IoR 2024 – views from our annual conference rapporteurs
While the Institute of Regulation supports regulatory experts and professionals, we’ve also got an eye on the talent pipeline. That’s why we invited three early career public body experts to join our recent annual conference as rapporteurs.
We’re extremely grateful for their insight and perspectives on the annual conference.
Members of the Institute of Regulation have exclusive access set of resources and photos from the annual conference in the membership area, the ‘Regulation Hub’.
What can regulators do to achieve ‘Smarter Regulation’?
Throughout the Institute of Regulation’s second annual conference attendees grappled with how regulation can be improved and the role of the IoR in driving change.
Sir Martyn Oliver, recently appointed HM Chief Inspector at Ofsted, set the tone in an opening address that frankly acknowledged the challenges facing his organisation. Describing himself as ‘fresh’ from the sector, his prescription was for Ofsted to listen more to those it inspects and regulates – starting with a 3 month consultation seeking views from children, parents, teachers and other regulators on how Ofsted might improve its work. Sir Martyn demonstrated personal openness to learning from others, describing the benefit he found in Institute of Regulation (IoR) training on regulation and the insight he has gleaned from meeting leaders of school inspectorates in other countries.
Breaks and breakout sessions hummed with discussion as delegates exchanged ideas and examples of good practice. Consensus prevailed that regulators need to communicate their successes and failures in a way that is more accessible and meaningful to citizens. There was appetite for IoR training in communication strategies to support public trust. Participants also identified innovation and agility as a particular weakness of UK regulation and proposed that the IoR could help to incentivise innovation through an award scheme for members.
However, it was also clear that there are limits to what regulators can achieve alone. In his closing keynote, Lord Dominic Johnson, Minister for Regulatory Reform, recognised the government's responsibility – as both legislator and administrator – to create the conditions for regulators to achieve the ambitions ministers set out for them.
Resource constraints were a constant undercurrent in conversations throughout the day. Delegates discussed how difficult it can be to prioritise activities like horizon scanning and completing Regulatory Impact Assessments while struggling to find the capacity to carry out their day-to-day jobs.
The impediment caused by outdated legal mandates was another recurring theme. Several regulators highlighted how their statutory basis had not kept up with changing contexts and technologies, hampering their ability to respond and innovate. Ofsted, for example, does not have legal powers to inspect the multi-academy trusts that now run schools educating half of all pupils in England, only single school settings. Individual cases of outdated legislation may be of low priority to government, but cumulatively they have a significant impact on the effectiveness of UK regulation.
The IoR has a clear role to play in facilitating professional development and fostering best practice within its membership. However, it should also consider how it can amplify the collective voice of regulators and elevate the profile of challenges that can only be addressed by government.
Researcher at the Institute for Government (IfG)
Artificial Intelligence, keeping humans in the loop
As a master's student at Sciences Po, immersed in the captivating realm of digital technologies and public policy, I recently had the privilege of attending a thought-provoking conference in London, hosted by the esteemed Institute of Regulation. The event provided a fertile ground for discussions surrounding the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) and the imperative need for transparency and accountability within UK regulation.
I asked Chat GPT to write my opening paragraph to this blog – could you tell? Does this constitute plagiarism? What impact will generative AI have on the next generation of students using AI tools to write their assignments? These were some of the challenging questions posed during the IoR annual conference breakout session on the regulation of AI.
As Chat GPT introduced for me, I am currently studying on the ‘Digital, New Technologies and Public Policy’ master at Sciences Po in Paris. Since September, I have been learning about the numerous risks and opportunities posed by new digital technologies and global approaches to regulating AI. It has been an energising few months to be based in France, with the introduction of the new EU AI Act. However, with the UK emerging as a global leader in AI safety considerations, I was excited to return to London to attend the IoR’s annual conference, to learn more about the UK AI Regulatory Framework and hear directly from the organisations tasked with regulating the technology in their sectors.
Observing the packed conference room at the BMA House, one of my main takeaways from the day was the level of commitment across UK regulators to protect our society. This is not entirely news to me – before starting my master’s, I worked in the Secretariat of the Association of Chief Executives (ACE) and the Public Chairs’ Forum (PCF) and learnt a great deal about the vastness of the UK regulatory landscape. Contributors of the day spoke earnestly about the significant pressures they face and how much they care about outcomes for the public. I was struck by just how many aspects of my life rely on the work of regulators and how often I have taken their work for granted.
In the coming years, UK regulators will play a pivotal role in protecting our society from the risks posed by generative AI. The UK AI Regulatory Framework takes an ‘agile, sector-based approach’ to AI regulation to ‘empower’ UK regulators to create more tailored measures for their sectors. I heard from many regulators that their leading concern is to ensure that AI technologies used in their organisations and deployed in their sectors are not producing bias and discriminatory outcomes. During the breakout session hosted by Deloitte, I was introduced to a new term ‘keeping a human in the loop’, which is considered a way to moderate our total reliance on AI technologies. I will continue to ponder this concept, as what is the appropriate level of human engagement?
During several conversations with delegates, it was notable to me that regulating AI is a challenge which will require cross-sectoral collaboration. A common theme that emerged throughout the day was the delicate balancing act regulators face on a daily basis. For example, considering the trade-off between matters of over-regulation and under-regulation, standards and costs, and dedicating resource to ‘upstream’ versus ‘downstream’ activities. Several regulators referred to their work to frame the risks around generative AI as an ‘upstream activity’ – one in which we could benefit from collaborative horizon scanning. As I continue my studies, I look forward to seeing how UK regulators will work together to establish the foundations for the safe creation, use and deployment of AI technologies in our society.
A huge thank you to everyone at the Institute of Regulation for welcoming me for the day and to all of the excellent speakers and delegates for sharing their thought-provoking experiences and perspectives.
Perhaps by next year’s annual conference, AI will have replaced me in my role as rapporteur...
Digital, New Technologies and Public Policy MA, Sciences Po
What can the UK learn from international approaches to regulation?
One of the key themes that emerged from Institute of Regulation’s annual conference was the benefit of sharing good practice from international regulators and learning lessons from alternative approaches. While the varying size, structure and complexity of the regulatory landscapes in different countries can make international comparisons difficult, the session on ‘International regulatory practices’ highlighted useful case studies, with insights relevant to policymakers and regulators in the UK.
Perhaps the most interesting of these international examples is the innovative regulatory stewardship approach adopted in New Zealand in 2013. Regulatory stewardship describes a ‘whole-of-system’ approach, in which regulation is treated as an asset that must be carefully maintained and regularly updated, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose.
As part of this model, chief executives leading public service agencies (which in New Zealand includes departments) have a statutory duty to monitor, review and report on the performance of the regulatory system within their remit. In doing so, they are expected to proactively identify opportunities for improving regulation. For problems that require legislative change, the relevant updates are packaged together in omnibus reform bills which are introduced at regular intervals.
Advocates of regulatory stewardship claim that it promotes more strategic thinking about the ways in which various actors and policy instruments interact within a regulatory system to produce outcomes that align with government priorities. This can challenge the tendency to narrowly focus on the flow of regulation, while overlooking broader issues with the existing stock, which can all too easily become obsolete. This is a particularly pertinent lesson for the UK, where many regulators are constrained by outdated legislation, but often struggle to attract the attention of legislators.
However, there have also been challenges in implementing this approach in New Zealand. Critics argue that the term ‘regulatory stewardship’ lacks a clear definition and is open to various interpretations, so can be difficult for agencies to operationalise. This claim is somewhat supported by the varied implementation of regulatory stewardship across departments since 2013, with some regulatory agencies taking a more proactive role than others. This too highlights a lesson in implementing regulatory reform – the importance of maintaining clear and well defined objectives.
Ultimately, the case of regulatory stewardship demonstrates the value in taking a more holistic view of regulatory systems and - through both its strengths and limitations - demonstrates how international practices can provide lessons for addressing persistent regulatory problems.
Research Assistant at the Institute for Government (IfG)