AstraZeneca to invest $2.5bn in drugs research and manfacturing in Beijing
AstraZeneca will invest $2.5bn in research and manufacturing in Beijing, as the pharmaceutical company tries to move past recent controversies including ditching plans for the expansion of a UK vaccine plant and the detentions of top executives in China.
The investment will be staggered over the next five years as part of a 'strategic partnership' with the city's authorities and also includes agreements with three local biotech companies.
Britain's biggest drug maker said it hopes the deal will 'advance early-stage research and clinical development and will be enabled by a new state-of-the-art AI and data science laboratory'.
The announcement was made six months after it emerged that eight current and former AstraZeneca employees had been detained by Chinese police as part of an investigation into possible breaches related to data privacy and importing unlicensed medications.
The following month, the company's president in China, Leon Wang, was detained as part of a separate investigation and was said to be 'cooperating with [the] Chinese authorities'.
The drugs group then found itself at the centre of a political debate over Labour's growth agenda after it axed plans in February for the £450m expansion of its factory in the Liverpool suburb of Speke, citing factors 'including the timing and reduction of the final offer' compared with a proposal by the previous, Conservative government.
The new investment in Beijing is part of a move by AstraZeneca to increase its presence in China. It has spent almost $10bn on 12 acquisitions in the country, including the Shanghai-based Gracell Biotechnologies, which develops cell therapies for cancer and autoimmune disease, for $1.2bn last year.
Pascal Soriot, the chief executive of AstraZeneca, said: 'This $2.5bn investment reflects our belief in the world-class life sciences ecosystem in Beijing, the extensive opportunities that exist for collaboration and access to talent, and our continued commitment to China.'
He added that the group's 'sixth strategic R&D centre will partner with the cutting-edge biology and AI science in Beijing and be a critical part of our global efforts to bring innovative medicines to patients worldwide.'
AstraZeneca's five existing centres include two in the US, in Boston and Gaithersburg, near Washington DC; as well a two further European centres, in Cambridge, England, and Gothenburg in Sweden. The Beijing site will be the second in China, with an existing facility in Shanghai.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
AstraZeneca, which is the UK's most valuable listed company, said the case concerning Wang involved suspected unpaid importation taxes of $900,000, which could lead to a fine of up to five times that amount if the company was found liable.
A decade ago, AstraZeneca's UK rival, GSK, had to pay a fine of 3bn yuan (£297m) to the government in Beijing, after being found guilty of bribery by a Chinese court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Anglesey and Celtic freeports job hopes 'downgraded'
Plaid Cymru's Luke Fletcher criticised the pace of change at the Anglesey freeport as well as the Celtic freeport based around Port Talbot and Pembrokeshire. Mr Fletcher said people were promised transformative economic benefits, tens of thousands of jobs, billions in investment and a green revolution – "but years on, we are still waiting". "That's a fact, that's a reality," the shadow economy secretary warned. "Now, if freeports are meant to be a cornerstone of our economic strategy, then we need to actually understand exactly what we're getting and, right now, there's a huge lack of clarity and credibility." Freeports, originally a Conservative UK Government policy, offer tax breaks in an effort to boost business. Mr Fletcher said an initial promise of 20,000 jobs by 2030 was revised down to 17,000 on the Welsh Government's website, a decrease of 15 per cent. He added that the Celtic freeport was downgraded by 31per cent from a promise of 16,000 jobs to nearer 11,000 today. "All we've seen from the Celtic freeport so far are strategies, frameworks and meetings: no clear delivery, no major employment, no visible change," he said. Rebecca Evans, Wales' economy secretary, told Senedd members it remains early days with "an awful lot" of work going on behind the scenes and the freeports only open for business for a matter of months. Samuel Kurtz, the Conservatives' shadow secretary, welcomed the Celtic and Anglesey freeports but raised concerns about sites in England such as Teesside being further along. He also hailed "significant" progress at Wales' two investment zones – based on advanced manufacturing in Wrexham and Flintshire, and semiconductors in Newport and Cardiff. In her statement, Ms Evans said the Welsh Government has agreed full business cases for both freeports and the final agreement with UK ministers was close to completion.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
We should all hope Rachel Reeves delivers growth - or our taxes are going up: SIMON LAMBERT
Rachel Reeves faced a big challenge in her spending review. This is the event where she sets down a marker for what Labour plans to do under Sir Keir Starmer and herself as Chancellor. Funds are pledged to projects and government departments that fit with Labour's priorities – future Budgets should align with a plan to make this happen. Reeves faced a double challenge though, as she also needed to convince the country Labour can deliver growth and improve Britain, while balancing the books in a way that convinces markets the UK's finances are under control. The first element involves a commitment to spend, the second requires spending less or raising taxes. Clearly, this is a difficult balancing act to pull off at the best of times. But if you've promised not to raise taxes and many in your party are vehemently opposed to spending cuts to already threadbare public services, it's even harder. Add in the backdrop of a screeching U-turn on winter fuel payments, a rise in job losses blamed on the Autumn Budget 's employer national insurance rise, and a Spring Statement that regained a wafer-thin £9.9billion fiscal rule buffer only for this to be wiped out soon after by Donald Trump's tariff ructions, and you don't envy Reeves at all. As the old asking for directions joke punchline goes: 'Well, I wouldn't start from here'. There was more money for defence, schools and the NHS and less money for other public services deemed less important, or able to be brushed under the carpet for now. Ultimately though, the economic story remains the same as it was with Reeves' Tory predecessors: meet your targets by outlining plans that involve growth picking up, productivity improving and cutting spending in the future. Since Rishi Sunak there's also been some fiscal drag from frozen tax thresholds chucked in for good measure. Based on the OBR's five-year outlooks, this allows Chancellors to meet their fiscal rules. The fact that these forecasts inevitably turn out to be wrong, productivity doesn't improve, and things don't end up balancing is conveniently ignored. Yet, still we continue with the farce of policy by spreadsheet. As I've written before this fairytale economics is a terrible way to make decisions. Fortunately, the Chancellor had one card up her sleeve, the change to borrowing rules that allowed extra infrastructure investment. It freed her up to announce £113billion of plans to knock Britain into shape. These ranged from £39billion for affordable homes over a decade, to £30billion on nuclear power, £15billion on transport schemes. Among the beneficiaries will be rail and bus links in the North, the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, and the Sizewell C nuclear plant. Will these things deliver growth? Over time, they should do, but we will have to wait for that to arrive. In the meantime, we face a summer of speculation over tax rises in an Autumn Budget – and with the three big earners of income tax, national insurance and VAT off the table due to Labour's pre-election promise, that would mean more tinkering around the edges. The target of tax rises is likely to be wealth, and hitting the wealthy means potentially going after pensions, savings and investments – the OECD even called for a council tax hike on big homes last week. What if things can only get better? But there is an alternative scenario. Through a combination of bad luck and her own mistakes, such as the mystifying '£22billion black hole' gloomfest, Reeves has been caught out in her time as Chancellor. Government borrowing costs have risen, borrowing itself has come in higher than forecast, and growth has disappointed. Meanwhile, the second iteration of President Trump has proved even more erratic than the first. If things move in the opposite direction though, the UK's finances could improve, and Reeves would catch a lucky break and not have to raise taxes in autumn. This is not an entirely far-fetched scenario, GDP growth in early 2025 was better than expected, a calmer period could see government borrowing costs fall, and a pick-up in the economy would deliver extra tax revenue. Its doubtful that much benefit will be seen from the infrastructure splurge for a while, but the government's pledge to build homes and its threats against reluctant councils are already seeing more approved. I'm reading increasing reports of councils waving through schemes they would previously have said no to. Most likely as they are worried about appeals if they turn developers down and get over-ruled. This may come at a cost to the environment and local communities, while developers cash in, but if enough spades go in the ground, it will boost growth. Meanwhile, companies seem to have front-loaded job cuts, the UK stock market is on the up, and I feel that we may be past the moment of peak consumer gloom. All this could bring that much hoped for improvement in growth. I know this would mess with many of our readers' desire for schadenfreude over Labour, but to my mind, greater prosperity is definitely a better outcome. Otherwise, taxes will surely be going up again soon. How far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? Tax is an increasingly taxing subject for many people who feel hard done by as Britain's complicated system catches them out. And, it's getting worse. So how far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? And is it changing people's behaviour? On this podcast, Georgie Frost, Lee Boyce and Simon Lambert dive into how the British tax tail is wagging the dog - and what you can do to avoid infuriating tax traps.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Winter fuel payment u-turn exposes flaws in SNP's universalism
Reeves maintained that circumstances have changed so much that the u-turn now represents a model of safe fiscal navigation. She was bound to claim that and I don't really care, so long as it allows a costly political mistake to be neutralised. In fact, Reeves' statement indicated quite a few 'u-turns' which have headed the government in more recognisable Labour directions. Thank goodness for that too, I say. People voted for change and it needs to be more visible. In the run-up to last week's by-election, lots of voters were still angry about Reeves' initial action on Winter Fuel Payments but not enough, as it proved, to change the outcome. Labour has had the sense to listen and respond with more positive messages. The Chancellor was not just redistributionist in her commitments to health, education, housing and so on, which apply directly to England. She also spread serious investment around the nations and regions, on top of the record £52 billion to the Scottish Government. Read more from Brian Wilson: Her England-only funding will lead to lots of 'Barnett consequentials' for Scotland. Normally, these are taken with one ungrateful hand and recycled with the other as Scottish Government largesse, without a backward reference to where the money came from. Anas Sarwar will need to keep reminding them and this time more attention must be paid to whether the extra billions are used for priorities which generated them. For example, every penny of 'consequentials' which flow from extra NHS spending in England should be spent on the NHS in Scotland, which has not always happened in the past. There should be complete transparency around this and how other Barnett money, on top of the £52 billion, is spent, and the value we get. However convoluted the route to get here, Winter Fuel Payments now offer a perfect example of why 'universalism' is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration which has the courage to take the argument on. Under Reeves' plans, pensioners with income under £35,000 a year will get the Winter Fuel Payment of two or three hundred pounds. Those above that amount will not. The vast majority of people will regard that compromise as somewhere between fair and generous. I haven't heard anyone plead the case for restoring universalism. Except, of course, in Scotland where the nationalists committed themselves to paying every pensioner £100, whether they need it or not. It was a political gimmick to demonstrate generosity, humanity etc in comparison to Whitehall, to be funded entirely from the Scottish budget (at the expense of something else). Now the money will come from the Treasury and it will be up to Edinburgh to divvy it up. If they persist in giving £100 to pensioners above the £35,000 threshold, it will either be at the expense of the less well-off or an entirely pointless use of scarce resources, other than to justify 'universalism'. Maybe that example could open the door to an overdue wider debate in Scotland around 'universalism' which opposition politicians tend to steer clear of because the assumption has developed that 'free things are popular' even if their effect is to widen wealth and attainment gaps, rather than narrow them. In a world of unlimited resources, universalism may be a desirable concept, to be recouped through correspondingly high taxation. In the world we inhabit, on the other hand, it is a lofty-sounding device for transferring scarce resources from those who have least to others who are much better off. That is a deception which the SNP have deployed to great advantage. Anyone who challenges it is accused of wanting to reintroduce 'means-testing' which carries the stigma of 1930s oppressors keeping money from the poor. In the 2020s, however, the case for 'means-testing' is to stop giving money to those who don't need it. Another obvious example of this con-trick involves 'free tuition' which now plays a large part in bringing Scotland's universities to the point of penury, forcing large-scale redundancies, excluding Scottish students from hundreds of desirable courses and making our great seats of learning more dependent on decisions taken in Beijing and Seoul than Edinburgh. 'Universalism is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration' (Image: Radmat) At some point, politicians must have the courage to call out this deception for what it is. The guiding principle that nobody should be prohibited by economic circumstances from going to university does not equate to 'universalism'. Quite the opposite is true. Universalism actually works against those who need far more support if the dial on educational attainment is ever going to move, which it hasn't done in Scotland under present policies and posturing. If public money is to be better spent in Scotland to attack poverty and disadvantage while creating a thriving economy, then shibboleths will have to be challenged. The Scottish Government has never been short of money and certainly won't be now. The question of how it is spent and wasted should be the battlefield of political debate. Another satisfactory 'u-turn' confirmed yesterday was recognition that nuclear power will be an essential component in the transition to a clean energy future. I wish the same obvious conclusion had been reached 20 years ago, when I was arguing for it within government, or could be recognised even now by the student politicians in Edinburgh. With renewables and nuclear, Scotland really could have been a world leader on net zero. Without nuclear, it will still need fossil fuels for baseload for the foreseeable future with imports, rather oddly, regarded by some as morally superior to those extracted from the North Sea. Bring on another u-turn! Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003.
