The UK is facing an “economic inactivity crisis” as employers are losing an estimated £85bn a year in costs linked to sickness and poor workplace health, a landmark report has found.
More than one in five working-age people are now out of work and not looking for work – more than comparator countries – which is costing the UK £212bn a year, the Mayfield review said.
Its author, former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, says poor health “has become one of the biggest brakes on growth and opportunity,” but says it is not inevitable.
The report, published on Wednesday, says there are now 800,000 more people out of work now than in 2019 due to health problems, and without “decisive action” to address this, another 600,000 people will be added by 2030.
Sir Charlie found that a 22-year-old who is not in work for health reasons could be more than £1 million worse off over their lifetime, while employers are losing an average of £120 per day in profit from absences.
The cost to the state is also vast – it is costing 7% of GDP, or almost 70% of the income tax we pay, through “lost output, increased welfare payments and additional burdens on the NHS”, which is “unsustainable”.
More on Benefits
Related Topics:
The additional burden in welfare payments and NHS demand is around £47bn annually, the report says.
Among the reasons for these absences continuing to mount is a “culture of fear” felt by both employers and employees, that “creates distance” and “discourages safe and early disclosure, constructive conversations and support,” Sir Charlie found.
Why millions of Britons are off work long-term sick
“Who the f*** am I?” asks Roni Jones, from Cornwall, four years after the Easter weekend that ended her career.
The former NHS manager, charity chief executive and self-confessed workaholic once dismissed those off work with long-term sickness as “malingerers”, “the worried well” or suffering from “yuppie flu”.
But after she collapsed in her garden in 2021, she was diagnosed with a debilitating neurological condition, adding her name to the growing list of 2.8 million people off work due to long-term sickness.
“There’s always been this negative thing about people who don’t work. And I would have been part of that. Until it happened to me,” says Jones, 63, who lives with multisystem dysautonomia, a condition that causes her “bone-crushing” pain and fatigue.
“I can’t even conceive of being able on a regular basis to get up, get showered and get out of the house – never mind go and do a day’s work.”
He wrote that there is a “a lack of an effective or consistent support system for employers and their employees in managing health and tackling barriers faced by disabled people” that are “structural”.
But he says “these problems are not inevitable,” adding: “What is missing is coordination, focus, and a coherent framework for change.”
Google among 60 employers interested in new scheme
Sir Charlie’s report is “proposing a fundamental shift from a model where health at work is largely left to the individual and the NHS, to one where it becomes a shared responsibility between employers, employees and health services”.
Employers must “act on prevention, to support rehabilitation, and to remove barriers for disabled people,” he says.
His message to employees is: “Work can be demanding. Setbacks are part of life. Health and work are not always easy partners, but they are mutually reinforcing. Supportive workplaces matter, and so does personal responsibility.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:34
Our political correspondent Tamara Cohen explains how young people are particularly badly affected.
But he also calls on the government to “reset the system – to enable and incentivise employers and employees to act”.
“System issues such as fit note reform, dispute resolution and links with programmes like Pathways to Work will also demand coordination,” he wrote, calling for political leadership across a range of government departments to spearhead change.
The review also calls for the adoption of a workplace health provision, which is described as a non-clinical case management service supporting employees and line managers across a so-called healthy working lifecycle.
It says this approach of offering support and advice and early intervention could be integrated with the NHS App and reduce or replace the need for the current fit note.
The government says more than 60 employers – including the British Beer and Pub Association, Burger King, John Lewis and Google UK – have expressed interest in becoming so-called vanguard employers to pioneer the overall new approach.
This would involve a three-year phase focused on how to address mental health at work, retention of older people in work and improved participation and retention of disabled people in work.
Business Secretary Peter Kyle told broadcasters said the aim of this initial scheme would be to see “what works, what is possible”, and they have agreed to share their findings with the government with the aim of “spread[ing] that learning” to businesses across the country.
Health is ‘essential for economic growth’
Sir Charlie said: “Employers are uniquely placed to make a difference, preventing health issues where possible, supporting people when they arise, and helping them return to work.
“If we keep Britain working, everyone wins – people, employers and the state.
“That’s why the action the government is taking forward from my review is so important. I’m looking forward to working with them and with employers, large and small, to keep people in work, unlock potential and build a healthier, more prosperous Britain.”
Image: Sir Charlie Mayfield, former boss of John Lewis, pictured in 2015. Pic: PA
Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said Sir Charlie’s message was “crystal clear: keeping people healthy and in work is the right thing to do and is essential for economic growth”.
“Business is our partner in building a productive workforce – because when businesses retain talent and reduce workplace ill-health, everyone wins.
“That’s why we’re acting now to launch employer-led vanguards as part of the Plan for Change, driving economic growth and opportunity across the country.”
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
Conservative shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said that while he welcomes the report and its findings, he is worried about the impact of the government’s Employment Rights Bill, that is returning to the Commons this afternoon.
He told Mornings with Ridge and Frost: “I think we need to give employers more opportunity and reasons to hire young people, and that (the Bill)… will put up all sorts of barriers and create incentives for them not to take a chance when they’re giving young people a job.”
Former US Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler renewed his warning to investors about the risks of cryptocurrencies, calling most of the market “highly speculative” in a new Bloomberg interview on Tuesday.
He carved out Bitcoin (BTC) as comparatively closer to a commodity while stressing that most tokens don’t offer “a dividend” or “usual returns.”
Gensler framed the current market backdrop as a reckoning consistent with warnings he made while in office that the global public’s fascination with cryptocurrencies doesn’t equate to fundamentals.
“All the thousands of other tokens, not the stablecoins that are backed by US dollars, but all the thousands of other tokens, you have to ask yourself, what are the fundamentals? What’s underlying it… The investing public just needs to be aware of those risks,” he said.
Gensler’s record and industry backlash
Gensler led the SEC from April 17, 2021, to Jan. 20, 2025, overseeing an aggressive enforcement agenda that included lawsuits against major crypto intermediaries and the view that many tokens are unregistered securities.
The industry winced at high‑profile actions against exchanges and staking programs, as well as the posture that most token issuers fell afoul of registration rules.
Gary Gensler labels crypto as “highly speculative.” Source: Bloomberg
Under Gensler’s tenure, Coinbase was sued by the SEC for operating as an unregistered exchange, broker and clearing agency, and for offering an unregistered staking-as-a-service program. Kraken was also forced to shut its US staking program and pay a $30 million penalty.
The politicization of crypto
Pushed on the politicization of crypto, including references to the Trump family’s crypto involvement by the Bloomberg interviewer, the former chair rejected the framing.
“No, I don’t think so,” he said, arguing it’s more about capital markets fairness and “commonsense rules of the road,” than a “Democrat versus Republican thing.”
He added: “When you buy and sell a stock or a bond, you want to get various information,” and “the same treatment as the big investors.” That’s the fairness underpinning US capital markets.
On ETFs, Gensler said finance “ever since antiquity… goes toward centralization,” so it’s unsurprising that an ecosystem born decentralized has become “more integrated and more centralized.”
He noted that investors can already express themselves in gold and silver through exchange‑traded funds, and that during his tenure, the first US Bitcoin futures ETFs were approved, tying parts of crypto’s plumbing more closely to traditional markets.
Gensler’s latest comments draw a familiar line: Bitcoin sits in a different bucket, while most other tokens remain, in his view, speculative and light on fundamentals.
Even out of office, his framing will echo through courts, compliance desks and allocation committees weighing BTC’s status against persistent regulatory caution of altcoins.
New figures reveal a 70% year-on-year increase in Cayman Islands foundation company registrations, with more than 1,300 on the books at the end of 2024, and over 400 new registrations already in 2025.
According to a news release from Cayman Finance, many of the world’s largest Web3 projects are now registered in the Cayman Islands, including at least 17 foundation companies with treasuries over $100 million.
Why DAOs are choosing Cayman
The Cayman foundation company has emerged as a preferred tool for DAOs that need to sign contracts, hire contributors, hold IP and interact with regulators, all while shielding tokenholders from personal liability for the DAO’s obligations.
The legal wake‑up call for many communities came in 2024 with Samuels v. Lido DAO, in which a US federal judge found that an unwrapped DAO could be treated as a general partnership under California law, exposing participants to personal liability.
The Cayman foundation company is designed to plug that gap, offering a separate legal personality and the ability to own assets and sign agreements, while giving tokenholders assurance that they are not partners by default.
Rise in Cayman Islands foundation company registrations | Source: Cayman Finance
Add tax neutrality, a legal framework familiar to institutional allocators and an ecosystem of companies that specialize in Web3 treasuries, and it becomes clear why more projects have quietly redomiciled their foundations to Grand Cayman.
Elsewhere, policymakers have made big promises but delivered patchwork. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly pledged to turn the United States into the “crypto capital of the planet,” but at the entity level, only a handful of states explicitly recognize DAOs as legal persons.
Switzerland remains the archetypal onshore Web3 foundation center, with the Crypto Valley region now hosting over 1,700 active blockchain firms, up more than 130% since 2020, with foundations and associations representing a growing share of new structures.
The surge in Web3 foundations coincides with a shift in Cayman’s own regulatory posture — the arrival of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Crypto‑Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), which the Cayman Islands has now implemented via new Tax Information Authority regulations that take effect from Jan. 1, 2026.
CARF will impose due diligence and reporting duties on Cayman “Reporting Crypto‑Asset Service Providers” (entities that exchange crypto for fiat or other crypto, operate trading platforms or provide custodial services), requiring them to collect tax‑residence data from users, track relevant transactions and file annual reports with the Tax Information Authority.
Legal professionals note that CARF reporting under the current interpretation applies to relevant crypto-asset service providers, including exchanges, brokers and dealers, which likely leaves structures that merely hold crypto assets, such as protocol treasuries, investment funds, or passive foundations, off the hook.
“The key question is whether your entity, as a business, provides a service effectuating exchange transactions for or on behalf of customers, including by acting as a counterparty or intermediary or by making available a trading platform.”
In practice, that means many pure treasury or ecosystem‑steward foundations should be able to continue benefitting from Cayman’s legal certainty and tax neutrality without being dragged into full reporting status, so long as they are not in the business of running exchange, brokerage or custody services.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suffered another budget blow with a rebellion by rural Labour MPs over inheritance tax on farmers.
Speaking during the final day of the Commons debate on the budget, Labour backbenchers demanded a U-turn on the controversial proposals.
Plans to introduce a 20% tax on farm estates worth more than £1m from April have drawn protesters to London in their tens of thousands, with many fearing huge tax bills that would force small farms to sell up for good.
Image: Farmers have staged numerous protests against the tax in Westminster. Pic: PA
MPs voted on the so-called “family farms tax” just after 8pm on Tuesday, with dozens of Labour MPs appearing to have abstained, and one backbencher – borders MP Markus Campbell-Savours – voting against, alongside Conservative members.
In the vote, the fifth out of seven at the end of the budget debate, Labour’s vote slumped from 371 in the first vote on tax changes, down by 44 votes to 327.
‘Time to stand up for farmers’
The mini-mutiny followed a plea to Labour MPs from the National Farmers Union to abstain.
“To Labour MPs: We ask you to abstain on Budget Resolution 50,” the NFU urged.
“With your help, we can show the government there is still time to get it right on the family farm tax. A policy with such cruel human costs demands change. Now is the time to stand up for the farmers you represent.”
After the vote, NFU president Tom Bradshaw said: “The MPs who have shown their support are the rural representatives of the Labour Party. They represent the working people of the countryside and have spoken up on behalf of their constituents.
“It is vital that the chancellor and prime minister listen to the clear message they have delivered this evening. The next step in the fight against the family farm tax is removing the impact of this unjust and unfair policy on the most vulnerable members of our community.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:54
Farmers defy police ban in budget day protest in Westminster.
The government comfortably won the vote by 327-182, a majority of 145. But the mini-mutiny served notice to the chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer that newly elected Labour MPs from the shires are prepared to rebel.
Speaking in the debate earlier, Mr Campbell-Savours said: “There remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief (APR).
“Changes which leave many, not least elderly farmers, yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.”
Samantha Niblett, Labour MP for South Derbyshire abstained after telling MPs: “I do plead with the government to look again at APR inheritance tax.
“Most farmers are not wealthy land barons, they live hand to mouth on tiny, sometimes non-existent profit margins. Many were explicitly advised not to hand over their farm to children, (but) now face enormous, unexpected tax bills.
“We must acknowledge a difficult truth: we have lost the trust of our farmers, and they deserve our utmost respect, our honesty and our unwavering support.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:54
UK ‘criminally’ unprepared to feed itself in crisis, says farmers’ union.
Labour MPs from rural constituencies who did not vote included Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower), Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury), Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire), Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley), and Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall), Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk), Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby), Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk), Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth), Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay), Perran Moon, (Camborne and Redruth), Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire), Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal), Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire), John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) and Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr).