What Every Business Leader Should Know About AI in Customer Service

Othman — Fri, 29 May 2026 13:53:38 +0000

Customer expectations have never been higher, and the tolerance for poor service has never been lower. As business owners, we’re seeing this shift unfold in real time: customers now expect instant, accurate, and personalised responses at any hour and across every channel. The pressure to deliver is considerable, and artificial intelligence has moved from being one option for meeting that pressure to becoming the baseline expectation. For any leader who has not yet established a clear, strategic position on AI in customer service, the window for deliberation is closing rapidly.

The Evidence Is Clear: AI Is Becoming the Standard
The scale of AI adoption in customer service is significant, and its trajectory makes the trend impossible to ignore. The AI customer service market value reached $12 billion in 2024 but is projected to reach $47.8 billion by 2030, a compound annual growth rate of 25.8%. Growth of that magnitude does not occur without tangible business results driving it. Gartner projects that 80 % of customer service and support organisations will use Agentic Generative AI to improve customer service productivity and the overall customer experience.

The Return on Investment Justifies the Enthusiasm
According to International Data Corporation (IDC) early-adopter companies report an average return of $3.50 for every $1 invested in AI customer service, and leading organisations are achieving as much as 8x ROI. For any executive evaluating technology investments, figures of that order warrant serious attention.

Perhaps the most revealing indicator is what happens operationally once AI is deployed. With AI-powered support, first response times for customer enquiries have fallen from more than six hours to under four minutes, and in some cases resolution times have been reduced from over 30 hours to just 30 minutes. These are transformational improvements.

The Human-AI Partnership: A Strategic Advantage
One of the most persistent misconceptions encountered among business leaders is the belief that deploying AI in customer service means replacing their people. The data tells a more nuanced and far more encouraging story. The most competitive organisations are not choosing between humans and AI, they are combining the two strategically.

According to Zendesk’s 2025 CX Trends report, 79% of customer-service (“CS”) team members say that having an AI copilot improves their ability to deliver excellent service. That shows a workforce more empowered by technology than threatened by it. Generative AI is already improving efficiency through case summaries and email drafting, with innovative teams CS reporting an 80% reduction in the time required to produce a case summary and productivity gains of 10-20%.

ISG (Information Security Group) notes that, while AI delivers substantial efficiency gains, 75% of customers still prefer human agents for complex issues. The most successful companies therefore use AI for speed with resolving low complexity cases, and rely on people for nuanced responses to escalated ones. The AI permits focussed attention by team members where it is needed.

That hybrid model is the competitive advantage. Leaders who recognise this will build service operations that are both leaner and more empathetic than their purely human or purely automated counterparts.

From Reactive to Proactive: The New Service Paradigm
AI is not simply accelerating how quickly your team responds, it is fundamentally changing when and how you engage with customers. The shift from reactive ticket management to proactive, intelligence-driven service is one of the most significant strategic opportunities available to customer experience leaders today.

Zendesk’s 2025 research finds that 90% of leading CS departments expect AI and automation to soon resolve 8/10 customer issues without human intervention, and the pathway to that future is already being built. Reactive ticket queues are becoming the minimum standard, the current playbook is to anticipate issues and intervene early, guided by signals drawn from product telemetry, billing anomalies, and conversation trends.

AI-powered systems have produced a 31.5 percent increase in customer satisfaction scores and a 24.8 percent improvement in customer retention, clear gains in both experience and loyalty. For a business leader focused on lifetime customer value, those figures represent a direct line to revenue, not merely cost savings.

McKinsey’s State of AI 2025 reinforces this point, noting that organisations using AI to drive growth and innovation are more likely to report improved customer satisfaction, competitive differentiation, profitability, and revenue growth. The highest-performing organisations are not using AI beyond just reducing costs: they are using it to grow.

Where Implementations Go Wrong
Understanding the opportunity is only half the equation. As a leader, I would be doing you a disservice if I did not acknowledge where organisations stumble. Implementation quality is decisive. The principal risks are over-automation, poor integration, an incomplete knowledge base, the loss of the human touch, and data privacy concerns. 44% of organisations have learned through negative consequences — most often from rushing implementation without adequate planning.

While 88% of enterprise contact centres use AI in some capacity, <25% have fully integrated automation into their daily workflows, and that gap separates the businesses extracting real value from those still experimenting. Implementation approach matters more than technology selection. The organisations achieving exceptional returns concentrate on narrow use cases, deep integration, and production-grade infrastructure – thoroughly tested before releasing to customers.

The lessons are clear: Begin with a defined problem not a technology; Identify the interactions that are high in volume, low in complexity, and high in frustration for both your customers and your team and build from there.

About the Author
Othman Rafay is a Cybersecurity Consultant and Advisor managing enterprise risk across the public and private sectors. His track record includes directing security strategies and corporate alignment for FTSE 100 and NYSE corporations, routinely advising C-suite executives and senior management on transforming digital threats into commercial business metrics. Additionally, he provides governance and board-level oversight for SMEs in Non-Executive Director (NED) and Board Observer capacities.

OTHMAN RAFAY
Associate

Brexit boosts business – Business Builds Britain

Othman — Fri, 22 May 2026 14:37:29 +0000

Brexit remains one of the most contested political decisions in modern British history, yet the economic record since the 2016 referendum provides a credible defence of the decision to leave the European Union.

Average annual UK exports before the referendum stood at approximately $710 billion. In the decade following the vote, that figure rose to roughly $899 billion per year, despite the severe disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. While critics often highlight individual trade frictions, the broader picture suggests that Britain retained its position as a major global trading nation outside the EU.

Before Brexit, approximately 46% of UK exports went to the European Union. In the years following Brexit, that proportion declined to around 41%, reflecting a diversification of British trade toward global markets beyond Europe. At the same time, total exports still increased overall in monetary value, particularly in services such as finance, technology, legal expertise, and consulting.

Imports also followed a similar pattern. Average annual UK imports rose from approximately $820 billion before Brexit to around $1.01 trillion afterward. Prior to Brexit, around 53–55% of imports came from the EU, whereas post-Brexit this reduced to approximately 48–50%. Although the EU remained Britain’s largest trading partner, the UK increasingly sourced goods and services from the United States, Asia, and emerging international markets.

Supporters of closer EU alignment, including Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham, have increasingly argued for rebuilding stronger institutional ties with Europe, while critics suspect Sir Keir Starmer’s government is gradually steering Britain back toward EU structures. Much of the political argument now centres on practical inconveniences such as passport queues, travel friction, and mobility restrictions. These concerns are genuine, but they are relatively minor when weighed against the constitutional issue that motivated many Brexit voters: democratic accountability and the right for the UK Parliament to control laws, borders, and trade policy independently.

Brexit has not been without shortcomings. Smaller exporters have faced additional bureaucracy, some industries experienced labour shortages, and trade with the EU became administratively more complex. However, opponents often overlook that the UK economy simultaneously expanded service exports, strengthened trade relationships beyond Europe, and demonstrated resilience during one of the most difficult global economic periods in generations.

The central Brexit argument was never simply about convenience. It was about sovereignty, national decision-making, and long-term flexibility. Measured against those objectives, and alongside the continued strength of UK exports and imports, there remains a strong case that leaving the European Union was the correct decision for Britain.

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

When Parliament Sits on Saturday: A Nation Under Pressure

Othman — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:47:50 +0000

“The United States was the greatest industrial Power in the world, and we were the second. Germany was only the third.”
— Winston Churchill, Their Finest Hour

Churchill’s reflection was not a boast—it was a strategic diagnosis. In 1940, with Britain standing alone, he understood that wars are not won merely by courage or tactics, but by furnaces, mills, and output. Steel was not just an industry; it was the bloodstream of national survival.

That is why Saturday sittings of Parliament matter. They are rare interruptions to constitutional routine, reserved for moments when the nation confronts something urgent, structural, and potentially irreversible. When Parliament is recalled on a Saturday, it is an admission that time has run out—that decisions deferred have become decisions forced.

The recent Saturday recall to address control of British steel places industrial capacity back where Churchill always believed it belonged: at the centre of national security. Steel underpins everything from defence procurement to infrastructure resilience. Without domestic capability, sovereignty becomes conditional—dependent on supply chains that may not hold under stress.

Yet this raises an uncomfortable question: why now?

The decline of British steelmaking has not been sudden. It has been visible for decades—through plant closures, foreign ownership, shrinking capacity, and rising energy costs. Successive governments have understood, at least in principle, that steel is strategic. And yet intervention has come only at the point of crisis, when blast furnaces face extinction and emergency legislation becomes necessary.

This pattern is not unique to steel. It echoes across energy policy. Coal was phased out with little regard for strategic reserve. Oil production in the North Sea has declined without a clear replacement framework. Gas storage has at times been reduced to minimal levels compared with European counterparts. In each case, long-term resilience has been subordinated to short-term economics or environmental positioning, only for vulnerabilities to emerge later under pressure.

The danger is not transition—it is unmanaged transition. A modern economy can decarbonise and still maintain strategic capacity. But that requires foresight, investment, and a willingness to treat certain industries not as market commodities, but as national assets.

Saturday sittings, then, are symptoms as much as solutions. They reveal a system that can act decisively—but often only when compelled by urgency. Churchill’s insight was that industrial strength must be cultivated before crisis, not improvised during it.

If steel has now been recognised as essential to UK security, the question is whether that lesson will be applied more broadly. Energy, like steel, is foundational. Without secure, scalable, and domestically anchored supply—whether in gas, electricity, or future fuels—the same vulnerabilities will reappear in different forms.

The real test is whether Britain moves from reactive intervention to strategic continuity. Otherwise, the Saturday recall risks becoming not an exception—but a pattern.

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

The National Living Wage: A Cost-Free Political Gesture?

Othman — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:45:33 +0000

The annual announcement of the UK’s National Living Wage has become a familiar political ritual: a headline-grabbing figure, a promise of fairness, and a reaffirmation that government is “on the side of working people.” Yet, placed in proper perspective, these yearly adjustments reveal as much about political incentives as they do about economic necessity.

The minimum wage was first introduced in 1999 on the 1^st of April and the rate set at that time was £3.60 per hour which, in real value terms should be £7.20 per hour today, but from the 1^st of April 2026 is now £12.21 per hour.

At its core, raising the minimum wage is one of the few policies that allows governments to project action without directly spending public money. Unlike large-scale public investment or tax reform, increasing the wage floor shifts the burden onto employers. For ministers, this creates an appealing dynamic: they can claim credit for improving living standards while avoiding immediate fiscal cost. In a political environment where budgets are constrained and scrutiny is intense, this is a low-risk, high-visibility intervention.

However, the question remains: what framework determines these annual increases? Officially, the government relies on recommendations from the Low Pay Commission, which draws on labour market data, economic forecasts, and consultation with businesses and unions. In theory, this is a technocratic, evidence-based process balancing wage growth with employment stability. Metrics such as median earnings, productivity trends, and inflation all play a role.

In practice, the picture is less clear-cut. The headline ambition in recent years—to raise the National Living Wage to a set percentage of median earnings—has introduced a more politically defined target. While this provides a simple benchmark, it is not a law of economics. Median earnings themselves fluctuate with broader conditions, and tying minimum wage policy to them risks circularity: the benchmark moves as the outcome changes. Moreover, productivity growth—the traditional anchor for sustainable wage increases—has remained relatively weak in the UK. This raises legitimate questions about how far wage floors can rise without unintended consequences for hiring, hours, or prices.

The timing and presentation of these announcements also suggest a strong political dimension. Annual increases are often framed as evidence of a government delivering tangible benefits to “working families,” a phrase that resonates across electoral demographics. Yet the reality is more nuanced. Not all workers benefit equally; younger workers, the self-employed, and those in insecure employment may see little direct impact. Meanwhile, businesses—particularly small firms—absorb higher labour costs, which can feed through into higher prices or reduced staffing flexibility.

None of this is to argue that minimum wage increases are misguided. On the contrary, the UK’s wage floor has risen significantly in real terms since its introduction, contributing to reduced extreme low pay. But the simplicity of the policy can obscure its limits. It does not address deeper structural issues such as regional inequality, housing costs, or stagnant productivity. Nor does it substitute for a broader economic strategy.

Ultimately, the National Living Wage sits at the intersection of economics and politics. It is informed by data but shaped by narrative. It improves incomes for many, but at a cost borne elsewhere in the system. And while governments present each increase as a decisive intervention, it is also a reminder of how much of economic life remains beyond the reach of annual announcements.

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

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

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