Time is Money: How Regulators Can Support Growth (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, like every other speaker this afternoon, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for chairing the committee.

Nobody here disputes the need for strong and effective regulation. It is through good regulation that we gain confidence, protect the public and nurture the conditions needed for business to invest and grow. That said, however, what became increasingly apparent throughout the process of our inquiry was the apparent lack of urgency in some regulatory processes and the insufficient appreciation of the very real fiscal consequences that come with delay.

I will deal first with the certainty and timeliness issue. We know, as our chair said, that time is money and that delays cause real economic costs. I therefore suggest that the single most important thing that businesses need from regulators is certainty, and they need it to be delivered in a reasonable and predictable timeframe. We know that up and down the UK, companies are facing lengthy approval processes, as we have heard. That uncertainty and delay are making it near impossible for businesses to commit investment, raise finance and plan expansion, including the recruitment of new staff, when they do not know when, or even if, they will get regulatory approval and, if so, when it will arise. That becomes a critical concern when considering major infrastructure projects, where delays of even the smallest amount can translate into substantial additional financing costs.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the evidence from Hoxton Farms. I find it particularly concerning that a British company indicated that it was likely to launch its products in Singapore or the United States well before the United Kingdom. In part, that is because of a much clearer regulatory timeline abroad. We heard about how Hoxton Farms was kept informed all the time of where its application was, so it knew every day where it was going. The situation here is simply not good enough. The United States and Singapore are well-regulated countries; why, then, are we so inferior in dealing with clarity and pace?

I put it to your Lordships that businesses do not demand immediate or even favourable answers; what they need is a clear process, confidence, and for the timetable to be honoured. I hope that Ministers will take action, given the grave consequences that this is having on holding back much-needed investment and growth.

Our regulatory processes must allow for greater flexibility. Although I appreciate that regulation should and must uphold standards and safeguards, I fear that there is a real danger that we are creating a process that is now so prescriptive that we are becoming void of having sufficient room for sensible human judgments. Times are changing, and in the time of innovation and technical advancement, we must accept that not every business or proposal will fit neatly into an established category. I think back to the evidence that we heard in support of a principles-based approach, in which standards are protected but businesses are given the flexibility to determine how these outcomes are achieved. That is something I fully support. Surely, the question must be about how a proposal meets the necessary standards rather than whether it can follow precisely the same path as everything that has gone before. I would therefore be pleased to hear from the Minister whether the Government are committed to achieve the greater proportionality and pragmatism that business requires.

Turning briefly to innovation, I am concerned that our regulatory structures are lacking the forwardness and resources to keep up with the remarkable pace of change that we are going through. As we have already heard, with AI, emerging industries and advanced tech are creating entirely new business models, and they are developing far faster than our regulatory framework. It was clear from the evidence that regulators have a profound difficulty in dealing with something that is unfamiliar or which does not fit into a previously prescribed process.

Does the Minister agree that innovation, by its very definition, involves something different? If so, how can we ensure that our regulators have the freedom to adapt? My fear is that, if our regulators cannot keep pace with innovation, there is a genuine risk that the investment, and thus the jobs that come with it, will go elsewhere. I am keen to hear how the Government plan to ensure that regulators can keep pace with the speedy and innovative times in which we live.

I conclude by asking the Government to take serious note of the concerns raised by businesses throughout this process and to recognise that we urgently need a culture in which regulatory delay is recognised as a serious economic consequence and a barrier to natural growth, as opposed to simply being an unavoidable feature of rather dated administration.

Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, two practical things are puzzling me. First, if we swallow the ideas that 15% does not bring influence and that it can be checked, monitored and proved—both of which are quite big mouthfuls to swallow—what action will actually be taken? What penalty will be imposed that will not damage the very publication that we are talking about?

Secondly, we are asked to allow this investment because there is, in essence, an existential threat. That feels to me like a bailout. What will happen if that cash runs out and more is needed? Will there be pressure for, perhaps, a further 5% to be added? Alternatively, will we have another discussion about what an acceptable level of shareholding will be to bail out that newspaper again? I do not have complex conspiracy theories in mind, but that seems an obvious trap. If you give money to a struggling business, it is likely to ask you for more later, which will give you more control.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. In so doing, I have a non-pecuniary declaration I must make: I am the co-chairman of the UAE-UK Business Council, so I am fully aware of the situation there.

The Government’s proposal would allow a minority, non-controlling stake of up to 15%. I cannot see any issue with this, for this is not a majority control nor is it a back-door granting of our press to be editorially censored by foreign state actors. We are simply discussing the ability for our national newspapers to seek investments needed to survive in this interconnected world in which we now operate.