22nd November 2023
Tony Hague gives his verdict on chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn Statement.
I’ve been relentless for many years about the need for the UK to invest in more automation and technology and the ‘full expensing’ announcement today could well be a significant driver in ‘tipping the balance’.
It should promote much needed investment to drive productivity and increase efficiencies, offsetting rising input costs around materials, energy, transport, and labour.
Like all announcements, there is a ‘but’. If the Government changes in the next election, will this important business decision be reversed by new Ministers keen to make their own mark on proceedings? This is what really worries me with no coherent industrial strategy in place.
For UK manufacturing to thrive, we need long-term thinking and a stable/tax efficient environment.
Getting people back to work is key, which is why I am all for the £50m apprenticeship boost (devil will be in the detail) and the £2.6bn funding to help the long-term unemployed and those suffering with sickness and illness.
Hunt suggested this could deliver 200,000 people back into the workplace. That seems a huge number but would certainly be welcomed by employers fishing in a shrinking recruitment pool.
In summary, the Autumn Statement was a huge improvement on the last mini budget – at least I never thought ‘oh my god, it’s like a Liz Truss moment.”
Tony was also invited to add commentary to the Financial Times’ article, which summarises the opinions of three business leaders. National insurance cut and extension of full expensing regime win plaudits but concern remains about inflation.
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?
