Chinese technology giant Huawei is participating in 16 projects funded by the European Commission’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program despite being dubbed a high-risk supplier. The Commission restricted Huawei from accessing Horizon projects in 2023 after saying that it (and another Chinese telecom supplier, ZTE) posed “materially higher risks than other 5G suppliers” in relation to cybersecurity and foreign influence. However, public data reviewed by POLITICO’s EU Influence newsletter shows that Huawei still takes part in several projects, many of which are in sensitive fields like cloud computing, 5G and 6G telecom technology and data centers. These projects mean Huawei has been working alongside universities and tech companies in Spain, France, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Finland and Italy. It also has access to the intellectual property generated by the projects, as the contracts require the sharing of information as well as joint ownership of the results between partners. A Commission spokesperson confirmed that of the 16 projects, 15 were signed before the restrictions took place. The remaining project “was signed in 2025 and was assessed as falling outside the scope of the existing restrictions.” Many of the projects started in January 2023, with the contracts running out at the end of this year, while others will last until 2027, 2028 and 2030. “Huawei participates in and implements projects funded under Horizon Europe in a lawful and compliant manner,” a company spokesperson said. One of the projects is to develop data privacy and protection tools in the fields of AI and big data, along with Italy’s National Research Council, the University of Malaga, the University of Toulouse, the University of Calabria, and a Bavarian high-tech research institute for software-intensive systems. Huawei received €207,000 to lead the work on “design, implementation, and evaluation of use cases,” according to the contract for that project, seen by POLITICO. COMMISSION CRACKDOWN Last month the Commission proposed a new Cybersecurity Act that would restrict Huawei from critical telecoms networks under EU law, after years of asking national capitals to do so voluntarily. “I’m not satisfied [with] how the member states … have been implementing our 5G Toolbox,” the Commission’s executive VP for tech and security policy, Henna Virkkunen, told POLITICO at the time, referring to EU guidelines to deal with high-risk vendors. “We know that we still have high-risk vendors in our 5G networks, in the critical parts … so now we will have stricter rules on this.” The Commission is also working on measures to cut Chinese companies out of lucrative public contracts. Bart Groothuis, a liberal MEP working on the Cybersecurity Act, told POLITICO that the Commission should “honor the promises and commitments” it made “and push them out.” “They should be barred from participating. Period.” Huawei was also involved in an influence scandal last year, with Belgian authorities investigating whether the tech giant exerted undue influence over EU lawmakers. The scandal led to Huawei’s being banned from lobbying on the premises of the European Commission and the European Parliament.

Presented as an instrument aimed at strengthening farmers’ position in the food supply chain, the targeted revision of the Regulation on the Common Market Organisation was intended to address structural challenges within the sector. Yet, as the trilogue approaches, the debate has gradually crystallized around a different issue: restricting certain denominations used for plant-based products. This shift deserves careful scrutiny. How would limiting widely understood terms concretely improve farmers’ position in the food chain? The connection between the original objective of the proposal and the measure currently under discussion remains insufficiently substantiated. If the stated ambition is to reinforce resilience and fairness within the agricultural chain, it is legitimate to question whether terminology restrictions meaningfully contribute to that goal. > How would limiting widely understood terms concretely improve farmers’ > position in the food chain? In a letter addressed to Members of the European Parliament, GAIA calls for maintaining the current regulatory framework and rejecting the proposed restrictions, whether concerning existing plant-based products or future products derived from cellular agriculture. The objective is clear: to preserve coherent and proportionate regulation that protects consumers without weakening an innovative and strategic sector. Behind a word: a market and jobs Europe holds a leading position in several innovative segments of plant-based alternatives. The European market was estimated at €2.7 billion in 2024 and continues to structure a dynamic industrial ecosystem across member states. Companies operating in this field invest significantly in research and development, expand production capacities, create qualified jobs and actively contribute to the industrial dynamism of the single market. This ecosystem extends well beyond food production. It supports technological innovation, specialised logistics, supply chain transformation and new forms of industrial cooperation. It contributes to the modernization of the European agri-food sector and strengthens the competitiveness of the internal market. In a period where industrial policy and strategic autonomy are central to the European agenda, introducing regulatory uncertainty risks undermining a competitive advantage built on sustained investment and innovation. > The issue therefore goes beyond semantics: it concerns the stability and > predictability of the European regulatory framework. “Behind denominations lies a real European economy: jobs, innovation and competitiveness.” Restricting widely understood terms would entail compliance costs, packaging adjustments, potential litigation and a risk of divergent interpretations across member states. The issue therefore goes beyond semantics: it concerns the stability and predictability of the European regulatory framework — factors that are essential for long-term investment decisions and business planning. Cellular agriculture: anticipate without destabilizing The same reasoning applies to products derived from cellular agriculture. Although not yet present on European shelves, these technologies hold significant potential for future development. Estimates suggest that the cultivated protein value chain could represent between €15 billion and €80 billion in new markets, with the potential to create between 25,000 and 90,000 jobs in Europe. The European Union already counts 47 companies active in cultivated meat out of 174 worldwide, as well as 61 out of 158 companies operating in precision fermentation and biomass technologies. This demonstrates that Europe is not a passive observer but an active participant in emerging food technologies. Yet European investment in novel foods currently represents less than 1 percent of total agri-food innovation funding. In this context, regulatory stability becomes a decisive factor in consolidating emerging technological leadership and retaining investment within the EU. Introducing additional denomination restrictions at such an early stage may send an unintended signal of unpredictability. For innovative sectors that depend on long development cycles and significant capital expenditure, clarity and proportionality in regulation are structural conditions for growth. “Europe can be demanding. It cannot afford to be unpredictable in sectors where it seeks to innovate.” Consumer protection: a framework already validated Consumer protection is a legitimate objective and a cornerstone of EU law. However, it operates within an already established and functional legal framework. The Food Information to Consumers Regulation requires clear, accurate and non-misleading labeling. Annex VI explicitly provides that the absence or substitution of animal-derived ingredients must be indicated. In case C-438/23, the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that this framework provides sufficient safeguards against misleading practices. “The Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed it: EU law already protects consumers.” > A plant-based product clearly identified as such does not constitute > linguistic ambiguity for the vast majority of consumers. The central argument in favor of additional restrictions rests on an assumption of consumer confusion. Yet available evidence indicates that consumers clearly distinguish animal-based products from plant-based alternatives when origin and composition are explicitly stated. Labeling transparency, rather than categorical prohibitions, remains the key instrument for ensuring informed choice. A plant-based product clearly identified as such does not constitute linguistic ambiguity for the vast majority of consumers. The debate should not be trivialized, but one principle deserves emphasis: regulation must protect without infantilizing. Suggesting that a single word, taken in isolation, would systematically mislead consumers underestimates their ability to read labels, understand context and make informed decisions. “Protecting consumers does not mean presuming a lack of discernment.” More than 600 companies and organizations from 22 member states have called for maintaining the current framework, underlining the importance of preserving single market coherence and avoiding regulatory fragmentation detrimental to innovation and competitiveness. Europe can reconcile consumer protection, legal certainty and competitiveness. It can do so by fully enforcing existing rules and targeting actual abuses rather than introducing general prohibitions that generate costs, legal uncertainty and unintended economic consequences. Ultimately, the question is not whether a word is liked or disliked. It is whether, in a context marked by major challenges related to industrial competitiveness, climate transition, economic security and geopolitical tension, this is where the union should concentrate its political and regulatory capital.

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has urged EU governments to rely on “coalitions of the willing” to push through long-stalled economic reforms, arguing the bloc doesn’t need all 27 countries on board to move forward. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published Saturday, Lagarde pointed to the 21-country eurozone as proof that deeper integration can work without full unanimity of the EU member states. “We do not have the 27 around the table, and yet it works,” she said. Lagarde’s remarks come as EU leaders debate how to complete the bloc’s long-stalled capital markets union. The project, now dubbed the “Savings and Investments Union,” is intended to deepen cross-border financial markets and mobilize private savings. Frustration over slow progress has led several large EU member states, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, to back a two-speed approach that would allow smaller groups of countries to integrate more quickly. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said the EU could consider “enhanced cooperation” if unanimity cannot be reached. Lagarde, whose term as ECB president runs until October 2027 and who has faced speculation about a possible early departure, said Europe should focus on delivering concrete reforms. In a sign of growing impatience, Lagarde earlier this month sent EU leaders a five-point checklist of “urgently needed” measures under the subject line “time for action,” outlining measures on capital markets integration, corporate harmonization and research coordination. Even partial implementation of those measures would significantly boost Europe’s growth potential, she told the Wall Street Journal.

STRASBOURG — EU countries must follow Brussels’ lead and slash red tape to help European businesses, Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday.  “Companies tell us they spend almost as much on bureaucracy as on research and development; this cannot be,” the European Commission president said in an address to the European Parliament. Since the beginning of this mandate, the European Commission has pushed a deregulation agenda in response to appeals from member states to reduce administrative burdens and support businesses facing economic troubles. Ahead of a Thursday EU leaders’ retreat on competitiveness, von der Leyen said member states need to get their own houses in order. “We must also look at the national level, there is too much gold-plating — the extra layers of national legislation that just make businesses’ lives harder and create new barriers in our single market,” she said.  Ahead of the leaders’ summit, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz published a paper blaming Brussels’ regulation for Europe’s economic malaise.  But von der Leyen argued that countries are also to blame: “If we are serious about simplification, we must crack down on gold-plating and fragmentation. It is time for a deep regulatory housecleaning, at all levels.” She gave the example of discrepant weight limits for trucks in France and Belgium — two neighboring countries — which makes transport more complicated. “We proposed legislation to harmonise this. Almost two years later, it is still under discussion,” she said, while also pointing out that many simplification bills in Brussels are still stuck in negotiations between EU countries and the European Parliament.  Von der Leyen also pointed out that it is very difficult to send waste from one EU country to another, as it can take months for traders to get the go-ahead from authorities, depending on different national rules. Amidst transatlantic tensions between Washington and Brussels over social media regulations and tariffs on industrial goods, von der Leyen lamented that the EU has three times more trade barriers than in the U.S. “How can we compete on an equal footing? We have the second-largest economy in the world, but we are driving it with the handbrake on.” She said she will put forward a competitiveness “roadmap” to complete the EU single market by 2028, to be approved by EU leaders at a summit on competitiveness scheduled for March. This roadmap will contain commitments to adopt some proposals by the end of 2027.  “Time is of the essence,” she said, “we need everyone to play their part.”

LONDON — It’s a far cry from the ice age of U.K.-China relations that characterized Rishi Sunak’s leadership — and it’s not exactly David Cameron’s “golden era,” either.  As U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer embarks on his Chinese charm offensive against a turbulent economic backdrop, he has opted for a softly-softly approach in a bid to warm up one of Britain’s most important trading partners — a marked departure from his Tory predecessors. With the specter of U.S. President Donald Trump looming over the visit — not to mention national security concerns back home — Starmer’s cautious optimism is hardly surprising.  Despite reservations from China skeptics, Starmer’s trip — the first such visit by a British prime minister since 2018 — was peppered with warm words and a smattering of deals, some more consequential than others. Britain’s haul from the trip may be modest, but it’s just the beginning, Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle — who joined Starmer on the trip — told a traveling pack of reporters in Beijing. “This visit is a springboard,” the minister said. “This is not the last moment, it is a springboard into a future with far more action to come.” STEP-BY-STEP On the ground in Beijing, British officials gave the impression that the prime minister was focused on getting as many uncontroversial wins over the line as possible, in a bid to thaw relations with China. That’s not to say Starmer and his team don’t have a few tangible wins to write home about. Headline announcements include a commitment from China to allow visa-free travel for British tourists and business travelers, enabling visits of up to 30 days without the need for documents.   The provisions are similar to those extended to 50 other countries including France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan. The timings of the visa change have not yet been set out publicly, but one official — who, like others cited in this piece, was granted anonymity to speak freely — said they were aiming to get it nailed down in coming months. “From a business standpoint, it will reduce a lot of friction,” said a British business representative, adding it will make it easier for U.K. firms to explore opportunities and form partnerships. “China is very complicated. You have to be on the ground to really assess opportunities,” they said, adding visa-free travel “will make things a lot easier.” The commitment to visa-free travel forms part of a wider services package aimed at driving  collaboration for businesses in healthcare, financial and professional services, legal services, education and skills — areas where British firms often face regulatory or administrative hurdles.  The countries have also agreed to conduct a “feasibility study” to explore whether to enter negotiations towards a bilateral services agreement. If it goes ahead, this would establish clear and legally binding rules for U.K. firms doing business in China. Once again, the timeframe is vague. David Taylor, head of policy at the Asia House think tank in London, said “Xi’s language has been warmer and more expansive, signaling interest in stabilizing the relationship, but the substance on offer so far remains tightly defined.” “Beyond the immediate announcements, progress — particularly on services and professional access — will be harder and slower if it happens at all,” he added. WHISKY TARIFF RELIEF Another victory talked up by the British government is a plan for China to slash Scotch whisky tariffs by half, from 10 percent to 5 percent.  However, some may question the scale of the commitment, which effectively restores the rate that was in place one year ago, ahead of a doubling of the rate for whisky and brandy in February 2025. The two sides have not yet set out a timeframe for the reduction of tariffs.  Speaking to POLITICO ahead of Starmer’s trip, a senior business representative said the whisky and brandy issue had become “China leverage” in talks leading up to the visit. However, they argued that even a removal of the tariff was “not going to solve the main issue for British whisky companies in China and everywhere, which is that people aren’t buying and drinking whisky.” CHINA INVESTMENT WIN Meanwhile, China can boast a significant win in the form of a $15 billion investment in medicines manufacturing and research and development from British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca.  ING Bank’s global healthcare lead Stephen Farelly said that increasing investment into China “makes good business sense,” given the country is “now becoming a force in biopharma.” However, it “does shine a light on the isolation of Europe and the U.K. more generally, where there is a structural decline in investment and R&D.” AstraZeneca recently paused a £200 million investment at a Cambridge research site in September last year, which was due to create 1,000 jobs.  Britain recently increased the amount the NHS pays for branded, pharmaceutical drugs, following heavy industry lobbying and following trade negotiations with the Trump administration — all in the hopes of attracting new investment into the struggling sector.  Shadow Trade Secretary Andrew Griffith was blunt in his assessment. “AstraZeneca’s a great British company but under this government it’s investing everywhere in the world other than its U.K. home. When we are losing investment to communist China, alarm bells should be ringing in No 10 Downing Street.” Conspicuously absent from Starmer’s haul was any mention of net zero infrastructure imports, like solar panels, a reflection of rising concerns about China’s grip on Britain’s critical infrastructure. XI RETURNS So what next? As Starmer prepares to fly back home, attention has already turned to his next encounter with the Chinese leader.  On Thursday, Britain opened the door to an inward visit by Xi Jinping, with Downing Street repeatedly declining to rule out the prospect of welcoming him in future. Asked about the prospect of an inward visit — which would be the first for 11 years — Starmer’s official spokesperson told reporters: “I think the prime minister has been clear that a reset relationship with China, that it’s no longer in an ice age, is beneficial to British people and British business.” As Starmer’s trip draws to a close, one thing is certain: there is more to come. “This isn’t a question of a one-and-done summit with China,” Starmer’s spokesperson added. “It is a resetting of a relationship that has been on ice for eight years.”

C-ANPROM/EUC/NON/0052 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Takeda * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around and industrial policy agenda, including the Pharma Package, Biotech Act, Life Sciences Strategy, and related digital and innovation frameworks. More information here

After more than three decades in the pharmaceutical industry, I know one thing: science transforms lives, but policy determines whether innovation thrives or stalls. That reality shapes outcomes for patients — and for Europe’s competitiveness. Today, Europeans stand at a defining moment. The choices we make now will determine whether Europe remains a global leader in life sciences or we watch that leadership slip away. It’s worth reminding ourselves of the true value of Europe’s life sciences industry and the power we have as a united bloc to protect it as a European good. Europe has an illustrious track record in medical discovery, from the first antibiotics to the discovery of DNA and today’s advanced biologics. Still today, our region remains an engine of medical breakthroughs, powered by an extraordinary ecosystem of innovators in the form of start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises, academic labs, and university hospitals. This strength benefits patients through access to clinical trials and cutting-edge treatments. It also makes life sciences a strategic pillar of Europe’s economy. The economic stakes Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. The EU is already home to some of the world’s most talented scientists, thriving academic institutions and research clusters, and a social model built on universal access to healthcare. These assets are powerful, yet they only translate into future success if supported by a legislative environment that rewards innovation. > Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a > source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. This is also an industry that supports 2.3 million jobs and contributes over €200 billion to the EU economy each year — more than any other sector. EU pharmaceutical research and development spending grew from €27.8 billion in 2010 to €46.2 billion in 2022, an average annual increase of 4.4 percent. A success story, yes — but one under pressure. While Europe debates, others act Over the past two decades, Europe has lost a quarter of its share of global investment to other regions. This year — for the first time — China overtook both the United States and Europe in the number of new molecules discovered. China has doubled its share of industry sponsored clinical trials, while Europe’s share has halved, leaving 60,000 European patients without the opportunity to participate in trials of the next generation of treatments. Why does this matter? Because every clinical trial site that moves elsewhere means a patient in Europe waits longer for the next treatment — and an ecosystem slowly loses competitiveness. Policy determines whether innovation can take root. The United States and Asia are streamlining regulation, accelerating approvals and attracting capital at unprecedented scale. While Europe debates these matters, others act. A world moving faster And now, global dynamics are shifting in unprecedented ways. The United States’ administration’s renewed push for a Most Favored Nation drug pricing policy — designed to tie domestic prices to the lowest paid in developed markets — combined with the potential removal of long-standing tariff exemptions for medicines exported from Europe, marks a historic turning point. A fundamental reordering of the pharmaceutical landscape is underway. The message is clear: innovation competitiveness is now a geopolitical priority. Europe must treat it as such. A once-in-a-generation reset The timing couldn’t be better. As we speak, Europe is rewriting the pharmaceutical legislation that will define the next 20 years of innovation. This is a rare opportunity, but only if reforms strengthen, rather than weaken, Europe’s ability to compete in life sciences. To lead globally, Europe must make choices and act decisively. A triple A framework — attract, accelerate, access — makes the priorities clear: * Attract global investment by ensuring strong intellectual property protection, predictable regulation and competitive incentives — the foundations of a world-class innovation ecosystem. * Accelerate the path from science to patients. Europe’s regulatory system must match the speed of scientific progress, ensuring that breakthroughs reach patients sooner. * Ensure equitable and timely access for all European patients. No innovation should remain inaccessible because of administrative delays or fragmented decision-making across 27 systems. These priorities reinforce each other, creating a virtuous cycle that strengthens competitiveness, improves health outcomes and drives sustainable growth. > Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class > science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most > sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. Despite flat or declining public investment in new medicines across most member states over the past 20 years, the research-based pharmaceutical industry has stepped up, doubling its contributions to public pharmaceutical expenditure from 12 percent to 24 percent between 2018 and 2023. In effect, we have financed our own innovation. No other sector has done this at such scale. But this model is not sustainable. Pharmaceutical innovation must be treated not as a cost to contain, but as a strategic investment in Europe’s future. The choice before us Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. What we need now is an ambition equal to those assets. If we choose innovation, we secure Europe’s jobs, research and competitiveness — and ensure European patients benefit first from the next generation of medical breakthroughs. A wrong call will be felt for decades. The next chapter for Europe is being written now. Let us choose the path that keeps Europe leading, competing and innovating: for our economies, our societies and, above all, our patients. Choose Europe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The ultimate controlling entity is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to the Critical Medicines Act. More information here.

LONDON — In the corridors of Whitehall, armies of officials are working out how best to spend billions of pounds earmarked for defense equipment. However, they have yet to inform the people it concerns the most: Britain’s arms industry. Many in the sector now fear that they’ve wasted their own money developing cutting-edge gear, as the government drags its feet on awarding contracts. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has made a lot of noise on defense since entering government last year, plundering the aid budget to get defense spending to reach 2.6 percent of GDP by 2027 and a promise of 3.5 percent by 2035.  Alongside the funding boost, Starmer asked George Robertson, a Labour Party politician who is a former NATO secretary-general, to lead a major inquiry into how the U.K. would meet geopolitical threats, known as the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The SDR was well received across the defense industry and viewed as a statement of intent from the government to devote effort and resources to building up the sector, with an emphasis on resilience and innovation.  Those good intentions were supposed to be followed by a series of complementary announcements — including a defense industrial strategy, the appointment of a new national armaments director, and a defense investment plan.  The industrial strategy and armaments director both arrived late, while the defense investment plan is still missing in action. It is now expected after this week’s fall budget.  Six months since the SDR, many in the industry complain that they haven’t received the certainty they need about where the British government — in many cases, their sole buyer —plans to invest.  Business owners say this is limiting their ability to make long-term plans and risks skilled workers departing for other jobs.  One representative of a mid-sized arms manufacturer — granted anonymity like others in this piece in order not to damage commercial prospects — said the problem was that the “big, bold” prescription of the SDR has given way to “repeated deferral, which always happens with delivery plans of this complexity.” INNOVATING IN THE DARK The war in Ukraine has radically reshaped other countries’ understanding of what’s needed on the battlefield, and the SDR set out a clear expectation that innovation would be rewarded. At September’s DSEI — an industry jamboree held in London — it was plain to see that private companies had stepped up to deliver prototypes for novel weaponry and other equipment, from modular robots that can deliver materiel to a battlefield and can also serve as stretchers, to AI that can read and predict threats on the ground in real time.  Defence Minister Luke Pollard said:  “We need to move to war-fighting readiness, and the SDR gave industry a very clear direction of how an increasing defense budget will be spent on new technologies and looking after our people better.” | John Keeble/Getty Images Much of that research and development was done by companies drawing on their own budgets or taking out loans as they wait for news of any specific government contracts.  For small suppliers in particular, the lag could prove existential.  One small manufacturer based in England said: “We are ready to go; we have built factories that could start making equipment tomorrow. But we can’t until an order is placed.” Armored vehicle maker Supacat has said that while its business is stable, suppliers will suffer without a predictable path ahead. “This is about the wider industry and our partners in the supply chain that have been contributing,” Toby Cox, the company’s head of sales, told POLITICO. “Our assumption is we don’t get more [orders], some of these companies will have a downturn in their orders.” KEEPING PRODUCTION LINES WARM Andrew Kinniburgh, defense director general of manufacturers association Make UK, echoed those concerns. While the industry “warmly welcomed” the Defence Ministry’s commitment to boost SME spending, he said, “the MOD must give companies certainty of long-term demand signals and purchase orders, allowing businesses to make the private investments needed in people, capital, and infrastructure.” Mike Armstrong, U.K. managing director of German defense firm Stark, which has recently opened a plant in Britain, added: “Giving the industry a clear view of future requirements is the fastest way to ensure the U.K. and its allies stay ahead.” Even some bigger companies that deal with the government on components for aircraft and submarines have privately complained about putting money into research and development without knowing what the end result will be.  An engineer working at one of Britain’s largest defense firms said: “We have multi-use items that could be for both military and civilian purposes, but cannot invest until we know what government strategy is. If it’s bad for us, it must be so hard for SMEs.” Mike Armstrong, U.K. managing director of German defense firm Stark, added: “Giving the industry a clear view of future requirements is the fastest way to ensure the U.K. and its allies stay ahead.” | Andrew Matthews/Getty Images The issue is not only one of investment, but also of skills. Supacat’s Cox said that keeping production lines warm matters because the workforce behind complex fabrications is fragile. “The U.K. has a skill shortage, particularly around engineering fabrication. If we’ve got an employee in that sector, we absolutely don’t want to lose them in another sector,” he said.  NOT LONG TO GO The Ministry of Defence said it appreciates the need for clarity. Defence Minister Luke Pollard, speaking to POLITICO at DSEI, said:  “We need to move to war-fighting readiness, and the SDR gave industry a very clear direction of how an increasing defense budget will be spent on new technologies and looking after our people better.” He argued there was “a neat synergy” between the “duty of government to keep the country safe and the first mission of this Labour government to grow the economy.” An MOD spokesperson said the defense investment plan would “offer clear, long-term capability requirements that enable industry to plan and unlocking private investment.” They pointed out that £250 million had already been allocated for “defense growth deals” alongside a £182 million skills package, and that the MOD had placed £31.7 billion in orders with U.K. industry in the last financial year. A government official rejected claims that ministers were moving too slowly, pointing to Defence Secretary John Healey’s recent announcement on new munitions factories as exactly the kind of demand signal that industry is looking for.  The director of a large U.K. defense producer said the signs from the government were “encouraging,” specifying that Chancellor Rachel Reeves, having agreed to more money for defense, “wants to see a return on investment.” While most of the country will be braced for Reeves’s big moment on Wednesday when she announces the national budget, one sector will have to hold its breath a little longer. Luke McGee contributed to this report.

With multiple legislative processes underway, we are now in an important moment for Europe’s ambition to boost access and be a global leader in innovation. An agile, modernized regulatory system — coupled with supportive intellectual property and access policies — can attract research and development and advanced manufacturing to Europe. This will contribute to the earlier availability of new cures for European patients and a healthier innovative ecosystem. Unfortunately, today we see that Europe is falling behind global competition. Over the last decade, there has been a 10 percent decrease in clinical trials in the European Union, which has led to 60,000 fewer European patients participating in trials.[1] Europe’s fragmented system for clinical trial approvals is a leading cause of this decline, impacting early access to innovative treatments. As scientific breakthroughs can deliver better health outcomes for patients, governments need to keep pace with this speed of innovation. > Draghi report on EU competitiveness importantly identified pharmaceutical > innovation as a strategic sector for growth in Europe. That said, the report > also noted that what is missing is a simple and strong execution plan behind > it, with simplified regulation and coherent and predictable policies that > could drive the European goals of increased competitiveness and strategic > autonomy. Europe’s marketing authorisation process now exceeds 14 months (444 days), causing patients to wait nearly three months longer than in the US (356 days) and over five months longer than in Japan (290 days) for access to innovative medicines.[2] Such delays, combined with complex and lengthy country-level market access systems, mean patients in Europe are waiting an average of 20 months longer than people living in the United States to benefit from scientific innovation.[3] Last year’s Draghi report on EU competitiveness importantly identified pharmaceutical innovation as a strategic sector for growth in Europe. That said, the report also noted that what is missing is a simple and strong execution plan behind it, with simplified regulation and coherent and predictable policies that could drive the European goals of increased competitiveness and strategic autonomy. Ongoing discussions on the revision of the General Pharmaceutical Legislation and the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), the Critical Medicines Act and the upcoming Biotech Act (Part 1) mark crucial opportunities for Europe to become a global leader for innovation. However, to make this vision a reality, the EU must address structural challenges that undermine innovation and patient access to novel, lifesaving medicines. > To reverse the worrying decline in European clinical trial activity, the EU > should implement a maximum two-month approval process for clinical trial > applications (CTAs), encompassing the reviews of both regulators and ethics > committees consistent with other global leaders. The successful implementation of structural, future-proof policy changes can ensure timely access to innovative medicines for EU citizens, and this can be achieved through five key policy recommendations: Facilitate and accelerate clinical trial applications To reverse the worrying decline in European clinical trial activity, the EU should implement a maximum two-month approval process for clinical trial applications (CTAs), encompassing the reviews of both regulators and ethics committees consistent with other global leaders. It is equally important to increase collaboration among EU member states to remove unique and specific national CTA requirements and questions, and to also introduce opportunities for an informal dialogue with regulators to expediently address smaller challenges that can be quickly fixed. Legislative overlaps and fragmentation between the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) and the IVDR should also be addressed to avoid delays in clinical trials that utilize companion diagnostics. Expand expedited pathways Despite their potential, the EU’s expedited pathways (such as the European Medicines Agency’s PRIME scheme for unmet medical needs, Conditional Marketing Authorisation and Accelerated Assessment) are underutilised, limiting rapid patient access to important medicines. Similar expedited pathways are widely used by other regulators around the world, like the United States and Japan. Expanding the use of expedited pathways in the EU to new indications and aligning eligibility criteria with global standards would ensure that the EU has more competitive regulatory pathways and earlier patient access to life-saving medicines. Shorten scientific advice and approval timelines Shortening the EU’s scientific advice procedure is critical to optimise the development of innovative products, ensure timely and efficient resource management for both applicants and regulators, and maintain the EU’s influence in global scientific and clinical research. By evolving to a more integrated and agile dialogue, the EU can provide comprehensive, consistent guidance throughout the product lifecycle and remain competitive with other regions. Given their growing number, scientific advice should be available for medicines used with all types of medical devices and in vitro diagnostics (including combinations diagnostics) to address the complexities of working across these regulatory frameworks. > An agile, modernized regulatory system — coupled with supportive intellectual > property and access policies — can attract research and development and > advanced manufacturing to Europe. Regarding the current lengthy approval times, the proposed reduction of EMA’s standard assessment timelines from 210 to 180 days — as suggested in the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation — would allow regulators to accelerate their scientific assessments. Furthermore, the European Commission can streamline its decision phase (currently requiring up to 67 days) by conducting its activities in parallel with the scientific assessment. Strengthen the EU Medicines Regulatory Network and embrace regulatory sandboxes Achieving greater speed and agility within a regulatory system requires an appropriately resourced, sustainable regulatory infrastructure. We support transparent regulatory budgets across the network, backed by consistent investments in expertise, funding and infrastructure to support continuous capacity and capability advancements. Collaborative regulatory pathways (such as the EMA OPEN framework) could be further expanded to encourage simultaneous approvals and supply chain resilience across geographies. Additionally, regulatory sandboxes would be beneficial to pilot and adapt frameworks for disruptive future innovations, while ensuring appropriate guardrails to enable the safe development and implementation of these innovations. Enhance patient engagement Effective regulatory decision-making requires both inclusivity and adaptability. Limited patient and expert input can hinder effective regulatory decision-making, while rapid pharmaceutical innovation requires adaptable frameworks. Expert and patient perspectives are crucial for informed benefit-risk and clinical meaningfulness determinations. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Eli Lilly & Company * The advertisement is linked to General Pharmaceutical Legislation (GPL), In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), Critical Medicines Act (CMA), Biotech Act (Part 1), Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), EU Medicines Regulatory Network More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] IQVIA, Assessing the clinical trial ecosystem in Europe, Final Report, October 2024: efpia_ve_iqvia_assessing-the-clinical-trial-ct-ecosystem.pdf. [2] Lara J, Kermad A, Bujar M, McAuslane N. 2025. R&D Briefing 101: New drug approvals in six major authorities 2015-2024: Trends in an evolving regulatory landscape. Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science. London, UK: https://cirsci.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/08/CIRS-RD-Briefing-101-v1.1.pdf. [3] The Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator 2024 Survey. https://www.efpia.eu/media/oeganukm/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024-final-110425.pdf

LONDON — Britain’s Department of Health is pressing ahead with plans to open up a trove of pandemic-era patient data to outside researchers — despite concerns from doctors’ representatives. A formal direction titled “GP Data for Consented Research,” yet to be signed by Health Secretary Wes Streeting but shared in draft format with doctors’ reps, would enable NHS England to disseminate patient data originally collected solely for the purpose of Covid-19-related research to other studies. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) confirmed to POLITICO that the direction has been drafted and is awaiting Streeting’s signature. A group of doctors has warned the government that the move could erode patient trust. While the direction says government will obtain patient consent to share the data more broadly, doctors groups are worried this won’t happen in practice, and that patients won’t be aware their data is being funneled to other studies. NHS England has been in discussions with the Joint GP IT Committee, which comprises representatives from the British Medical Association (BMA) and Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), about the data, a person close to the talks told POLITICO. DHSC confirmed it had been in dialogue with the doctors’ groups, and a spokesperson said it had delayed signing the direction in order to engage with doctors’ concerns. The JGPITC argued it hasn’t been properly consulted on the change in line with established governance processes, and that repurposing the dataset without asking patients’ permission risks damaging already-fragile public confidence in the profession, the same person said.  While the direction says government will obtain patient consent to share the data more broadly, doctors groups are worried this won’t happen in practice, and that patients won’t be aware their data is being funneled to other studies. | Pool photo by Hannah McKay/EPA It comes after the same group of doctors filed a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office in June alleging that NHS England had breached data protection law by training a general-purpose AI model on the same dataset without consent. The disagreement is also set against the wider backdrop of a long-running dispute between government and the BMA over doctors’ pay and working conditions. DHSC maintains that proper processes have been followed. “As the Secretary of State made clear last year during his speech to the Royal College of GPs in October 2024, we are committed to implementing this direction in line with patients’ explicit consent for their data to be used in research,” a DHSC spokesperson said. ‘CONSULTED EXTENSIVELY’ In his speech last month, Streeting said he would direct NHS England to take responsibility for sharing patient data with projects including UK Biobank, Genomics England and Our Future Health. “I know there are issues we need to work through together around information governance, risk and liabilities,” he said. “There’s also, let’s be honest, some producer interest in play.” NHS England asked the JGPITC to confirm whether it was happy with the direction on broadening access to the dataset by Nov. 4. The JGPITC couldn’t reach a consensus to give its blessing to the change, the same person close to the talks and cited above said. The doctors’ group has pushed for NHS England to notify consenting participants about where their data is going via text or the NHS App, they added. DHSC is not obligated to comply with any of the JGPITC’s requests. “We have consulted extensively with GP representatives over the past 18 months to ensure patients’ wishes are respected and their data used appropriately, while minimizing the burden on busy GPs,” DHSC’s spokesperson said.