supermarket, Waitrose topped Which?’s annual supermarket survey. Customers gave the high-end store full marks for the appearance of its stores and range of products although perhaps unsurprisingly it did not do well for value for money.
Meanwhile, despite low scores on product range and store appearance, Aldi was also rated highly in Which?’s survey by shoppers who value low prices.
For shoppers watching their purse strings, Which? recommends keeping an eye out for fluctuating prices and dodgy special offers.
Natalie Hitchins, Head of Home Products and Services at Which?, said:“While prices will inevitably vary between different supermarkets, shoppers might be shocked to see that they could be overpaying by such significant margins for exactly the same products.
“Most supermarkets use some sneaky pricing tactics from time to time, so pay attention to the prices of your favourite products – and don’t assume you’re getting a good deal just because the item is on offer.”
Which? is calling for Buy Now, Pay Later firms like Klarna and Clearpay to be fully regulated to provide greater protection for consumers, as new research from the consumer champion finds concerning industry practices encourage people to spend more than they planned to.
The consumer champion’s findings show that these slickly designed, easy-to-access credit products are encouraging impulse buying, with nearly a quarter of BNPL users (24%) saying they spent more than they planned to because BNPL was available.
With one in ten (11%) BNPL users reporting that they have incurred late charges when paying this way, Which? is concerned about the dangers involved with this growing form of unsecured credit, particularly when the risks are not always made clear, and is calling for the financial regulator to be given new powers to fully regulate the BNPL industry to prevent consumers from being harmed.
The research suggests pushy marketing strategies, combined with sales features that make payment easier – such as ‘express checkout’ services on some retailers’ websites – could be driving people to overspend and leading to people falling into debt, a concern also shared by debt charities such as StepChange.
Which? also found that a quarter of BNPL users (26%) said they had not planned to use this type of payment option until it popped up at checkout, while two in ten (18%) said they used BNPL because they were offered a discount to do so.
One in ten (13%) also said they used it by accident because it was selected as the default payment option at checkout. One survey respondent said: “I was tricked into [using] it because the box was already ticked”.
BNPL firms also advertise heavily on their partners’ websites. Which? looked at 80 of these sites and found the largest BNPL ads take up as much as 80 per cent of the screen, with fashion retailers most likely to carry these prominent ads.
These factors are evidence of the firms’ application of consumer psychology to drive sales, a strategy one BNPL provider has promoted to its retail partners.
In 2017, Klarna, one of the leading BNPL firms in the UK, commissioned a study with the University of Reading into online shopping behaviour. The report, intended for partner retailers, explains how to design ‘customer journeys’ that will persuade people to make ‘emotional’ purchases instead of ‘logical’ ones.
However, as Which? research shows, these frictionless customer journeys can lead to shoppers spending more than they can afford, without necessarily being aware of the risks.
41 per cent of people in the Which? survey who were aware of BNPL either did not believe or did not know that missing a payment could lead to the BNPL firm passing your debt on to a debt collection agency.
As a result of its findings, Which? is now calling for providers of this type of BNPL service to be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
In its submission to the regulator, the consumer champion said that, while supportive of innovation, it believes that the BNPL market must have consumer protections in place in line with other regulated unsecured credit products.
Giving the FCA the powers to regulate the BNPL market would allow it to more effectively monitor how BNPL firms treat consumers, and if necessary, take action to prevent consumers from being harmed.
Jenny Ross, Which? Money Editor, said: “While Buy Now, Pay Later services offer speed and convenience at the checkout, our research shows their design makes it far too simple for shoppers to spend more than they were intending.
“This could lead to people building up debts that they may struggle to pay back, which is particularly concerning if they don’t understand the risks of using this type of product.
“Given that many people’s finances are stretched now more than ever, we believe that the FCA needs to regulate this market to ensure consumers are not harmed and that action can be taken if these firms are treating customers unfairly.”
A spokesperson for Klarna responded: “While we cannot speak for the sector as a whole, it is wholly incorrect to claim that Klarna uses ‘pushy marketing strategies’. All Klarna customers are provided with our terms and conditions, which clearly outline the potential consequences of non-payment.
“If a customer misses a payment, we will proactively contact them to remind them via text, email, in-app notifications and letters. Klarna will only refer unpaid debts to a debt collection agency as a last resort after a period of several months.
“Klarna is fully engaged with the FCA review of the unsecured credit market.”
Some of Britain’s biggest energy companies are keeping customers waiting on the phone for longer than 20 minutes, while one firm in Which?’s latest snapshot investigation had callers holding for more than 40 minutes on average.
In a mystery shop investigation, the consumer champion made 384 calls to 32 energy providers to reveal how long it took for customer service teams to answer. Which? called each provider 12 times at different times of the day and days of the week.
Many call centres have faced challenges as they adapted to new ways of working due to the pandemic. However, at the time of the Which? investigation in September and October, it was clear that while some were coping well, others were struggling to provide an acceptable level of customer service.
Boost Energy, a pay-as-you-go supplier owned by Ovo Energy, was the slowest to answer calls. On average customers were left waiting for 40 minutes and 58 seconds before their calls were answered. That’s longer than the entire first half of a rugby match.
One caller was left waiting for two hours, 39 minutes before their call was answered – the longest single call waiting time. In the time taken to answer this call, a disgruntled customer could have driven from Plymouth to the Bristol headquarters Boost shares with its parent company Ovo to make their complaint in person.
On four other occasions, Boost took more than an hour to answer phone calls to its customer service team.
British Gas was the second slowest provider to answer calls in Which?’s snapshot investigation. It took 23 minutes and 32 seconds on average to pick up calls – longer than a typical episode of Coronation Street (minus the ad breaks).
This was closely followed by Orbit Energy, a small energy company, that left customers waiting for 23 minutes and 15 seconds on average.
Around a third of energy firms kept customers waiting for more than 10 minutes on average before their calls were answered – including three other large energy companies. On average, Npower took 21 minutes and 46 seconds to answer calls, while Eon only picked up calls after 19 minutes and 40 seconds. EDF Energy customers were left waiting 13 minutes and 26 seconds on average before their calls were answered.
So Energy was the fastest company last year answering calls in 38 seconds, on average. However, the challenger brand struggled to maintain its top spot and slipped to the slowest 10 this year after it left callers waiting for 16 minutes and 52 seconds on average.
Together Energy, which recently acquired the domestic customer base of Bristol Energy, was the fastest energy provider to pick up calls, with customers left waiting for just 51 seconds on average.
Octopus Energy, which has rapidly grown its customer base since launching in 2016, was the fastest of the energy firms with the largest market share and only left customers waiting for two minutes and four seconds on average.
Of the 10 energy companies with the largest market share, Scottish Power was the second best and on average answered calls in two minutes and 28 seconds. This is a massive improvement compared to last year when the Glasgow-based energy firm was the worst provider for answering calls and left customers waiting for 21 minutes and 24 seconds, on average.
Which? also contacted the 18 energy suppliers that offered a live chat function for customers and found Shell Energy was the worst when it came to responding – it took 33 minutes and 39 seconds on average to respond to queries on live chat.
Outfox the Market was the fastest energy company on live chat and only left customers that contacted them through this channel waiting for 10 seconds on average.
Many people have seen their circumstances change due to the pandemic and may need support from their energy company to pay bills.
This makes it more important than ever that companies answer calls and respond to customer queries quickly, and strive to offer customers who may be struggling a good level of customer service – so Which? is urging energy providers to redouble their efforts in this area.
Consumers who are concerned that they are not getting a good deal or level of customer service on their gas or electricity should look at the results of Which?’s annual satisfaction survey and consider using Which? Switch to move to a cheaper and better provider.
Natalie Hitchins, Head of Home Products and Services at Which?, said:“We know the pandemic has made things difficult for call centres, but it is unacceptable that some firms are still wasting customers’ time with such long waits, especially at a time when consumers may need additional support from their provider.
“Customer service is an important factor when choosing an energy provider. Those who face lengthy waits just to speak with a customer service adviser should consider moving to a provider that can offer better service – customers could also save hundreds of pounds a year by switching.”
Consumers looking for a better deal can compare deals with Which? Switch, a transparent and impartial way to compare energy tariffs and find the best gas and electricity provider for your needs.
Responses from energy firms
A Boost spokesperson said: “With our waiting times during the last quarter averaging 8 minutes, we’re disappointed not to meet our usual high standards for our customers. During this period, we had a higher number of customers contacting us to ask for support.
“We’re always looking for ways to improve and have planned for additional resources over winter. We also offer a call-back service that allows customers to receive a call from one of our team, rather than have to wait. To support those who can’t pay their energy bills because of the effects of Coronavirus we also launched a Hardship Scheme.”
British Gas said it faced challenges with staff at overseas call centres working home, such as broadband and connectivity issues, and power cuts.
It said it is recruiting more staff and supplying home workers with new tech.
An E.ON spokesperson said: “Over recent months, we’ve worked really hard to make sure our customers get a good level of service as we’ve adapted to a new way of working in the wake of the pandemic.
“We’ve moved the vast majority of our office based call centres to remote working in a very short space of time. Our own data shows that our average call wait times are significantly lower than the figures stated here, and we’ve worked hard over recent months to ensure customers are aware of our other contact methods – including our app, online self-serve, social media channels and information on our website eonenergy.com.
“We apologise to any customer who has experienced a long wait time and continue to work to ensure all customer queries are handled as swiftly and effectively as possible.”
Npower said: “We experienced an increase in calls in September compared to the previous month due to a slight delay in correspondence going out to our customers. This had a cumulative effect on call waiting times towards the end of the month.
“Our own data shows an average wait of around seven minutes and although over half of all calls were answered within 60 seconds the week Which? have stated, it is unfortunate that they had a longer wait than average.
Orbit Energy said it was improving their response times daily and have just moved to a 7 day a week operation, open at weekends to support customers
So Energy said at the time of the investigation it was training new staff remotely and taking on customers. It said waiting times are improving.
