The pace of wage rises has slowed and came in lower than expected, official figures show.

Both average weekly earnings and wages excluding bonuses came in lower than expected, a boost to interest rate setters at the Bank of England, potentially opening the door for steeper borrowing cost deductions.

There was no change at all in the growth of average weekly earnings, which continued to rise 5.6%, according to data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for the three months to February.

Money: The UK areas where houses take just 19 days to sell

Wages excluding bonuses continued to grow far above the rate of inflation at 5.9%, the ONS said, but below City forecasts.

Economists polled by the Reuters news agency had expected average weekly earnings to rise 5.7% and for wages excluding bonuses to top 6%.

The wage data does not capture the national minimum wage rise, which came into effect on 1 April.

Nevertheless, wage growth was described as “strong” by the ONS. While private sector pay was “little changed”, public sector growth accelerated as pay rises fed through to headline figures. Public sector pay rose by 5.7%, up from 5.2% a month earlier.

What does it mean for interest rates?

The figures are likely to be a boost to the Bank of England, which had been concerned about the inflationary impact of speedily rising wages.

A cut is widely expected when members of the Monetary Policy Committee meet next month. They’re anticipated to reduce the rate to 4.25%.

The Bank of England, as the UK’s central bank, is mandated to bring inflation down to 2% by increasing or decreasing interest rates, which can stimulate or suppress growth by controlling how cheap or expensive it is to borrow money.

How’s the jobs market faring?

The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.4%.

The ONS, however, has advised caution in interpreting changes in the monthly unemployment rate due to concerns over the figures’ reliability.

The exact number of unemployed people is unknown, partly because people don’t answer the phone when the ONS calls.

There are signs, however, of cautious hiring as job vacancies fell to pre-pandemic levels for the first time since 2021.

As well as rising minimum wages, there are increased costs for employers in the form of higher national insurance contributions.

US vice president JD Vance has said America and the UK are “working very hard” on a trade deal and he believes they will reach a “great agreement”.

Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on imports to the United States several weeks ago, rocking the world economy, sending stock prices tumbling and sparking fears of a global recession.

Since then, Mr Trump has rowed back on those tariffs, reducing the rate paid on imports from most countries to 10% and, on Saturday, exempting electronics such as smartphones and laptops from the levy – including the 145% charge on imports from China.

Follow live: Latest politics updates

The UK was already going to face a blanket 10% duty before Mr Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” announcement of worldwide tariff increases.

The UK government has been hopeful of a deal to exempt the UK from Mr Trump’s tariffs, and in an interview with the website UnHerd on Tuesday, Mr Vance said he was optimistic that both sides could come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

“We’re certainly working very hard with Keir Starmer’s government,” Mr Vance said.

“The president really loves the United Kingdom. He loved the Queen. He admires and loves the King. It is a very important relationship. And he’s a businessman and has a number of important business relationships in [Britain]. But I think it’s much deeper than that.

“There’s a real cultural affinity. And, of course, fundamentally, America is an Anglo country.

“I think there’s a good chance that, yes, we’ll come to a great agreement that’s in the best interest of both countries.”

Mr Vance said the “reciprocal relationship” between the US and UK gives Britain a more advantageous position than other European countries when it comes to negotiating new trade arrangements, adding: “While we love the Germans, they are heavily dependent on exporting to the United States but are pretty tough on a lot of American businesses that would like to export into Germany.”

Chancellor Rachel Reeves will aim to continue negotiations for an economic deal with the US later this month when she travels to Washington to attend the International Monetary Fund’s spring meetings with other finance ministers.

Vance criticises Europe on defence

During the interview, where he spoke on the phone from the West Wing of the White House, Mr Vance also touched on the apparent shift in the US and Europe’s security relationship.

He said: “The reality is – it’s blunt to say it, but it’s also true – that Europe’s entire security infrastructure, for my entire life, has been subsidised by the United States of America.”

Mr Vance said that as recently as a quarter-century ago Europe had “many vibrant militaries, at least militaries that could defend their own homelands”, but nowadays he believes “most European nations don’t have militaries that can provide for their reasonable defence”.

The vice president added: “The British are an obvious exception, the French are an obvious exception, the Poles are an obvious exception. But in some ways, they’re the exceptions that prove the rule, that European leaders have radically underinvested in security, and that has to change.”

Mr Vance said his message to Europe was the same one as that shared by then-French president General Charles de Gaulle during the height of the Cold War.

The US vice president said General de Gaulle “loved the United States of America, but (he) recognised what I certainly recognise, that it’s not in Europe’s interest, and it’s not in America’s interest, for Europe to be a permanent security vassal of the United States”.

Read more from Sky News:
Trump blames Zelenskyy for starting Ukraine war
US could deport ‘homegrown criminals’ to El Salvador jail
Harvard loses more than $2bn in govt funds as it defies Trump

Mr Vance also suggested he believes a strong Europe would better for America.

“I don’t think that Europe being more independent is bad for the United States – it’s good for the United States. Just going back through history, I think – frankly – the British and the French were certainly right in their disagreements with Eisenhower about the Suez Canal,” he said.

Mr Vance added: “I think a lot of European nations were right about our invasion of Iraq. And frankly, if the Europeans had been a little more independent, and a little more willing to stand up, then maybe we could have saved the entire world from the strategic disaster that was the American-led invasion of Iraq.”

Asked about Mr Trump’s tariff regime and its impact on the stock market, Mr Vance said: “Any implementation of a new system is fundamentally going to make financial markets jittery.

“The president has been very consistent that this is a long-term play… Now, of course, you have to be responsive to what the business community is telling you, what workers are telling you, what bond markets are telling you. These are all variables that we have to be responsive to…. (to) make the policy successful”.

Seven years after allegations against him first emerged online, Harvey Weinstein is back in court.

When the accusations surfaced in late 2017, the American actress Alyssa Milano tweeted: “If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”

This gave birth to what we now know as the #MeToo movement and a flood of women – famous and not – sharing stories of gender-based violence and harassment.

Weinstein was jailed in 2020 and has been held at New York’s notorious Rikers Island prison complex ever since.

Today, jury selection begins for the case against the 73-year-old, where the original charges of rape and sexual assault will be heard again.

Here we look at why there’s a retrial – and why he will likely remain behind bars – and what has happened to #MeToo.

Why is there a retrial?

Weinstein is back in court because his first two convictions were overturned last April and are now being retried.

In 2020 he was sentenced to 23 years in prison after being found guilty of sexually assaulting ex-production assistant Mimi Haley in 2006 and raping former actor Jessica Mann in 2013.

But in April 2024, New York’s highest court overturned both convictions due to concerns the judge had made improper rulings, including allowing a woman to testify who was not part of the case.

At a preliminary hearing in January this year, the former Hollywood mogul, who has cancer and heart issues, asked for an earlier date on account of his poor health, however, that was denied.

Related articles
Harvey Weinstein sues his brother Bob
Harvey Weinstein rushed to hospital

When the retrial was decided upon last year, Judge Farber also ruled that a separate charge concerning a third woman should be added to the case.

In September 2024, the unnamed woman filed allegations that Weinstein forced oral sex on her at a hotel in Manhattan in 2006.

Defence lawyers tried to get the charge thrown out, claiming prosecutors were only trying to bolster their case, but Judge Farber decided to incorporate it into the current retrial.

Weinstein denies all the allegations against him and claims any sexual contact was consensual.

Why won’t he be released?

Even if the retrial ends in not guilty verdicts on all three counts, Weinstein will remain behind bars at Rikers Island.

This is because he was sentenced for a second time in February 2023 after being convicted of raping an actor in a Los Angeles hotel room in 2013.

He was also found guilty of forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by a foreign object in relation to the same woman, named only in court as Jane Doe 1.

The judge ruled that the 16-year sentence should be served after the 23-year one imposed in New York.

Weinstein’s lawyers are appealing this sentence – but for now, the 16 years behind bars still stand.

Has #MeToo made a difference – and what’s changed?

“MeToo was another way of women testifying about sexual violence and harassment,” Dr Jane Meyrick, associate professor in health psychology at the University of West England (UWE), tells Sky News.

“It exposed the frustration around reporting cases and showed the legal system was not built to give women justice – because they just gave up on it and started saying it online instead.

“That was hugely symbolic – because most societies are built around the silencing of sexual violence and harassment.”

After #MeToo went viral in 2017, the statute of limitation on sexual assault cases was extended in several US states, giving victims more time to come forward, and there has been some reform of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which were regularly used by Weinstein.

This has resulted in more women speaking out and an increased awareness of gender-based violence, particularly among women, who are less inclined to tolerate any form of harassment, according to Professor Alison Phipps, a sociologist specialising in gender at Newcastle University.

“There’s been an increase in capacity to handle reports in some organisations and institutions – and we’ve seen a lot of high-profile men brought down,” she says.

“But the #MeToo movement has focused on individual men and individual cases – rather than the culture that allows the behaviour to continue.

“It’s been about naming and shaming and ‘getting rid’ of these bad men – by firing them from their jobs or creating new crimes to be able to send more of them to prison – not dealing with the problem at its root.”

Dr Meyrick, who wrote the book #MeToo For Women And Men: Understanding Power Through Sexual Harassment, gives the example of the workplace and the stereotype of “bumping the perp”, or perpetrator.

“HR departments are still not designed to protect workers – they’re built to suppress and make things go away.” As a result, she says, men are often “quietly moved on” with “no real accountability”.

The same is true in schools, Prof Phipps adds, where she believes concerns around the popularity among young boys of self-proclaimed misogynist and influencer Andrew Tate are being dealt with too “punitively”.

“The message is ‘we don’t talk about Andrew Tate here’ and ‘you shouldn’t be engaging with him’,” she says. “But what we should be doing is asking boys and young men: ‘why do you like him?’, ‘what’s going on here?’ – that deeper conversation is missing,” she says.

Have high-profile celebrity cases helped?

Both experts agree they will have inevitably empowered some women to come forward.

But they stress they are often “nothing like” most other cases of sexual violence or harassment, which makes drawing comparisons “dangerous”.

Referencing the Weinstein case in the US and Gisele Pelicot‘s in France, Dr Meyrick says: “They took multiple people over a very long period of time to reach any conviction – a lot of people’s experiences are nothing like that.”

Prof Phipps adds: “They can create an idea that it’s only ‘real’ rape if it’s committed by a serial sex offender – and not every person who perpetrates sexual harm is a serial offender.”

Part of her research has focused on ‘lad culture’ in the UK and associated sexual violence at universities.

She says: “A lot of that kind of violence happens in social spaces, where there are drugs and alcohol and young people thrown together who don’t know where the boundaries are.

“That doesn’t absolve them of any responsibility – but comparing those ‘lads’ to Harvey Weinstein seems inappropriate.”

Dr Meyrick says most victims she has spoken to through her research “wouldn’t go down the legal route” – and prosecution and conviction rates are still extremely low.

“Most don’t try for justice. They just want to be believed and heard – that’s what’s important and restorative,” she says.

But specialist services that can support victims in that way are underfunded – and not enough is being done to change attitudes through sex education and employment policy, she warns.

“Until we liberate men from the masculine roles they’re offered by society – where objectification of women is normalised as banter – they will remain healthy sons of the patriarchy.

“We need transformative, compassionate education for young men – and young women. That’s where the gap still is.”