Liverpool peer demands answers on AstraZeneca deal collapse
A Liberal Democrat peer has accused the government of favouring the south-east of England over Merseyside after AstraZeneca pulled out of a £450m investment. The pharmaceutical giant had signed a deal with the previous Conservative administration for a major expansion of its vaccine manufacturing plant in Speke, Liverpool.However, the firm said it was pulling out after the Treasury reduced the amount of government funding it was willing to provide to support the plans. Mike Storey CBE, who previously served as leader of Liverpool City Council, told BBC Radio Merseyside it was "absolutely shocking" that the deal had collapsed at the same time "billions" were being spent on the life sciences sector in the South East.
Lord Storey said: "It is bizarre, is it not, that a former Conservative government gave us the money, signed the deal with AstraZeneca, and it's a Labour Government which is taking it away from us."I just can't believe it, so I very much hope that something else is going to be available for Merseyside, it's very important."The BBC has contacted the government for a response. It previously defended its negotiations with AstraZeneca, blaming a shortfall in government funding.Science minister Sir Chris Bryant told Parliament that the government had made a "significant offer" of support to the firm, but doing more "simply didn't add up for the taxpayer".
The plan to expand the site, which manufactures the flu vaccine, was announced by then-chancellor Jeremy Hunt in the 2024 spring budget. A government spokesperson said a change to the "make-up of the investment" that had originally been proposed led to the government grant being reduced.Pascal Soriot, chief executive of AstraZeneca, said there was no rift with the government but the deal was no longer "economically viable" without the same level of funding as agreed previously."It wasn't possible for the government to justify it, which we totally understand, and we said we couldn't justify it either," he said. "We were all very disappointed, but that's business life."Lord Storey said he feared the government was not "putting Liverpool and Merseyside high on its growth agenda"."Any money that's spent by government has to be carefully considered but my point is if they've got billions of pounds for growth, mainly in the South East, are they looking closely at the money there?" he said. "No they're not - they're just saying they're going to provide that money and infrastructure - Liverpool yet again seems to miss out."
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on BBC Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram, and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Anas Sarwar should not expect to oust John Swinney yet, says polling guru
John Curtice said the battle for the South Lanarkshire seat always looked as if it would be a close affair and that's how it turned out. Anas Sarwar should not expect to oust John Swinney as first minister just yet despite Labour's success at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, Professor John Curtice has said. The election guru said the battle for the South Lanarkshire seat always looked as if it would be a close affair and that's what happened. The Strathclyde University academic told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'If you take in the opinion polls, what's happened in Hamilton, and the ups and downs in Labour and SNP support since 2021, we see Labour at 31 per cent and the SNP at 31 per cent. 'So the contest always looked to be close and that's what's been proven in the end. Labour has done slightly better and the SNP slightly worse, but there is nothing in the result to suggest Labour has turned around the polls. 'But equally what's true is there are no signs in this result that the SNP are making much progress in reversing the losses from last year. 'The recent message from opinion polls are the SNP is running at just over 30 per cent, Labour is around 20 per cent, so it seems a reasonable expectation that such a result would not mean Anas Sarwar is Scotland's next first minister.' Curtice also said that the by-election was positive for Reform, even though it came third after some pundits predicted it could finish higher. Nigel Farage's party took 26.2 per cent of the vote - well above the 19 per cent it is sitting at in the national polls for Scotland. Writing in The Times, he said: 'Once again it is Reform's political prospects that now look brighter. 'As in the English local elections, so in Hamilton the party outperformed its current standing in the polls, winning as much as 26 per cent of the vote. 'Hitherto politicians in Scotland have comforted themselves with the thought that Nigel Farage could never make the political weather in a country that voted against Brexit and which seems less concerned about immigration. 'However, as in the rest of the UK, that is not a thought that is credible any more.' It is estimated around one in four Conservative voters in Scotland from last year's general election have switched to Reform, along with one in six Labour voters. Curtice said: 'Reform UK is damaging both of the principal unionist parties in Scotland. 'In this instance, it was not enough to save the SNP's bacon. But across Scotland there is still the likely prospect that the SNP will be the largest party in the next Holyrood election, but much diminished and much less powerful than the one currently occupying the debating chamber.'
South Wales Argus
3 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Senedd rejects calls for Betsi Cadwaladr public inquiry
Gareth Davies led a Conservative debate calling for a public inquiry, with Sunday marking the unwelcome milestone of a decade in special measures for the north Wales health board. Mr Davies, who worked for the NHS before his election in 2021, warned the health board remains mired in systemic failure, 'with no clear timeline for recovery'. He said: 'A decade on, the Welsh Government has acknowledged that Betsi could languish in this state indefinitely. This is not just a failure of management, it's a failure of accountability, leadership and political will under Labour's stewardship.' The Vale of Clwyd Senedd member argued a public inquiry is needed to uncover the root causes of the prolonged crisis and deliver justice for the people of north Wales. 'The evidence is damning,' he said. 'When combined, Betsi has spent longer in special measures than any other organisation in the history of the NHS. 'Political expediency saw the Welsh Government prematurely lift Betsi out of special measures – only for dire realities, safety breaches, patient harm and operational chaos to force its reinstatement back in 2023.' Mr Davies told the Senedd only two people were waiting longer than two years for treatment in June 2015, compared with 5,747 today – 'a staggering 287,250 per cent increase'. He told the chamber that a 2024 Audit Wales report on Betsi painted a grim picture of ongoing leadership instability and a lack of coherent, long-term planning. Mabon ap Gwynfor, for Plaid Cymru, denounced a long story of 'chronic failure, executive dysfunction and organisational chaos that has bedevilled the north Wales health board.' He pointed out that Betsi, which was established in 2009 with the merger of six local health boards, has been in special measures for two-thirds of its existence. Labour's Carolyn Thomas and Lesley Griffiths argued Wales needs to start celebrating what is good about our health service, with many people receiving fantastic treatment. Senedd members rejected the Tory motion, 33-13, with Labour and Plaid Cymru voting against. The Welsh Government's amended version was agreed, 24-23.
Finextra
4 hours ago
- Finextra
Preparing for BNPL regulation: What firms need to do now: By Ben O'Brien
The arrival of formal regulation for Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) products is no longer a question of if, but when. With the Treasury's May 2025 consultation response, the direction is this: by mid-2026, third-party BNPL lenders will fall within the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This change brings with it a full set of regulatory requirements—covering affordability, creditworthiness, redress, disclosures, and governance. While many firms are familiar with the general framework, the pace and detail of implementation demand serious attention. Risk leaders now face a critical window to build a strategy that aligns commercial goals with regulatory readiness. Scope of the new BNPL regime From mid-2026, third-party BNPL providers must be authorised by the FCA and comply with its rules on affordability, creditworthiness, consumer duty, complaints, disclosures, and more: Mandatory, proportionate affordability and creditworthiness checks Firms must demonstrate verifiable checks at the point of decisioning, aligned to individual circumstances, not just product type. Firms must demonstrate verifiable checks at the point of decisioning, aligned to individual circumstances, not just product type. Access to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) BNPL customers can now escalate complaints to FOS, increasing the importance of auditable redress processes and timely resolution. BNPL customers can now escalate complaints to FOS, increasing the importance of auditable redress processes and timely resolution. Tailored disclosure requirements for digital-first products The FCA will introduce a bespoke regime focused on real-world comprehension — not just information delivery. Firms will need to test and evidence understanding. The FCA will introduce a bespoke regime focused on real-world comprehension — not just information delivery. Firms will need to test and evidence understanding. Extension of Section 75 protections to BNPL agreements Providers will be jointly liable for qualifying claims, requiring clear merchant oversight, governance controls, and capital planning to manage new exposure. While third-party BNPL is the initial focus, merchant-offered BNPL products remain outside the perimeter for now. This exemption, based on Article 60F(2) of the Regulated Activities Order, is under review and could be revisited if scale or harm increases. What this means for compliance and risk leaders The FCA isn't looking for surface-level compliance. It expects firms to demonstrate that processes are working and that consumers are genuinely protected. Affordability frameworks must evolve Checks must be proportionate and verifiable, with models recalibrated to reflect customer circumstances. Even low-value lending must evidence the potential for harm reduction. Complaint handling will need to be FOS-ready This includes robust audit trails, clear redress pathways, MI reporting on themes, and training on FOS processes. Joint liability introduces new exposure Providers must enhance governance around merchant partnerships, define liability clearly in contracts, and plan for potential claims in their capital models. Joined-up governance is essential Effective programmes will require close collaboration across credit, compliance, legal, product, and ops teams—with clear ownership under SM&CR. Disclosures must reflect real-world understanding It's not just about format. The FCA expects firms to test, monitor, and evidence comprehension—particularly for vulnerable customers. Making best use of the Temporary Permissions Regime The FCA will launch a Temporary Permissions Regime (TPR) to support the transition. Providers must be ready to act quickly when the window opens. Prepare for registration Ensure that internal records, model documentation, and business models are clearly aligned with regulatory expectations. Conduct a readiness assessment Review decisioning processes, affordability checks, complaints management, and financial crime controls. Plan for dual-track execution Meet TPR requirements while simultaneously building toward full authorisation. Engage early with the FCA Establish open communication lines to reduce ambiguity and show proactivity. Plan for contingencies Prepare wind-down plans, customer messaging, and backup procedures in case of registration delays or rejections. Innovation and consumer protection can coexist The decision to exclude some legacy Consumer Credit Act requirements reflects the unique nature of BNPL: short-term, interest-free, and often accessed via digital channels. This creates space for a more relevant, user-centric approach to disclosures but it also raises the bar. Risk and compliance teams should work with product, legal, and design leads to ensure communications are: Integrated into real customer journeys Mobile-friendly and accessible Prompted by user behaviour Supported by outcome-based testing and complaints data Those who treat disclosures as a compliance task may struggle. Those who invest in relevance and usability will have stronger customer engagement and defensibility. Merchant carve-out and the risk of market distortion The decision to exclude merchant-led BNPL from the regulatory scope has sparked debate. Without oversight, merchant-offered credit could create competitive asymmetry and raise consumer protection concerns. Risk leaders should: Monitor merchant product developments and prepare for potential perimeter expansion Review all third-party merchant partnerships for regulatory dependencies Revisit financial promotions and credit broking arrangements, particularly where merchants promote BNPL products without broking permissions Regulatory costs and anticipated market impact The Treasury's impact assessment estimates: An Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) of £2.3 million A Net Present Value of -£20.1 million over the assessment period over the assessment period Authorisation application fees: £5,000 to £25,000 Annual supervision fees: £10,000 to £50,000 Technology upgrades: £500,000 to £2 million per provider for systems supporting affordability, reporting, and complaints per provider for systems supporting affordability, reporting, and complaints Section 75 exposure: Estimated at 0.5% to 1.2% of transaction values With the UK's BNPL market valued at £20 billion annually, sector-wide exposure to Section 75 alone could exceed £100 million. Consolidation is expected. Government modelling suggests 20–30% of providers may exit the market post-regulation. But with global BNPL volumes growing rapidly, those who remain stand to benefit from a stronger, more trusted marketplace. How leading firms are responding Some providers have already started adjusting: Klarna Following regulatory scrutiny in Sweden, Klarna UK introduced income verification, real-time spend tracking, and risk-based onboarding. Monzo Flex Built affordability into product design from the outset, with integrated credit reporting and real-time tracking. PayPal Adopted a cross-functional compliance strategy with specialist teams, training, and documentation of governance processes. The clock is ticking and the gap between those who prepare and those who delay will widen fast. For risk leaders, this is a chance to go beyond baseline compliance, strengthening frameworks, improving customer outcomes, and shaping the future of BNPL in a regulated environment.
