The title to more than 40 GlaxoSmithKline trademarks went to a factory in Puerto Rico, including the trademark for the top-selling diabetes drug Avandia.
The trademark for the newly launched breast cancer drug Tykerb was assigned to Ireland, another low-tax regime, in 2005, followed there by the firm’s Sensodyne toothpaste brand in January 2008.
In 2007, the Puerto Rico trademarks, including Avandia, were shifted on to the firm’s Irish operation in Cork. Glaxo’s production was phased out at SB Pharmco Inc in Puerto Rico after quality control problems.
The value of Glaxo’s trademarks, their intellectual property, has been estimated to constitute as much as 5% of the eventual selling price of a drug. The company explains in its most recent annual report: “Profits arising from certain operations in … Puerto Rico and Ireland are accorded special status and are taxed at reduced rates compared with the normal rates of tax in these territories. The effect increased earnings per share by 4.9p in 2007, 7.2p in 2006 and 2.7p in 2005.”
Helen Jones, Glaxo’s head of tax, told us: “It is a widespread and totally accepted practice for global companies to license out intellectual property in return for royalties which reflect the value of work carried out by the holder.”
Glaxo pays on average more than 80% of its tax to overseas countries rather than to Britain. Last year as a result, although the British official tax rate has been 30%, and Glaxo’s worldwide profits were £7.4bn, the company’s actual UK tax bill was only £450m. This is still a hefty sum, and it is to Glaxo’s credit that it declares its UK tax charge (although it still does not disclose how much UK tax is actually paid over in cash each year). But it is only a tiny fraction of the pharmaceutical giant’s profits particularly relevant to the amount of Glaxo’s initial research and development carried out by British scientists in Britain.
Glaxo says it is natural that most of its tax is paid overseas, where it has more than 80% of its 100,000 employees. The company claims more than 90% of its turnover is “not related to the company’s UK subsidiaries”. It is not clear how much more UK tax would be paid if the intellectual property created in the UK had been kept in the UK.
Glaxo has been embroiled in tax rows around the world, not only in the UK, but in Canada, Japan, and most of all the US, where it makes the most lucrative sales. In 2006, it finally agreed to pay the US £1.7bn to settle a huge dispute over sales of the ulcer drug Zantac and others produced in the Puerto Rico factories. The US claimed it was being cheated out of its fair share of global tax.
Transnational companies do sometimes find themselves caught in the middle of arguments between different countries about their respective share of the tax cake.
The US is also currently demanding another $680m, which Glaxo disputes, over attempts to deduct loan interest from Glaxo profits. The company was locked in a lengthy fight with the British tax authorities, described as being over “transfer pricing” and “controlled foreign company” issues, in which Glaxo was accused of piling up too many profits abroad.
Glaxo said last year that there were “wide differences in positions” between the company and HM Revenue & Customs, which might lead to litigation. But in June, the disputes were suddenly resolved “with no material impact on the expected tax rate for the year”.
This followed shortly after meetings between Glaxo executives and Gordon Brown, and public threats that Glaxo might relocate to the Republic of Ireland.
In 2006, Glaxo paid US £1.7bn to settle dispute over sale of drugs produced in Puerto Rico
Great to see this inspiring group of individuals get together to protest against the utterly corrupted- pharma-controlled– MHRA in the UK. The MHRA is the UK’s medicines regulator, however it seems that in regards to Seroxat, it wasn’t regulated at all. The revolving door between the MHRA and Big Pharma companies like GSK serves to make sure that the interests of Pharma are always first priority over patient health and well being…
Seroxat survivors know that only to well…
For more on this protest see the Facebook link below:
And if you haven’t signed this petition, calling to disband the MHRA, please join the other 12,000 or so people who have signed it already.
Six British multinationals ‘did not pay any UK corporation tax in 2014’The same year, the six companies in the top 10 of the London stock exchange made a combined global profit of 30bn.
Six of Britain’s 10 biggest multinationals, including Shell, British American Tobacco (BAT) and Lloyds Banking Group, paid no UK corporation tax in 2014, an investigation has claimed.
The reports come after Chancellor George Osborne received a backlash over calling a “sweetheart deal” with tech giant Google, which was allowed to pay £130m for back taxes over the last decade, a “success”.
Lloyds, brewer SABMiller and drugs company AstraZeneca were also among the six multinationals not to have paid any coropration tax in 2014, reports the Sunday Times.
The same year, the six British companies made a combined global profit of £30bn.British Petroleum (BP) and drugs company Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) refused to reveal how much UK corporation tax they paid, but GSK declared it had paid some tax in 2014.
GSK bills UK government $92 million to compensate victims who were brain-damaged by its own vaccine for swine flu
Reports indicate that dozens of Pandemrix victims from the UK will be awarded about $1.5 million each in British pounds for permanent health damage caused by GSK’s Pandemrix vaccine. One in 16,000 people who took the vaccine, it turns out, are said to have developed narcolepsy and/or cataplexy, two neurological diseases that disrupt normal sleep patterns and muscle function.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describes narcolepsy as “a chronic neurological disorder caused by the brain’s inability to regulate sleep-wake cycles normally.” The agency also admits that Pandemrix, which was widely administered during the manufactured 2009 swine flu “pandemic,” increases one’s risk of developing narcolepsy.
During the 2009/10 swine flu outbreak, some 60 million people received the Pandemrix jab. Based on a risk of one in 16,000, this suggests that nearly 4,000 people have likely developed one of the neurological diseases, with many more cases expected to emerge in the coming months. If each case is paid out at the roughly $1.5 million rate, taxpayers could be forced to shell out upwards of $5.6 billion in damages.
“There has never been a case like this before,” stated Peter Todd, a lawyer representing many of the claimants, to the Sunday Times (as quoted by the International Business Times). “The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication.”
GSK refused to supply governments with Pandemrix vaccines unless first granted total immunity from liability
Throughout Europe, where Pandemrix was primarily administered — no Pandemrix vaccines were administered in the U.S., as the vaccine was never licensed and approved for use there — there have been about 800 reported cases of injuries from the vaccine in children. Besides inducing sleep randomly, narcolepsy damages mental function and memory, and can lead to hallucinations and mental illness.
Similarly, cataplexy causes sufferers to suddenly lose consciousness during times when they’re experiencing heightened levels of emotion, including when they’re laughing. The condition is said to be incurable, and sufferers are constantly at risk of having “sleep attacks,” including when they’re working, driving, operating heavy machinery or performing other tasks that require one’s full attention.
What many of the people who took the Pandemrix vaccine probably didn’t realize, however, as they lined up like herded sheep to get jabbed is that GSK refused to supply the vaccine to governments without first being indemnified against any damage claims. The $92-or-so million now being shelled out, in other words, isn’t actually coming out of its own profits.
According to the International Business Times, GSK will, in fact, have to pay the bill as required for damages caused by its Pandemrix vaccine. But it will then claim the money back from the government, meaning taxpayers in the various countries where Pandemrix was administered will end up footing the bill for their own injuries.
“There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Pandemrix increased the occurrence of narcolepsy onset in children in some countries – and probably in most countries,” stated Emmanuelle Mignot, a specialist in sleep disorders at Stanford University, to Reuters.
Mignot, it turns out, was actually paid by GSK to investigate the effects of Pandemrix, and even he came to the conclusion that the vaccine is dangerous and can cause permanent neurological damage in some people.
Sources for this article include:
If vaccines don’t cause brain damage, why is GlaxoSmithKline paying out $63 million to vaccine victims?
Tuesday, July 21, 2015 by: Jennifer Lilley
(NaturalNews) Since the swine flu panic that was widespread in 2009, prompting more than 60 million people to get vaccinated against it, countless amounts of individuals – predominantly children – have developed a range of health conditions. Mainly, brain damage has been the issue; everything from sleep disturbances and memory impairments to hallucinations and mental illness have been experienced by those who received the swine flu vaccine.
Most medical professionals and Big Pharma folks are quick to defend and recommend such vaccines; of course pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix, is a key player in this regard. However, they’ve come under fire recently and rather than sit under a protective you-can’t-touch-me cloak, the pharma giant has been ordered to pay about $60 million to the UK government after it was determined that Pandemrix played a role in causing brain damage in a range of cases.
“No doubt” swine flu vaccine linked to brain damage
“There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Pandemrix increased the occurrence of narcolepsy onset in children in some countries – and probably in most countries,” says Emmanuelle Mignot, a specialist in sleep disorder at Stanford University who looked into the effects of the vaccine.
About 80 percent of those affected have been children, but GSK continually turned a blind eye. Even when a study came out showing that vaccinated children where 13 times more likely to develop narcolepsy, the company didn’t admit any link. Even when, in 2011, the European Medicines Agency issued a warning that people under 20 should refrain from getting the vaccine, GSK didn’t pay attention. They maintain that they are professionals dedicated to human health; the GSK website currently says, “At GSK responsible business is how we do business. Our mission is to improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better, live longer.”
Sure, tell that to eight-year-old Josh Hadfield, from Somerset, England. He took Pandemrix and guess what? He’s now on anti-narcolepsy drugs to help keep him awake in school, something which costs approximately $15,000 annually.
“If you make him laugh, he collapses. His memory is shot. There is no cure,” his mother says. “He says he wishes he hadn’t been born. I feel incredibly guilty about letting him have the vaccine.”
GSK web site puts emphasis on “delivering financial performance”
Interestingly, the same GSK website that talks about the company’s responsibility to help others feel good and live long lives also touches on a more pressing issue, at least for them – and it’s one that says a mouthful. Just a few sentences below its statement of health dedication, in larger font that stands out from the rest of the copy, it says, “How we operate is just as important to us as delivering financial performance.” The statement is attributed to Sir Andrew Witty, GSK CEO. So there you have it. That, my friends, is it in a nutshell, basically as close as we’ll come to “hearing” straight from the source itself that all Big Pharma truly has in mind is the health of their numbers.
Of course the fact that GSK will be paying the UK government millions of dollars to those who now have brain damage from taking Pandemrix also speaks volumes. It acts as an admission that taking the vaccine is indeed a health problem; otherwise, why would GSK be on board with giving money to those who are now hardly able to function in their daily lives? It they truly felt they were in the right, they’d stand firm and refuse to make any payments, right?
“There has never been a case like this before,” says Peter Todd, a lawyer who represented many of the claimants in the U.K. “The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication.”
It’s expected that even more people will develop brain injuries associated with taking the swine flu vaccine, especially narcolepsy and cataplexy, which makes a person lose consciousness whenever they experience deep emotions such as the basic act of laughing.
I discovered an interesting new website called “MHRA Corrupt“.
The MHRA are the UK medicines regulator. Their job is supposedly to protect the consumer from defective and dodgy drugs, however those of us with experiences of Seroxat (Paxil) were utterly failed by the MHRA, and unfortunately because of their failure to warn- many of us live with Seroxat drug damage (which in some cases- might never heal).
I have been bringing attention to the revolving door between GSK and the MHRA for alomost a decade on my blog here, so it’s gratifying to see that others are also noticing the inherent conflict of interests, and potential for corruption, which exists between industry and the regulators.
It’s simply scandalous how the MHRA behaves when consumers are damaged by the drugs which they are supposed to regulate, and it’s even more scandalous when you see that many of the top executives once worked for GSK (one of the most corrupt corporations on the planet).
Check out the website, MHRA Corrupt here : http://mhracorrupt.st/
I wish the creators of the website well…
Both from Glaxo Smith Kline, the world’s second largest pharmaceutical company.
To kill without conscience or remorse requires a psychopathic mentality. Which MHRA board directors are psychopaths?
The MHRA, the UK Drug Safety Agency, Falsified Vaccine Safety Data – Millions of Children At Serious Risk
GSK’s Cervarix HPV vaccines for cervical cancer: The MHRA systematically tampered with 6000 reports of adverse reactions to declare the vaccine safe…………The MHRA’s Director Gerald Heddell and CEO Ian Hudson are both ex GSK, Glaxo Smith Kline.
House of Commons Health Select Committee Report of 2005
“In view of the failings of the MHRA, we recommend a fundamental review.”
MHRA: Regulators’ trail of deception has been exposed
Andrew Miller, the chairman of a parliamentary select committee, has said that a “trail of deception” has been exposed in the system.
MHRA under fire amid calls for shake-up of regulatory system:
The scandal of device regulation in the UK
Horton said: “The MHRA’s mission is ‘to enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe’. The MHRA is, by its own admission, unable to fulfil this mission.
MHRA, The Seroxat killer: Parmjit Dhanda, MP, Gloucester
is asking the Government why they allowed Dr Ian Hudson, the MHRA CEO, to take part in the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA)’s review of Seroxat, an antidepressant. As well as working as worldwide safety director for GSK – the manufacturers of Seroxat (Paxil, Paroxetine)– from 1999 until 2001, Dr Hudson acted as witness for the defence in a trial in which Seroxat was accused of triggering a man’s violent and suicidal behaviour.
Paul Flynn MP, Newport: What credibility does the MHRA have?
Recent events have proven that it is not a watchdog; it is a pussycat that purrs in front of the pharmaceutical industry and does what it is told. It has an incestuous relationship with the big pharmas and has a close association with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. It has a disgraceful recent record. We can look with gratitude to the work not of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in protecting the public, but to people such as Sarah Boseley of The Guardian for her exposé of the organisation, to the television programme “Panorama” and to Richard Brook of Mind, who courageously resigned from the MHRA in disgust at its activities.
It is a matter of enormous importance that, in recent history, the regulator is not protecting the 25,000 people who suffered heart attacks and the 7,000 who died from taking a painkilling drug for arthritics that was withdrawn by Merck Sharpe and Dohme in September, after being promoted by the regulator.
MHRA conceals Seroxat causes suicide
“The MHRA had information in its possession for more than a decade that high doses of the anti-depressant Seroxat can lead to aggression and thoughts of suicide. But instead of revealing the truth to the 17,000 people taking high doses and the other half-million Britons on a safer dose, the MHRA sat on its findings. Astonishingly, I was actually threatened with legal action by Professor Kent Woods, chief executive of the MHRA, if I revealed this.”
The MHRA is GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis Pasteur, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme
A Sunday Express investigation found that nearly a third of the 181 experts who sit on the Medicines Control Agency (MCA, now the MHRA) committees are linked to Glaxo Smith Kline, Aventis Pasteur or Merck, Sharpe and Dohme……The MCA has continued to endorse the triple measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) jab despite concerns linking it to autism and stomach disorders. But the extent of the MCA members’ financial ties to MMR manufacturers raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Licensed drugs are the number 4 killer of mankind
The MHRA’s big brother, the USA’s FDA, admits drugs, ie those the FDA and MHRA license, kill scores of thousands. That’s what happens when the regulator is controlled by the drug companies. The MHRA conceal this.
The MHRA is criticised for failing to adequately regulate implants
with grim consequences for some patients. While the board contains retired senior executives from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, it includes no one from a patient group, or any other body representing people whose health could be damaged by its decisions.
The web of unelected bodies functions as a kind of shadow government, drafting and enforcing policies, disbursing money, regulating – or failing to regulate – business, quietly, unobtrusively, without effective public scrutiny or restraint. When it is unbalanced, crawling with conflicts of interest, it makes a nonsense of democracy.
The MHRA protects the monopolies of the billion dollar pharmaceuticals (who charge, eg. £40,000 for a round of chemotherapy), and ruthlessly closes down inexpensive, effective treatments wherever it can.
Even the courts know the MHRA is corrupt
The MHRA has never successfully prosecuted a company since it was established nearly 10 years ago. (It seems judges won’t accept evidence from so corrupt a source.)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/08/pharma-misbehaviour-gsk-fine -see last paragraph.
The BBC’s Panorama programme is equally damning:
Perhaps if you dis-count murdering your customers with drugs like Seroxat and Avandia!.. but even at that, GSK’s history and behavior leaves a lot to be desired.. as far as ethics and transparency are concerned GSK has a long long way to go… that said, Andrew Witty is very good at generating good PR (although PR stunts are hardly indicators of real ethics and change) he should certainly be applauded for that.. but with his immense salary, his dedication to protecting the image of his paymasters is pretty much a given…
It’s a result to rival that of any North Korean election. Andrew Witty, chief executive at drug maker GlaxoSmithKlineGSK.LN -0.83%, has been voted the U.K.’s top chief executive in a new poll from careers site Glassdoor. His approval rating? 100%.
Glassdoor asked employees in the U.K. to approve or disapprove of the way their CEO leads the company. A minimum of 20 votes were required for ranking consideration, and voters remained anonymous.
Witty, Glaxo’s CEO since 2008, received unanimous approval on his performance, with one excited voter saying his boss had created a “strong work culture based on transparency and ethical behavior.”
Glaxo last month posted a 20% increase in full-year profit, despite its ongoing involvement in a bribery scandal in China. The company on Thursday reporteddisappointing late-stage trial results on an experimental cancer vaccine.
A Glaxo spokesman declined to comment on the poll.
Joe Wiggins, a spokesman for Glassdoor, said the site had calculated Witty’s flawless rating using a “proprietary algorithm” to collate employee feedback.
“It’s fairly rare to get a 100% approval rating, but it does happen,” Wiggins said.
Second and third on the list, each with a disappointing 97% approval—similar to the proportion of voters in Crimea who supported becoming part of Russia—were Rolls Royce Holdings’ John Rishton and Charlie Mayfield, CEO at upmarket retailer John Lewis Partnership. Rishton came out slightly ahead, but Glassdoor rounded the reported percentages, Wiggins said.
The full top 10:
1. Andrew Witty, GlaxoSmithKline – 100%
Idiot Of The Day: Dr Chris Steele
Very little explanation needed as to why Dr. Chris Steele has been selected as the first- Idiot of the day– post on my blog. This doctor takes anti-depressants himself and more or less thinks that they are like smarties and we should all be necking them down our throats without a second thought. He also prescribes to the notion that these drugs should be taken for life, something akin to hormone replacement therapy! How ridiculous is that? Very silly man, and a totally irresponsible idiot. Watch the video and marvel at the sheer idiocy of this well known doctor…
He actually says here “anti-depressants will put you right”..this is dangerous advice and he offers no advice about diet, exercise, therapy or the myriad of reasons why people become depressed, such as loss, grief, psychological difficulties, inability to cope, stress, trauma etc…
Furthermore- he actually believes in the chemical imbalance nonsense too!.. which is fine if he wants to be deluded himself, but there is something disturbing about a doctor promoting a dubious theory which was invented by pharmaceutical companies and has been debunked for ages!.. the mind boggles…
GSK, Rolls-Royce may be on British Serious Fraud Office’s hit list
Glaxo and Rolls-Royce may be on the hit list as a new policy will make it easier to deal with cases involving malpractice overseas efficiently
Britain’s Serious Fraud Office plans to prosecute or fine some companies for engaging in bribery overseas, and analysts said some cases might involve mainland China, with GlaxoSmithKline and Rolls-Royce as likely targets.
“We have a number of cases in mind but need to look at all the facts,” a spokesman with the fraud office told the South China Morning Post.
The Bribery Act seeks to punish Britain-linked firms for bribery overseas, and a new policy by the office announced this month could make it easier to deal with such cases efficiently.
The timing of the prosecutions and fines would depend on the circumstances of individual cases, the spokesman said.
In a speech in November quoting Chinese President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption slogan “Striking tigers as well as flies”, Ben Morgan, the joint head of bribery and corruption at the office, said: “We are investigating the types of cases that risk being overlooked as too difficult or too sensitive.”
Rob Elvin, a Britain-based managing partner of law firm Squire Sanders, said: “We assume this includes GlaxoSmithKline and Rolls-Royce.”
Beijing is probing GSK, the largest British drug firm, for alleged bribery in mainland China.
In December 2012, Rolls-Royce, which makes civil and military jet engines and power generation equipment, said it had passed information to the fraud office relating to bribery, in response to the office’s request for information about allegations of malpractice in Indonesia and mainland China.
The British company said it had identified “matters of concern” in mainland China, Indonesia and other countries.
A Rolls-Royce spokesman declined to comment on media reports that businessman Sudhir Choudhrie and his son Bhanu were arrested in London this month as part of the office’s investigation into alleged bribery in Indonesia and mainland China by the firm.
The spokesman also declined to comment on reports in London’s Daily Telegraph that the fraud office’s probe included contracts won by Rolls-Royce after the Bribery Act came into force in 2011.
“If any investigation [by the fraud office] did uncover problems after July 1, 2011, they could be covered by the Bribery Act, which makes it easier to prosecute,” said Barry Vitou, a partner at law firm Pinsent Masons, referring to the Rolls-Royce concerns.
Analysts said the office’s new deferred prosecution agreement policy would speed up prosecution of corruption cases. From Monday, these agreements for economic crimes would be available to British prosecutors, the office said last week.
A deferred prosecution agreement is one between the prosecutor and a company that allows prosecution to be suspended for a period of time, provided the firm meets certain conditions.
The fraud office’s director David Green said such an agreement sought to avoid damaging the company too much, which would hurt employees and shareholders.
The new policy was significant as it provided additional tools for prosecutors, said Andrew Dale, a partner at law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.
These agreements would potentially enable the fraud office to resolve more investigations more efficiently, said Keith Williamson, head of forensic and dispute services for Asia at Alvarez & Marsal, an international professional services firm. “We may see a [spate] of resolutions, either settlements or prosecutions,” he said.
Deferred prosecution agreements would encourage companies to voluntarily report corruption within their ranks to the fraud office, Williamson said.
Elvin said: “[These] agreements are most certainly significant. They allow commercial organisations to settle allegations of criminal economic activity without being prosecuted and without any formal admission of guilt. [They] provide a cost-efficient and quick means of addressing financial crime by corporates.”
However, British authorities were likely to still prosecute the most serious economic crimes, he said.
With the UK Prime Minister on their side- is it really that surprising that GSK get away with breaking laws, morals and ethics in the UK?
Cameron argues GSK case in China
Published: Monday, 2 Dec 2013 | 6:51 PM ETBy: Kiran Stacey
David Cameron has complained to his Chinese counterparts about their treatment of GlaxoSmithKline, the U.K. drugs company that has found itself caught in the center of a storm over allegations it bribed Chinese doctors to sell its medicines.
The prime minister raised the issue during meetings with China’s top politicians in Beijing on the first day of a three-day trade mission to the country.
(Read more: GSK’s China sales topple on bribery scandal)
A Number 10 official said: “The prime minister discussed British business interests in China and the need for them to think China is a secure and stable environment for them to operate in.”
GSK’s medicine and vaccine sales in China have dropped 61 percent since the summer, following the high-profile corruption probe launched by Beijing into the pharmaceutical company’s alleged business practices.‘Bribe is always a bribe’ in GSK allegationsJonathan Russell, senior associate at Alaco, questions if GSK’s action against bribery is being seen on the ground.
Sir Andrew Witty, GSK chief executive, is among a 127-strong business delegation travelling with Mr Cameron on a trip intended to boost U.K. economic ties with China and draw a line under a period of diplomatic tensions between the countries.
After talks with Premier Li Keqiang, Mr Cameron trumpeted Britain’s openness to Chinese investment and vowed to lead the push for an EU-China trade deal.
“Some in Europe and elsewhere see the world changing and want to shut China off behind a bamboo curtain of trade barriers. Britain wants to tear those trade barriers down.”
Premier Li used a joint news conference in Beijing to raise the possibility of Chinese investment in the U.K.’s plan for a £50 billion high-speed rail line from London to the north of England, in addition to existing plans to invest in U.K. nuclear power.
“The two sides have agreed to push for a breakthrough and progress in co-operation in the areas of nuclear power and high speed railway,” said Mr Li.
“Just like high speed trains, we need to grow this relationship at a faster speed.”
The form of any Chinese investment in HS2 is as yet unclear, but British officials stressed there would be no direct investment in the construction phase of the line, which is due to be funded by the taxpayer. This leaves open the possibility of the Chinese bidding for the concession to run HS2 or investing in peripheral schemes around the route such as developments around stations when the route opens in the 2030s.
The move could prove controversial, deepening Chinese ownership of British infrastructure projects. The UK’s first nuclear power station to be built in a generation was agreed to last month, with the backing of EDF, the French energy company, and various Chinese investors.
The visit is his first to China since November 2010, and the first since the current regime took over in November 2012. British ministers had until recently been refused meetings with their Chinese counterparts after the prime minister met the Dalai Lama in London in May 2012.