The House of Lords is due to debate the following motion on 1 February 2024:

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Labour) to move that this House takes note of the case for a comprehensive industrial strategy for the United Kingdom.

1. Government policy: Industrial strategy and move to a plan for growth

The most recent policy document the government formally called an industrial strategy was published by Theresa May’s government in 2017.[1] In 2021, Boris Johnson’s government announced it was replacing this strategy with a new ‘Plan for growth’. Explaining the change at the time, the government stated:

The 2017 industrial strategy set out a cross-economy approach to boost productivity. But much has changed since 2017, so it is right that we create a new framework for how we will build back better. This document details our focus on infrastructure, skills and innovation. It reflects new opportunities available to us following our exit from the European Union, opening up new ways to drive growth and supporting our vision for Global Britain. This plan also demonstrates that we will not pursue growth at the expense of the government’s wider objectives—instead we see real opportunities to boost our economic performance while levelling up across the UK and in a way that contributes to reaching net zero emissions.[2]

Subsequently, in January 2023, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt set out the current government’s plans for growth and prosperity, highlighting the importance of five key industries: digital technology, green industries, life sciences, advanced manufacturing and creative industries.[3] The government has recently referred to these plans when asked about its industrial strategy.

A brief summary of these policies is provided below.

1.1 Industrial strategy: 2017

The government’s 2017 industrial strategy sought to create an “economy that boosts productivity and earning power throughout the UK” by focusing on “five foundations” of productivity.[4] These foundations were ideas (research and innovation); people (skills, jobs and earnings); infrastructure (particularly transport, housing and digital technology); business environment (encouraging business creation and small business productivity); and places (prosperous communities, addressing disparities in regional productivity and spreading the proceeds of growth). For each of these foundations, the strategy set out a number of specific policies designed to improve the UK’s productivity. For example, it outlined plans for more research and development investment to support the ‘ideas’ foundation and increased targeted investment for digital infrastructure and businesses.[5]

In addition to these five foundations, the industrial strategy also identified four “grand challenges” facing the UK in its mission to position the UK economy “at the forefront of the industries of the future”.[6] These challenges were the artificial intelligence and data revolution; the global shift to clean growth; the future of mobility (focused on transport networks, electric vehicles and driverless cars); and an ageing society.

The government also set up an independent Industrial Strategy Council to assess and evaluate the strategy and make recommendations to government.[7] The strategy paper explained that the council would have access to government data and would be funded to evaluate projects as appropriate. It said the council would involve business people, investors, economists and academics.[8]

Speaking about the importance of the strategy, then Prime Minister Theresa May argued that it would allow long-term thinking and strategic development:

It will help young people develop the skills they need to do the high-paid, high-skilled jobs of the future. It backs our country for the long-term: creating the conditions where successful businesses can emerge and grow, and helping them to invest in the future of our nation. And it identifies the industries that are of strategic value to our economy and works to create a partnership between government and industry to nurture them. In doing so, it will help propel Britain to global leadership of the industries of the future—from artificial intelligence and big data to clean energy and self-driving vehicles.[9]

1.2 Plan for growth: 2021

As noted above, Boris Johnson’s government replaced the industrial strategy with a ‘Plan for growth’ in March 2021.[10] The plan set out the government’s strategy to support economic growth and “build back better” following the coronavirus pandemic.[11] It also said the government intended to take advantage of opportunities created by Brexit.

The plan set out three priority areas for growth:[12]

  • Level up the whole of the UK: This included plans for funding to regenerate “struggling towns” and the introduction of freeports.
  • Support the transition to net zero: This focused on investment in clean energy and net zero industries. For example, by supporting more jobs in the offshore wind sector and the carbon capture storage sector.
  • Support our vision for ‘Global Britain’: The plan mentioned the importance of cooperating with international partners and displaying an “openness to free and fair trade”, including through preferential agreements and bilateral trade relationships that can “directly expand trading opportunities for UK businesses”.

The government also said it would achieve its plan through a focus on policies across “three core pillars for growth”: infrastructure, skills and innovation. These policies included:[13]

  • Infrastructure: The plan said the government was committed to “record investment” in broadband, transport and other infrastructure funding. The government also said it would connect people to opportunities through use of the levelling up fund and the shared prosperity fund.
  • Skills: The plan said there would be increased focus on the use of apprenticeships and it committed to the introduction of a lifetime skills guarantee to “enable lifelong learning”. It also said the government would reform technical education to align post-16 learning with employer demand.
  • Innovation: The government said it would support “creative ideas” and technologies that would shape the progression of the UK economy through funding and changes in regulation. For example, the paper cited improved access to finance to “help unleash innovation”, including through reforms to address disincentives for pension funds to invest in high-growth companies and through funding programmes to support start-ups and scale-ups.

In an open letter to businesses about the move to the plan for growth, Rishi Sunak, then chancellor of the exchequer, and Kwasi Kwarteng, then secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy, explained how they believed it built upon the industrial strategy:

Creating and supporting jobs and helping to drive growth in existing, new and emerging industries is the government’s central economic focus. That is why we are transitioning the industrial strategy into our plan for growth and its related strategies.

The plan for growth builds on the best of the industrial strategy from 2017 and makes the most of our strengths right across the economy. It refreshes and goes further than ever before on critical policies and guides the government’s longer-term growth strategy as we build back better, so we can unite and level up the country, support our transition to net zero by 2050, and seize the new opportunities of a global Britain as an independent nation.[14]

The letter also said that the “best elements” of the industrial strategy would be retained. For example, it highlighted sector deals, which are partnerships between the government and industry on sector-specific issues with the aim of improving productivity, employment, innovation and skills.[15]

However, the government did disband the Industrial Strategy Council, with its last annual report being published on 23 March 2021.[16] Explaining this decision, the government stated that a new Build Back Better Business Council had been convened to support the new plan, which would bring together a broad range of business leaders.[17] This has now been superseded by the Prime Minister’s Business Council, again featuring business leaders, which the government says is focused on unlocking investment, harnessing innovation and improving access to skills and talent.[18]

1.3 Plan for growth and prosperity: 2023

In January 2023 Jeremy Hunt gave a speech setting out the current government’s vision for growth and prosperity.[19] He stressed the need to encourage enterprise, tackle poor productivity and ensure people can get into better paid jobs right across the country. He also highlighted five key growth sectors: digital technology, green industries, life sciences, advanced manufacturing, and creative industries. Mr Hunt called for investment in these sectors and said that the government was looking into how regulatory changes could better support innovation. He also stated:

If anyone is thinking of starting or investing in an innovation or technology-centred business, I want them to do it in the UK. I want the world’s tech entrepreneurs, life science innovators, and clean energy companies to come to the UK because it offers the best possible place to make their vision happen.

And if you do, we will put at your service not just British ingenuity—but British universities to fuel your innovation, Britain’s financial sector to fund it and a British government that will back you to the hilt.[20]

In June 2023, in response to a question in the House of Lords, the Earl of Minto, then minister of state in the Department for Business and Trade, referred to the growth and prosperity plan when asked about the government’s current industrial strategy.[21] Pressed on this further, he indicated that the government believed the more specialised plan was preferrable to a broader industrial strategy:

I think noble lords will agree that this is a time for specialisation rather than a single, overarching, broad strategy. By targeting specifics, such as the five key growth sectors, we can be more effective and, in this age, more agile to respond to change.[22]

He also stated that the government had announced funding in relation to the growth and prosperity plan, including a “£500 million per annum package of support for 20,000 research and development-intensive businesses and £650 million to support the UK’s life sciences sector”.[23]

In addition, on 17 November 2023, the government announced £4.5bn of funding for the manufacturing sector, often seen as a key industry in relation to a nation’s industrial strategy and development.[24] It said this funding would be available from 2025 for five years and would provide industry with longer term certainty about investment. It said the funding would be available across eight key sectors:

  • automotive
  • aerospace
  • life sciences
  • five sectors in the clean energy industry (carbon capture, utilisation and storage, electricity networks, hydrogen, nuclear, and offshore wind)

The government also said it would be accepting recommendations from Professor Dame Angela McLean’s review of the role that regulation and standards can play in driving innovation and growth in advanced manufacturing.[25] It explained:

The government accepts all 14 recommendations in the industry expert-backed report which builds on the UK’s role as a global leader in setting industrial standards and sets out how, with the right regulations, advanced manufacturing processes can enhance safety and support the drive to net zero and a more sustainable economy.[26]

2. Domestic commentary on the benefits of an industrial strategy

In a report published in 2020, Giles Wilkes, who served in business adviser roles under Theresa May and Vince Cable (former Liberal Democrat leader) discussed the role and importance of an industrial strategy. He explained that industrial strategies are best used to plan or design policies and interventions to achieve “a desired end-goal relevant to the economy”.[27] He highlighted a 2012 quote by Vince Cable:

The government shapes the British economy with its decisions every day. It makes many decisions about skills and universities, on research, on technologies, and on infrastructure. Through what it buys, and how it goes about buying it, the regulations that exist, the markets it oversees, and tax policy. All of these send messages to the economy. We can have an industrial strategy by default or design. Ignoring this reality is not a policy—it is just negligence.[28]

Speaking about how industrial strategies or policies can be applied, Mr Wilkes contended that different parts of the economy often required different approaches, with some benefiting more from the “free play of market forces” and others requiring a higher level of state involvement.[29] However, he accepted that the case for having a formal overarching industrial strategy was always a political choice of the time, and there would be “winners and losers”:

Ultimately, to pursue any course of economic intervention is a political choice. Success is not guaranteed. There will be winners and losers, and the kind of outcomes pursued invariably reflect the political preferences of the government in charge.[30]

Writing about this more recently in May 2023, Giles Wilkes questioned whether the current government had a defined industrial strategy.[31] On the one hand, he noted comments from the chancellor asserting that the government did, and that this linked to the government’s growth plans and focus on improving regulations to help industry. However, on the other hand, Mr Wilkes highlighted the closure of the Industrial Strategy Council, lack of a formal policy document, and the dismantling of the former Department of Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy to form three new departments (the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Department for Business and Trade).

Mr Wilkes also noted the government had received criticism from three former business secretaries for failing to get behind a defined strategy and the resultant issues this could cause for British businesses:

[Greg Clark, a former Conservative business secretary] is one of three to criticise Rishi Sunak for failing to get behind the agenda; the others, Sir Vince Cable (2010–15) and Lord Peter Mandelson [Labour] (2008–10), each tried to promote a strategy, only to find a change in government undo their efforts. As a result, business has been confused, incentives towards long-term investment undermined, and key economic capabilities allowed to wither.[32]

Although Mr Wilkes accepted that the government will have some form of industrial strategy by definition, he argued that the current landscape, in view of moves to net zero and the actions of other countries, required a more formalised approach and less of a reliance on natural market shifts:

Too much time is wasted on the semantics of industrial strategy; often it is allowed to be defined by its antagonists, who portray it as an impossible attempt to second-guess millions of market signals. The truth is that every government has a strategy, either consciously or not, through act or through omission. Government actions influence the economy in many ways. Sometimes it is pointless to try to design these actions with some economic goal in mind but, at others, the scale of structural change is too significant for it to be treated blithely. Now is such a time, in particular because of the gigantic investments and regulatory acts that will characterise the transition to net zero. That its major trading partners think so forces the UK’s hand too. The UK will need to develop new capabilities and skills for this transition, identify where it stands to benefit from taking a leading role, and recognise gaps in its capacity. Hoping that market signals alone will prove sufficient would indicate too much faith in the “oversimplified market efficiency” that Jake Sullivan [national security adviser to US President Joe Biden] attacks.[33]

Writing for the Bennett Institute for Public Policy in 2021, academics Dame Diane Coyle and Adam Muhtar made similar points about the need for a centralised and focused long-term approach to industrial strategy and policy in light of “looming societal challenges”.[34] They characterised UK industrial policy as a complex mix of policies managed by a range of UK institutions and bodies.[35] As a result, they argued this led to a lack of coordination and consistency in UK industrial policy, ultimately resulting in ineffective evaluation of what was working and more short-term policy decisions based on political pressure. For example, they claimed that:

The imbalance of signals from objective analysis versus politics has led to the UK being locked in a constant cycle of premature policy changes with little space to allow for the integration and maturation of policy delivery mechanisms.[36]

One solution they put forward to address this issue was the introduction of an independent oversight body to evaluate policies and provide guidance:

At a minimum, the UK needs an independent oversight body to evaluate the efficacy of its industrial policies. Although this solution would not craft policies per se, the provision of independent scrutiny would deliver credible and actionable information to Parliament and guidance for future policies. Conferring statutory status (in contrast to the Industrial Strategy Council) would be crucial to provide sufficient institutional longevity.[37]

In May 2023, Make UK, a body representing the manufacturing industry, published its ideas for an industrial strategy, also claiming that the lack of a formal strategy was damaging to the UK regionally and internationally:

A lack of a proper, planned, industrial strategy is the UK’s Achilles heel. Every other major economy, from Germany, to China, to the US, has a long-term national manufacturing plan, underlying the importance of an industrial base to the success of its wider economy. The UK is the only country to not have one. If we are to not only tackle our regional inequality, but also compete on a global stage, a national manufacturing plan is required.[38]

Make UK also claimed that:[39]

  • 99% of manufacturers backed the need for an industrial strategy
  • six in 10 believed the lack of a strategy was one factor affecting growth in the manufacturing industry
  • 87% said a strategy would give their business better long-term vision
  • seven in 10 wanted skills to be a core focus on the strategy

Alongside more focused recommendations for what Make UK believed should be in the strategy, both in terms of current needs and policies for longer term development, the organisation called for the industrial strategy council to be reconvened, the Cabinet Office to be made accountable for ensuring “whole-of-government coordination and implementation” of a strategy, and for a royal commission to be established to agree upon priorities for the strategy.[40] On the latter point, it explained:

[The government should] establish a Royal Commission on Industrial Strategy to determine a cross-party consensus on future priorities and ambitions for the manufacturing sector and wider economy and society, and to then agree aims and objectives that the state regards as strategically important markers of success. The royal commission should determine, as a first priority, the UK’s offensive and defensive priorities for future trade deals. These would then be used to inform wider industrial strategy planning. Such an industrial strategy should include growth targets and timeframes but also whether to prioritise horizontal or vertical approaches to industrial development and it should set responsibilities for delivery for both the private and public sectors.[41]

In an article published in September 2023, the London School of Economics and Political Science and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment argued for the importance of the UK pursuing industrial policies targeting green growth.[42] It claimed that other countries were now “racing ahead” with their transitions to a green economy, and criticised recent government announcements for “weakening” commitments in this area. It called for a range of policy levers to be utilised to improve the UK’s position:

[The] UK’s response must be tailored to its unique context: targeted towards technologies where the UK has or must have strengths; operating within its smaller economy and under significant fiscal constraints; and a greater political ability (in comparison with the US) to use regulatory levers and carbon pricing at the national level. Key short-term priorities should include removing policy barriers to investment (eg planning restrictions), making full tax deductibility of capital investment permanent, and considering where to enhance tax incentives for net zero-aligned investments—or using government levers to de-risk them.

Stronger institutions surrounding growth policy (eg a new national growth board) can help to ensure the longevity of such green industrial policies as part of a broader growth strategy, drawing inspiration from other areas of policy—for example, the climate change committee, which provides advice and reports on progress towards net zero. Such structures will provide investors with confidence to make the long-term investments that are needed for sustainable growth and give citizens a clear vision for the UK’s potential over the next decade.[43]

It said that such policies needed to be “woven into a lasting and coordinated UK growth strategy, along with policies to ensure that costs and benefits are shared”, to achieve UK net zero commitments and to restore the UK’s stalling productivity growth.

The Labour Party set out its own proposals for an industrial strategy in 2022: ‘Prosperity through partnership: Labour’s industrial strategy’. The strategy document outlined the importance of long-term planning to aid businesses, and said that Labour’s “defining mission” if it wins the next general election would be to restore growth.[44] It called the strategy document a starting point, which would be built upon through further discussion with businesses. However, key points outlined in the strategy document included:[45]

  • The need for a coordinated, cross-sectoral approach to the strategy. The document explained that this recognised that different sectors of the economy interlink and that a successful strategy depended on “policy consistency, so that businesses and individuals can make long-term decisions and investments”.
  • The industrial strategy council would be placed on a statutory footing. It said that this would help to ensure long-term policy decisions that were less impacted by political change.
  • It would be based on four missions: “delivering clean power by 2030; harnessing data for the public good; caring for the future; and building a more resilient economy”.

3. Analysis of the use of industrial policies by other countries

The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have both claimed that industrial strategies or targeted industrial policies have grown in prominence globally in recent years, both in terms of discussion of the topic and their prevalence and use. Considering why this might be, the CEPR argued that it could be linked to the current economic challenges facing countries across the world:

This renewed interest comes as governments seek effective tools and strategies to promote economic development and address new challenges, from supply chain risks to national security and climate change.[46]

Looking into this further, the CEPR analysed information on the make-up of new industrial policies (IPs) being employed by various countries. It defined IPs as “targeted government intervention aimed at developing or supporting specific domestic firms, industries, or economic activities to achieve national economic or noneconomic (eg security, environmental) objectives”.[47] The CEPR found that:

  • Industrial policy activity has featured significantly in the world’s largest economies, with China, the EU, and the US accounting for 48% of the measures. The CEPR also noted higher prevalence of such measures in advanced economies than in emerging markets and developing economies in 2023.
  • The CEPR found that the main reason for introducing IPs was “promoting competitiveness”. However, it noted that other “non-economic” factors were also becoming more prominent, including motivations related to climate change, supply chain resilience, and national security or geopolitical tensions.
  • The CEPR also found 71% of the policies could be considered trade-distorting (for example, taxes or actions that might impact the price of or value of trade in certain goods or services).

The OECD carried out similar analysis, which it based on the composition of industrial policies in participating countries (including the UK) across 2019 to 2021.[48] It reported the following:[49]

  • Countries spent an average of 1.4% of GDP on industrial policies through grants and tax expenditures (for example, tax measures and reliefs aimed at supporting businesses or industries).
  • Industrial strategies were dominated by a sectoral approach. On average, sectoral policies represented almost 30% of industrial policy grants and tax expenditures, “much more than industrial policies with a ‘green’, ‘jobs and skills’ or ‘SMEs and young firms’ component”. It also found that industrial policies focused on digital transition only accounted for around 3% of grants and tax expenditures.
  • Sectoral support primarily targeted energy, transport and manufacturing. It found that support targeting the energy sector was mostly provided through green grants, with this “representing a key role in the industrial strategies of Italy, Denmark and France”. It also found that support for the manufacturing sector was highest in France, mainly through grants covering energy costs.
  • Approaches varied considerably across countries. For example, the OECD found that “34% of grants and tax expenditures [were] green in Denmark vs less than 1% in Ireland; 35% [were] related to jobs and skills in France vs less than 1% in Israel”.
  • Green focused interventions rose in most countries across the period. The OECD stated that all countries signalled a commitment to continue this trend. It also said that “green grants are particularly driven by instruments supporting the production of renewable electricity in the energy sector and specific technologies (eg wind turbines)”. However, it found that support to reduce process emissions or the use of fossil fuels in the transport and manufacturing sectors were less prevalent.

4. Statistics on UK industry

The following graph shows economic output by industry (measured in terms of gross value added (GVA)) for 2022. It is displayed both in monetary terms and as a percentage of total GVA.

Figure 1. GVA contribution by each industry: 2022

Figure 1 shows GVA contribution by UK industries in 2022. Real estate, wholesale and retail, and manufacturing top the list.
Office for National Statistics, ‘GDP output approach: Low-level aggregates’, 22 December 2023

The top performing industry was real estate, which contributed £272bn to the UK’s GVA, 12.4% of the total. The second highest performing sector was retail and wholesale, contributing 10.4% of GVA, with manufacturing in third with 9.3% of GVA. Taken together, the top three sectors contributed around 32% of GVA, with the top six sectors making up nearly half of the GVA total.

Looking at this over time, figure 2 shows how the top six industries in terms of proportion of GVA contribution have performed over the last 20 years. It shows a significant fall in GVA contribution for the manufacturing industry, which fell from around 13% of GVA contribution in 2002 to around 9% in 2022. The real estate sector was the top performing sector for GVA contribution across the whole period.

Figure 2. Proportion of GVA contribution by the top six industries: 2002–2022

Figure 2 displays percentage contribution to GVA by the top six industries between 2002 and 2022. It shows a significant decline for manufacturing. Whereas sectors such as professional and scientific and health and social care have displayed a steady increase.
Office for National Statistics, ‘GDP output approach: Low-level aggregates’, 22 December 2023

In terms of jobs, figure 3 details jobs by sector as a percentage of the workforce. It shows that health and social work, and wholesale and retail, employ the largest proportions of workers, with around 13% of the workforce each. Manufacturing and construction rank seventh and eighth, with 7% and 6% respectively. Real estate, which was the top performing industry for GVA contributions, only employs about 2% of the total workforce.

Figure 3. Workforce jobs by industry (as percentage of total jobs): September 2023

Figure 3 shows workforce jobs by industry. The top five are: health and social work, wholesale and retail, professional scientific and technical, administrative, and education
Office for National Statistics, ‘JOBS02: Workforce jobs by industry’, 12 December 2023

Finally, figure 4 uses OECD data to compare the performance of the UK’s manufacturing sector, in terms of percentage contribution to GVA, with that of other G7 countries since 2000. It shows that the UK’s manufacturing sector performed worst on this measure across most of the period in comparison with other G7 nations. This was despite falls in the contribution of the manufacturing sector among a number of the other countries (for example, Canada, the US and France). The two countries with the best performing manufacturing sector on this measure were Germany and Japan, with their sectors contributing over 20% of GVA in most years.

Figure 4. GVA contribution by manufacturing sector across G7 countries: 2000–2022

figure 4 uses OECD data to compare the performance of the UK’s manufacturing sector, in terms of percentage contribution to GVA, with that of other G7 countries since 2000. It shows that the UK’s manufacturing sector performed worst on this measure across most of the period in comparison with other G7 nations.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ‘Value added by activity’, accessed 23 January 2024

However, the UK’s finance and professional services sectors performed well on the GVA measure when compared to other countries. For example, according to the OECD statistics, from 2004 the UK’s financial services and insurance sector had the largest contribution to GVA among the G7 countries.[50] In addition, as shown in figure 5, the UK overtook Germany and the US across the period when looking at the GVA performance of the professional, scientific and support services sector (this includes legal services, accountancy, engineering, science-focused jobs, etc).

Figure 5. GVA contribution by professional, scientific and support services sector across G7 countries: 2000–2022

Figure 5 shows the UK overtook Germany and the US across the period when looking at the GVA performance of the professional, scientific and support services sector (this includes legal services, accountancy, engineering, science-focused jobs, etc)
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ‘Value added by activity’, accessed 23 January 2024

Additional statistics on the UK’s manufacturing and production sectors can be found in the following Office for National Statistics publications:

5. Read more

Cover image by Rob Lambert on Unsplash


  1. HM Government, ‘Industrial strategy: Building a Britain fit for the future’, 2017, Cm 9528. Return to text
  2. HM Treasury, ‘Build back better: Our plan for growth’, March 2021, CP 401, p 20. Return to text
  3. HM Treasury, ‘Chancellor sets out long-term vision to grow the economy’, 27 January 2023. Return to text
  4. HM Government, ‘Industrial strategy: Building a Britain fit for the future’, 27 November 2017, Cm 9528, p 10. Return to text
  5. As above, p 11. Return to text
  6. As above, p 10. Return to text
  7. As above, p 29. Return to text
  8. Further information can be found on the council’s website: ‘Industrial Strategy Council’, accessed 18 January 2024. Return to text
  9. As above, p 5. Return to text
  10. HM Treasury, ‘Build back better: Our plan for growth’, March 2021, CP 401. Return to text
  11. As above, p 12. Return to text
  12. As above, p 14. Return to text
  13. As above, p 13. Return to text
  14. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and HM Treasury, ‘Letter from Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng to businesses on the government’s Plan for Growth’, 30 March 2021. Return to text
  15. Department for Business and Trade, ‘Sector deals’, 28 June 2019. Return to text
  16. Industrial Strategy Council, ‘Industrial Strategy Council annual report 2021’, 23 March 2021. Return to text
  17. House of Lords, ‘Written question: Industrial Strategy Council (HL14356)’, 31 March 2021. Return to text
  18. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘Prime Minister’s Business Council’, 28 July 2023. Return to text
  19. HM Treasury, ‘Chancellor sets out long-term vision to grow the economy’, 27 January 2023. Return to text
  20. As above. Return to text
  21. HL Hansard, 20 June 2023, col 93. Return to text
  22. HL Hansard, 20 June 2023, col 93. Return to text
  23. HL Hansard, 20 June 2023, col 93. Return to text
  24. HM Treasury, ‘Billions of investment for British manufacturing to boost economic growth’, 17 November 2023. Return to text
  25. HM Treasury, ‘Pro-innovation regulation of technologies review: Advanced manufacturing’, 17 November 2023. Return to text
  26. HM Treasury, ‘Billions of investment for British manufacturing to boost economic growth’, 17 November 2023. Return to text
  27. Institute for Government, ‘How to design a successful industrial strategy’, December 2020, p 12. Return to text
  28. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, ‘Industrial strategy: Cable outlines vision for future of British industry’, 11 September 2012. Return to text
  29. Institute for Government, ‘How to design a successful industrial strategy’, December 2020, p 12. Return to text
  30. As above, p 15. Return to text
  31. Institute for Government, ‘Rishi Sunak should drop his apologetic approach to an industrial strategy’, 23 May 2023. Return to text
  32. As above. Return to text
  33. As above. Return to text
  34. Diane Coyle and Adam Muhtar, ‘UK’s industrial policy: Learning from the past?’, Bennett Institute for Public Policy, October 2021, p 25. Return to text
  35. As above, pp 11–12. Return to text
  36. As above, p 25. Return to text
  37. As above, p 20. Return to text
  38. Make UK, ‘Industrial strategy: A manufacturing ambition’, May 2023, p 23. Return to text
  39. As above, pp 5–6. Return to text
  40. As above, p 7. Return to text
  41. As above. Return to text
  42. London School of Economics and Political Science and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, ‘The UK should lead on a green industrial strategy—not roll back’, 20 September 2023. Return to text
  43. As above. Return to text
  44. Labour Party, ‘Prosperity through partnership: Labour’s industrial strategy’, 2022, p 5. Return to text
  45. As above, p 6. Return to text
  46. Centre for Economic Policy Research, ‘The return of industrial policy in data’, 11 January 2024. Return to text
  47. As above. Return to text
  48. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ‘Quantifying industrial strategies across nine OECD countries’, 2023. Return to text
  49. As above, p 6. Return to text
  50. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ‘Value added by activity’, accessed 23 January 2024. Return to text