Policy paper

Plan for Digital Regulation: summary of responses to the ‘call for views’

Updated 10 October 2023

This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government

Executive summary

2022 is a landmark year for shaping the rules that govern digital technologies around the world. The UK is at the forefront of this, driving forward groundbreaking work, including on online safety, digital competition, data protection, and cyber security.

These important steps will deliver on our vision — as set out in the Plan for Digital Regulation — to drive growth and innovation across the digital economy, while also protecting against its worst downsides. The UK is renowned across the globe for its excellence in regulating but we must make sure our regulatory approach keeps pace with the digital age.^{[footnote 1]} As set out in the Benefits of Brexit policy document, we want to take full advantage of our exit from the EU by carving out a more nimble and agile regulatory approach.

We are still at the early stages of writing the rulebook for digital technologies and the Plan for Digital Regulation was intentionally the start of a conversation. Working with industry, academia, and civil society to shape the rules for the digital economy will be critical to making sure our approach is effective, proportionate and future-proofed.

To inform this conversation, we invited views on the following through the Plan for Digital Regulation:

1. Our strategic objectives and vision.

2. The guiding principles for better digital regulation that we set out in the Plan.

3. Coherence and coordination between digital regulators, including the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF).

4. Challenges and opportunities across the current regulatory environment.

5. How government can best use external expertise to inform its approach.

This document provides a summary of the views that we heard over the period 6 July to 28 September. During this period we received feedback through a range of channels from 51 individuals and organisations, including a range of companies, industry organisations, academics, think tanks, and civil society groups. Since the closure of the call for views, we have continued the conversation further, meeting stakeholders, and convening roundtables to further understand the range of perspectives on these issues.

We look forward to continuing the conversation in 2022 and beyond — and will be publishing a further update on our progress delivering on the Plan as part of the Digital Strategy. This will outline how we are developing our pro-innovation regulatory framework, building our evidence base, exploring new avenues for cutting-edge digital regulation, and working with regulators to ensure the institutional landscape is fit for purpose.

Key themes from the call for views

A clear vision with measurable outcomes

Overall, the majority stakeholders agreed with the core aims and objectives outlined in the Plan for Digital Regulation, although several different organisations from both civil society and industry suggested that it would merit the inclusion of additional objectives. Some examples included growth and productivity, safeguarding consumers and citizens, environmental protection, and equality. Some stakeholders expressed concerns that the government will prioritise growth and innovation objectives, over questions such as how we can encourage a flourishing democratic society.

A key theme from respondents’ feedback was the need for government to be clear about how it will measure progress against the vision it set out and what good looks like in practice. Multiple stakeholders acknowledged the important evidence gaps across the landscape and welcomed government’s commitment to develop a set of indicators to inform the regulatory approach. They noted that some of the Plan’s objectives (e.g. driving growth and innovation) were easier to measure than others. The objective to “promote a flourishing, democratic society” was identified as particularly challenging to measure, and some respondents wanted government to work with stakeholders to consider how this could be measured. Some suggested it will also be important to measure how equitably the benefits of digital technology and infrastructure are spread.

Some stakeholders highlighted that regulators and policymakers should seek to develop a stronger evidence base, including current benchmarks, enabling them to evaluate the effectiveness of any intervention. However, they suggested that given the pace of change, government and regulators should use their judgement to act in circumstances where evidence was sufficient, even if incomplete.

Enhancing access to cutting-edge expertise

Expertise was a prominent theme in the evidence collected during our call for views. Some respondents suggested that both government and regulators would benefit from taking further steps to enhance technical expertise and understanding, from data science to practical industry experience. The majority of stakeholders argued that expertise was essential in understanding the potential impact of regulations, and what the most practical and effective solutions would be ‘on the ground’.

Suggestions on how to enhance expertise included secondments, increased academic fellowships and creating a shared pool of resources to provide expertise which could potentially be run by the DRCF and work across regulatory bodies on technology-specific issues. Another suggestion included cross-membership of DRCF board members as a way of facilitating expertise, joining up of governance and ensuring accountability across key regulators.

Some stakeholders also suggested that government should conduct a review of the horizon scanning landscape, including where assessments are already being undertaken in academia, the public and the private sector. This could include specifically exploring venture capital and investment markets as an indicator of longer-term interest.

Respondents noted that identifying and learning from expertise beyond the UK is also crucial given the international nature of digital technologies. Government must therefore regularly survey the global regulatory landscape for digital technologies, and collaborate with international partners in order to understand the latest best practice.

Flexible and innovative approaches to regulation

A number of stakeholders pointed out that traditional regulatory approaches were not always suitable for governing innovative new technologies and that new approaches would be crucial to the UK’s approach to digital governance in the future. Taking advantage of flexible and innovative new approaches to regulation was consistently highlighted as key to an effective digital regulatory approach.

Many favoured an outcomes-based regulatory approach — where regulators focus on the achievement of positive outcomes, rather than prescriptive processes targeting specific technologies. Outcomes-based approaches allow for businesses to more flexibly achieve the goals of regulators, and can reduce the burden on both companies and regulators. However, some respondents pointed out that clear rules and processes are sometimes useful where businesses have limited capacity or skills to interpret outcomes, and would prefer a more prescriptive approach to avoid non-compliance.

Respondents across industry, academia and civil society supported governance initiatives which allow for regulators and businesses to iterate and adapt, such as standards and regulatory sandboxes. These help businesses usefully test new products, driving innovation while keeping consumers safe. Industry respondents expressed particular support for the creation of “scaleboxes”, which to support the safe development of new and innovative technologies for companies looking to scale up their products and services.

While current regulatory sandboxes were pointed to as a success, stakeholders suggested that a cross-sector sandbox would be an effective avenue for further exploration, allowing full consideration of market dynamics across different regulatory regimes. This could potentially include several regulators and public sector bodies as part of a steering group. For instance, the topic of age verification could potentially include the ICO, OFCOM, Gambling Commission, BBFC, CMA, Policing, and Children’s Commissioner’s Office.

Other examples of flexible and innovative approaches to regulation included “living labs”, which are currently being trialled in the energy sector, to provide a real world setting for the testing of new products, providing a clear evidence-based approach, and allowing for the testing of innovative technology in a controlled environment.

From an international perspective, some stakeholders suggested that there would be value in cross-border sandboxes, or the extension of existing sandboxes to co-operative countries. This could improve the ease of doing business and the sharing of innovative tech with international trading partners.

Championing the UK’s role on the international stage

A range of respondents provided views on the UK’s role on the global stage for digital regulation. Many felt that there was an opportunity for the UK to demonstrate global leadership in proportionate, innovation-friendly digital regulation. The majority of respondents also highlighted the importance of regulatory cooperation, and of the UK’s approach of building in international considerations from the outset. A number of respondents suggested that regulatory diplomacy will continue to be crucial, and that the UK should ensure it uses trade opportunities to foster links with like-minded countries.

There was appetite among some respondents for the UK to act early in implementing digital regulation and seize ‘first mover advantage’ This is because the UK’s proportionate and pro-innovation rules could set positive precedents for other nations to follow suit. However, some stakeholders also emphasised that the UK should avoid trying to lead on all issues or the government risks spreading its resources too thin and thus becoming ineffective.

A number of stakeholders noted that the UK should look to encourage international regulatory alignment, which continues to be crucial for creating an effective business environment, and minimising business costs caused by regulatory divergence. Several stakeholders noted, however, that international alignment must have appropriate limits — for example, in the interests of protecting human rights.

Some noted that this approach might require new forms of governance at the multilateral level to mitigate risks of digital nationalism and regulatory fragmentation. One respondent suggested that leading countries should establish a ‘global digital observatory’ to manage global governance for digital. However, other stakeholders felt that existing multilateral arrangements for digital governance were sufficient, and should be used more effectively by like-minded countries.

The UK was acknowledged as an effective thought leader in regulatory research and evidence. A number of respondents commented on the value of the UK continuing to contribute substantially to the global regulatory evidence base, and influencing long-term regulatory norms, providing a good example for well- and less well-developed countries

Ensuring our regulators are effective, coherent and coordinated

A range of respondents provided views on digital regulators in the UK, and how their roles and remits interact. While most stakeholders agreed that regulatory coordination would be an integral element of effective digital regulation, there was less consensus around how effective and coherent regulatory coordination could be practically achieved. Many of the views captured here were also reflected in evidence given to the recent inquiry into digital regulation undertaken by the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee.

The Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum

The Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) was largely welcomed as a positive starting point in creating a joined-up approach to complex digital regulation issues. However, stakeholders raised several points for further consideration.

Several stakeholders wanted more clarity on how regulators practically work together via the DRCF, and how the forum will evolve over time. Overall, the majority of stakeholders wanted the DRCF to be more transparent in terms of who they are meeting, their timelines on work, and their future priorities.

Some stakeholders raised concerns about how the DRCF would ensure alignment on policy priorities between regulators, and manage potentially conflicting objectives in areas where different legal frameworks overlap. Civil society groups in particular questioned whether the DRCF would be able to ensure that duties to protect consumers were given the same consideration as duties to promote competition and innovation.

A number of stakeholders also wanted to understand how regulators which do not form the core membership of the DRCF could engage with the Forum to ensure they can share expertise and shape decision-making.

Some noted that it would be crucial for DRCF to stay up to date with innovations in technologies and markets, and that effective horizon-scanning would be critical.

Coordination

Respondents largely agreed that regulatory coordination will be integral to successfully regulating digital tech and that wherever possible government should support close cooperation between regulators to ensure a streamlined approach.

Appropriate information sharing between regulators was identified by multiple stakeholders as an important way of enabling effective coordination. This could reduce the duplication of multiple information requests from different regulators and create a more efficient regulatory system. However, several respondents noted that government needs to carefully consider the best ways to facilitate this. Some expressed a preference for statutory information gateways, and others lighter-touch duties to share information via memoranda of understanding. Some felt that if not designed well, there could be greater risks of information breaches.

Transparency

A key theme across a range of respondents was a desire to see increased transparency and accountability for regulators. For example, some stakeholders suggested regulators could have clearer visibility of who is responsible for different regulations within their organisation. Many stakeholders suggested that regulators need a clear commitment to transparent and inclusive dialogue, to ensure that they are taking a range of views into account as they make their decisions. This will become particularly important as regulators take on new powers.

A number of stakeholders stressed the importance of clarity of remits between regulators, so there is not confusion regarding ownership of cross-cutting regulatory issues. They suggested that clear parameters should be underpinned by transparent decision-making processes.

Making sure a wide range of voices shape the rules that govern digital technologies

Most respondents were clear that engagement with industry, consumers and civil society is key to creating regulation that is future-proofed and builds trust and innovation. Industry expertise, consumer experience and citizen representation are integral to shaping the design and delivery of effective digital regulation

A number of respondents suggested that additional information on the government’s planned activities would be welcome. Suggestions included a map to set out how different government departments interact, a map of regulator remits and how they interact with each other, or a graphic to capture all the current and planned pieces of work across government and how they interrelate. Without this clarity, some suggested the landscape can be difficult to navigate for businesses and citizens alike.

Some respondents called for greater involvement of civil society and the public. They placed particular emphasis on the need to consider people’s real experiences with technology, particularly those of marginalised groups, when assessing the impact of digital regulation. For example, one respondent suggested that an organisation comprised of multiple civil society organisations should be convened to advocate for UK consumers on digital issues, including regulation.

Conclusion and next steps

2022 is a landmark year for the rules that govern digital technologies. We will establish important foundations for our pro-innovation digital regulatory regime - from driving forward work to reform our data protection rules, to establishing a new pro-competition regime for digital markets to introducing the Online Safety Bill.

Building this new framework requires a collaborative approach, and we are pleased to have kicked off an important debate which had so many rich and useful responses. The call for views raised important questions for government, as well as regulators, industry and civil society.

We will set out next steps through the Digital Strategy, including how we intend to address some of the themes raised through this call for views. We will also write to the members of the DRCF to share these insights ahead of their 2022/23 work plan.

The Plan for Digital Regulation represented the start of the conversation about how we set the right rules for governing digital technologies so we unleash growth and innovation while protecting against the most serious downsides of digital technologies. We look forward to continuing this vital conversation.

Annex: Stakeholders engaged following publication of the Plan for Digital Regulation

Ada Lovelace Institute	Norms for the New Public Sphere - The University of Stirling and The University of Warwick
Alan Turing Institute	Ofcom
Amazon	Ombudsman Services
Apple	Onfido
BCS - The Chartered institute for IT	Open Data Institute
Carnegie UK Trust	Open Rights Group
Catherine Miller, Independent Researcher	Overseas Development Institute
Coadec	Privacy International
Competition and Markets Authority	Professional Publishers Association
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)	Professor Andrew Murray, London School of Economics
Deliveroo	Professor Chris Marsden, University of Sussex
Demos	Professor Julia Black, London School of Economics
Dr Martin Husovec, London School of Economics	Professor Pinar Akman, University of Leeds
Equality and Human Rights Commission	Robert Gorwa, WZB Berlin Social Science Center
Financial Conduct Authority	Royal Society
Francesca Vantaggiato, King’s College London.	Scottish Government
Global Issues Dialogue Centre, Jesus College, University of Cambridge	Snap
Google	TechUK
IAB UK	Tony Blair Institute for Global Change
Information Commissioner’s Office	Twitter
Institute for Government	Virgin Media O2
Institute for Strategic Dialogue	Vodafone
Market Research Society	Which?
Monzo	Yahoo
NCC Group	Yoti
Nesta

1. See OECD International Regulatory Cooperation, and Global Innovation Index ↩