Cloud Nein

As the local election results come in, it’s worth remembering what councils actually do once the campaigning stops: they spend money — a lot of it on technology, and a chunk of that through G-Cloud, the framework designed to give innovative British suppliers a clearer route into the public sector. That is the theory. The practice looks rather different.

Just this week, and not for the first time, I heard from the founder of a genuinely innovative British technology company that has been blocked from the next iteration of G-Cloud. The reason was not poor delivery, a weak product or lack of relevance to public-sector buyers. It was negative EBITDA and a lightly capitalised balance sheet, both of which are completely normal for growth-stage tech companies.

It goes without saying that the government should not be cavalier about supplier risk. But there is a difference between a company that is structurally insolvent and one that is investing in product, people and expansion. There is a difference between a supplier whose failure would bring down a critical public service and one offering a substitutable software or data product. This is precisely the kind of domestic scaleup ministers claim to want in the public-sector supply chain.

This ‘computer says no’ approach needs to be replaced with something smarter. If procurement rules cannot distinguish between those cases, they will select for the wrong things: incumbency, corporate backing and the ability to satisfy a bureaucratic risk model. They will not select for innovation, and competition will suffer.

This matters because public procurement is one of the largest levers government has. If the state wants more British scaleups, it needs to be a better customer to them. If it wants more competition in public services, it cannot design frameworks that only large incumbents can comfortably navigate. If it wants domestic technology companies to grow, it should not tolerate blunt financial tests that keep them out of public-sector markets.

Get in touch if you have experienced similar issues with procurement frameworks, financial viability assessments or public-sector buying processes. If there is enough feedback, we’ll launch an evidence session through the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Entrepreneurship.

Three of a Kind

A final call for applications for our JVF Female Founder Ambition Series, run in partnership with the Jessica Vollman Foundation.

The series brings together ambitious female founders for three small virtual roundtables. The first session, High Potential, takes place 20 May, 5pm–6pm, for earlier-stage founders with early traction who are working out how to scale. The second, High Growth, takes place 27 May, 5pm–6pm, for founders already growing quickly and navigating the pressures of expansion. The third, Going Transatlantic, takes place 3 June, 5pm–6pm, for founders operating, or seriously planning to operate, in both the UK and the US.

Insights from the series will feed into a briefing paper shared with our network and media contacts. We’ll also be undertaking interviews with some founders for Network Effects.

Crowning Achievement

Recipients of The King’s Awards for Enterprise have been announced. Congratulations to all the entrepreneurs in our network who received the award. You can already apply for the next round here. As mentioned here previously, there is a new Young Founder category that will spotlight founders aged 18–30 who are actively leading their businesses and building success with impact.

Dinner Table Policy

At several events over the past few weeks, I’ve heard a familiar complaint: the media does not represent entrepreneurs well. There is clearly a perception problem. Our Out of Focus briefing paper found that for every founder who thinks coverage is good, five think the opposite. By more than seven to one, respondents said the issues that matter to them are not given sufficient attention in the media. As a former journalist, I am well aware of the constraints and want to be constructive. It is still a bit half-baked, but here’s my pitch.

It begins with a 2018 post by Robin Hanson. Firm productivity depends heavily on management quality; yet even after controlling for intelligence and conscientiousness, substantial variation remains. Hanson thinks most MBA programmes do little to close this gap. Their primary function is selection and network formation. The missing ingredient, he suggests, is direct exposure — having lived through the realities of management or observed them closely.

Empirical evidence supports this. In Norway, economists Hans Hvide and Paul Oyer found that a majority of male entrepreneurs start firms in the same or a closely related industry as their fathers. Those who do tend to outperform peers whose fathers did not work in the same industry. They term this “dinner table human capital”. The effect persists even for founders whose fathers died before they entered the workforce. This is not about introductions. It is about sustained exposure.

Hanson proposes extending this logic to management education:

“If one can learn much from just watching the inside story of real firms over several years, that suggests a big win: record the full lives of many rising managers over several years, and show a mildly compressed and annotated selection of such recordings to aspiring managers. Such recordings could be compressed by deleting sleep and non-social periods. They could be annotated to identify key decisions and ask viewers to make their own choices, before they see actual choices. Recordings might be selected two-thirds from the most successful, and one-third from a sampling of others.”

A lighter version of this idea could plausibly reach a wider audience. Imagine a documentary series that follows a handful of founders over a year or two — cameras in the room for the co-founder disagreements, the hiring calls, the moments a deal nearly falls apart. The good, the bad, and the genuinely difficult. The format exists — Boiling Point, Inside the Factory, Twenty-Four Hours in A&E — just pointed at the people building Britain’s next generation of companies.

The alternative is two more decades of The Apprentice and Dragons’ Den, which have shaped the public perception of entrepreneurship. Matt Clifford’s argument from 2019 still stands:

“Perhaps the cardinal sin is [The Apprentice’s] perpetuation of the crude stereotype of the ruthless, selfish entrepreneur who sees money as the only marker of success. The reality is very different. Teams, not solo heroic figures, are responsible for the biggest entrepreneurial success — there’s huge value in having a co-founder. Also, the desire to create new companies is more often tied to wanting to maximise impact in the world, not just trying to increase their bank balance.”

Dinner table human capital is real, and the country’s media is one of the few mechanisms we have for setting more places at the table. I can’t help thinking that we might be surprised by the public’s appetite if we were a bit more ambitious about what’s being served.

Frank King

Alex Chalmers is consistently worth reading. In his latest Chalmermagne Substack article, he argues that British technology policy has cycled through a series of half-theories without settling on a coherent account of how technology drives growth.

His opening example is instructive. Barnsley was recently designated Britain’s first ‘Tech Town’, receiving £500,000 over eighteen months to support AI skills and adoption — roughly £2 per resident. The accompanying announcement claimed the status would “position Barnsley as the UK’s trailblazer.”

Even if you disagree with parts, the central point should be taken seriously: the binding constraints on growth — energy, planning, employment law, and the broader regulatory environment — largely sit outside technology policy itself.

Opt Into the Loop

Much of what we do at The Entrepreneurs Network depends on partners — organisations that host, sponsor, fund research or otherwise help us serve founders better. To make it easier to share what’s coming up, I’m starting a brief fortnightly email setting out current opportunities to get involved: events to sponsor, research to partner on, roundtables to host, and the like.

If you would like to receive it, just let me know, and I’ll add you to the list.

Message from our Partner

At Fora, we create flexible workspaces that empower ambitious businesses to thrive. With over 70 locations across London, the UK and Germany, our spaces are designed to fuel productivity, creativity and growth.

Now, we’re bringing that vision to The Jellicoe at King’s Cross — a dedicated hub for founders and fast-growing companies. Here, flexibility meets opportunity: scale at speed with agile workspace solutions, connect with a curated community of entrepreneurs and investors, and enjoy all the perks of a Fora membership, from wellness spaces and hospitality-grade service to events that open doors.

Surround yourself with innovators and global tech giants in one of London’s most exciting neighbourhoods.

If you’re building the next big thing, this is where you want to be. Discover Fora with a free Day Pass

Its Name is RIO

Britain’s capacity to invent has never been the problem. But getting new technologies from the lab to the market depends on capital, talent and a regulatory environment willing to make room for things that didn’t exist yesterday.

The asymmetry at the heart of regulation makes this harder than it sounds. When a regulator permits something that subsequently causes harm, the costs are visible, attributable and potentially career-ending. When a regulator blocks something that would have worked — a drug that never reached patients, a technology that never scaled or a business model that never got off the ground — the costs are invisible and diffuse. Nobody is held to account for the cures that weren’t approved or the growth that didn’t happen. That asymmetry shapes behaviour in predictable ways: caution is rewarded, boldness is punished and the default is delay.

That’s a problem in any era. It is a particularly acute one now. Fast-emerging technologies are all hitting regulatory frameworks built for a different world at the same time. The question is whether the UK’s institutional environment can adapt quickly enough to build and capture the value here.

This week, we hosted Lord Willetts and the Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) alongside a room of robotics founders at Mishcon de Reya. The discussion was under the Chatham House Rule, but sign up to Network Effects for an overview of themes that emerged from the room. The conversation was proof – not that any was needed – that tapping into the experiences of entrepreneurs is absolutely critical for understanding policy reform.

RIO sits within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, where it was established in October 2024, with a straightforward but ambitious remit: to update regulation, speed up approvals and ensure regulatory bodies work together effectively.

RIO has just launched the second phase of its Front Door pilot, now open to science and technology businesses across all sectors — not just RIO’s current priorities. The exercise is simple: tell them the regulatory barriers holding your business back. The results will shape how the Front Door service develops.

RIO’s door is open.

(I appreciate not everyone reading this is in science and technology, which is why we, and others, need to look at whether there are lessons we can apply to other domains.)

Shareholder Value

The European Commission is reviewing the rules governing how shareholders receive information, vote and engage with listed companies across borders — and is looking for practical evidence from those whose voices tend to be underrepresented in these debates: minority shareholders, private investors, smaller banks and others with direct experience of cross-border investment or general meetings. If that’s you, contact Martha Wiesenbart at Europe Economics.

Plain English

Language proficiency is one of the strongest predictors of economic integration — and of how far people progress once they’re here. Workers who gain functional English move into better-paid roles and progress within organisations. It also opens up entrepreneurship as an option.

The Department for Education is reviewing the qualifications and content that support this — ESOL provision for adults who don’t speak English as a first language — and wants to hear from employers of all sizes who recruit or support staff in that position. The survey takes 10–15 minutes and closes on 8 May. Complete it here.

Ives Had the Time

Our Research Director Eamonn Ives is off to pastures new. Over the last three years and eight months, Eamonn has proven to be a first-rate researcher, meticulous editor and stand-up guy. He has also been instrumental in our evolution, as he shared:

“While I still think there’s a role for the traditional in-depth think tank report, effective policy influence is increasingly being wielded through shorter, sharper outputs, of the sort we’ve pivoted to of late. Often those outputs — whether interviews, briefing notes, or off-the-record roundtables — have been dependent on the network of founders, investors, ecosystem builders and other policy experts that [we have] painstakingly assembled over the past decade and more.”

Connect with Eamonn on LinkedIn to follow his journey. For those of you who attend our events, I’m sure you’ll still see him around.

Cancel Culture

There is a lazy explanation for why Britain has fewer billion-dollar companies per head than the United States, why our founders sell up earlier, and why some are leaving. That explanation is culture. All too often, I hear that Britain lags the US on entrepreneurial culture, with many arguing, by the same logic, that Europe lags behind the UK.

As Alex Nowrasteh argues this week, culture is too often a placeholder where an explanation ought to be. His target is the social scientists’ habit of invoking culture whenever a real mechanism proves elusive: fertility rates, corruption, train punctuality, economic development — all attributed to culture when a better answer may lie in the incentive structure:

“Someone observes a behavioral difference between groups or countries. They can’t immediately identify the mechanism. So, they invoke ‘culture’ as an explanation or, even worse, ‘the culture.’ The word lands with a satisfying thud that sounds like an explanation but isn’t one. It is the terminus of inquiry, not the beginning.”

As Nobel Prize winners George Stigler and Gary Becker cautioned in 1977 in De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum, we should not explain behavioural differences by assuming people in different places have different preferences. Instead, we should treat preferences as broadly stable and look harder for differences in prices, constraints and incentives. Douglass North made a similar point in 1990 in Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: culture is a partial solution to problems repeatedly encountered in the past. It is an output, not a cause — the behavioural residue of incentive structures that have been in place long enough to harden into norms.

Perhaps the cleanest test of this argument comes from Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, whose work on institutions and prosperity won the Nobel Prize in 2024. Their signature example is North and South Korea. Same language, same ethnicity, same history, and the same culture up to 1945. One is now among the richest countries on earth, the other among the poorest. The culture was identical on both sides of the border. The institutions, and the incentives they created, were not.

Many of you reading this will share our world view. The good news is that, unlike with the hand-wavy explanation of culture, this gives us something to work with. We can change the rules. After all, Britain has done exactly this, repeatedly.

Right to Buy, introduced in 1980, helped turn Britain into a nation of homeowners. What followed was an asset-conscious, equity-minded electorate, attuned to property prices in ways that still shape politics today. Millions of people were handed a significant financial asset and, rationally, began to behave like people who owned one. Our property-owning culture is, in large part, the product of a policy choice made four decades ago.

The privatisations did something similar. The “Tell Sid” campaign for British Gas shares was not a cultural exercise. It was an attempt to create a class of retail shareholders, and it worked. Popular capitalism was not latent in the national character, waiting to be unlocked. It was downstream of a set of decisions about who could own what.

Introduced in 1994, the Enterprise Investment Scheme created tax advantages for investing in early-stage companies. Before it, angel investing in Britain was extremely niche. After it, a new pattern of investor behaviour emerged, scaled up and eventually became normal enough to attract the label of culture. What looks like cultural change is often just tax policy.

The point is not to defend each of these policies. It is simply to note that, in each case, behaviour followed the rules. Culture was the lagging indicator, not the force leading the charge.

The most common claim I hear is that the US has a culture in which failure is more accepted — even celebrated — than in the UK. But this is often asserted without reference to the fact that the institutional treatment of failure differs substantially too. US Chapter 11 bankruptcy law is explicitly designed to let businesses reorganise and continue. Britain’s insolvency law remains more creditor-oriented, with personal liability attaching more readily to directors. The founder walking away from a failed company in Delaware does so in a different legal environment from the one in Doncaster. Whatever attitudinal differences exist are at least partly downstream of that.

Nowrasteh is careful not to dismiss culture entirely, and rightly so. Values and norms are real. His argument is methodological: look first for the institutional and incentive-based explanation. If you exhaust those and culture is still standing, then perhaps you have found something. But more often, you probably just have not looked hard enough.

Treasury officials reading this will be pleased to know that incentives don’t just mean more money. For instance, despite flaws, patents and the legal system in Britain encouraged innovation to flourish, creating a market for inventions. And as we argued in Honours for Innovators:

“Raising invention’s status and prestige was crucial to how Britain first got its reputation during the Industrial Revolution as the best place to innovate. Invention came to be seen as a viable and attractive career path, not just financially but in terms of the social standing that could result from it – something that was purposefully cultivated by those seeking to improve the country’s technological prospects.”

The Enterprise Investment Scheme didn’t exist in 1993. Right to Buy didn’t exist in 1979. The entrepreneur who couldn’t find an angel in 1992, or couldn’t spin out of a university in 1998, wasn’t held back by culture. They were held back by the absence of policies that came later.

The culture isn’t the problem. The rules are.

A Working Theory

Over on Network Effects, this week we published a cracking interview with Alfie Pearce-Higgins, co-founder of Rodeo on the impact of AI on job markets. Alfie makes a great point about the unintended consequences of making it costlier and riskier to employ people:

“[T]he question everyone is asking — “will AI destroy jobs?” — is less important than the question almost nobody is asking — “will AI change how work is contracted?” If even a moderate fraction of employment shifts to self-employment, the consequences for tax revenues, pension saving, the welfare safety net, and the entire social contract that has been built around the employee-employer relationship are extremely significant. And that shift may well happen not because of any deliberate decision or policy, but as the accidental byproduct of three trends that nobody has bothered to join up.”

Read it in full here.

блакитне озеро

Our good friends at Blue Lake VC have just announced the launch of this year’s UK–Ukraine TechBridge Investment Accelerator, delivered with support from the UK Government and Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation.

The programme will support 20 high-growth Ukrainian startups at Late Seed to Series A stage, helping them get investment-ready and build connections with UK investors ahead of a pitch showcase at London Tech Week in June.

Over five weeks, participating founders will receive hands-on mentorship from UK venture capitalists, investor office hours and practical support on pitching, UK market entry and scaling. The programme is equity-free and designed to help Ukrainian startups overcome one of the biggest barriers to expansion: building a fundraising network in a new market.

Applications are open until 27 April 2026. More information here.

Stacks Up

We produce a lot more than Perennial Gale — and if you don’t already follow our other Substacks, this is a good week to see what you’re missing.

Over on Network Effects, Mann Virdee sat down with Mollie Claypool, co-founder of AUAR, whose deployable robotic micro-factories aim to do what decades of housing policy have failed to do: make housebuilding faster and cheaper.

Also on Network Effects, our fortnightly Three Big Ideas covered why Europe’s most ambitious startups keep ending up in Delaware (and whether we should care), the state of Britain’s quantum bet and what happens when crime really doesn’t pay. We sometimes take ideas from outside, so drop us an email if you have a big idea you want to pitch.

And finally, if you care about what Parliament is actually doing on entrepreneurship policy, Eamonn Ives’ monthly APPG for Entrepreneurship newsletter is a must-read. It includes key quotes from ‘In Parliament’, so you don’t need to go digging through Hansard, plus a rundown of the Government’s current consultations and calls for evidence.

JVF Female Founder Ambition Series

As many of you will know, we have run our Female Founders Forum with Barclays for over a decade. It has been our most enduring project — watch this space to find out what’s next for us later in the year.

Today, we are announcing something separate to the Female Founders Forum — but which is testament to its ongoing impact: a partnership with the Jessica Vollman Foundation, a non-profit founded to honour the legacy of the late founder, CEO and advocate for women in entrepreneurship, Jessica Vollman.

Sarah Vollman and her father Mike Vollman — a technology executive who has founded and funded companies, taken them public, and now advises emerging AI companies and female founders — join The Entrepreneurs Network as Advisers as part of the partnership.

The series comprises three off-the-record virtual roundtables, each focused on a different stage of the scaling journey, and all chaired by Kajal Sanghrajka. Insights will feed into interviews for Network Effects and a briefing paper. We’re also planning a launch, so let me know if you’re keen to host it.

The first virtual roundtable is for founders in the earlier stages of growth — those with the drive, the idea and the question of how to scale still in front of them. The second is for founders already moving fast, navigating the capital, team and personal pressures that come with rapid expansion. The third is for founders operating — or seriously planning to operate — on both sides of the Atlantic.

Talkin’ bout GEN

Many of you will already know about the Global Entrepreneurship Network (GEN). Where it leads, many follow. And I’m delighted that its founder and president, Jonathan Ortmans, has joined us as an Adviser. Jonathan has been an inspiration and support to many ecosystem builders around the world, including me. For instance, GEN is supporting the JVF Female Founder Ambition Series.

I hope you’ll forgive me for putting my modesty to one side when I share his kind words about why he supports us, and our collective modesty to one side about why he is bullish about the UK:

“I support The Entrepreneurs Network mostly because it is authentic. At GEN, we are exposed to literally thousands of organisations around the globe promoting entrepreneurship, but Philip Salter’s writings and the community he convenes are precise, on point, and always worth the read.

I also remain bullish about entrepreneurship in the UK. There is a certain no-nonsense honesty to British risktakers. Beyond being a Britisher myself, GEN was born from the communities that celebrate Global Entrepreneurship Week, which was created in the UK as Enterprise Week so many years ago by then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown.”

Built to Scale

In our latest interview for our UK AI Fieldbook series, Mann Virdee speaks to Mollie Claypool about how AI and deployable robotics can break the deadlock of the global housing crisis.

Three Big Ideas #58

Three Big Ideas is our fortnightly roundup of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.

This week, Philip Salter looks into the data behind Europe’s fleeing founders, Eamonn Ives discusses a new paper on gig work and crime, and Mann Virdee examines the changing capabilities of quantum computing.

Hire Purpose

There are many advantages to reaching a large, smart and entrepreneurial audience through this newsletter each week. One of the most valuable is that, whenever we’re hiring, I can rely on you to share opportunities widely. Now is your time to shine — we’re on the hunt for a new researcher to join our team.

In this role, the successful candidate will have the chance to quickly build a public profile, access rooms that are closed to most and do work that genuinely moves the needle. If you’re self-motivated, care deeply about what we do and have an entrepreneurial spirit — or know someone who fits the bill — all the details are here.

We are, if I may say so, a small team that punches well above its weight in the think tank world — producing policy reports, engaging policymakers and helping shape the agenda on the issues that matter most to Britain’s founders.

To that end, please consider forwarding this on; liking, commenting on, or reposting my LinkedIn post; and doing the same with Eamonn Ives’ post on X to help to ensure the opportunity reaches the right people. The stronger our talent, the more effective we will be in making it easier to start and scale a business in the UK.

Beyond Infinity

Innovation is a hallmark of our species, and the entrepreneurs who channel it are the architects of the modern world. To support those pushing the frontiers of science and technology, we are launching a new Science and Technology Forum within The Entrepreneurs Network.

Led by our Head of Science and Technology, Mann Virdee, the Forum will serve as a dedicated platform for science-focused entrepreneurs in Britain, helping to bridge the gap between the lab, the boardroom and Westminster. Our aim is to make the UK the leading global destination to start and scale a science-led business.

The Forum will focus on the UK’s priority sectors — including AI, quantum technologies, engineering biology and semiconductors — by identifying and dismantling regulatory barriers; conducting deep dives into the frontier economy to inform policymakers; and hosting high-level briefings that connect leading scientists and technologists with decision-makers.

We are committed to closing the commercialisation gap and harnessing innovation for national prosperity. To learn more or get involved, contact Mann here.

Building the Case

In any think tank or business group, much of the activity happens below the surface, while most people understandably only see the finished outputs.

That’s why I’ve started sending a weekly update to our Patrons and Advisers, sharing more detail on our work with government, politicians, parties, regulators and others. You can become an Adviser here.

We have also begun publishing our consultation responses. This week alone, we responded to two.

First, our response to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s consultation on establishing a Development Corporation. We didn’t mince our words: “The shortage of housing, office space and laboratory space in Greater Cambridge is not merely a social problem — it is an economic emergency that directly undermines the UK’s capacity for innovation and growth.”

Between 2011 and 2019, 41,000 jobs were created in the area without a commensurate increase in housing; median house prices now stand at eleven times average earnings, and the shortage of lab space constrains the life sciences and deep tech firms the cluster depends on.

We supported the Development Corporation proposal, but urged the Government to be more ambitious in the powers it confers, particularly around plan-making and land value capture. Read the full response here.

Meanwhile, our response to the Department for Business and Trade’s consultation on refining the UK’s competition regime sought to strike the right balance: a regime that is too loose risks incumbents stifling innovative startups; too tight, and founders struggle to attract investment, form partnerships and exit.

While there were proposals to commend, we pushed back the idea of giving the CMA algorithm investigation powers. We argued that smaller startups may lack the resources and expertise to manage investigatory demands, and that such burdens could materially hinder their growth.

We were not alone in this concern — entrepreneurs and investors we spoke to agreed. As one VC told us:

“These powers currently only exist under the digital markets regime, which was designed with large incumbents in mind. Extending them across all competition and consumer protection work means early-stage companies, particularly in AI and software, could face substantial compliance burdens that are wholly disproportionate to their size and resources. A startup with a small engineering team being required to build bespoke testing environments, alter product behaviour, or produce data it doesn’t already hold could face costs that genuinely threaten its viability. There’s a real risk this makes the UK a less attractive place to build and scale technology businesses.”

This is not the end of our work on these issues. Get in touch if either of these things matter to you.

King's Gambit

Earlier today, I joined a Department for Business and Trade roundtable on supporting the next generation of entrepreneurs. The focus was a proposed fifth category in the King’s Awards for Enterprise to recognise young founders, planned for launch in May to coincide with the awards’ 60th anniversary.

We will soon share a broader set of activities for our Young Entrepreneurs Forum, but I would also welcome hearing from anyone keen to do more in this space — we are currently developing a number of ideas.

Late Expectations

Late payments have been strangling small businesses for decades — and this week, the Government has finally moved to do something meaningful about it, with Small Business Commissioner Emma Jones CBE leading the charge.

On Monday, the Department for Business and Trade announced what it’s calling the toughest crackdown on late payments in over 25 years. The headline measures include a hard 60-day cap on payment terms for large firms paying smaller suppliers, mandatory interest on late payments pegged at 8% above the Bank of England base rate, and significantly beefed-up powers for the Small Business Commissioner’s office — including the ability to investigate poor payment practices, adjudicate disputes, and levy multi-million-pound fines against the worst offenders.

Alongside many others, this is an issue we’ve been banging the drum on for a long time. When the Government launched its Small Business Plan last year, which laid the ground for this week’s announcement, I didn’t mince my words:

“In a world where online banking, accounting software and e-invoicing exist, it’s completely unacceptable that so many burgeoning startups see their growth stall due to late payments. At its worst, they can send perfectly good businesses to the wall — leaving Britain’s economy less dynamic and competitive.”

The damage goes far beyond individual closures though — late payments are a drag on employment, exports, investment, profitability and access to finance right across the economy.

At Enterprise Nation, which she founded, Emma campaigned for robust measures to address late payments, including in the reports we worked on together. As a Patron of The Entrepreneurs Network, it’s particularly pleasing to see her now in the driving seat to deliver on those shared ambitions. Emma is proving the value of her own longstanding call to get more entrepreneurs into the heart of government to effect exactly the changes we’ve seen this week.

The numbers behind this are stark. Late payments cost the economy an estimated £11 billion a year, and roughly 38 businesses close every single day because they simply aren’t paid on time.

These new powers will allow her to take that work to a much larger scale. As she said:

“We are on a mission to make life easier for small firms by getting money moving faster through the economy by tackling late payments… These reforms will reduce the hours spent chasing debt allowing small businesses to focus on more productive and enjoyable growth.”

There’s also a notable move for construction: the Government is consulting on banning the withholding of retention payments, a practice that has long left smaller contractors exposed when larger firms go bust or simply don’t pay up.

Take a bow, Emma Jones CBE.

Deal Breaker

We’re putting the finishing touches to our response to the Department for Business and Trade’s consultation on refining Britain’s competition regime. Among other things, it proposes reforms to how the Competition and Markets Authority can regulate mergers and giving it new powers to investigate how businesses use algorithms. If any founders or investors want to tell us their perspectives (either anonymously, or loudly and proudly), you can book a 20-minute call with our Research Director Eamonn Ives via this link.

Trust the Process

Our latest UK AI Fieldbook interview is out. Eamonn Ives sat down with Murat Tunaboylu, co-founder of Antiverse, a biotech company using AI to design antibodies against targets that big pharma has struggled with for decades.

The whole conversation is worth reading, but one insight stood out from a policy perspective: the UK’s medicines regulator, the MHRA, appears to be pioneering something genuinely world-leading — process-level drug approvals.

Rather than approving individual molecules one by one, the idea is to approve the process itself, so that everything it produces carries a validated safety and efficacy profile. As Murat puts it:

“Just imagine: you design something, and in a matter of weeks or months it gets to a human patient who has no other option — whereas the current process for getting a drug approved might typically cost $2 billion and take 12 years to complete.”

If it works, it could fundamentally change the economics of personalised medicine — and the UK is leading it. Murat also makes a strong case for open data mandates on publicly funded research, protecting SEIS and EIS, and closing the persistent seed-to-Series A funding gap. Read the full interview here.

Deep Impact

Innovate UK wants to hear from you. As we covered last week, the agency has published a new prospectus under Executive Chair Tom Adeyoola, signalling a major strategic reset — narrowing its focus to deep and hard tech, introducing specialist Growth Sector teams, and building a connected investment pipeline linking its deal flow to the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund and the National Security Strategic Investment Fund.

It’s now running a short feedback survey and we’d encourage founders in our network to respond. The more Innovate UK hears directly from the companies it’s trying to back, the better the final model will be.

Branching Out

The Cedar Review — on whose board I sit — has launched its survey on refugee entrepreneurship. The review is gathering evidence on the experiences of refugee entrepreneurs in the UK: what support was available to them, what was helpful and what’s still missing. If you’re a refugee entrepreneur yourself, or you work with or know someone who is, please consider filling in or sharing the survey.

Message from our Partner

Partners Wealth Management is a leading independent wealth management firm keenly focused on service excellence, driven by our strong commitment to deliver the best client outcomes.

We forge long-term partnerships with our clients to give them complete clarity on how to achieve their financial freedom. We have no in-house investments, nor do we limit our advice team to specific solutions for clients. Our advisers have the freedom, knowledge and resources to consider all options for clients, delivering the very best bespoke solutions on investments, pensions, retirement and tax planning.

Three Big Ideas #57

Three Big Ideas is our fortnightly roundup of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.

This week, Philip Salter analyses the findings of Anthropic’s bumper survey about AI use, Eamonn Ives explains why we need to act now to future proof our regulatory landscape for a potential wave of innovation, and Mann Virdee wonders how society can better quantify the positive impacts of scientific spillovers.

Engineering the Key

In our latest interview for our UK AI Fieldbook series, Eamonn Ives speaks to Murat Tunaboylu about how AI is accelerating novel drug discovery and could bring about the era of personalised medicine.

Making Waves

Wave after wave, our Entrepreneurs Survey makes headlines. Just yesterday, following the release of our latest instalment, journalists from Sifted, The Telegraph, and City A.M. all reported on our findings. We don’t measure our success by headlines and quotes (encouraging as they are), but by our ability to impact policy, and — ambitious as it sounds — change the hearts and minds of the country.

To that end, each quarter, we reserve half the survey for questions to dig into a thorny policy issue. This time around we focused on tax breaks for founders, with the results feeding into our submission to HM Treasury’s call for evidence around Tax Support for Entrepreneurs.

I won’t bombard you with every stat, but it’s fair to say that these schemes are seen by founders as essential to unlocking early-stage investment. Huge majorities of those who’ve used the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS), Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), and Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs) say they would have struggled to raise capital without them — 84%, 86%, and 78% respectively — and even more believe the schemes helped their businesses scale.

That said, founders don’t think the schemes are flawless. While fees and terms are broadly considered fair for SEIS and EIS, VCT users feel differently — 41% of founders regard VCT terms as unreasonable compared to just 33% who find them fair. Opinions on size limits and eligibility were also mixed, particularly for SEIS, where 39% of founders feel the criteria are not appropriate compared to 36% who think they are.

On capital gains, the founder consensus is clear: over seven in 10 believe Capital Gains Tax (CGT) relief drives startup creation, and when asked what they’d do with the proceeds of a more generous Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR), 72% say they’d invest in someone else’s startup and 70% would use it to launch a new venture of their own. Only 7% say it wouldn’t change their behaviour.

We aren’t claiming this is the only evidence that HM Treasury will need to decide whether and how exactly to reform these tax breaks. But it does add data where previously there was little — and as our panel of entrepreneurs grows and grows, we’ll be able to get more granular with our questions and findings. If you want to have your say next time round, join us.

On the topic of what next, get in touch with Eamonn Ives to share your thoughts on what policy area we should dig into next time around.

VC on VC

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Entrepreneurship — for which we’re the Secretariat — is launching a series of Evidence Sessions, starting with one led by Victoria Collins MP, a former tech co-founder who sits on the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee, on female spinout founders. It’s on Monday at 12pm and we may still be able to squeeze in a couple of people if you’re quick.

APPG Evidence Session: Female Spinout Founders
🗓 Monday, 23 March 2026
🕐 12pm to 12.45pm
📍 Online
ℹ️ An evidence session for the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Entrepreneurship, on how the UK can better support women turning academic research into successful businesses — chaired by Victoria Collins MP
⏩ Request a place

The sessions will be held virtually, so location is not a barrier, and over the coming months and years we aim to cover a wide range of policy areas around entrepreneurship. Each session will be led by one or more Officers or Members of the APPG, and following each session we will publish a concise write-up of the discussion.

Sign up to the APPG’s Substack for invites to future evidence sessions, including with Lord Marks of Hale CBE on R&D Tax Credits and Lord Kamall on supporting local communities.

Vernal Velocity

Innovate UK has published its new prospectus this week. Under Executive Chair Tom Adeyoola, the agency wants to make sure British breakthroughs result in globally scaled companies.

It’s narrowing its focus to deep and hard tech businesses and introducing a framework to identify high-potential companies. New Growth Sector teams will bring genuine working knowledge of their portfolios. A new Velocity service will provide ongoing account management for founders throughout their scaling journey. And a connected investment pipeline will link Innovate UK’s deal flow directly to the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund and the National Security Strategic Investment Fund. As Adeyoola puts it:

“Our vision is a UK where breakthrough ideas — from research, from labs, from anywhere in this country — can become industry leaders. Industry giants. Where those with potential, realise the potential.”

We’ve long argued that the gap between research excellence and commercial success is one of the most consequential challenges the country faces. This prospectus shows Innovate UK agrees. The direction is right — founders in deep tech should pay attention.

Sunday Best

Over at LinkedIn, Richard Tyler reminded me that today is the deadline to enter the Sunday Times 100, their annual ranking of the UK’s fastest-growing private companies. You’ll need four years of accounts, £5 million plus in sales, and to be in profit to be eligible to enter. Finalists get a networking event at the British Museum in September. Enter here.

Sterling Work

Another week; another publication. On Tuesday, we released A Sterling Opportunity, which makes the case for the UK to implement a pro-innovation regulatory regime for stablecoins, bringing benefits to entrepreneurs, consumers and the government.

For the uninitiated, I’ll hand over to the authors, Hugo Okada and Osian Guthrie, to explain what stablecoins are:

“Stablecoins are, at their core, remarkably simple. The most widely used versions are fiat-backed stablecoins, which are digital tokens representing existing currencies and backed one-for-one by safe reserve assets such as cash or short-term government bonds. If a user holds a dollar or sterling stablecoin, they are effectively holding a digital claim on reserves held by the issuer. Stability comes from the promise that the token can be redeemed for the underlying currency at par.”

As the paper argues, and as Hugo and Osian set out in a CapX article, stablecoins enable near-instant, low-cost international payments around the clock, bypassing the delays and expense that plague traditional banking. They also support programmable finance, allowing payments to be embedded into software and automated contracts. Furthermore, stablecoins can boost financial inclusion by giving people in volatile economies access to stable currencies. And for governments, because stablecoins are typically backed by sovereign debt, their growing adoption increases demand for government bonds — which in the case of sterling-denominated stablecoins could help lower borrowing costs, as well as reinforcing London’s position as a global financial centre.

The paper argues that we should avoid overly prescriptive regulation that risks stifling stablecoin innovation before the market has had a chance to develop. We’re particularly concerned by three current proposals: universal redemption obligations, which misunderstand how stablecoins actually circulate on secondary markets; stringent capital requirements, which could shut out the smaller innovators who have historically driven progress in digital finance; and paltry holding caps, which would undermine some of the most valuable stablecoin use cases, including large-scale B2B payments and corporate treasury management.

Instead, we advocate for principles-based regulation focused on transparency, solid reserve backing, and robust custody arrangements — giving the technology and market room to evolve while maintaining credible oversight.

If this is still feeling a bit esoteric, it won’t for long. The total market capitalisation of stablecoins now stands at around $300 billion, with projections of this hitting between $1.9 trillion and $4 trillion by 2030. Lord Holmes of Richmond MBE wrote the foreword, and as former Chancellor George Osborne argued last year in the Financial Times:

“We became the world’s financial centre because we weren’t afraid of change. On crypto and stablecoins, as on too many other things, the hard truth is this: we’re being completely left behind. It’s time to catch up.”

The report was fed into the Financial Services Regulation Committee’s stablecoin inquiry.

Copyright and Wrongs

In our latest UK AI Fieldbook interview, Mann Virdee caught up with Hanna Celina, founder of Kinnu, a London-based educational technology startup with over 1 million users.

The challenges of the UK’s copyright regime feature prominently in the chat, with Hanna describing the UK’s current position as “wilfully shooting itself in the foot.” She argues:

“If you look at British copyright laws, you realise you really cannot do anything. It’s insane how high the level of protection is for copyright holders compared to the US, where companies have the freedom to innovate faster.”

“It goes deeper. We could be making strides in supporting A Levels or IB [International Baccalaureate], but the exam scores and question banks are just not public, even though they are often government-set exams. And if you look at learning standards — what a learner should know for a GCSE — it’s a bunch of poorly formatted Word docs that are completely not LLM-friendly. It was impossible to build a consistent ‘National Knowledge Graph’ from this data the last time we looked at it, which would be like a digital map where every concept is linked to its prerequisites and its real-world applications. That would enable a learner to zoom in and out of topics and understand how concepts relate to other disciplines. But, with recent AI improvements, turning that kind of data into a National Knowledge Graph might just be possible now.”

The interview covers a lot more besides, including how Kinnu uses A/B testing to validate learning interventions at scale; the human-in-the-loop requirement for zero-error tolerance in legal and financial education; how vibe coding is turning writers into product builders; and why Hanna thinks R&D tax credits are better than government grants for agile startups.

Opportunity Knocks

Does your business focus on defence technologies and robotics? If so, you can use the Front Door pilot to tell the Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) about any regulatory barriers you have.

The Front Door is an experimental, business-led pilot by the RIO to collect and address regulatory challenges. It aims to make it easier for businesses to highlight barriers, helping RIO target reforms where they are most needed and to support innovation and growth.

The trial closes in a week. Share your experience here.

Message from our Partner

Join us for an exclusive deep dive into the sale of Cadcorp, a leading geospatial software provider, to NEC Software.

In this live panel discussion, the sellers of Cadcorp will join our Head of Corporate Finance, Matt Katz, to take you behind the scenes of their journey, from shaping a growth story in a specialist market, to navigating strategic conversations with a global buyer, to completing a deal that secured the next chapter for their team, product, and customers.

• When? Tuesday, 24 March 2026, 8.30am to 11am

• Where? Buzzacott offices, 130 Wood Street, London, EC2V 6DL

Three Big Ideas #56

Three Big Ideas is our fortnightly roundup of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.

This week, Philip Salter examines new research on the returns from collaboration between SMEs, Eamonn Ives argues that stablecoins could help bring down Britain’s debt burden, and Mann Virdee asks why the prioritisation of legislative process over purpose all too often leads to distorted outcomes.

Total Recall

In our latest interview for our UK AI Fieldbook series, Mann Virdee speaks to Hanna Celina about how combining learning science with generative AI can overcome the cognitive forgetting curve to optimise human memory

Stiffed Competition

Ambitious entrepreneurs face a panoply of risks between ideation and exit, some of which can stop them in their tracks. One such risk that gets overlooked all too often is the web of regulations that constitute our approach to competition policy. As we argued in Better Together, these rules can have a chilling effect on investment, and thus entrepreneurial activity overall.

On this note, busy founders will be easily forgiven for not digging deep into the recesses of GOV.UK to find the Department for Business and Trade’s paper Refining Our Competition Regime.

It covers a lot, but let me highlight one proposal. Specifically, the paper proposes giving the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) the power to compel companies to hand over the source code behind their algorithms. It would also be able to intervene in how products operate during an investigation — for example, by altering how content is displayed or how a pricing engine behaves — before any wrongdoing has been proven. The CMA could even run its own tests on an algorithm under conditions it specifies, with its in-house experts observing how the system behaves.

These are investigative powers rather than penalties. In practice, that means they could be deployed during a review — most likely a merger investigation — prior to any conclusion being reached. These powers would expand the surface area of regulatory risk, increase the burden on businesses subject to them, and send an unwelcome signal about the UK’s regulatory culture that investors around the world will notice.

The Department for Business and Trade’s call for evidence on these proposed changes to the CMA closes at the end of the month. You may wish to respond. And please feel free to reach out directly to me with your thoughts on this.

Easy As

This week, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Entrepreneurship released the A to Z of Entrepreneurship. I appreciate that many of you will have heard about this via the APPG’s newsletter or my email, so I’ll keep it brief.

In short, through the APPG, we’ve helped to create an evergreen resource for politicians, policymakers, researchers and anyone looking to better understand the landscape of entrepreneurship policy.

If you have any feedback — including suggestions for new entries — let us know.

Local to Global

International Women’s Day is on Sunday. You’ll already know about all the work we undertake with Barclays through our Female Founders Forum — including most recently Ideas to Impact, in which we looked at the experiences of female academic entrepreneurs in Britain’s spinout ecosystem — so today I want to draw your attention to two separate endeavours supporting female founders I found out about this week.

First, we hosted our latest Ecosystem Builders event in Birmingham with Tara Attfield-Tomes. Among other things, Tara is the founder of The 51% Club, which is building hubs across the country. Second, this week the equally wonderful Pip Jamieson announced the launch of the UN Women UK community app. Both come highly recommended.

Relatedly, do get in touch with recommendations for resources or organisations which have supported your business growth. We may add them to our Support for UK Entrepreneurs page.

Inside a Deal

On the morning of Tuesday 24 March, Buzzacott will be hosting a deep dive into the sale of Cadcorp, a leading geospatial software provider, to NEC Software. The live panel discussion will take you behind the scenes of the journey. You can request a place here.

For the Trees

I’m delighted and honoured to have joined the board of The Cedar Review, a national, independent review exploring how to better support refugee entrepreneurs to start, sustain and grow successful businesses in the UK.

As part of this work, refugee entrepreneurs are being asked to take part in paid research to share their experiences, the opportunities, the challenges, and what would make the biggest difference.

Find out more here, and sign up to take part in the research here.

Message from our Partner

At Fora, we create flexible workspaces that empower ambitious businesses to thrive. With over 70 locations across London, the UK and Germany, our spaces are designed to fuel productivity, creativity and growth.

Now, we’re bringing that vision to The Jellicoe at King’s Cross — a dedicated hub for founders and fast-growing companies. Here, flexibility meets opportunity: scale at speed with agile workspace solutions, connect with a curated community of entrepreneurs and investors, and enjoy all the perks of a Fora membership, from wellness spaces and hospitality-grade service to events that open doors.

Surround yourself with innovators and global tech giants in one of London’s most exciting neighbourhoods.

If you’re building the next big thing, this is where you want to be.

Discover Fora with a free Day Pass

Permission Control

Today’s newsletter comes from our Research Director, Eamonn Ives. Normal service with Philip resumes next week!

While I’m hardly the world’s most sentimental person, there are a handful of things I routinely look forward to each year: that first sunny day of spring, the return of Premier League football, and Patrick and John Collison publishing Stripe’s annual company letter.

If you think you have better things to do with your time than read some corporate musings, think again. Far from the inane platitudes that give ‘corporatese’ its deservedly bad name, their annual stocktake is always worth your full attention.

In their latest letter, the pair examine several trends that should interest each and every entrepreneur. Among other things, they show how income concentration among top firms is approaching record levels, how stablecoins are already reshaping B2B payments, and how agentic commerce might transform both professional and personal life.

Like all good writers, the Collisons save the best for last. Invoking the work of Joel Mokyr, one of the winners of last year’s Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, they note:

“In The Political Economy of Technological Change, Mokyr also observed that new technologies have in the past often failed, despite their economic superiority, because technological decision-making implicates not only suppliers and customers, but also a broad variety of nonmarket “aggregators” (regulators, committees, courts) that influence what is adopted. As AI and the internet expand the scope of what’s possible, synthetic impediments to adoption and adaptation will become increasingly costly. Our bifurcating economy shows that growth is contingent on the application of useful knowledge and not some preordained result of its abstract availability.”

The point is worth dwelling on. It’s not enough to invent something better. Whether it actually gets used — at scale, and quickly enough to matter — depends just as much on permission from regulators as it does on consumer demand and entrepreneurial guile. We’ve seen this play out already with nuclear energy and drones — and we’re watching it unfold again with advances like AI and GLP-1 agonists. An increasingly pertinent question for innovation policy now is not whether we can invent miraculous new technologies, but whether institutional environments will give them the oxygen they require to breathe.

Here at The Entrepreneurs Network, we can’t promise to crack cold fusion, engineer room-temperature superconductors, or invent any other technological marvels. What we can try to do, however, is to ensure that when society’s innovators make progress, the policy landscape stands ready to facilitate rather than frustrate them.

After decades of relative stagnation, it’s patently clear that we are now at a juncture in human history. Readers of my Big Idea this week will know that new technologies appear to be diffusing into the economy at an ever-quickening pace. It is incumbent on policymakers to ensure that regulatory barriers to socially useful innovation do not put that trend into reverse. Before us awaits an abundant society — if we can permit it.

On the Hunt

On Tuesday, we hosted Sir Jeremy Hunt MP for a fireside chat, adeptly chaired by our Patron, Steve Rigby. In the audience were around 50 entrepreneurs, all armed with incisive questions to pose to the former Chancellor.

As it was held under Chatham House Rule, I can’t divulge exactly what was discussed, but we covered a lot of ground. I mentioned on LinkedIn how one of the most interesting parts of the evening was Sir Jeremy’s reflection on the similarities between being a top politician and leading entrepreneur.

Since then, I’ve also spent more time thinking about his observation of how we need to get better at embracing risk — both in business, and, perhaps more importantly, in politics. This wasn’t a paean for recklessness, but to acknowledge that too often our political system rewards ‘not doing wrong’ far more so than it rewards ‘actively doing good’.

Many of Britain’s thorniest problems have festered for decades. Rather than always trying to stave off the worst-case scenario, perhaps civil servants should be empowered to experiment more boldly with novel solutions. When venture capitalists allocate investment, they do so in the hope that a handful of winning bets cover many multiples more losing ones. Gains may stand to be made if we could develop a similarly healthy tolerance for failure in policymaking too.

We’ll be organising more fireside chats with other political leaders in the near future. To receive invitations directly, you can join as a Member for free here. If you’re in a position to support us financially, you can use the same link to join us as a Supporter or Adviser (for those who already do — thank you).

Last Call

If you haven’t got around to it yet, there’s still time to respond to our latest Entrepreneurs Survey. Whether you’re optimistic, pessimistic, or somewhere in between — we want to know what founders really think about Britain’s current state of affairs. It only takes 10 minutes to complete, and you’ll be joining hundreds of fellow founders who have made their voices count.

Three Big Ideas #55

Three Big Ideas is our fortnightly roundup of ideas (and our takes on them) in entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology, handpicked by the team.

This week, Eamonn Ives discusses new research that suggests the pace at which novel technologies diffuse into the economy is accelerating, Mann Virdee ponders whether we should copy the Chinese when training new engineers, and Jessie May Green takes stock of Britain’s approach to critical minerals.

Work Out

This week we learned that the UK’s unemployment rate hit a near five-year high in the last quarter of 2025, climbing to 5.2%. Among 16 to 24-year-olds, unemployment rose to 16.1%, the highest in more than a decade — and above the EU average for the first time since records began in 2000. Ouch!

Entrepreneurs in our network knew this was happening in real time. As reported by Bloomberg:

“One in four founders have made fewer administrative hires, and 19% recruited fewer juniors in response to AI technological advancements, according to a survey conducted by The Entrepreneurs Network in November. Only 2% said they increased headcount.”

(Incidentally, this is one reason you should complete our latest Entrepreneurs Survey. Your views on tax breaks will be submitted to the Government’s call for evidence, and you may like to know that strategists in all political parties are on tenterhooks to find out which outfit — or none, if you prefer — entrepreneurs say best understands their needs.)

Friend of the network Rachael Twumasi-Corson identifies the dual challenge in the same Bloomberg article:

“It’s scary to hire people, the minimum wage is so high and there’s so many additional protections”...“I would much rather have a team, celebrate wins and figure out ways to solve problems together, but at the moment, my team is ChatGPT and Gemini.”

It’s not just the minimum wage though. While the Government thankfully ditched its pledge to give day-one protection from unfair dismissal, the impact of the Employment Rights Act will still be brutal — here are no fewer than 55 reasons why. As our Research Director Eamonn Ives told Bloomberg:

“Before, the mindset might have been: we’ve got this idea and we’re going to quickly recruit as many people as possible to pursue it.”...“Now startups are thinking twice about taking on new hires who they might not be able to keep on if things don’t pan out.”

The cost of this direction of travel is clear. In a brilliant article for Works in Progress, Pieter Garicano argues — convincingly — that labour laws go a long way to explaining the innovation divide between the US and Europe.

This is seen most obviously when companies like Bird, Grammarly and Hugging Face move explicitly for this reason. But most of the damage is done below the surface. Relative to income, it costs large companies four times more to lay off workers in Germany and France than in the US — a difference arising entirely from regulation. As Pieter writes:

“If it is expensive to lay people off, employers avoid creating jobs that they might subsequently discontinue. Innovation involves experimentation and risk, so jobs in innovative areas of the economy are more likely to be discontinued than jobs elsewhere. High severance costs create a fundamental incentive for European businesses to avoid innovative areas and concentrate on safe, unchanging ones. In the long run, this is a recipe for decline.”

It’s not all doom and gloom, though. Pieter argues that Europe doesn’t need to choose between innovation and worker protection — it can have both, as Denmark and Austria show.

Denmark’s ‘flexicurity’ model lets employers fire almost at will, while the government catches workers with generous unemployment insurance (up to 90% of prior income for two years) and heavy spending on retraining. Austria uses portable severance accounts funded by employers, so workers keep their safety net when they change jobs.

Britain doesn’t have to choose between a safety net and a dynamic economy. But right now, we’re getting the worst of both worlds.

Our Adviser Anton Howes has created an employment cost calculator, which you may find useful. We’ve also compiled some useful links on our Support for UK Entrepreneurs page, including the Government’s new Employment Changes guidance on workplace rights reforms.

Value Judgement

This week, we joined 18 other business organisations in calling on the Government to consult on extending VAT liability rules for online marketplaces. As things stand, some overseas sellers exploit gaps in the current system to avoid charging VAT, giving them an automatic 20% price advantage over British businesses who play by the rules. For entrepreneurs who rely on marketplaces to grow, this is a serious competitive threat.

As well as levelling the playing field, reform could recover an estimated £700 million a year for the Exchequer. What’s not to like?

Leading Light

I’m delighted to share that Gaurav Chawla has joined us as an Adviser. Gaurav is a deep-tech founder, angel investor and university mentor focused on strengthening the UK’s science-to-scale pipeline.

As well as leading Lumirithmic, an Imperial College London spinout, he invests in and mentors early-stage founders emerging from Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial and UCL.

Gaurav is bullish on the UK:

“The UK combines world-class universities with global capital markets and a strong legal framework. The opportunity lies in strengthening risk appetite and improving the pathways between research institutions and commercial markets. With better alignment between policy, capital, and execution, the UK is well positioned to lead in deep-tech commercialisation.”

He also describes our quarterly Entrepreneurs Survey as “invaluable”:

“Policy debates often rely on theory; those surveys surface the lived experience of founders navigating tax policy, capital constraints, hiring, and regulation in real time. If we want to fix the commercialisation gap in UK deep tech, we need to listen to operators and study where companies stall, not just celebrate research output.”

Hear, hear! Now is your chance to do something invaluable (in under 10 minutes).

XOX

Our new buddies at SXSW London have asked us to share two opportunities I think will interest many of you.

First, the London Venture Spotlight: a university-affiliated pitch competition designed to platform emerging startups developing technologies that felt like science fiction just a few years ago. First prize is £100,000 in investment and an on-stage slot at SXSW Pitch in Austin. Find out more here.

Second, SXSW London is also looking for mentors to deliver pre-booked 1:1 sessions with festival attendees, matched by industry expertise. Mentors contribute 100 minutes in total — five focused 20-minute conversations. They’re also seeking roundtable leads for intimate, facilitated group discussions of 10–15 delegates, lasting one hour. Register your interest here.

Anne-Laure Le Cunff's Speech at the Launch of Job Creators

Anne-Laure Le Cunff — neuroscientist, Founder of Ness Labs and Adviser to The Entrepreneurs Network — spoke at the launch of our latest Job Creators report:

I'm the founder of Ness Labs, a science-based platform helping knowledge workers be more productive and creative without sacrificing their mental health. It's work that grew directly out of my research as a neuroscientist at King's College, London where I study curiosity, among other things. And I think curiosity is actually the right word for tonight.

When I read the report, the finding that jumped out at me wasn't just that more than half of the fastest growing companies in the UK have a foreign-born founder. It was the list of countries those founders come from. Twenty-nine nations, six continents. And the most common country of origin? France.

As a French-Algerian person born in Paris, I feel a certain personal pride in that statistic. But more than pride, I feel gratitude. Because the UK gave me something I'm not sure I would have found anywhere else.

I first moved here in 2013. I left for the US in 2015, came back in 2017, and it's now been almost a decade that I call this country home. In that time, I've gone from working in tech, to doing a PhD, to building a company. And the reason I could do all of that here is precisely what makes the UK special: this is a country where you can wear many hats. Where reinventing yourself isn't just tolerated — it's encouraged.

The UK is cosmopolitan, diverse, and creative, combining world-class research institutions with a thriving startup culture — which, for someone building a science-based business, is the perfect combination. Our proximity to Europe also matters to me; I consider myself European at heart and I deeply value the exposure to different perspectives and talent. The UK has a long tradition of intellectual curiosity and exploration, and given that I study curiosity for a living, I can't think of a better place to be.

Now, I want to be honest. I've been fortunate. I moved here before Brexit, which meant I didn't face the visa hurdles that many brilliant people face today. But increasingly, when I meet talented researchers and founders from abroad — people who would be extraordinary additions to our economy — I hear the same story. The processing delays are unpredictable. The costs are steep, especially for early-stage companies. And too often, as a result, these people decide it's simply easier to go somewhere else. That's real talent, real companies, and real jobs that the UK will never see.

So I want to highlight two recommendations from tonight's report that I think deserve real attention.

First: protect fast-track settlement for exceptional talent. When someone already has a proven track record, forcing them onto a ten-year settlement track sends the wrong signal.

Second: design a selective Spinout visa for graduates and academics. I've seen firsthand, at King's College, London and across UK universities, how much world-class research never contributes to the economy, sometimes simply because the researcher doesn't have the right to stay and build a business.

The UK has something genuinely rare: a combination of intellectual curiosity and entrepreneurial energy that draws people from all over the world. Let's make sure we don't close the door on the very people who help make this country exceptional.