Author Archives: GK Strategy

A new UK Prime Minister, potentially a new Energy Secretary – another hydrogen delay?

The ongoing conflict between the US and Iran and the disruption to oil and liquefied natural gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz have reinforced the importance of energy security and independence. Against this backdrop of heightened geopolitical uncertainty, reports suggest that Prime Minister-in-waiting Andy Burnham may be more open to new North Sea oil and gas developments. This could include a potential expansion of the Rosebank oil field (the UK’s largest undeveloped oil field) and the Jackdaw gas field (one of the largest undeveloped gas fields in the North Sea), while also accelerating the deployment of advanced clean energy technologies.

Increasingly recognised as a key part of the UK’s future energy mix, hydrogen (the most abundant element in the universe, accounting for around 75% of matter) is highly versatile, enabling its use in electricity generation, fuel cells, industrial heat and as feedstock for the production of low-carbon fuels such as sustainable aviation fuel.  As policymakers seek both energy security and decarbonisation, hydrogen offers a credible alternative to diminishing fossil fuel resources.

Expanding the hydrogen industry is about more than achieving climate goals; it represents a significant economic opportunity. It can create high-value jobs across engineering, manufacturing and energy, while providing a pathway for workers in the oil and gas, chemicals and heavy engineering sectors to transition into low-carbon industries. Hydrogen projects can also drive regional growth by attracting investment into ’industrial heartlands’ and helping to regenerate communities historically reliant on carbon-intensive industries. Looking ahead, the opportunity is substantial, with the global hydrogen market projected to exceed $1 trillion by 2050 according to analysis carried out by Deloitte.

The UK is well positioned to capitalise on this opportunity. It benefits from a strong industrial base, established energy infrastructure and expertise developed through decades of oil and gas activity. Major industrial clusters in the North West, South Wales, the Solent, Grangemouth and the North East provide an immediate and scalable market for hydrogen, particularly for high-temperature industrial processes where electrification is not yet commercially viable. Recognising this potential, the government has sought to attract investment across the hydrogen value chain through measures including the Hydrogen Production Business Model and Hydrogen Allocation Rounds (HARs). It has also committed more than £500 million towards hydrogen infrastructure, including plans for the UK’s first regional hydrogen network by 2031 to support the production, storage and transportation of low-carbon hydrogen.

However, impending policy decisions are creating uncertainty for project developers and investors. HAR1 supported 11 projects (such as Bradford Low Carbon Hydrogen in Yorkshire) and HAR2 shortlisted a further 27 further projects (such as Green Hydrogen 5 in Wales). However, progress has been slower than anticipated, with only a limited number of HAR1 projects advancing towards Final Investment Decisions. Progress on HAR2 has also been limited, as shortlisted projects remain in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s due diligence and cost assurance process, with developers still lacking clarity on when that process will conclude. At the same time, the revised Hydrogen Strategy, originally expected in autumn 2025, remains delayed.

The combination of these delays and a lack of policy clarity have created uncertainty for developers and investors. Many project developers continue to commit substantial resources towards land, planning, engineering, grid connections and supply chain engagement while awaiting clearer signals from government. If this uncertainty persists, it risks slowing project deployment, discouraging participation in future allocation rounds and weakening the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for hydrogen investment.

With a new Prime Minister and potentially a new energy secretary, important questions remain: Will the long-awaited Hydrogen Strategy face further delays while ministers review priorities? Will it provide a clear vision for where hydrogen can deliver the greatest economic, technical, environmental and societal value? The UK has a significant opportunity to become a leader in the global hydrogen economy, but realising that potential will require clear, timely and credible policy signals from government.

If you would like to discuss GK’s public affairs offering and how policy developments may impact investment in emerging energy technologies, please contact Brett Morton at brett.morton@gkstrategy.com .

Sajid Javid- Five priorities of the new Health Secretary

Capital isn’t glamorous, but it’s where health reform succeeds or fails

Drawing on his experience as a Health Minister and Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, GK’s strategic advisor Steve Brine argues the real challenge is delivering, not announcing, NHS infrastructure investment.

There is an old saying in politics that ministers like cutting ribbons more than fixing roofs. Reading the Government’s new 10-Year Capital Plan for Health and Social Care, I was reminded just how true that is.

Having served as a Health Minister and later as chair of the cross-party Health and Social Care Select Committee, I’ve learned that while politicians understandably focus on services, patients and waiting lists, none of those can be credibly improved without investing in the infrastructure that underpins them.

Estates, equipment and digital capability are not simply operational issues; capital isn’t glamorous – but it’s where health reform succeeds or fails

That is why I think this document matters, even if it contains fewer headline announcements than some may have wanted. It’s more of a capital investment framework than a capital spending announcement and while it is important because it starts to join together a series of previously announced commitments into one strategy, if you’re looking for lots of new money or major projects, you’ll likely be disappointed.

For investors, suppliers and those looking to support the transformation of health and care, this is best understood therefore as a statement of strategic direction. The Government is attempting to provide something the NHS has too often lacked: a long-term framework that links capital investment directly to service reform.

The themes will be familiar and re-enforce the view many of us held that the capital plan would essentially be the infrastructure companion to the 10-Year Health Plan which is now just over one year old.

Investment in neighbourhood health centres, modern diagnostic equipment (see my last piece), digital infrastructure, community facilities and the maintenance of the existing estate have all featured in previous announcements.

What is new is the attempt to bring those priorities together and explicitly align them with the Government’s ambition to shift care from hospitals into communities, from analogue to digital, and from sickness towards prevention.

As a minister, I learned very quickly that capital policy is health policy. You can’t expect clinicians to embrace new models of care if they are working in buildings designed before England last won the World Cup, nor can you promise a digital NHS without investing in the infrastructure that powers it. Too often, capital has been treated as something separate from healthcare delivery whereas in reality, it is one of its principal enablers.

That lesson stayed with me when I chaired the Health and Social Care Select Committee. Alongside colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee, we scrutinised the New Hospital Programme, asking not simply whether Boris Johnson’s ambitions were right, but whether they were deliverable.

That experience reinforced a rather obvious point: announcing infrastructure programmes is relatively straightforward; delivering them consistently over a decade, through changing political and economic circumstances, is considerably more challenging!

That is why I think investors should read this document with cautious optimism. The opportunities are clear. If the Government is serious about expanding community-based care, modernising diagnostics, digitising the NHS and addressing the maintenance backlog, there will inevitably be demand for expertise, technology, construction, data, equipment and innovative delivery models.

The direction of travel is now clearer than it has been for some time. The question not answered is pace. The plan sets out the destination far more clearly than the route to get there. There is relatively little detail about sequencing, procurement, prioritisation or delivery milestones.

History also provides a note of caution. During my time in government, I saw how easily capital budgets could come under pressure when day-to-day NHS spending became squeezed. Every government says it will protect long-term investment; not every government manages to do so.

And I note how one of the strongest themes is ‘repair first’ as large sums are earmarked for tackling the maintenance backlog, replacing obsolete equipment and of course removing RAAC. £6.75bn for hospital repairs over nine years and £2bn to remove reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete.

Overall, I see this as a welcome piece of strategic thinking. It provides a clearer signal than we have had for many years that infrastructure is no longer being viewed as an afterthought but as a prerequisite for NHS reform. For those looking to invest, that matters.

The real test, however, will not be whether the strategy is well written, but whether successive governments (including the new one about to start work) have the discipline to stick to it.

What could skills policy look like under a Burnham-led government?

The prospect of Andy Burnham succeeding Keir Starmer as Prime Minister is significant for the skills sector. Burnham is a strong advocate for technical education and has criticised previous governments for their ‘obsession’ with higher education, including former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair’s target of having more than 50% of young people go to university.

In his first major speech since launching his bid to replace Starmer on Monday 29 June, Burnham acknowledged that while university is ‘great for those who want it’, there also needs to be a focus on the life chances of those who don’t wish to opt for the higher education route. Given he has long called for ‘true parity’ between academic and technical education, as highlighted in his manifesto for his 2015 Labour leadership bid, Burnham is likely to place much greater emphasis on study programmes linked to in-demand technical and vocational occupations as part of a broader effort to create clearer pathways into employment for young people.

Burham’s Manchester Baccalaureate (MBacc), which provides a pathway into the region’s high growth sectors through technical and vocational qualifications, is a clear example of what this shift could look like on a national scale. Launched by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) in September 2024, the MBacc guarantees every young person in the region a clear pathway to employment opportunities through a combination of careers advice services, work experience placements and technical qualifications, including by expanding access to T Levels and apprenticeships.

Since its launch in 2024-25, the MBacc has benefitted from growing support amongst local employers. In January 2026, GMCA confirmed that several leading employers, including Autotrader, IBM and the NHS, had pledged over 1,000 additional work placements to T Level students. This demonstrates how engaged and invested businesses can be in skills and the future workforce, provided the right policy framework is in place. The MBacc not only provides technical education routes into growing regional industries, but it also encourages young people to make subject choices at the ages of 14, 16 and 18 that support progression into these pathways.

Another aspect of Burnham’s approach is the emphasis he places on greater collaboration between skills, health and employment, specifically the need to adopt a place-based model while pivoting away from a nationally directed skills system. One of the advantages of a place-based model is the recognition of significant regional differences in the causes of unemployment and the nature of local labour markets. This includes inconsistent access to training provision and the variety of opportunities for growth across the country. A Burnham-led government is likely therefore to see more devolution by default, whereby employment support is further integrated with local health, skills and community services. This would mean that providers in the FE and HE sectors play a much larger role in supporting people into work.

A Burnham premiership is likely to see a more devolved and technically-focused skills and training system. On a practical level, this is likely to involve granting established combined mayoral authorities (like London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands) greater autonomy in shaping skills provision around local labour market demands. For employers and training providers, this direction of travel will place greater emphasis on more joined-up local working and support across education, health and employment services. While this has the potential to significantly transform the skills sector, the test for Burnham is whether he can demonstrate that a localised, devolved approach will deliver economic growth, boost living standards, and give every young person growing up a ‘clear path into a re-industrialised Britain’.

If you would like to talk more the potential of a Burnham-led government and what this could mean for the skills sector, please email Noureen@gkstrategy.com.

EU Youth Mobility Scheme: Brexit divisions and the Burnham factor

GK’s Brett Morton examines the ongoing negotiations with the EU on a youth mobility scheme and what it means for the future of the UK-EU relationship

A youth mobility agreement has become a central component of the Labour government’s drive to improve UK-EU relations. Although both sides broadly support the principle of making it easier for young people to live, work and study across borders, the parties remain divided over the terms. Points of contention over immigration caps and tuition fees risk preventing a wider package of UK-EU cooperation measures. Both sides had been keen to secure these at a second bilateral summit scheduled for 22 July in Brussels. The summit has now been delayed following the Prime Minister’s resignation.

The scheme under discussion would allow 18-30-year-olds from the UK and EU to spend a limited period living, studying and working in each other’s countries. In broad terms, it would resemble the agreement the UK already has with countries such as Australia and Canada. Under those arrangements, young people can come to Britain for up to three years, subject to visa rules and annual caps, and work, travel or study without employer sponsorship. The UK would like any deal with the EU to follow the same basic model: temporary, managed and clearly distinct from free movement.

That distinction matters because immigration remains one of the most politically charged legacies of Brexit. Opponents of the proposal, including Nigel Farage, argue that such a scheme would amount to freedom of movement under a different name. Ministers have been keen to stress that any agreement with the EU would be time-limited and capped. Reports suggest the Starmer government favoured a ceiling of 50,000 participants a year. The EU, by contrast, is believed to prefer a more flexible arrangement, with no fixed cap but a break mechanism that would allow either side to intervene if numbers became excessive. For the next Prime Minister, accepting a scheme without a visible numerical limit would be politically difficult, particularly given the public’s appetite to reduce net migration.

Since Brexit, labour shortages have become a persistent problem in sectors such as hospitality, agriculture and construction. At present, a young EU citizen who wants to work in the UK for a limited period usually needs sponsorship from a British employer. In practice, that system is often costly, bureaucratic and tied to salary thresholds that many small businesses cannot meet. In many cases, sponsorship requires employers to offer a salary of at least £41,700 a year, or the going rate for the role, which places it out of reach for much seasonal, temporary and lower-paid work. Supporters of a youth mobility scheme argue that without the need for sponsorship or salary thresholds, it could widen the pool of labour and make it easier to fill temporary or seasonal vacancies. Even so, its impact would be limited, as it may ease pressure in high-turnover sectors but would do far less to address longer-term shortages in fields that depend on permanent skilled workers, such as healthcare or technology.

A major obstacle to a youth mobility agreement is tuition fees. The EU wants students to study in the UK and EU countries on the same basis as domestic students, meaning EU students at UK universities would pay home fees rather than higher international rates. With 24 institutions reportedly at risk of insolvency within the next year, according to the Education Select Committee, international student fees have become a vital source of income. The Russel Group, an association of 24 prestigious universities in the UK, has warned that granting EU students home fee status could cost the sector around £580 million, reducing universities’ ability to invest in programmes such as Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe.

The youth mobility debate must also be understood in its wider political context. Starmer had originally hoped that a UK-EU reset would help revive his premiership by showing that closer cooperation with Europe could deliver practical benefits, from smoother trade to lower costs for consumers. With his resignation, that personal political purpose has fallen away. Future negotiations are no longer about rescuing his administration, but about shaping the direction of the next Prime Minister’s agenda.

With an Andy Burnham coronation now increasingly likely ahead of 22 July, the EU has postponed the summit. A youth mobility scheme could offer Burnham an opportunity to pursue economic and social reforms in response to what he has described as the ‘damage’ caused by Brexit. However, Burnham is also likely to be cautious about making significant concessions to Brussels, particularly on a cap, as he seeks to appeal to Reform UK voters and avoid reopening divisions from the Brexit referendum ahead of a potential 2029 general election. The future of any youth mobility scheme with the EU will therefore depend on Burnham’s political calculus.