AberInnovation Joins Welsh Government Backed Helix Programme
As a newly appointed delivery partner, AberInnovation will lead the connectivity between food and drink innovation and the academic sector in Wales and the provision of the programme's Proof of Concept Plan, designed to support the early stages of product and process innovation.
The Helix Programme is a collaborative effort bringing together the expertise of four key partners: AberInnovation, ZERO2FIVE Food Industry Centre at Cardiff Metropolitan University, Food Centre Wales in Ceredigion, and Coleg Menai's Food Technology Centre in Llangefni.
Rooted in the ambitions of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, the Helix Programme aims to empower agrifood and drink businesses to boost productivity, champion sustainability, and deliver long-term value to communities and the Welsh economy.
AberInnovation's Proof of Concept Plan focuses on concept-driven support, helping businesses plan the requirements of validating innovative ideas, assess feasibility capabilities in Wales, and establish the technical groundwork for future development. This offer is particularly valuable for entrepreneurs and start up companies working on ingredient innovation, novel foods, or natural product development.
'We're delighted to bring our unique expertise to the Helix Programme,' said Dr Rhian Hayward MBE, CEO of AberInnovation. 'Our role is to help entrepreneurs and businesses move confidently from idea to impact, with structured, expert-led support that de-risks innovation and sets them up for long-term success. AberInnovation is delighted to join with the partners to compliment the already substantial capabilities and support on offer in Wales for food and drink innovation.'
Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change & Rural Affairs Huw Irranca-Davies said:
'I'm delighted to see AberInnovation joining the Helix Programme as we continue to strengthen Wales' position as a leader in food and drink innovation. This partnership brings together some of our finest academic institutions and innovation centres to support businesses at every stage of their journey, from ambitious start-ups to established producers looking to break new ground.
'The Helix Programme perfectly embodies our commitment to building a more prosperous and sustainable Wales. By connecting cutting-edge research with real-world business challenges, we're helping Welsh food and drink companies develop the innovative solutions that will drive productivity, create jobs, and position Wales at the forefront of the global food revolution.
'With AberInnovation's expertise in early-stage innovation now complementing the existing strengths of our Helix partners, we're creating an ecosystem where great Welsh ideas can flourish. This is exactly the kind of collaborative approach that will help us deliver on our economic missions whilst staying true to the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations Act.'
This offer is open to companies of all sizes in Wales and across the food and drink supply chain – from start-ups and producers to established brands.
To find out more or apply, visit here .
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
2 hours ago
- Leader Live
National Eisteddfod in Wrexham to highlight entrepreneurs
The festival, running from August 2 to August 9, will feature a week-long programme aimed at inspiring the next generation of business leaders. Backed by the Welsh Government, the initiative will take place at stands 629–630, with each day dedicated to a different theme, such as digital innovation and youth enterprise, all emphasising the significance of the Welsh language in business. Festivalgoers will have the opportunity to engage with seasoned entrepreneurs and Big Ideas Wales Role Models, discussing ideas and receiving practical advice. Among the notable attendees is Shoned Owen, who turned her mobile spray tan service into an award-winning product line, exemplifying how local concepts can achieve significant success. One of the highlights of the programme is a Tea & Panel event on Sunday, August 3, focusing on the potential of the Welsh language in boosting business growth. Guest speakers for this session include Angharad Gwyn, founder of Adra, Megan Llŷn, founder of Amdanat, and Maiwenn Berry, Chief Officer of Menter Iaith Fflint a Wrecsam. For those interested in the future of business technology, Monday, August 4, will see Digital Advisers Liam Kurmos and Siôn Huws discussing the application of AI in business, with an engaging, interactive virtual reality experience. On Wednesday, August 6, Awen Ashworth from Inspire by Sbarduno will conduct a fun, practical science session to stimulate entrepreneurial thinking. READ MORE: Eisteddfod village recreated in Minecraft by Wrexham Uni academics A key feature of the week is the Business Idea Competition, where attendees can present their ideas throughout the event, with the winner being announced during the Crowning Ceremony on the final day. In a nod to the Eisteddfod's tradition of creativity, Thursday's schedule includes an innovative interview with Gareth the Orangutan, providing a light-hearted yet insightful perspective on starting a business in modern Wales. Full programme details are available at:
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
How drivers were sold a car finance compensation fantasy
Britain has narrowly avoided a costly car finance compensation free-for-all after a landmark court ruling derailed chances of a payout for millions of drivers. Claims lawyers had been bombarding consumers with adverts suggesting they may have been entitled to thousands of pounds in a scandal over hidden commission on car finance deals. The scandal had been expected to rival the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, which cost banks more than £38 billion. It was thought that nearly 15 million drivers could be entitled to payouts worth as much as £44 billion in total — although Friday's Supreme Court ruling means the numbers are set to be far smaller. Questions have now been raised over whether those using car finance really lost out and how many of them deserve compensation at all. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had tried to intervene ahead of the ruling — arguing that a colossal compensation bill for the industry would damage the economy and consumers. The Supreme Court ruled on three cases where consumers bought cars on finance and argued that they had been treated unfairly because they had not been told about commission involved in their deals — which ranged from £183 to £1,651. The court rejected two of the three cases, but upheld a complaint by Marcus Johnson, a factory worker from south Wales — because in his case the £1,651 commission in his loan was 55 per cent of the fee (including interest) on his loan over five years. 'The fact that the undisclosed commission was so high is a powerful indication that the relationship between Mr Johnson and the lender was unfair,' the court's judgment said. It leaves the door open to claims for compensation on deals that contained large amounts of commission, or where the commission model influenced what they paid. How much would be needed for a deal to be unfair is something that is likely to be decided by the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which said it would confirm if it would introduce a redress scheme before stock markets open on Monday morning. The FCA had been investigating finance deals that had used a model called discretionary commission, which incentivised dealers to give customers a worse interest rate on their loan. However, a judgment by the Court of Appeal last October opened the door to compensation claims by millions of motorists who had bought cars on finance, regardless of the commission model. Lenders appealed to the Supreme Court over the ruling. About nine in ten cars are bought on finance and £39.7 billion was borrowed on more than two million cars in the year to May, according to the Finance and Leasing Association, a trade body. The Court of Appeal had ruled in October that car dealers had a duty to make clear the nature and value of any commission paid to them to ensure that borrowers could give 'informed consent' before agreeing to a deal. Reeves was among those concerned about a claims free-for-all, with the Treasury reportedly drawing up contingency plans to shield lenders from having to pay out billions of pounds in compensation. The Treasury attempted to intervene in the Supreme Court case, arguing that a ruling had 'the potential to adversely affect the United Kingdom's reputation as a place to do business, with a consequent impact on economic growth'. In the meantime complaints about car loans to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), a body that solves disputes, have risen from 4,130 in the first three months of 2023-24 to 37,230 in the last three months of 2024-25. Most of these have been brought by claims companies and no-win, no-fee law firms that file complaints on behalf of consumers in return for up to 30 per cent of any compensation. These companies have swamped radio, social media and television with adverts that tell consumers they could be owed thousands of pounds. On Thursday the FCA said it had required 224 adverts from claims firms about car finance to either be taken down or changed. There had been highly speculative figures advertised for how much consumers could get back, it said, including compensation figures that did not make clear they covered multiple car loans and misleading claims that refunds were guaranteed. It said companies had been signing up consumers without their consent after they clicked on adverts. Philip Salter, a former FCA regulator now at the consultancy Sicsic Advisory, said: 'I haven't liked a lot of the claims company advertising. You've had a lot of companies arguing that time is running out, but the clock hasn't even started. It's been a bit of an unseemly scramble.' • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture If there is to be compensation for consumers, it is expected that the FCA will announce a free redress scheme where lenders will contact those eligible, meaning consumers should not need to use a claims company. Gary Greenwood from the investment bank Shore Capital said: 'It's one of those things where if you go by the letter of the law of the previous Court of Appeal judgment, you're almost coming to the conclusion that commission is bad. But the problem is that if you look at the reality of what had happened, there doesn't seem to have been a lot of consumer harm that's gone on. 'So any sort of redress has got to come down to: has there been any consumer harm here, or are people just trying to claim money back on a technicality?' Greenwood said. Charlie Nunn, the chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, which runs Britain's biggest car finance lender, Black Horse, has denied the scandal was on the same level as PPI. 'Some 80 per cent of people need finance to buy a new car, and a large number of second-hand car buyers do as well,' he told The Times in January. 'We need a well-functioning motor finance industry that supports consumers.' The National Franchised Dealers Association, a trade body, told the Supreme Court that 'nobody goes to a car dealer with a reasonable expectation that it is acting without self-interest in relation to any of the products it sells'. The Supreme Court's judgment could have been the difference between lenders facing a compensation bill of £11 billion — for complaints about a specific form of commission — and £29 billion, according to Royal Bank of Canada Capital Markets, an investment bank. It could also have led to compensation claims about the sale of other financial products such as insurance where commission was involved but not properly disclosed. Consumers in turn could have had to foot the bill. Stuart Masson, the editor of the advice website The Car Expert UK, said that if lenders have to pay compensation to millions of people, car finance could get more expensive in the future as the industry tries to 'claw back' that money. 'That's not money they're going to find down the back of the sofa,' he told the BBC. 'They're going to have to get that back from increasing the costs of future lending, which won't just be on car finance. It could be on credit cards, it could be on personal loans, it could be on mortgages.' In January Reeves told bankers at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: 'There is nothing pro-consumer about making it harder for people to buy an affordable car for their family.' Before the courts widened the scope of possible mis-selling, the FCA had been investigating a specific model of commission called discretionary commission. This is where the cut that lenders paid dealers was linked to the interest rate consumers were charged, incentivising dealers to charge borrowers more. This model was used in about 35 per cent of car finance deals, according to the FCA, before it banned the practice in January 2021. The FCA said consumers could have paid about £1,100 more in interest over a four-year £10,000 car finance deal because of this commission model — which is being used as the basis for many of the estimates around possible compensation. Salter, who worked on the ban when he was at the FCA, said: 'That previous Court of Appeal ruling surprised me. I think everyone knows that if they're buying a car the salesman's getting commission, don't they? But discretionary commission never felt right to me.' The FCA began its investigation in January last year on whether consumers had been properly told about the link between their repayments and the commission. The investigation was kicked off by two rulings by the ombudsman against Lloyds and Barclays last year, which ordered the banks to refund two consumers more than £1,000 each. The FCA is expected to set out its next steps, including whether there will be a redress scheme, within six weeks. Any scheme would be free and easy for consumers to use, it said, while the FOS is also free for consumers to appeal to. Rob Lilley-Jones from the consumer group Which? said: 'It's vital that finance firms are held accountable for mis-selling and if a large number of motorists are eligible for compensation consumers are likely to be bombarded with ads from claims firms offering to take on their case. 'Affected customers should be careful when enlisting the services of claims management companies as the wrong choice could lead to their case being poorly handled, losing a significant portion of the compensation in legal fees — or both.' Coby Benson from the law firm Bott & Co, which helped win the ombudsman's case against Lloyds, said the experience from PPI was that consumers could sometimes recover more money by going to court than through a redress scheme. He said: 'We would support a proactive redress scheme if it fairly compensated consumers. But we have doubts over the effective implementation of a scheme, because our data shows that about half of clients have a different address now to that which the lender had from the time of the agreement.'
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
Car finance ruling leaves motorist involved in Supreme Court case ‘dumbfounded'
One of three drivers involved in a legal row over motor finance compensation has said he is 'dumbfounded' after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments. Marcus Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. In October last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the 35-year-old and two other drivers who had also paid commission as part of car finance agreements before 2021 were entitled to compensation. The court ruled that the motorists were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. The Supreme Court overturned the decision on Friday, but said Mr Johnson should retain his compensation and interest as he was in an 'unfair' relationship with the lender. When asked by the PA news agency how he felt about the outcome of the case, Mr Johnson, from Cwmbran in Wales, said: 'It was surprise and sadness, because I was quite confident, just based on how I felt about it, the unfairness of what happened to me. 'I thought people looking at all the information would come to the same conclusion, and I'm just dumbfounded. 'I feel terrible that people won't be able to claim anything like I have.' Mr Johnson said he did not 'disagree with commission' as he understood 'that that is how the market works'. But he said that the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. Mr Johnson said that he managed to sell his Suzuki after winning a Honda Civic in a raffle on Facebook, which he entered for £1. He said he could not afford the insurance on the Honda, so he sold it and used the money to pay off the remaining balance on the Suzuki. He then sold it privately at a loss thanks to the amount he still owed after three years of having the Suzuki on finance. While Mr Johnson acknowledged that he would 'steer clear' of hire-purchase agreements in future, there was little in his contract for the Suzuki which alerted him to the commission. He said: 'The problem with that, the reading of the small print, in my case, would not have told you any of the information anyway. 'There was a single sentence in my entire contract that said 'you may or may not be charged commission'. 'There was no information besides that single sentence about commission. 'Going forward, I don't know how I would purchase a car besides that way, but I would really steer clear of doing a similar transaction in the future.' Mr Johnson continued that the ruling 'does not sit right with me at all'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' In a 110-page ruling, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen said that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest. They said: 'An offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically.' They continued: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.'
