Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to support British
innovators by tackling delays in getting regulatory approval for
new products and services.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade () (Con)
In the Autumn Statement, we set out proposals to improve the
performance and accountability of regulators through reforms to
the growth duty. These include asking regulators to set targets
on regulatory approvals and monitoring their performance against
those targets, alongside offering a fast-track service for
regulatory approvals in certain circumstances. Through this, we
are committed to working with regulators to ensure that we offer
a world-class service to British businesses to support economic
growth and innovation.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he accept
that British innovators often face a mountain of red tape just to
get started? In some cases, it can mean getting approval from up
to 11 different regulators. For example, the British Healthcare
Trades Association reports that medical equipment suppliers face
a complex array of interrelated laws and regulations to get their
products to market in the UK, with 95% of them calling for
greater regulatory certainty. Those costs and delays are
dissuading many from creating new products, which in turn is
reflected in patient care and outcomes. So what are the
Government doing to address these complexities? Does the Minister
support our proposal for a new regulatory innovation office to
hold the regulators to account for any delays? What action is
being taken to speed up decisions in granting university research
funding so that innovators can play their full part in driving up
economic growth?
(Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her points. This is
clearly a topic of much broader debate, and I am very grateful to
have been given the regulatory reform agenda in my portfolio. We
have three core priorities. The first is to minimise the
regulatory burden and to future-proof regulations, which means
looking at the current regulatory stock and seeing what we can do
to make it more effective. The second is to work out the
mechanisms that will allows us to better understand and establish
how we can measure the cost of regulation on business when it
comes through Chambers such as this. The third is to work with
regulators to get them to promote the duty of growth and to look
at regulation as a service, rather than simply a block, as we do
sometimes.
I will answer two other quick points on the health side. My noble
friend Lord O’Shaughnessy wrote an excellent report on getting
clinical trials to operate more effectively; the Government have
accepted most of those points. On innovation, my noble friend
pointed out to me, on the way
in, the extraordinary number of initiatives he has taken with the
various Bills we are bringing through and the co-ordinating
function of the DRCF, which means that we are one of the most
innovative regulatory environments in the world for AI and new
tech.
(LD)
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing up
the issue of innovation, which I know the Minister also considers
to be very important. Last week, I spoke with representatives of
the highly innovative UK tech industry. Worryingly, they reported
that tech start-ups that should be starting up in the UK are
being very effectively lured to France. I think the Minister will
agree with me that this needs to be nipped in the bud, so can he
undertake to dispatch his department to find out what France is
doing and how it is getting some success here and to make sure
that the UK is doing at least as well if not better?
(Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and am always
stung by comparisons with our near and dear neighbour. But I can
reassure him that our global investment summit raised over twice
as much in terms of commitments as the one in Versailles. There
are three trillion-dollar tech economies in the world: one is the
United States, one is China and one is the UK.
(LD)
Complacent.
(Con)
We should celebrate the fact that we are raising more money for
tech in this country than Germany, France, Spain and Italy
combined in many sectors—but we are not complacent. I totally
accept the need to ensure that organisations such as UKRI are
given the firepower that we have given it to ensure that we can
provide funding for these businesses. I personally take this very
seriously and would be delighted to have further conversations
with the noble Lord on how we can ensure that every tech company
in the world sees this country as their international HQ.
(CB)
My Lords, will the Minister comment on the fact that, during
Covid, we were able to get very swift licences for new medical
products, including an innovative external ventilator that was
developed with UCL? Some of those ventilators are still left, and
my understanding is that they are to be destroyed because they no
longer meet either need or requirements—but it also seems to be
about getting the licence re-evaluated because it was produced as
an emergency. Surely we could be much quicker, and will the
Minister comment on how we could fast-track, in particular,
medical devices?
(Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. She is
absolutely right: we can never move too fast as long as we can do
it in a safe and appropriate way. My noble friend Lord
O’Shaughnessy’s report was enormously helpful in driving change,
particularly for clinical trials. We want to ensure we are the
number one place for trials in Europe, if not the world, because
it benefits the patients, the NHS and our economy. I will just
touch on some of the reviews that have recently been undertaken;
it is worth highlighting them and engaging with noble Lords on
them. There were reports on digital technologies—that was
published last year—on green industries, on life sciences, on the
creative industries, on advanced manufacturing and,
fundamentally, there was a cross-cutting report on how we can
have pro-innovation policies.
I also refer back to my fundamental role, which is to bring
smarter regulation into the Government. I ask Peers on all sides
of the House to please come to me with their ideas. Let this not
be Oral Questions but oral suggestions on how we can reduce
regulatory burdens on business and boost our economy.
(Lab)
My Lords, in that spirit, I refer to my interest in the register.
The Minister said quite clearly that the Government are committed
to regulating for growth and innovation. Will he also ensure that
regulators have at the forefront of what they are doing ensuring
that those they regulate are delivering services, facilities or
products that are properly resilient and prepared for the various
threats that as a nation we face?
(Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord’s point and I absolutely
take it to heart. The point is to see regulation as a service,
where we have to take the appropriate action to ensure that the
investors, the companies, the consumer and the broader
environment of the body politic can work in harmony. It is that
balance that we seek to achieve by promoting the growth agenda.
Importantly, that is not at the expense of the protection of the
consumer or of our overall habitats and environments. It is
essential that people realise that we are looking for positive
economic growth through better regulation, rather than derogating
from our responsibility to ensure that regulation is truly to
ensure that the consumer market functions properly.
(Con)
Is my noble friend aware that, at this point in time, the very
successful mutual movement—in other words, building societies,
friendly societies, et cetera—is facing difficulties for growth,
particularly in the raising of future capital, from the existing
regulatory regime? Given the offer that my noble friend made a
few seconds ago, would he be prepared to meet the leaders of that
movement to go through where the challenges for the movement are
in order that it may grow even faster than it has been growing
recently?
(Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that point. I would be
delighted to meet with any stakeholders he suggests are useful.
The mutual movement is an ancient and important principle in our
financial services industry in this country. It provides an
incredibly valuable service and of course I will do anything I
can to support it.
The (CB)
My Lords, a couple of years or so ago, the European Affairs
Committee published a report on the EU-UK financial services
relationship. One of our key suggestions was that UK regulators
should be responsive, consistent and proportionate—three words
that we have not yet heard from the Minister. Does he agree that
being responsive, consistent and proportionate are three very
important things that all regulators should be aware of?
(Con)
I am grateful for those important words and I absolutely agree.
There are issues in ensuring that regulators’ mandates are
properly focused. It is important to get a balance between, for
example, investment, growth and the other regulator duties. I
look forward very much to working with the regulators when we
assess the responses from the consultation that is currently
being undertaken—some were completed last week—to bring together
a suite of solutions to ensure that we can continue to grow our
economy and regulate it properly.
Let me just add that our regulators are some of the best in the
world. From travelling around the world, I know that a number of
jurisdictions literally cut and paste our regulatory texts so
that they can copy what we do because they admire it so much.
That does not mean we should be complacent, but it does ensure
that we should focus very much on the opportunities that the
growth agenda will give us.
(Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I might urge the Minister to think about
regulatory approval in a different way, by reminding him that
Warren Buffett said:
“Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction”.
We have seen so many financial products mis-sold in this country.
Can I urge the Minister to ensure that regulators road-test all
financial products before they are unleashed on the unsuspecting
public?
(Con)
I am grateful for that comment; of course, I would contact the
Treasury about it, since that is its specific focus. I totally
agree that we need to have trust in financial markets for them to
function properly. That also entails significant responsibilities
towards the consumer.
(Con)
My Lords, what my noble friend the Minister has said is extremely
encouraging and very much to be welcomed, particularly on the
strong track record on investment into this country and small
tech start-ups. However, I draw his attention to large tech
companies, where the picture is slightly more mixed. Is he aware
that the London Stock Exchange and the FTSE 100 are having great
difficulty in attracting internationally mobile big tech
companies for listing and, indeed, have recently lost a number of
listings to New York? Is this not something that the Government
ought urgently to have a look at?
(Con)
It is always intimidating for a junior Minister to receive
questions from someone as significant as my noble friend. He is
absolutely right: over the past year, the Government have been
working extremely hard, through the Edinburgh reforms and the
Mansion House compact, to ensure that domestic pension fund money
flows back into the markets. My noble friend is also completely
right that we need to look extremely closely at how the LSE
functions in order to attract the new type of modern company that
lists in a different way. Work is ongoing at the moment; it is a
complete priority. On venture capital and private equity, I am
glad to say that, at the new start-up level, the funding is doing
extremely well. We are having a very strong year—perhaps one of
the best years we have ever had—in those new start-up and
investment areas in this country. We should celebrate that. We
are too down on ourselves; it is time that we start rejoicing in
our position as one of the key venture capital hubs not just in
Europe but in the whole world.
