Consider moving to a PEP665 compliant build and packaging tool

**Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.**
We've been using `poetry` as our package management tool which works well for all our needs. Initially I had wondered what other major projects used for package management (moving from `setuptools` in the `prestans` days).

Looking under the hood of projects like `fastapi` I found they all use [hatch](https://hatch.pypa.io/latest/).

@brettcannon started the issue [Interested in supporting PEP 665?](https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/issues/4710) on the repository and it would seem that there are major design variations which would it difficult to make `poetry` compatible with [`pep665`](https://peps.python.org/pep-0665/) (note that there's mention of the work being sponsored)

The [python packaging](https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/overview/) site refers to `hatch` quite strongly.

**Describe the solution you'd like**
We should thoroughly read through the packaging guide to ensure we have the right [structures and flows](https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/flow/).

We should identify if `poetry` is still a suitable tool for the requirements, and if not what is and why?

We should then produce:
- Detailed instructions of the newly chosen tool
- Github actions for automating packaging
- Updated `Dockerfile` for building the packages for development and production

**Describe alternatives you've considered**
NA

**Additional context**
See the Python packaging guide.

> It might be easier for us to prototype this against a smaller projects like our gallagher client.