Mitie agrees £366m deal to buy Lord Ashcroft-founded firm Marlowe
Under the terms of the cash-and-shares deal, Mitie will pay 466p per Marlowe share.
Mitie said it hopes to cut costs by £30 million a year across the combined group after the takeover.
Marlowe is a provider of fire safety services, which is listed on the London's Aim junior market, and employs around 3,000 workers.
FTSE 250-listed Mitie employs about 72,000 staff in areas from cleaning and security to maintenance.
Phil Bentley, chief executive of Mitie, said: 'Adding Marlowe's circa 3,000 highly respected colleagues to Mitie's capabilities and providing access to Mitie's clients will generate significant revenue growth opportunities as well as immediate cost efficiencies.
'We are excited about the next chapter in Mitie's history to become a leading facilities compliance provider.'
Lord Ashcroft, interim non-executive chairman of Marlowe, added: 'The acquisition represents excellent value for Marlowe shareholders.'
'I have been consistent since taking up the role of interim chairman in June 2024 that my aim was to maximise shareholder returns and the acquisition will be the final piece in that jigsaw,' he said.
Lord Ashcroft – a former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party – co-founded Marlowe with Alex Dacre, its former chief executive.
He became non-executive chairman on an interim basis when Mr Dacre left in June last year.
He is the latest shareholder in Marlowe, with an 18.9% stake.
In Mitie's full year figures also out on Thursday, it reported an 11% rise in underlying operating profits to £234 million for the year to March 31.
But statutory pre-tax profits fell to £145.4 million from £156.3 million the previous year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Will long-awaited Nottinghamshire road upgrades finally happen?
Take a drive through north Nottinghamshire, and there's a good chance you'll find yourself stuck at Ollerton the point where several major routes meet, it often acts as a bottleneck for traffic from six different to upgrade both the roundabout itself and the surrounding roads have been in the works for summer Nottinghamshire County Council was supposedly "a matter of days" from getting the final confirmation - and crucially, the funding - to start the confident was the then-Conservative administration that they even put signs up saying improvements were "coming soon".Then along came the general the change of government, the project's future suddenly became with the cash taps seemingly being turned back on this week, are spades finally about to go into the ground? Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced on Wednesday billions of pounds of investment in transport infrastructure in England. "It's very difficult to get capital funding out of central government."So says the Conservative councillor for Muskham and Farnsfield, Bruce A614 runs through his council division, and he says he's been lobbying for improvements for more than 15 years."It is essential for the north-south traffic through Nottinghamshire, and therefore [improving it] will have a major effect on the financial viability and the growth of this particular area," he said.A big chunk of the cash for the project was originally due to come directly from the Department for a year of political upheaval, however, it looked like the burden would be shifted to the East Midlands Combined County the Conservatives were in charge in central government, they promised the regional mayor would have £1.5bn to spend on improving connectivity – money saved from the cancellation of HS2 beyond Birmingham. Speaking before the budget in the autumn, though, the Labour mayor Claire Ward said she was unsure if the money would forward to this week, and not only was it confirmed, but the figure was higher than before."When Labour came into office, there were a huge number of schemes the Tories had promised funding for, and the money simply wasn't there," she said."After a year, we've been engaging with government, and I'm really pleased we've been allocated £2billion." When the announcement was made by Reeves on Wednesday, however, the focus for the East Midlands was instead on a new mass transit system connecting Nottingham and the Treasury press release didn't even mention the A614 project. Speaking to the BBC the same day, Ward said she wanted things to move "as quickly as possible", but appeared to stop short of giving any guarantees."There's still some outstanding bits of detail that we need to talk to our partners at Nottinghamshire County Council about," she said."We were going to make a contribution, and part of this money will help us to be able to have that money set aside ready for that contribution." Nonetheless, the new leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, Reform UK's Mick Barton, welcomed the news."It'll have a massive impact; it needed doing years and years ago," he said."It's only got worse regarding the flow of traffic and the volume of traffic, so it will benefit everybody, whether it be the economy, the residents, the work people."All the signs are the project will get the green light, and while everyone I've spoken to this week seems to be supportive of it, there is also a sense of frustration that it's taken so all, the council's former leader previously warned the plans were "already four or five months" behind schedule - that was eight months ago.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Will the North Sea oil and gas industry be Labour's next U-turn?
It was inevitable that Nigel Farage would take Reform UK's campaign tour to Aberdeen. On a visit to the capital of the UK's oil and gas industry on Monday he welcomed a defecting Aberdeen Conservative councillor, the 13th defection to his party's ranks in Scotland to date. Reform is hoping to make political hay from the discontent surrounding the government's North Sea policies, the demise of the oil and gas basin and the vast workforce that depends on it. The populist party has vowed to reverse the government's ban on fresh North Sea oil and gas drilling as a 'day one' priority if elected to power in 2029. Farage's naked targeting of the Granite City and of net zero – which he has described as 'lunacy' and the 'next Brexit' – has some in Westminster and the energy industry asking what would once have been unthinkable: will Labour be forced to water down or even U-turn on its North Sea pledges? The Labour government swept to power last summer with a manifesto pledge to end new North Sea oil and gas projects and make Britain a clean energy superpower. But in less than a year the government has bent to the backlash against some of its most high-profile policies on benefits and winter fuel allowances, stoking speculation that its stance on the North Sea might be the next position to crumble. Industry sources believe the government may be poised to give the green light to new North Sea projects from this autumn. The Guardian understands that senior government advisers have told North Sea investors that new drilling could still move ahead despite the election promise, provided the projects are close to existing pipeline infrastructure and do not extend into 'greenfield' areas. One energy investor said government advisers in the Treasury and No 10 had 'quite openly' signalled that the door would be left open for new oil and gas projects to proceed despite the government's climate commitments. 'Myself and a number of colleagues have been told that the government is moving towards the idea of allowing new licences,' the source said. However, the claims are at odds with the green agenda set out by Ed Miliband, the secretary of state at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), who has previously described plans to develop the Jackdaw and Rosebank oilfields in the North Sea as 'an act of climate vandalism'. Those two oilfields, which are caught in a long-running legal battle over their emissions, will be a critical test of how Labour's desperation to counter the rise of Reform rubs up against its green principles. Cutting emissions has strong support in the UK, with YouGov polling in March showing 61% of adults support or strongly support the government's target of reducing emissions to net zero by 2050. About 24% oppose or strongly oppose the policy. But with domestically produced oil and gas being replaced with imports from Qatar and the US, sources believe that the Treasury is anxious to allow projects to move ahead to protect the more than 200,000 jobs that rely on the North Sea sector, and the billions in forecast tax revenues the industry generates for the exchequer. 'Within the Treasury there is a desire to interpret the manifesto commitment loosely,' a second industry source said. 'If there is an existing licence related to a field which means it might not be considered a 'greenfield' site then perhaps an expansion of that area could be acceptable.' The North Sea contributes £25bn in value to the UK economy each year, according to the trade group Offshore Energies UK, which is more than five times the contribution of the UK steel industry and twice the contribution of the UK car industry. 'I suspect there will be some difficult internal rows about what counts as a 'new licence' between DESNZ and the Treasury - but I suspect that ultimately the Treasury will win this battle, with support from No 10,' the source added. Labour's manifesto offers some room for manoeuvre: it promised that the party would not 'issue new licences to explore new fields', but would also not revoke existing North Sea licences granted by the previous government. This means that controversial North Sea oil and gas projects at Rosebank, Jackdaw and Cambo – which were given licences by the previous government – could in theory be granted final consent to move ahead without breaching the manifesto promise. Oil companies which hope to drill new wells within their previously licensed areas, known as 'in-fill drilling', could also be given the green light to extract more oil and gas from their existing projects. The sources have suggested that even more leeway may be created within the definition of the manifesto pledge. The election pledge was welcomed by green groups as a clear sign of the government's intent to meet its legally binding net zero targets as the climate crisis intensifies. However, critics of the policy – which include backbench Labour MPs and union leaders – fear that the economic fallout may outweigh any climate benefits as imported hydrocarbons increasingly replace North Sea oil and gas. Britain's trade unions, which donate generously to the Labour party, fear that job losses in the industry and its supply chains are accelerating quicker than companies can pivot towards the green economy. Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, said: 'Letting go of one rope before we have hold of another by ending oil and gas licences is not acceptable. It threatens both our national security and jobs.' 'Oil and gas workers cannot be the coal miners of our generation,' she added. 'Britain needs to maintain skills and invest in the industries of the future. Jobless transitions will not be accepted by Unite, neither will jam tomorrow. If Labour do not back workers other voices fill the vacuum.' Andy Prendergast, the GMB's national secretary, said the union has called on the government to re-appraise the UK's energy policy. 'Existing policy is simply offshoring responsibility, importing virtue, and undercutting a transition for energy workers in the North Sea,' he said. One North Sea oil worker said the government's stance represented 'nothing short of a strangulation of an industry and of the north-east Scottish economy'. He voted Reform in the last general election and said he could not name a single person who would vote for Labour. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion 'Aberdeen is being bled dry,' the rig worker added. 'The hypocrisy of a government which is willing to import and burn fossil fuels for energy generation but is unwilling to support its homegrown hydrocarbon industry, all to catch the newspapers headlines for political point scoring, is astounding.' Mel Evans, a climate team leader at Greenpeace UK, said the switch from oil and gas to renewables 'must bring workers and communities along' and create jobs in green manufacturing. Unions and climate campaigners are demanding an emergency funding package of £1.9bn a year to help with the transition be included in Rachel Reeves's spending review on Wednesday. 'It's vital that we don't leave oil and gas workers' future in the hands of private companies who put their profits above workers' security and the climate time and time again,' she said. 'We urgently need a renewable energy system fit for the 21st century that can bring down bills, helping our energy security and the climate at the same time. But we must bring workers and communities along and ensure that wind manufacturing and renewable energy jobs stay here in the UK, rather than leaving other countries to benefit from the booming green economy.' The government's independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), have called for tight controls on any new North Sea production but have also found that the emissions case for a ban on new projects is 'not clear cut'. 'The CCC has not been able to establish the net impact on global emissions of new UK oil and gas extraction,' the advisers said in a letter to former energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng in 2022. This is partly because the UK's oil and gas has a relatively low carbon footprint relative to the countries that supply its gas imports. The UK will continue to be a net importer of fossil fuels by 2050 even when keeping to its net zero ambition. Under the CCC's forecasts, oil and gas will tumble from about 75% of the UK's primary energy demand now to about 23% by 2050. But that would still mean the UK needs over 14m tonnes of oil equivalent each year – most of which will be imported. The UK is increasingly reliant on imports of liquified natural gas from the US and Qatar – which have a far higher carbon intensity than North Sea gas – as well as piped gas from Norway. On the one hand the UK could help lower global emissions by replacing some of these fossil fuel imports with domestic hydrocarbons, but on the other hand any extra oil and gas produced by the UK could risk creating a global oversupply of fossil fuels 'that would pose a risk to the aims of the Paris agreement'. What oil and gas remains is becoming harder to extract, meaning the North Sea basin will still be in terminal decline even if the government loosens its stance. The policy against new North Sea oil projects emerged after the global energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency, warned in 2021 that no new fossil projects could move ahead if the world hoped to meet its climate targets. Here too the hard lines appear to be softening. By 2023 the Paris-based agency clarified its stance, stating that 'no new conventional long-lead time oil projects' should be approved but that 'investing in existing fossil fuel supply, however, is still needed'. The government is expected to clarify its plans for the future of the North Sea through an industry consultation that closed at the end of April. Its response, which is expected in the autumn, is likely to rule out a return to annual North Sea licensing rounds – but industry insiders expect that it will allow at least some new projects to progress. That could leave Miliband in an awkward position. There have been 'discussions within the Labour party for months over how to handle his potential resignation', said an industry source. 'I do think the government is, belatedly, becoming a little more pragmatic about [the North Sea],' the second source added. 'And I suspect that ultimately pragmatism will win the day. But it may be too late, honestly. In the North Sea we're on a worrying downward spiral of job losses and an accelerated production decline.' A DESNZ spokesperson dismissed the claims as 'secondhand speculation' which 'bear no relation' to the government's work to 'implement our manifesto position to not issue new licences to explore new oil and gas fields'. The Treasury did not respond to the Guardian's request beyond the DESNZ statement.
The Independent
18 hours ago
- The Independent
Government stalling in efforts to cut foreign aid spent on asylum seekers
The government is struggling to cut the amount of money from the foreign aid budget it spends on asylum seekers in the UK, new figures show. Home Office figures show the department expects to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year, of which £2.1bn is expected to be spent on asylum support. The predictions for this year are only slightly less than the £2.4bn spent in 2024/25. Official development assistance (ODA) – which was slashed earlier this year to 0.3 per cent of GDP to pay for a boost to defence spending - is used to promote the economic development and welfare in developing countries around the world. A portion of this money is handed to the home office to support asylum seekers after they arrive in the UK, most of which goes towards their accommodation. But the government's failure to cut back on this spending has led aid organisations to accuse ministers of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', claiming they are in danger of a 'reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.' Figures published in March revealed that the number of asylum seekers housed in costly hotels has increased by more than 8,000 since the general election, with 38,079 migrants being housed in hotels at the end of December. It comes despite Sir Keir Starmer previously saying a Labour government wouldn't use the foreign aid budget to pay for asylum seekers' hotel costs – but admitted that the government would not be able to stop doing so immediately. 'I'm not going to pretend to you we can do that in the first 24 hours', he said in May 2024. Meanwhile, Labour's election manifesto vowed to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, warned that 'cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.' "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul', he told the BBC. Meanwhile, Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said: "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK. The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." The Home Office told the BBC it is committed to ending asylum hotels and is speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The department also said it had reduced overall asylum support costs by half a billion pounds in the last financial year, saving £200m in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. In April, The Independent revealed that the government had awarded a contract which allows for hotels and barges to house asylum seekers up until September 2027, despite Labour vowing to end the practice. The contract, advertised ahead of the election, was awarded by the Cabinet Office in October 2024 – just months after Labour won a historic landslide election victory - and runs up until September 2027. In June, the home secretary admitted she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation, adding: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether."
