Labour's Life Science policy

The Labour Conference in Liverpool marked a transition. After a year in office, Labour is no longer a fresh face, but a government expected to delivery. For the life sciences sector, this period is pivotal. The Chancellor’s budget and growth strategy send a clear message that Britain under Labour intends to be a competitive and innovation led economy. Yet the sector remains cautious, calling out for certainty, practicality, and long-term investment.

Despite the rhetoric the reality is, major players are voting with their feet. Merck recently scrapped a £1 billion UK expansion, while AstraZeneca walked away from a £450 million manufacturing plant in Merseyside both citing a lack of government support and investment. This shift cannot all be attributed to Labour as U.S. trade policy is simultaneously drawing pharmaceutical investment stateside. Focusing on lower drug prices for American customers and restoring more of the manufacturing capability that has slowly been exported over time. But the impact is the same uncertainty for innovators who need confidence to build.

Labour’s new Life Sciences Plan leans heavily toward pharmaceuticals. This is understandable, given that they make up around 70 % of the sector’s turnover and export over £25 billion a year. By contrast, MedTech exports just £5 billion, and policy attention has lagged. Encouragingly, Wes Streeting (Health Secretary) and Peter Kyle (Business Secretary, formerly Secretary for Science, Innovation and Technology) have outlined commitments to provide stable funding for UKRI and NIHR, alongside developing a “comprehensive innovation and adoption strategy for England.” If executed well, this could lay the groundwork for achieving the oft-repeated goal of becoming a “Life Sciences Superpower.”

For researchers, entrepreneurs, and investors alike, access to capital and clarity of regulation are the real differentiators. The UK’s future competitiveness will hinge on its ability to create clusters where high risk work, like clinical trials, can be done in low risk environments (many start-ups, shared infrastructure, and available capital). Smaller firms developing AI-driven diagnostics still face overlapping data and device regulations, while those in cell and gene therapies navigate dense compliance pathways without adequate support.

Countries such as Singapore and Australia have made greater strides, establishing agile regulatory “sandboxes” that let companies test and scale innovation safely. Replicating this here would significantly boost confidence and accelerate progress in diagnostics, digital health, and next-generation therapeutics.

For those building in this space, the questions remain:

• Is your product designed with NHS procurement and adoption in mind?

• Are you building for scale and sustainability, not just proof of concept?

• 
  

Policy alignment is no longer optional; it’s a competitive advantage. Building relationships with the NHS, trial networks, and regulators early gives innovators a far higher chance of adoption.

There will never be a perfect moment to innovate. Global disruptions, economic shifts, and “black swan” events will continue to reshape the playing field. But a clear plan, backed by long term government vision and a 10-year NHS strategy, creates the conditions for progress.

The UK has the scientific talent, entrepreneurial energy, and growing investor appetite to lead in MedTech; if policy, capital, and courage align. The task ahead is to ensure we are not just technology driven, but also policy aware, globally competitive, and deeply focused on patient impact.