Institute of Regulation's Podcast

Are regulators lightning rods for blame? This month's podcast talks to Matthew Flinders, a professor of politics at the University of Sheffield, and former regulator CEO Martin Stanley about the way politicians sometimes deflect criticism by blaming regulators. They discuss how easy it is for regulators to be blamed, whether by politicians, the media, or those they regulate, and how difficult it can be for regulatory leaders to deal with blame, perhaps especially if the regulatory leader has come from outside the political world. The threat of blame can be pernicious and, at worst, influence regulatory decisions and compromise independence, as well as put off good people from working in regulation or taking up senior roles. The speakers on the podcast discuss solutions - including having good, trusting relationships with ministers and civil servants, as well as being able to tell a clear, persuasive narrative to the media, the public, and opposition politicians about the regulator's work. Support networks are important too, including those set up by the Institute of Regulation to help Chairs, CEOs and regulatory staff to navigate these tricky areas and share advice and good practice. Finally, the speakers advise that regulators sometimes need to stand their ground when others blame them wrongly. And that's why good relationships with Whitehall are necessary. Regulators may be able to stand their ground with Ministers in private. But it's never good for a regulator, if blamed by a politician, simply to blame them back in public. You can listen to the podcast here.Keywords: Regulators, blame, accountability, regulatory leadership, public trust, support networks, Institute of Regulation, regulation challenges

In this month's podcast, New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour MP talks to Institute of Regulation Chair Marcial Boo about regulatory reform in New Zealand, including their Regulatory Standards Act, just passed. David, who is also Minister for Regulation, says that regulation must maximise benefit and minimise cost. This includes the option not to regulate. He argues that regulation has often increased costs in response to infrequent risks: the fear of earthquakes increases burdens on property developers, for example. His new law sets a more consistent framework, so that new burdens are not imposed on the basis of emotion, but through a transparent methodology, so that the impact of new regulations is known. He recognises that some politicians find it hard to apply regulatory discipline in practice when under pressure to 'do something'. So, he will incentivise good behaviour through a regulatory standards board to assess new regulations and make sure that additional checks and balances are put in place through regulation, actually bringing benefits. He says that the regulatory profession needs to look at itself in the mirror too, to assess whether the benefit of their work outweighs the cost imposed. David also discusses international collaboration and how countries can benefit by trusting the regulatory scrutiny and assurance of other jurisdictions to save time and money, although he accepts that taking rules from others can reduce the scope for domestic innovation. David ends by advising UK policymakers to look carefully at the costs and benefits of each additional rule to assess whether regulatory accretion is really worthwhile.Keywords: regulatory reform, cost-benefit analysis, risk management, transparency, international collaboration, improving regulatory discipline

In this month's podcast, Institute Chair Marcial Boo talks to senior Information Commissioner's Office staff Emily Keaney and Angela Balakrishnan on how the ICO ensures our personal data are kept safe through the regulation of businesses and public bodies. Their discussion notes how good communications can encourage compliance, and how the ICO, like other regulators, sometimes has difficult conversations with those being regulated, using a range of regulatory tools to be effective. They also talk about the challenge of new technology, including AI, the importance of prioritising regulatory interventions, and how the first step is to get the basics right. You can hear the podcast here, with more information on the ICO website (ico.org.uk).Keywords: Data protection, Information rights, Privacy regulation, Cyber regulation, Digital trust, Freedom of information

This month's podcast from the @Institute of Regulation asks whether regulators should make money from their assets - their data and their knowledge of regulation and the law. Some might say not; regulators are often funded from public money. But @Richard South, Chief Executive of @TSO, and @Sam Walsh, a partner at @Deloitte, argue that there are legitimate ways for regulators to benefit from their assets in ways that can improve compliance and save public money.They recommend that regulators first understand what assets they have, and then find ways to make their regulations and guidance available in ways that are accessible to their users. Today, this means not only users themselves but the AI tools that can be deployed to help users comply. UK expertise can legitimately be commercialised internationally too. They conclude that, by keeping an open mind, and by understanding what assets they have, UK regulators have opportunities to save taxpayers' money and generate growth if they sometimes think commercially too. You can listen to the podcast here.

In this month's podcast from the @ Institute of Regulation, our Chair @ Marcial Boo speaks to the Chair of the UK Government's @ Regulatory Policy Committee, @ Stephen Gibson. He talks about the RPC's role to help improve UK regulation, advising Parliament on the quality of the evidence and analysis in any new regulatory measures proposed by the government