The UK’s Changing Climate — Facts, Trends and Long‑Term Impacts

Othman — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 23:08:56 +0000

In recent years, the United Kingdom has experienced climatic extremes that are not random anomalies but part of a clear and scientifically verified long‑term trend. Official data show the UK is becoming warmer, that heatwaves and sunny periods are more frequent and intense than in the past, and that rainfall patterns are shifting in ways that affect society and the environment.

According to the Met Office, 2025 was provisionally the UK’s warmest and sunniest year on record, using long‑running national datasets. Sunshine records dating back to 1910 show totals exceeding previous benchmarks, reflecting elevated temperatures and prolonged sunny spells consistent with global warming trends.

The UK has warmed by approximately 0.25°C per decade since the 1980s. The most recent decade has been significantly warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline, and all of the ten warmest UK years in the instrumental record have occurred since 2003. Temperature extremes are increasing, with more days exceeding 28°C and 30°C than in mid‑20th century norms.

Heatwaves are becoming longer and more intense. Climate projections indicate that extremely hot days will become more common in coming decades, with temperatures exceeding 40°C potentially occurring more frequently in southern regions if global emissions continue at current trajectories.

Rainfall trends are more complex. While annual totals vary year to year, heavy rainfall events have increased in intensity and frequency, particularly in autumn and winter. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, increasing the risk of flooding and infrastructure stress.

The long‑term impacts are significant. Agriculture faces heat stress and drought risk. Water management must contend with both drought and flooding extremes. Health systems experience increased pressure during heatwaves. Transport, housing, and energy infrastructure must adapt to withstand temperature and rainfall extremes. Ecosystems are also under pressure as species struggle to adapt to rapidly changing conditions.

These observed changes are not the result of covert atmospheric interventions. They are consistent with well‑established scientific understanding of human‑driven climate change caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations. The evidence from observational records, attribution studies, and climate modelling is robust and widely supported within the scientific community.

Adaptation and mitigation are therefore essential. Strengthening infrastructure resilience, improving flood defences, expanding heat‑health action plans, and accelerating emissions reductions will be critical to protecting communities and economic stability in the decades ahead.

Key Met Office Sources:

UK Climate – Climate change in the UK
State of the UK Climate Reports
2025 Warmest and Sunniest Year Announcement
Heavy Rainfall and Flooding Trends

About the Author
Adrian Hawkins OBE was awarded his honour by the Queen in the 2021 New Years Day Honours list for his services to business and skills. A lifetime businessman, Adrian Chairs biz4Biz a business support organisation which he founded 15 years ago to create a business network initially in the Home Counties and which is now reaching further nationally. Adrian is also, Chairman of Hertfordshire Futures (previously the LEP) and the Hertfordshire Futures Skills and Employment Board. Adrian is also Chairman of the Stevenage Development Board alongside biz4Biz. Adrian has 50 years’ experience in the world of business.

ADRIAN HAWKINS OBE
Chairman – biz4Biz
Chairman – Hertfordshire Futures Board
Chairman – Stevenage Development Board
Chairman – Hertfordshire Skills & Employment Board

Business Funds Britain

Othman — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 23:05:09 +0000

There is a persistent myth in British politics that government funds public services, and business merely operates within that system. The fiscal reality is the reverse. The British state is structurally financed by private enterprise.

In the 2024–25 fiscal year, total UK government receipts were approximately £1.14 trillion. Of that, around £750 billion — roughly 65% — was generated directly or indirectly by private sector economic activity. Over the past three years combined, business activity has funded approximately £2.1 trillion of government income.

This is not an ideological claim. It is an accounting fact.

Start with direct business taxation. Companies pay corporation tax on profits. They pay employer National Insurance on every member of staff. They pay business rates on commercial premises. Import duties are paid by firms that bring goods into the country. In recent years, sector-specific levies — from banking to energy — have added further billions. Taken together, these direct business taxes account for roughly £250 billion per year.

But the story does not stop there.

Private enterprise also funds government through employment. Around 27 million people in the UK work in the private sector. The wages paid by businesses generate income tax and employee National Insurance contributions. After removing circular taxation from public sector wages — which is simply government paying itself — private sector employment generates roughly £300 billion per year in labour taxes alone.

Consumption is the third pillar. Businesses create goods and services. Consumers purchase them. Value Added Tax is collected at each stage of that commercial activity. Approximately £150 billion of VAT annually can be attributed to private consumption funded by private wages and profits.

Add to this fuel duty linked to commercial transport, capital gains taxes arising from business assets, and other transaction-based revenues, and the picture becomes clear: roughly two-thirds of all government income is rooted in private enterprise.

Every hospital funded, every school staffed, every police force deployed, every pension paid — all ultimately depend on business productivity, capital investment, innovation and risk-taking.

When economic growth slows, tax receipts fall. When businesses contract, the state’s revenues weaken. When investment rises, so does the government’s fiscal capacity. The link is direct and measurable.

This does not diminish the role of government. Public institutions provide stability, infrastructure, rule of law and services essential to civil society. But it does clarify the order of causation. Wealth must first be created before it can be redistributed.

For policymakers, the implication is straightforward. If the objective is sustainable public services and fiscal resilience, then the priority must be a competitive and stable business environment. Tax policy, regulation, planning, energy costs and capital markets are not peripheral technicalities — they are determinants of the state’s revenue base.

Business does not sit outside society. It funds it.

Britain’s prosperity and Britain’s public services are not competing interests. They are interdependent. A strong business community is not merely beneficial to the Treasury — it is the Treasury’s foundation.

Public services depend on private success. Private enterprise truly delivers Social Value and should be entirely proud as a result.

ADRIAN HAWKINS OBE
Chairman – biz4Biz
Chairman – Hertfordshire Futures Board
Chairman – Stevenage Development Board
Chairman – Hertfordshire Skills & Employment Board

SEND, Skills and the System: Time to Rebalance Education

Othman — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:30:11 +0000

I come from a world of no mobile phones and only three television channels. Childhood boredom was not an emergency; it was an expectation. Silence was not suspicious; it was normal. Today, I look at the pace, pressure and digital saturation surrounding young people and cannot help but wonder how profoundly modern living is shaping — and straining — developing minds.

At the same time, we are witnessing a sharp and sustained rise in SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) across the U.K. Classrooms are reporting growing numbers of pupils with autism spectrum conditions, ADHD, speech and language needs, and social, emotional and mental health difficulties. Whether these increases reflect better diagnosis, reduced early intervention, post-pandemic impacts, or deeper cultural shifts, the system is undeniably under pressure.

But there is another change running alongside this trend — one that receives far less attention. Over the past two decades, schools have steadily narrowed access to vocational and technical pathways. Workshop spaces have disappeared. Practical subjects have been squeezed. Performance tables have prioritised academic benchmarks. The message, implicitly or explicitly, has been that success lies primarily through examination routes and university progression.

For many young people, that pathway works. But for many others, particularly those who are neurodiverse, practically minded, or motivated by hands-on learning, it does not. Secondary education has become increasingly structured around written output, abstract reasoning and high-stakes assessment. For a teenager struggling with executive function, attention regulation or anxiety, this environment can magnify difficulties. A student who might thrive building, repairing, designing or problem-solving in a workshop can quickly become labelled disruptive, disengaged or “behind” in a system that prizes academic conformity.

This is not to suggest that schools create SEND. Neurodevelopmental differences are real and longstanding. But it is fair to ask whether a narrow academic model exacerbates those differences — or fails to accommodate them.

Meanwhile, the labour market is shifting. Across the U.K., there are shortages in construction, engineering, electrical installation, advanced manufacturing, green technologies and digital infrastructure. Skilled trades and technical professions are not fallback options; they are increasingly well-paid, respected and future-proofed careers. In many cases, they offer clearer income progression than oversubscribed graduate pathways. Here lies the paradox: at the very moment vocational skills are becoming economically critical, our educational culture has become more academically compressed. If we are serious about supporting young people — particularly those with SEND — we must rethink what inclusion truly means. Inclusion cannot simply be about additional classroom support within an unchanged academic structure. It must also involve structural diversity in pathways.

A teenager who struggles to sit still for six hours of theoretical instruction may concentrate for hours wiring a circuit or programming a CNC machine. A student who resists essay writing may demonstrate extraordinary spatial intelligence in carpentry or robotics. These are not deficits; they are differences in cognitive profile. Reintroducing meaningful vocational options earlier in secondary education would not be a retreat from standards. It would be an expansion of them. It would recognise that intelligence is plural, that talent is varied, and that economic contribution does not flow solely from academic attainment. It is also likely to greatly impact more success rates in GCSE qualification numbers. Modern living may indeed be attacking young minds — through constant stimulation, social comparison and reduced physical engagement with the real world. Schools alone cannot solve that cultural shift. But they can respond to it.

Supporting rising SEND needs and rebuilding vocational opportunity are not separate challenges. They are intertwined. If we design an education system that values multiple forms of ability, we do not lower expectations. We widen the definition of success — and, in doing so, we may ease pressure on a generation that feels increasingly misaligned with the path laid before it.

The future economy will depend on skilled hands as much as analytical minds. Our education system must be bold enough to nurture both.

ADRIAN HAWKINS OBE
Chairman – biz4Biz
Chairman – Hertfordshire Futures Board
Chairman – Stevenage Development Board
Chairman – Hertfordshire Skills & Employment Board

Devolution: Real Local Power, or Just a New Way to Divide the Same Pot?

Othman — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:15:40 +0000

Devolution has become one of the most used—and most misunderstood—words in British economic policy. For business communities, it often sounds like political rebranding: a reshuffle of responsibilities dressed up as transformation. But at its best, devolution is something far more serious. It is about shifting decision-making away from Westminster and into the hands of local leaders who understand the economic realities on the ground.

The case for devolution is straightforward. Local economies are not identical. What works for London will not necessarily work for Lancashire, and what drives growth in Greater Manchester may be irrelevant in Cornwall. Devolution promises a future where local transport, planning, skills investment and regeneration can be shaped by those closest to the challenge—and closest to the opportunity.

Yet for many councils and business leaders, the real issue is money. In practice, the success or failure of devolution deals often comes down to one key question: who controls the funding? Business Rates sit at the centre of this debate. They are one of the few stable income streams tied directly to local economic activity. If local authorities are expected to drive growth, attract investment, and support town centres, it is only logical that they should retain a meaningful share of the revenue that growth generates.

But devolution must be more than a fight over Business Rates distribution. True devolution means long-term financial certainty, local freedom to innovate, and accountability that matches responsibility.

If government wants devolution to succeed, it must offer more than delegated duties. It must offer genuine local power—and the resources to make it work.

ADRIAN HAWKINS OBE
Chairman – biz4Biz
Chairman – Hertfordshire Futures Board
Chairman – Stevenage Development Board
Chairman – Hertfordshire Skills & Employment Board

Stevenage Shows Why Britain Must Invest in the Science

Othman — Sun, 08 Feb 2026 21:24:16 +0000

Britain likes to say it wants to be a science superpower. In one Hertfordshire town, that ambition is no longer a slogan — it is a functioning reality.

Stevenage, the first New Town built after the Second World War, has quietly become one of the UK’s most important centres for advanced science, technology and manufacturing. It is best known as the UK’s leading cluster for cell and gene therapy, hosting the largest concentration of advanced therapies outside the United States. But life sciences are not Stevenage’s only strategic strength. Alongside its world‑leading life science ecosystem, Stevenage is also home to major global advanced manufacturing and defence innovators including Airbus and MBDA. These organisations sit at the cutting edge of aerospace, space, defence and systems engineering — sectors that rely on the same deep scientific capability, Stevenage Shows Why Britain Must Invest in the Science highly skilled workforce and long‑term patient capital as advanced therapies. This convergence matters. Innovation today increasingly happens at the boundaries between disciplines: life sciences, advanced manufacturing, space technologies, robotics, digital systems and materials science. Stevenage is one of the few places in the UK where these capabilities already co-exist at scale. The town hosts the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult, the Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst and a growing network of global pharmaceutical firms, scale‑ups, manufacturers and research organisations. Together they form a rare, end‑to‑end ecosystem that takes ideas from laboratory bench to clinical reality — and increasingly, to large‑scale manufacturing. That same ecosystem is now being reinforced by investment and commitment from the aerospace and defence sectors. On Thursday 29 January 2026, Airbus opened its new “Launchpad” in Stevenage — a dedicated support service for new and early‑stage companies in the space and advanced engineering industries. Backed by support from the UK Space Agency, the Launchpad is designed to accelerate innovation, supply‑chain growth and commercialisation for emerging firms. This is not a symbolic gesture. It is a clear signal that global industrial leaders see Stevenage as a priority location for early‑stage innovation, scale‑up and long‑term growth. It also underlines a wider truth: early‑stage funding and patient capital are now as critical in advanced manufacturing and space technologies as they are in life sciences.

Stevenage has already attracted £3.2 billion of private‑sector investment for regeneration. That capital did not arrive by accident. It followed skills, infrastructure, regulatory credibility and a proven ability to translate science into production. Investors have already judged Stevenage — and by extension the UK — to be one of the best places in the world to develop complex, high‑value technologies. Yet the same risk applies across all these sectors. Breakthrough ideas often falter in the “valley of death” between technical success and commercial scale. Facilities are expensive. Prototyping, certification and trials are complex. Workforce skills take years to build. Without targeted early‑stage and scale‑up funding, the UK risks exporting its intellectual property while importing the finished products. The prize for getting this right is substantial. Advanced life sciences, aerospace, space and defence manufacturing deliver high‑value jobs, export‑intensive growth and strategic national capability. Even when individual companies fail, the skills, knowledge and infrastructure remain, strengthening the wider economy.

Stevenage shows what happens when government, industry and investors align around long‑term priorities. It is not a regional experiment. It is national infrastructure — for health, for security, for productivity and for future growth. The choice now is whether Britain builds on this foundation with sustained early‑stage investment across life sciences, advanced manufacturing and space — or whether it allows global competitors to capture the value of innovations developed on British soil.

Government needs to understand that their past investments need further funding support today, to assist with concluding early-stage production investment to deliver the solutions and the international opportunities for the Country.

ADRIAN HAWKINS OBE
Chairman – biz4Biz
Chairman – Hertfordshire Futures Board
Chairman – Stevenage Development Board
Chairman – Hertfordshire Skills & Employment Board

Stevenage Shows – Why Britain Must Invest in the Science That Cures

Othman — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 21:04:42 +0000

Britain likes to say it wants to be a science superpower. In one Hertfordshire town, that ambition is no longer a slogan — it is a functioning reality.

Stevenage, the first New Town built after the Second World War, has quietly become the UK’s most important centre for cell and gene therapy. Today it hosts the largest cluster of advanced therapies outside the United States, has attracted £3.2 billion of private-sector investment for Regeneration, and sits at the forefront of a medical revolution that promises not just better treatments, but actual cures.

This matters — not only for patients, but for the future of the British economy.

Cell and gene therapies are redefining medicine. Instead of managing disease over a lifetime, they aim to correct it at its source: repairing genes, reprogramming cells, and restoring function. They are already transforming outcomes in cancer, rare genetic disorders, and immune diseases. In time, they will reshape healthcare itself.

Stevenage is where much of this transformation is happening.

At the heart of the cluster sits the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult, alongside the Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst and a growing network of global pharmaceutical firms, scale-ups, manufacturers, and research organisations. Together, they form something rare: a complete ecosystem that takes ideas from laboratory bench to clinical reality — and increasingly, to large-scale manufacturing.

This is not a speculative science park. It is an industrial engine already delivering.

The £3.2 billion invested by private capital is not a promise of future success; it is proof of market confidence today in the Town. Investors, manufacturers and global firms have already judged Stevenage — and by extension the UK — to be one of the best places in the world to develop advanced therapies.

That matters because private capital is selective. It flows to places with skills, infrastructure, regulatory credibility and long-term potential. When billions choose a location, government should take note.

Yet here lies the paradox. Britain has helped create a world-leading cluster — but now risks underinvesting in the very stage where the greatest value is captured.

Advanced therapies do not fail because the science is weak. They fail when promising discoveries cannot cross the so-called “valley of death” between clinical success and commercial scale. Manufacturing facilities are expensive. Clinical trials are complex. Workforce skills take years to build. Without patient, strategic public investment, the outcome is predictable: intellectual property developed in the UK is sold abroad, manufacturing happens elsewhere, and British patients wait longer for treatments invented on their doorstep.

This is not a hypothetical risk. It has happened many times before.

The economic case for avoiding that mistake is overwhelming. Life sciences investment consistently outperforms most other forms of economic development. Each pound invested typically generates £2.50 to £4 in economic output, supports high-value jobs with wages far above the national average, and creates export-intensive industries that strengthen the balance of trade let alone the huge savings to be made by the NHS

Crucially, even when individual companies fail — as some inevitably will — the knowledge, skills and platforms remain in the economy. Scientists move on. Manufacturing capability persists. Spillovers feed into diagnostics, artificial intelligence, robotics and digital health. Failure in life sciences still builds national assets.

There is also a case that rarely receives enough attention: the productivity of the NHS.

Britain’s health system faces relentless pressure from chronic disease, ageing demographics and rising costs. Cell and gene therapies change that equation. A one-off treatment that cures, or dramatically modifies, a disease can replace decades of repeat interventions, hospital admissions and social care. Over time, this is not just better medicine — it is better NHS economics.

Seen this way, investment in advanced therapies is not merely industrial policy. It is health-led productivity reform.

The lesson of the pandemic should sharpen the argument further. Covid-19 exposed the fragility of global supply chains and the strategic importance of domestic capability. Vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics became instruments of national resilience. Advanced therapies deserve the same treatment.

If the UK loses leadership in cell and gene therapy, it does not simply lose companies. It loses clinical sovereignty — the ability to ensure that life-saving treatments are manufactured, regulated and deployed at home, for its own population.

Stevenage offers a rare chance to avoid that fate.

There is also a deeper symbolism at work. Stevenage was built after the war as part of a national effort to rebuild Britain — not just physically, but socially and economically. Today, it is doing so again, anchoring a post-industrial economy in science, skills and long-term value creation.

This is what regeneration looks like when it is done properly: not short-term subsidy, but sustained investment in capability that compounds over decades

So, what should government do?

First, recognise Stevenage for what it is: national infrastructure, not a regional project. Advanced therapies are as strategically important as energy grids or transport hubs.

Second, provide patient capital to support translation and scale-up, ensuring that companies can grow without selling their future abroad.

Third, invest in advanced manufacturing — facilities, workforce training and regulatory agility — so that the UK captures not just discovery, but production.

Fourth, use the NHS as an anchor customer, accelerating adoption pathways so that British patients benefit first from British science.

Above all, government must offer policy certainty. Advanced therapies operate on 10- to 15-year horizons. Frequent changes in incentives, funding regimes or regulatory direction deter exactly the kind of investment Britain needs.

None of this requires blind faith. The market has already spoken. The science is already working. The cluster already exists.

The choice now is whether the UK fully backs a sector that can deliver economic growth, health resilience and global leadership — or whether it allows that leadership to drift elsewhere.

Stevenage and Hertfordshire have shown what is possible when ambition meets execution. The only remaining question is whether Britain is prepared to invest in the cures it helped create — and in doing so, secure a more productive, healthier future for the whole Country and the World.

ADRIAN HAWKINS OBE
Chairman – biz4Biz
Chairman – Hertfordshire Futures Board
Chairman – Stevenage Development Board
Chairman – Hertfordshire Skills & Employment Board

The End of a Cornerstone — What Cutting BPR and APR Means for the UK Economy

Othman — Mon, 12 Jan 2026 23:48:56 +0000

The decision to start a business does not rest with this specific tax relief, however and what is completely bad for the UK, the decision to CONTINUE a business rest entirely on protecting this concept. A businessperson starts a company with the belief that they may have a project to support them and find during the process a need to rent space, invest in materials and areas for staff and slowly the company builds significant assets to support and help the business grow. This is not with intention to avoid Tax but solely to be professional in creating fundamental foundations for their business activities.

For decades, Business Property Relief (BPR) and Agricultural Property Relief (APR) stood as pillars of UK tax policy designed to protect family businesses, farms, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from punitive inheritance-tax bills that could force the sale of assets before or after death. These longstanding Tax reliefs reduce the value of qualifying business and agricultural assets for Inheritance Tax purposes by up to 100 per cent, enabling owners to preserve business value, maintain creditworthiness, and facilitate smooth intergenerational transfer of firms — a vital support for continuity, investment, and trade.

The government’s reforms, effective from April 2026, mark a significant departure from this long-standing regime. Full relief will now be capped at the first £2.5 million of combined business and agricultural property per person, with a 50 per cent relief rate beyond that threshold. In addition, certain classes of shares will only attract a 50 per cent relief even within the cap.

At first glance, this may appear as a modest tightening — after all, many estates claiming relief might be largely unaffected — but the broader implications for the UK economy are profound.

For many family-owned firms and farms, BPR and APR were more than tax breaks; they were structural enablers of succession. They helped businesses retain assets, secure financing, and plan long-term investment without the looming threat of a large tax liability on the death of a founder. Their reduction weakens these incentives, making it costlier to hold and pass on enterprises, undermining confidence in capital investment and potentially accelerating the sale or closure of firms that struggle to meet tax bills.

The implications extend beyond individual companies. A reduction in intergenerational transfers can dampen entrepreneurship, starve the SME sector of patient capital, and distort markets as owners reconsider growth strategies in the face of higher taxation. Economists and business groups warn that such changes risk slowing economic dynamism, reducing jobs, and weakening the resilience of regional economies, particularly in sectors where family firms predominate. Critics have even suggested that forcing more owners to sell could see assets acquired by foreign interests, eroding domestic control of key industries.

Proponents of the reform argue it will raise government revenue and reduce tax avoidance by very wealthy estates, helping to balance public finances. But tax policy is never neutral — it shapes behaviour. By reducing a cornerstone relief that supported continuity, credit access, and trade, the government risks tilting the economic landscape away from long-term business stewardship and towards short-term liquidity management, with far-reaching consequences for investment, employment, and economic growth.

In an era where the UK competes globally for entrepreneurial talent and investment, the removal of this tax support is a gamble — one whose true cost may only be visible in the years after the reliefs fade from the statute book.

We are asking the Government to cancel this amendment to any form of Property Relief and to recognise fully the need for Businesses to grow and continue to support the Governments spending needs in the future. Without continuity we will minimise business growth and stability for very little benefit to Government and significant risk to the UK economy.

ADRIAN HAWKINS OBE
Chairman – biz4Biz
Chairman – Hertfordshire Futures Board
Chairman – Stevenage Development Board
Chairman – Hertfordshire Skills & Employment Board

Britain’s Demographic Turning Point Was Built into Its Housing Policy

Othman — Mon, 12 Jan 2026 23:39:38 +0000

Britain is approaching a demographic watershed. As the Resolution Foundation warns, deaths are poised to exceed births for the first time outside exceptional years, driven overwhelmingly by collapsing fertility rather than rising mortality. The UK’s total fertility rate has fallen to around 1.4 children per woman—far below the replacement level of 2.1 and less than half the level seen in the 1960s. The implications for public finances, labour supply and social cohesion are profound.

The long-run housing trend provides essential context. For more than a century, average house prices in Britain rose only gradually. Figure 1 below shows how prices remained broadly stable until the mid-20th century before accelerating sharply after the 1970s. This inflection marks a structural break in affordability, not a natural economic evolution.

This housing shift directly precedes Britain’s demographic reversal. Figure 2 makes the relationship unmistakable. As fertility trends steadily downward across the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, net immigration—historically low for much of the modern era—rises sharply, surging after 2000 and accelerating further after 2020. Population growth is now sustained almost entirely by immigration rather than births.

The sale of council houses under Margaret Thatcher MP and PM expanded home ownership and was politically transformative. The failure was not the policy itself, but the decision not to recycle the proceeds into new social housing. Over time, the affordable housing stock shrank while demand hooking into a growing population increased. Prices detached from earnings, rents absorbed ever greater shares of income, and housing insecurity became normal for younger generations.

These conditions delay household formation, postpone partnerships and suppress family size. Immigration has become a structural substitute for domestic births, not because of cultural preference, but because Britain priced family life out of reach.

Figure 1: Long-run UK Average House Prices (1800–2025)

Figure 2: UK Fertility, Population and Net Immigration

Summation: Population Growth, Housing Demand and Market Balance

Continued population growth, whether driven by natural increase or sustained net immigration, inevitably raises demand for housing. In a market where supply is structurally constrained, this demand pressure translates directly into higher prices and rents. Left unchecked, rising population numbers therefore risk reinforcing the very affordability crisis that suppresses family formation and drives demographic imbalance.

This dynamic cannot be resolved by the private housing market alone. The speculative incentives of the housebuilding and development industry tend to prioritise scarcity, land banking and higher margins over long-term affordability. Without a counterbalancing force, housing supply becomes insufficiently responsive to social need.

Sustained investment in social housing is therefore essential. By expanding the stock of genuinely affordable homes, the state can relieve pressure on the wider market, moderate price inflation, and reduce the extent to which housing outcomes are controlled by developer interests rather than public policy objectives. Social housing does not crowd out private provision; it stabilises it.

If Britain is serious about restoring affordability, supporting family life and achieving a sustainable demographic future, social housing must once again be treated as core national infrastructure. Without it, population growth will continue to feed housing inflation, and the cycle of delayed families, falling fertility and rising dependency will remain unbroken.

ADRIAN HAWKINS OBE
Chairman – biz4Biz
Chairman – Hertfordshire Futures Board
Chairman – Stevenage Development Board
Chairman – Hertfordshire Skills & Employment Board

Inspire to Aspire

Othman — Tue, 02 Sep 2025 17:46:24 +0000

A growing number of GCSE pupils are still failing to pass English and Maths despite a slight rise in top grades, continuing a trend since the pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of teenagers received their GCSE results on Thursday 21st of August 2025, which overall showed a slight rise in top grades across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, a growing number of pupils were still failing to achieve a pass in the core subjects crucial to their career progression.

According to the Times Newspaper, “This year, 39.8 per cent of students failed to achieve a standard pass in English language and 41.7 per cent in maths, with both figures worse than last year. Slightly more 16-year-olds have failed English and Maths this year, which could lead to a surge in those wanting to retake their exams this autumn or next year.”

Personally, I do not see this as a failure of the students to achieve, but a failure of our current education system to deliver. That is not casting any doubt or criticism at the superb teachers we employ across the country, but it is pointing the finger of concern at the format of the curriculum being delivered.

Since I was at school in the 1960’s and 70’s the delivery of hand skills has greatly reduced in availability in an economy that is crying out for more. I also feel this is having an ever-increasing impact on our Special Educational Needs (SEN) budgets as students are being made to feel they are not achieving anything.

In 2011, when I opened my first welder training college in Stevenage alongside Sir John Hayes the Skills Minister at the time, I always remember a young man coming up to me saying “Mister thank you, I can Weld” and going on to say, “my teachers said I would be nothing when I was at school”. We need to ensure that everyone is “something” and provide the full range of skills and education to enhance that value.

We are living in a world today where we all have access to instant information via our various devices which greatly improves our knowledge of the world with my 5-year-old grandson telling me that “Russia has the largest land mass compared to any other country”. We need to change the way we deliver the curriculum today and make the activity of studying more interesting and varied for the future of our country. Yes, information is vital, but delivery is in competition with technology.

Sadly in 1999 while serving as Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair insisted on 50% of our students going to university and in 2022 suggested 60% by 2030 and 70% by 2040. The attached graph shows the effect that education is having on the development of our IQ and people like to be seen and to feel they are achievers which Vocational Skills often deliver. In life it really has nothing to do with IQ but opportunity and achievement and being told you’re a failure at School before you leave the school gates is inappropriate and quite wrong. It was this aspect that spurred me to take the matter further.

When I had the opportunity to meet with the education Minister back in 2022 Nadhim Zahawi MP, organised for me by Bim Afolami MP, I had the opportunity to advise then that our students were unlikely to get an interview for an apprenticeship as they had not attained GCSE’s in English or Maths which sadly meant that at the time we spoke, 35% of our Students leaving school are automatically excluded. Within six weeks of that discussion the Level 1 & Level 2 apprenticeships had the requirement removed and it is vital that everyone involved in providing skills opportunities and education are aware of this fact so we can encourage more of our young people to aspire to a career via our needy Employers and our wonderful Colleges.

It’s a focus in this area of delivery, that will make the UK the industrious and highly productive nation which we once were.

ADRIAN HAWKINS OBE
Chairman – biz4Biz
Chairman – Hertfordshire Futures Board
Chairman – Stevenage Development Board
Chairman – Hertfordshire Skills & Employment Board

Taxing Times

Othman — Tue, 05 Aug 2025 09:04:34 +0000

Today there is a genuine concern that our benefits claimant’s volume is increasing considerably, and we believe that there is a range of reasons why this situation exists.

There is always a need for taxation to deliver a range of public services and today there are many services delivered by government. The population that works pays taxes to cover the cost of the services delivered.

With over 9 million people now claiming benefits this leaves a smaller population earning and paying taxes and this against a declining population due to falling birth rates and higher levels of immigration
numbers the overall population continues to rise.

Therefore, those that are working and paying personal taxes are taking
responsibility for the social value they create. Sadly, however there is today a greater demand for tax income by government to support society and the graph above demonstrates this,

The relevant government political party applying the rate of taxable income is shown
The continued rise in population
The level of inflation
The growth in taxation because of the tax-free levels not following average wage levels.

The second graph details the same period of time as the first with further details related to specific events, the height of employment back in the 1970’s at around the time that the taxation gap widens.

This is yet a further example of the lack of inspiration preventing aspiration.

If the government increases the tax-free limit more in keeping with reality, then there would be a much greater level of encouragement for people to work and a vast reduction in benefit payment issues.

I remember interviewing people recommended by DWP for a particular role and they would often say that they wanted a job to avoid queuing at the Benefits office every Thursday which they do not do today.

By creating an environment with a more realisable return on the effort invested, there would likely be an increased tax income and reduction in benefit claimants, and we will inspire to aspire.

ADRIAN HAWKINS OBE
Chairman – biz4Biz
Chairman – Hertfordshire Futures Board
Chairman – Stevenage Development Board
Chairman – Hertfordshire Skills & Employment Board