A company deciding where to manufacture will consider energy prices, wages, taxation, transport, skills and the cost of investing in machinery.

If manufacturing in Britain is significantly more expensive than manufacturing abroad, companies will often choose to produce elsewhere.

British manufacturers identify energy costs, skills shortages, investment conditions and business costs as major barriers to growth.

I would concentrate on five measures.

Manufacturing industries such as steel, chemicals, glass and ceramics consume substantial amounts of energy.

The UK needs:

More reliable and affordable industrial electricity.
Long-term energy contracts that allow manufacturers to plan.
Faster connections to the electricity grid.
Targeted support for energy-intensive industries, linked to investment and productivity.

The recent shutdown of chemical plants in Hull, with their owners citing energy costs, illustrates the problem.

Many manufacturers need modern equipment to compete internationally.

I would introduce a predictable, long-term investment framework offering:

Tax relief for new machinery and production equipment.
Support for factory automation and robotics.
Grants for smaller manufacturers upgrading outdated equipment.
Incentives for companies bringing production back to Britain.

The objective should be to increase productivity rather than simply subsidise existing operations.

Planning delays, grid connections and infrastructure constraints can discourage investment.

A manufacturing investment programme should identify suitable industrial sites with access to transport, power, water and skilled labour.

Businesses should be able to establish or expand facilities without facing years of avoidable delays.

A manufacturer is more likely to invest in Britain if its suppliers are also based here.

We should identify products that Britain currently imports in large quantities but could realistically manufacture competitively.

These might include:

Industrial machinery and components.
Electrical equipment.
Pharmaceuticals and medical equipment.
Aerospace components.
Advanced materials.
Agricultural and food-processing machinery.

The aim should be to develop competitive domestic supply chains, not to manufacture everything domestically regardless of cost.

Government spending on infrastructure, defence, transport and healthcare can create predictable demand for British manufacturers.

Public contracts could be designed to encourage domestic production, skills development and resilient supply chains, while respecting trade obligations and ensuring value for taxpayers.

You mentioned the massive cost of the benefits system.

I think it is important to distinguish between people who cannot work, people who are temporarily out of work and people who could work but are not doing so.

A manufacturing revival would need to make employment more accessible and financially worthwhile.

I would consider the following measures.

The benefits system should ensure that people are better off taking a job than remaining out of work, while protecting those who genuinely cannot work.

This requires examining how quickly benefits are withdrawn as earnings increase.

A poorly designed system can leave people with little additional income when they take a job or increase their hours.

For people who are able to work, employment support could be more closely linked to actual vacancies.

For example:

Identify local manufacturing employers with vacancies.
Assess the skills required.
Provide short, practical training courses.
Offer interviews or apprenticeships.
Support the transition into sustained employment.

This would be more useful than training people for qualifications that have little connection to available jobs.

A fair system needs to recognise that some people face disabilities, illness or caring responsibilities.

At the same time, people who are capable of working should receive clear expectations and meaningful support to find employment.

The objective should be more people in sustainable employment, not simply fewer people receiving benefits.

You raised an important point about education and manufacturing.

For decades, many young people have been encouraged to pursue academic qualifications, while vocational and technical education has often received less attention.

But modern manufacturing requires highly skilled people.

It needs engineers, technicians, electricians, machinists, maintenance specialists, software developers and production managers.

The problem is not that young people are inherently lazy. It is that the education system, employers and the labour market do not always provide a clear route from school into a skilled industrial career.

A recent Make UK report found that skills shortages were a major constraint on manufacturers' growth, with many businesses concerned that the education system was not supplying the skills they needed.

Introduce stronger technical education from age 14.

Students should be able to explore engineering, electronics, robotics, computing and manufacturing alongside traditional academic subjects.

Expand apprenticeships.

Young people should be able to earn a wage while learning a skilled trade or technical occupation.

Create local technical colleges linked to employers.

Courses should be designed around the actual needs of nearby manufacturers.

Give technical careers equal status to university education.

A skilled manufacturing technician should be seen as having a valuable, respected career.

Make employers responsible for developing talent.

Companies receiving substantial public support could be expected to contribute to apprenticeships and workforce training.

The government has already identified advanced manufacturing and technical skills as priorities within its industrial strategy. The challenge is ensuring that these plans translate into opportunities for young people and employers.

This is perhaps the most difficult part of the problem.

Over several decades, companies have moved production to countries where labour, energy, components or other costs were lower.

Some manufacturing has also been lost because of automation, changing demand and international competition.

Simply telling companies to return production to Britain will not work.

Instead, I would pursue a targeted reshoring strategy.

Britain should focus on industries where it has a realistic opportunity to compete, rather than trying to recreate every type of mass production.

I would bring these policies together under a long-term programme with measurable targets.

The programme would have five elements.

Government support should be conditional on measurable outcomes wherever appropriate.

For example, companies receiving substantial grants could be required to demonstrate additional investment, training, production or productivity improvements.

Support should be reviewed regularly, with funding withdrawn where agreed objectives are not met.

This is where your concern about benefits becomes particularly relevant.

A manufacturing strategy would require public investment, but it could also increase tax revenues and reduce some forms of welfare expenditure if it creates sustainable employment.

However, manufacturing growth would not automatically pay for the entire benefits system.

There would be a transition period during which investment costs would arise before the full economic benefits were realised.

I would therefore consider three funding sources:

Redirecting some existing business support towards manufacturing investment and skills.
Encouraging private investment through stable tax and regulatory arrangements.
Providing targeted public funding for infrastructure, training and strategically important industries.

The government would need to assess the costs and benefits carefully rather than assume that every subsidised factory would generate a net financial return.

I would measure progress using practical outcomes rather than simply announcing how much money had been allocated.

For example:

Growth in manufacturing output and productivity.
The number of new manufacturing facilities established.
The number of skilled manufacturing jobs created.
The number of apprentices completing training and entering employment.
Growth in domestic production of strategically important goods.
The amount of private investment attracted.
Changes in the cost of industrial energy.
The reduction in long-term unemployment in areas targeted for regeneration.

The manufacturers' own trade body, Make UK, has called for clearer measures of investment, productivity, job creation and innovation to assess whether industrial policy is delivering results.

I believe the central question is this:

How do we make Britain a country where manufacturing companies want to invest, young people want to develop industrial skills, and working in manufacturing offers a worthwhile career?

That requires more than reducing benefits or offering subsidies to businesses.

It requires a coordinated approach to energy, education, investment, infrastructure and employment.

There is also a difficult trade-off: protecting existing jobs and industries can sometimes conflict with the need to modernise and become more productive.

The objective should be to create a manufacturing sector that can compete internationally, pay sustainable wages and generate lasting economic value.

There are two different ways Britain could approach this:

Option 1 - Rebuild traditional manufacturing: Focus on factories producing steel, machinery, vehicles, chemicals, textiles and other physical goods, creating large numbers of industrial jobs.

Option 2 - Build advanced manufacturing: Focus on robotics, automation, advanced materials, pharmaceuticals, aerospace and other high-value industries, with fewer but generally more specialised jobs.

Or a combination of the two, using advanced technology to rebuild a broad manufacturing base and create employment for people with a range of skills?