Industry and Regulators Committee

The committee examined how the Government’s new defence-industrial partnership with industry is being implemented in practice, with strong evidence from ADS and Make UK that the strategic defence review is sound but is being held back by delayed funding, weak procurement reform and a culture in MoD that still favours risk aversion and complexity. Witnesses welcomed some reforms — the Defence Industrial Joint Council, segmental procurement, Commercial X, Defence Office for Small Business Growth, UK Defence Innovation and the new single-source rules — but argued these have not yet scaled or been properly resourced. They pressed for a ‘just in case’ procurement model, clearer demand signals, more UK and SME sourcing, faster test-and-evaluation and cyber standards, better coordination on regional growth deals and supply-chain resilience, and stronger top-level political leadership from No. 10, Parliament and the Treasury.

On 17 March 2026 the Industry and Regulators Committee scrutinised the Treasury’s regulation action plan and its expected impact on growth. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) and the Director-General for Growth and Productivity (Jessica Glover) emphasised four aims for regulation: reduce administrative burdens by 25%, provide growth-focused steers to regulators, streamline overlapping regulators, and drive culture change away from excessive risk aversion. They argued well-designed regulation can enable investment and growth, and outlined a central delivery mechanism via a joint Treasury-Department for Business and Trade unit responsible for delivering 61 actions (including the 25% admin-burden target). The session also covered monitoring and accountability (NAO concerns about the maturity of a monitoring strategy; the joint unit will assess progress using annual simplification plans and regulator performance reviews), and debated the balance between speed, pace, and risk in regulation. The attendees discussed planning reform (Planning and Infrastructure Act; nature restoration fund), environmental regulator coordination, potential growth-duty legislation, and decisions on on- or off-balance sheet treatment for infrastructure investments. Overall, the committee pressed for clearer metrics, pace, and evidence that the growth objective is driving regulatory reform, while acknowledging ongoing complexity across departments and regulators.

The committee scrutinised how the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) intends to deliver growth through regulation reform, the role of cross-government leadership, and the mechanisms to hold regulators to account. Key government positions include: growth as a cross-government priority led from the top (Prime Minister and Chancellor), a 25% admin-burden reduction target with a public KPI dashboard and biannual reviews of regulators, and plans to legislate a growth duty for clearer statutory scope. The evidence also explored practical governance tools (lead-regulator pilots, a concierge service for inward investment, and international regulatory cooperation) and the balance between speed of decision-making and regulatory protections. The government signposted regular progress reporting (spring simplification plans and a big annual progress report on regulator commitments) and ongoing work to clarify which regulators fall under the growth duty (with 16 core regulators currently identified). These commitments are framed within a context of ensuring innovation and investment while preserving consumer, worker, and environmental protections.

The Industry and Regulators Committee scrutinises the Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) and its role in making regulation more open to innovation. Lord Willetts outlines RIO’s tech-focused remit within DSIT, its limited funding, and its use of regulatory sandboxes (notably with the FSA for cell-cultivated foods) to shorten regulatory timelines and attract early-stage tech activity. The session probes how RIO influences regulators (via ministerial steer, convening power, and regulatory roundtables), the adequacy of funding and staffing, and how ministerial direction interacts with regulator independence. Key themes include the balance between risk and innovation, the potential for parallel processing across regulators, and lessons from global peers on speed, mutual recognition, and procurement. The committee notes government priorities in four main tech areas ( drones, engineering biology, space launch, AI in healthcare) now expanded to robotics and defence tech, and it presses for clearer ministerial steer, more explicit priority setting, and greater practical use of procurement to back reg-tech and start-ups. Legislative references include the Highway Act 1835 as an example of outdated law that can impede innovation. Overall, the evidence portrays a government-anchored attempt to accelerate innovation while managing risk, with calls for stronger prioritisation, scale-up of successful sandboxes, and broader cross-government coordination.

This evidence session examined the value and pace of external, independent reviews of regulators and theGovernment’s approach to aligning regulation with growth. Witnesses argued independence helps produce frank, cross-stakeholder input and reduces perceived capture, while emphasising the need to focus on regulatory outcomes rather than process. They discussed the lead-regulator model and pilots (notably Lower Thames Crossing and Falmouth Docks) as a means to simplify decision-making and speed up infrastructure approvals, with early indications of shorter timetables. Defra signalled a rolling programme of regulatory reform, plus an infrastructure board to coordinate regulators early in a project. The committee pressed on implementation pace, governance of regulatory decisions, and potential legislative changes. Witnesses urged more political cover for risky regulatory decisions and highlighted the importance of measuring impact through KPIs and transparent evaluations. There was also discussion of EU alignment, interpretation of EU-derived rules, and the broader growth consequences of regulation, including the cost of nuclear regulation and the potential benefits of experimentation in regulation.

This session features three UK regulators (CMA, MHRA, Ofcom) detailing how they align with the Government’s growth agenda, how they balance speed with safeguarding consumers, and how AI is shaping regulation. Key government commitments discussed include the Growth Duty and a strategic steer directing regulators to prioritise growth, efficiency, and procurement reform. Witnesses describe a major internal transformation (CMA’s 4Ps) to speed, predictability, proportionality, and engagement with business; MHRA’s risk-proportionate regulation and plans for AI-enabled regulation; and Ofcom’s growth-focused duties, including continued implementation of the Online Safety Act. Policy signals include specific regulatory innovations (ARISE AI, platform approvals for gene therapies, indefinite CE marking recognition for medtech), targeted fast-track concepts (fast lanes with caveats and potential voucher schemes), and ongoing scrutiny of the regulatory burden (aiming for admin-cost reductions). The NAO Regulating for Growth report is engaged with critically, with regulators arguing for public-accountability and a broader societal-risk lens. The session signals strong cross-regulator collaboration, and an evolving, evidence-based approach to growth that keeps consumer protection central while expanding UK competitive advantage in tech, life sciences, and digital markets.