24th June 2025
On 23 June 2025, the UK government unveiled a landmark ten‑year Industrial Strategy designed to drive sustainable economic growth, boost investment, and create over 1.1 million skilled jobs.
The strategy targets eight high‑growth sectors; including advanced manufacturing, clean energy, creative industries, digital & technology, life sciences, defence, financial services, and professional services, and sets ambitious funding goals: doubling clean energy investment to £30 billion annually by 2035, and elevating R&D spending to over £22 billion a year by 2030.
At its core is a bold energy‑cost intervention: from 2027, the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme will cut electricity bills by up to 25% for over 7,000 energy‑intensive businesses – amounting to up to £40/MWh savings – while the Industry Supercharger will increase grid‑charge discounts from 60% to 90% for around 500 firms. Complementing clean‑energy goals, the plan includes streamlined grid connections, regulatory relief, revamped investment zones, enhanced skills initiatives, and a strengthened British Business Bank to back innovation and scale‑ups.
Together, these measures mark what the government describes as a decisive break from short‑termism – strategically positioning the UK to regain global industrial competitiveness and unlock long‑term prosperity.
CEO, Tony Hague responds to the launch:
“We’ve waited decades for it and, finally, the government’s Industrial Strategy has been published.
“At first glance, there doesn’t appear to be anything new, exciting or ‘immediate’ in there, with the majority of the much-publicised energy savings not actually coming into play for two years – and only after more consultation.
“I would have liked to have seen more bolder plans and the reintroduction of the Manufacturing Advisory Service or something similar, which delivered lots and lots of targeted support to SMEs that made an instant and long-term impact.
“But let’s look at the positives. I suppose it’s a start and the fact it is a ten-year plan gives a bit of added certainty to our sector, unless Labour’s tenure in Whitehall is short lived and this strategy is ripped up in the spirit of political posturing!
“It is good to see Advanced Manufacturing as one of its core sector plans and, finally, it looks like we’ve woken up to the importance of investing in automation and robotics. This new technology makes us quicker, makes us smarter and doesn’t replace jobs – if anything it has the opposite impact.
“I desperately want to believe that the government has finally understood what is required to help make UK manufacturing truly competitive again. We’re not after handouts, just a level playing field so we can take on the rest of the world by playing to our strengths.”
Ian Knight, Chief Information Officer at PP Control & Automation (PP C&A) challenges the prevailing, often vague narrative around AI adoption and reframes the conversation around a more practical starting point: operational constraints.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant concept for manufacturers. It is already being explored across quotation, production planning, engineering, quality, supply chain and customer service functions. Yet, for many organisations, the gap between experimentation and meaningful operational impact remains difficult to close.
A leading aquaculture specialist – that is changing the way fish are vaccinated safely – has signed a major manufacturing deal.
On paper, defined discipline-specific suppliers can look organised. However, every additional supplier introduces another handoff, and every handoff creates another point where time, quality, communication and accountability can be lost.
Very rarely does growth not surface because an OEM lacks ambition. Shortcomings arise because operating models built to support such ambition don’t evolve quickly enough.
Recent weeks have brought two important industry moments into sharp focus, concluding that demand for AI and automation is rising, but investment, skills, and long-term thinking must follow.
For decades, one question has sat at the heart of operational strategy for machine builders and OEMs: make or buy? It’s a familiar debate and it isn’t the wrong question by any means, but perhaps it is an incomplete one.
In most machine building businesses, change is still treated as an exception. A late-stage drawing revision, component substitution, or wiring tweak discovered during build. Each one is handled, resolved, and signed off. And then everyone moves on. But what if that’s the wrong way to think about it? What if change isn’t the disruption to the system but the system itself?
