Charles Nancarrow: Good morning everyone and welcome to today's National Audit Office seminar from covid-19 to net zero. How can regulation response change my name is Charles Nancarrow, I'm director of regulation value for money work at the NAO and i'll be chairing this session.

Charles Nancarrow: The NAO has done much work over the past few years, evaluating the delivery of public policy through regulation and markets in a number of different areas.

Charles Nancarrow: For example, our work has covered sectors such as food, financial services, social caring gambling and we recently decided to bring the learning from this work together in a good practice guide, which we published earlier this year and which you can find on our website.

Charles Nancarrow: there's great interest in this area and it's worth noting that parliament's in the shape of the public accounts committee.

Charles Nancarrow: Took evidence from governments and a number of regulators recently on this issue and, indeed, last week, published their own report on the subject which, if you haven't seen it can be found on the Parliament website.

Charles Nancarrow: The aim of today's seminar is to hear from experts and practitioners about their own experiences and perspectives regarding regulation in a world of change.

Charles Nancarrow: So i'm absolutely delighted that we've got a wide range of speakers lined up and there will be plenty of opportunity to ask some questions.

Charles Nancarrow: So just running through the program we've got to keynote speakers in the first session firstly Gareth Davies Comptroller and Auditor General and head of the NAO.

Charles Nancarrow: followed by Dame Glenys Stacy who is chair designates of the Office for environmental protection and chief regulator of ofqual.

Charles Nancarrow: Well, I have a short Q and A and then in the second session we've got.

Charles Nancarrow: A panel, with a number of individuals with interest in regulation, followed by a panel discussion will introduce the panel at the beginning of that session.

Charles Nancarrow: Just some very quick housekeeping before we start, please do put your questions in the chat function i'll be creating these and then putting them to the speakers at the end of.

Charles Nancarrow: The session events being recorded and we will also do a write up, which will put on the website at the you know, at the end of the session into course so without further ado, I will hand over to garth Davis, thank you very much.

Gareth Davies: Thank you, Charles.

Gareth Davies: Good morning, everybody and apologies for the short delay was started today's session.

Gareth Davies: I just wanted to say a few words, by way of setting the scene for hearing from the experts on regulation in today's webinar.

Gareth Davies: First of all, thanks to Charles and Rich and their team for.

Gareth Davies: The huge amount of work that they've been leading from the NAO on regulation in recent years, including the guide that Charles is just mentioned, which i'll say a little bit more about in a second but it's one example of.

Gareth Davies: A strategic game of ours, which is to distill the learning from our many reports in a systematic way across the various themes that.

Gareth Davies: Government is grappling with in its and its many departments and good regulation is just one of those scenes and it's it's great to see us pulling together the so much experience and understanding the lessons in this way.

Gareth Davies: I just wanted to reflect on the, given that the theme of today is how regulation response to change.

Gareth Davies: reflect on the degree of change that we've all been living through in recent years, all of this, of course, well known to everybody, but I think.

Gareth Davies: It helps to set the context for today's session so clearly we're we're at a huge inflection point for regulation, as well as lots of other areas of of government policy coming out of a pandemic that none of us could have expected to see in our lifetime.

Gareth Davies: with huge and systemic impacts across the whole of the economy and the whole of the world.

Gareth Davies: Obviously, just before that we thought the biggest thing on our plate was a ux it's with all sorts of implications for regulation on so many other things, including more scope for the UK now to regulate differently from the EU.

Gareth Davies: and substantial new regulator responsibilities needing to find homes in UK institutions existing or new year.

Gareth Davies: we're living through the.

Gareth Davies: early phases of a climate crisis which.

Gareth Davies: is now well accepted and is government policy to to tackle.

Gareth Davies: So a different kind of crisis from the pandemic that we've had to react to but equally systemic, if not more so, and shaping of economies across the whole planet.

Gareth Davies: And every aspect of government policy too.

Gareth Davies: An enormous focus on how to reduce emissions in line with the government's policy of achieving that zero by 2050.

Gareth Davies: data and technology was already reshaping public service delivery in a in a very substantial way.

Gareth Davies: But we've seen how these these train factors that i'm listing here interact with each other in a very big way, so the impact of online services in the pandemic has clearly transformed many industries and created new challenges and or even.

Gareth Davies: exacerbated existing charges for regulators i'm thinking there's for example of online gambling as a good example.

Gareth Davies: And then big questions about with Regulation having to respond to so much change, what is the disposition of regulation between national and local levels and how those decisions made so that the combined effect could be most effective.

Gareth Davies: So I just wanted to hone in on a couple of those to say in a bit more detail some of the regulatory impacts of these changes so code 19, as I said, obviously systemic and.

Gareth Davies: Something that was on many risk registers across government, including regulators.

Gareth Davies: But I guess, all of us have had to learn a bit of humility and to say we didn't have the imagination to anticipate what was possible in a pandemic of this kind.

Gareth Davies: And the wide ranging impacts across the entire economy that would require action plans that have developed high speed, because they didn't exist in preparation.

Gareth Davies: And in some areas we've seen a nice need to release regulatory burdens.

Gareth Davies: to minimize the impact on the economy was trying to manage the risk of harm from those easements that's been a big theme of our audit work across.

Gareth Davies: pandemic response, a good example would be in dwp where controls had to be relaxed in order to get payments out to people without face to face interactions knowing full well well the regulatory impact on.

Gareth Davies: higher levels of fraud and error, as a result, so how that has been managed across the different areas of responses, is obviously very it's very interesting to regulators and to us.

Gareth Davies: And just do some of the speakers on today's call have direct experience of this which they will no doubt share with us, but.

Gareth Davies: The medicines and healthcare products regulatory industry is as had a very high pressure job of approving vaccines for deployment at high speed, unlike any similar process we've had to live through before.

Gareth Davies: The cma and competitions and markets or authority responding to urgent problems affecting consumers such as inflated prices prices for things like hand sanitizer.

Gareth Davies: and travel cancellations and so on local trading standards enforcing a range of trading offenses including new covered regulations.

Gareth Davies: And the Health and Safety Executive supporting employers to make their workplaces code safe so enormous impacts across regulators of all kinds, and as we emerged from the pandemic and opportunity to extract the learning from that.

Gareth Davies: both positive and negative some amazing innovation developed at high speed which we don't want to lose, but also some some good examples of the cost and impact of not being prepared with sufficient planning in advance.

Gareth Davies: Turning to climate change, the second of the big themes that I wanted to touch on as driving change, for us, for now, and for the next few decades.

Gareth Davies: So, like this is like covid it's a global issue, not a not a domestic issue and the government, along with most governments in the world, now has clear.

Gareth Davies: clear targets to meet, and this is at last driving systemic change across across the economy it relies crucially on affecting behavior of businesses and individuals and households.

Gareth Davies: And so regulation inevitably has a big part to play as a crucial tool in helping pursue environmental aims here i'm setting a new rules setting incentives.

Gareth Davies: The whole whole gamut of tools to achieve behavior change which are going to be so important here, and this is reflected in our work in recent years in a big way.

Gareth Davies: public accounts committee yesterday, held a session on our report on the Green homes grant clearly an attempt to accelerate the installation of homes.

Gareth Davies: That didn't work because of the speed at which it was attempted to be implemented, partly because it had another objective.

Gareth Davies: At the same time, which was creating jobs in a pandemic, but really important lessons to learn from that example for future installation schemes.

Gareth Davies: But we've covered the issue of net zero and i'll work on the electricity regulation on water supply and demand and how government is organizing itself.

Gareth Davies: At a central level to achieve net zero and we'll carry on scrutinizing the efforts of governments and regulators in meeting these ambitious aims.

Gareth Davies: So just a couple of big themes driving change that clearly are on the radar of all regulators, but with.

Gareth Davies: I guess the reflecting on those two, given the complexity of the changes associated with a pandemic and and climate change.

Gareth Davies: really important to have as broad vision as possible, informing your risk assessments.

Gareth Davies: I think that's one of the key things we've learned from here is it's very dangerous to compartmentalize any of these risks and think about them in the way you always have it's really important to kind of challenge that thinking and the interaction of data technology climate.

Gareth Davies: globalization and so on, and we're just seeing this weekend, we, the the shocks in the energy market, which is another example of the same the same trend.

Gareth Davies: So.

Gareth Davies: The good practice guide that Charles mentioned is our is our effort to bring together the principles of good regulation based on much work over the over the years.

Gareth Davies: And this is a really important document I think when thinking about how regulators should respond to change.

Gareth Davies: It isn't it isn't entirely written just for change situations, but all the principles apply well and.

Gareth Davies: The the learning cycle that's the core of the framework that we set out in that document, I think, is a really good way of.

Gareth Davies: Thinking about and then preparing for change, with its big emphasis on learning from data from challenging previous thinking and looking looking out and ahead to emerging trends and how they might interact with each other.

Gareth Davies: So we look forward to hearing a lot more about about these issues from our speakers today and.

Gareth Davies: it's my pleasure to be able to introduce Dame Glenys Stacy who has kindly agreed to share her vast experience of regulation with us for this session.

Gareth Davies: As Charles said think Glenn has has a as a long experience of senior roles in Regulation currently Chair of the Office for environmental protection.

Gareth Davies: And charged with setting up that really important new organization exactly on the themes of environmental protection, that I was just discussing.

Gareth Davies: But she has a track record in probation and will health professional standards or authority and education so it's a it's a real pleasure to to hand over to Dave bless Thank you.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Thank you very much Gareth, can I just check the you can hear me.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Yes, Okay, thank you for that fulsome introduction what is really telling everyone is i'm just quite an old bird rate has been around the block a few times and i'm.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Somehow still standing but i'm delighted delighted to be here today and to be able to talk about one of my favorite subjects regulation, Regulation.

Dame Glenys Stacey: makes me happy, you know, and I love discussing it with others of the same ilk so thank you for the invite so your chosen theme for today's conferences.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Rather prescient you know how can regulation respond to change precedent, I say, because there are some unique opportunities now for regulatory reform post brexit.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And there are some early signs, I think that our government sees regulation now as a as a key lever, you know as we take our newly.

Dame Glenys Stacey: unconstrained place in the world and, as our government aspires to be a rule maker, and not a rule taken.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So we've had brexit and then the disruptive influence of curve in 19 they changed the context in which we regulate and the challenges of curve in 19 have shown.

Dame Glenys Stacey: That UK regulators can act faster can innovate cantor and and working new ways to to protect customers and the wider public, and the things we really care for.

Dame Glenys Stacey: We need look no further than the hra to see that and i'm very glad to see Rachel from that organization here today.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Now, Nick Christakis of yay or predict several long term societal shifts from curve at 19 and his predictions are based on previous pandemics and then his view.

Dame Glenys Stacey: bigger and more activist, governments are likely to emerge to drive the economy and to tackling the quality and the pandemic has exacerbated inequality in this country in so many ways.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And indeed, our own government is showing a fresh and determined interest in Regulation both the recent take a report and the dcms paper on digital.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Regulation outline broad proposals for regulatory reform and In summary, those two papers, present a restatement of the proportionality principles over.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Regulation is proportionate to the scale of risk that potential reward and the capacity of the organization being regulated.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So you know slightly interesting interpretation of proportionality, then a strong call for regulators to back innovation, either by getting out of the way.

Dame Glenys Stacey: or through standards and proportionate rules tailored to you and trump's then there's a focus on pro competition and outcomes for the broader economy has been would expect at this time.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And a suggestion at least have more responsibility and flexibility for regulators.

Dame Glenys Stacey: That will be welcome, even with enhanced Select Committee scrutiny, you know, backed by economic assessments and and metrics.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So there are opportunities and for regulatory reform but they're also doing doesn't, let me just provide a few thoughts now on those opportunities and dangerous.

Dame Glenys Stacey: To stimulate your debate really and thinking now, as I speak, I do have in mind the way we regulate for the environment and the sheer scale actually the waters to be achieved.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But I hope, but what I say resonates in other spheres of endeavor so firstly, in my view.

Dame Glenys Stacey: For regulators to have the most chance of success and making the difference, they need to make they do need to be have sufficient size.

Dame Glenys Stacey: To develop and maintain all the technical and other skills.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And all the functions needed, you know to be good regulators and to be self learning and reflective as well, and then not all of that size and scale in the same way.

Dame Glenys Stacey: i'd also argue for dedicated regulators, that is, regulators who are there to regulate.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And not encumbered with significant other operational delivery responsibilities, because tensions inevitably arise in these dual purpose organizations.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And it can be hard for the longer and more earnest you know game of regulation to win out over more immediate and pressing operational matters.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Secondly, and this might be contentious I think regulators need to consider carefully now their purpose.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So I argue that, at this point in history regulators should consider more expansive view than some may be comfortable with.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So all regulators are their history that past with an established statutory or stated purpose and often a settled way of interpreting that making sense of that purpose now.

Dame Glenys Stacey: A purpose of consequence if you like, a consequential purposes important you know to to attract talent, to make better decisions to engage more readily with others in the same sphere, and so on, but I argue that.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Regulators now need to consider whether they're taking too narrow or data to view and whether their sense of purpose and chosen interpretation of.

Dame Glenys Stacey: That fits the context of today so by way of example, all regulators in all spheres me to find ways to make a positive difference to the environment, in my view, why do I say that because the single biggest issue but i'm.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Climate change emergency and the biodiversity emergency alongside it Gary they require urgent action.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And this year's dasgupta review is clear that are sustainable engagement with nature.

Dame Glenys Stacey: is endangering the prosperity of current and future generations we're not doing it in a sustainable way we're depleting it.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And yet we must reverse the declines of recent decades to have any hope of maintaining actually not just prosperity, but the health and well being of ourselves and future generations.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Now there are tools to help, I would say, as you look at your purpose so, for example, governments legislating for a certain environment principles.

Dame Glenys Stacey: These required policymakers to look for opportunities to embed environmental protection across policymaking and government and to prevent reduce or mitigate home.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Now these principles will apply across government departments, you know great, not just those departments most clearly associated with these issues, but all of them, but they don't apply to arms event bodies, but we're I in your shoes what I regulator.

Dame Glenys Stacey: I would be considering them closely alongside my stated purpose, I would be contemplating our purpose in a fresh light.

Dame Glenys Stacey: and talking to my board actually about that as well and i'd be discussing this and the environment principles constructively with policy colleagues in my sponsor department recognizing the need for a more expansive view.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So my general point here, I think, is it paste your ux it post early experience of curve it and with the challenge of climate change and damage to our environment is right that regulators consider again the wider context in which they operate, and why the societal issues.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And to approach the setting of directors on the interpretation of purpose and the determination of priorities according me.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Moving on, I think, regulators must increasingly strike the right balance between consistency on the one hand and local regulator he approaches that, on the other.

Dame Glenys Stacey: I think you mentioned the increased importance of locality Gareth when you spoke and referring back to environment mental matters again.

Dame Glenys Stacey: You know, a waste management company may rightly expect the same overarching approach, whether they operate in the Northwest or the southeast.

Dame Glenys Stacey: and overarching approach makes sense for that issue and there's always a case isn't there to be made for certainty, you know we mustn't forget how important certainty is to business.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But for something else, for example, water quality, there are very good arguments for local approaches as well catchment based approaches.

Dame Glenys Stacey: and meaningful collaboration with water countless farmers and others involved a local level and that can make a very significant difference.

Dame Glenys Stacey: In certain areas and can bring wider benefits to society at launch and increasingly you know we're seeing impressive work at a local level.

Dame Glenys Stacey: To improve our environment, the work done to develop the Oxford, Cambridge, for example, has a clear focus on the environment with local leaders, you know signed up.

Dame Glenys Stacey: To environmental commitments well over the what the law requires and in Cornwall, we have a well researched.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Environmental growth strategy that aims not just to conserve it to grow that nature throughout call its chunk chunk of our country.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So key stakeholders involved in these other products across the country, but it is pantry and it's important that regulators are at the table.

Dame Glenys Stacey: whenever they can be making a positive contribution or then spreading learning and good practice to other parts of the country.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So I do think that regulators me to work increase me on a local, regional scale, as well as the national, and this does tie in, of course, with the notion of innovation.

Dame Glenys Stacey: I don't think innovation is quite captured yet Gareth in the NGOs principles of effective regulation, although the principles do talk of a proactive.

Dame Glenys Stacey: forward looking approach to identify potential issues or new developments and to help respond proportionally to issues that may may scale rapidly, if you like.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But I do think more important than ever now that regulators and the policymakers that they've worked alongside keep in mind.

Dame Glenys Stacey: You know the full spectrum of regulation and provide space and support for innovation that, even though some of your staff, my find that extremely uncomfortable.

Dame Glenys Stacey: In my experience, so just let me expand expand a bit on that.

Dame Glenys Stacey: The one end of the regulatory spectrum, there are serious hands on with that just need for Manchester regulate and there the traditional regulated tools.

Dame Glenys Stacey: That come into play, you know set rules licensing or permitting those sorts of measures, but at the other end of the spectrum, there are things desirable to promote through incentives and, in other words, for example with.

Dame Glenys Stacey: advice or guidance.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And I argue that to regulate well you know regulators now need to recognize where an issue is on that regulator spectrum and then regulate.

Dame Glenys Stacey: to match so it's possible to regulate across the spectrum, by choosing the right regulated approach for each issue now that's always been the case.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But I believe that as a society we increasingly expect more more from regulation, and that leads us, you know, to move the dial a bit to the less prescriptive end of that regulatory spectrum so traditionally we've selected approaches that.

Dame Glenys Stacey: tend to tend to be the most cost effective, for example, so we would be looking for themes that are least burdensome by way of intervention.

Dame Glenys Stacey: The least necessary to achieve the desired outcome at the lowest cost of the public purse basically that's what you would have been promoting in the NAO for many years.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But i'm not sure it's enough actually you know today and beyond instead I think rule based and then outcome based ready to purchase need to be carefully balanced and they can be supplemented.

Dame Glenys Stacey: By management based approaches to improve confidence and delivery where that's needed but only where it's needed.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And in striking this fresh balance, I think, relatives need to find a purpose was base for innovation and for local collaboration and local solutions with regulators playing their fall apart.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So you know, in summary, when there is evidence that there's too much focus on rules, to the detriment of intended wider outcomes.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Then outcome based regulation may indeed present itself as a better alternative indeed some advocate actually that that's the best way to regulate now to deliver the government's 25 year plan for the environment.

Dame Glenys Stacey: there's a debate to be had about that, certainly, and I can see its place in some industries in particular.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And I encourage that debate, but inevitably you know there's just not one solution instead the way we regulate has to fit the issue.

Dame Glenys Stacey: The circumstance and it's important to recognize the interdependence of the things that we're regulating.

Dame Glenys Stacey: The production cycles, the environment and the dependent ecosystems all matter and we have to somehow find ways to take full account of that integrated picture.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Otherwise it's a real possibility that we make one thing better, but we also make some other things worse in the in the medium or longer term.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Now the way we regulate I think all of us in regular will say well it's not just down to US regulators is it a.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Policy colleagues in central governments and ministers have been important and persistent boys.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And I do encourage regulators now to invest in those relationships and to bring to those relationships, a deep understanding.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Not just have their own field but bigger awareness of this wider context, because it's our job to stimulate debate and informed decision making.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Yes, without unrivaled understanding of how things work on the ground, of course, but I argue that we also have a rolling encouraging this.

Dame Glenys Stacey: wider awareness, with our policy colleagues who may be, you know focused on an immediate issue for understandable reasons.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Now, investment in our information systems analytics we know it has a part to play yeah because good decisions are informed by the data, but just a word of warning on that, if I may.

Dame Glenys Stacey: know we all want perfect data now people will always come in, you know behind that Holy Grail more data more data.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But there is a danger and thinking that just investment in our data and analytics is the solution it's part of the solution, but it won't be enough.

Dame Glenys Stacey: You know, we do now need to stretch ourselves as regulators and make wise decisions, using the best of.

Dame Glenys Stacey: hindsight clear sight and foresight and that's the true holy grail, actually, in my view, to make wise decisions.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So I mentioned earlier that we face, not just opportunities but dangers and it's always been the case, you know regulations fine isn't it until it goes wrong.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But then it's not so let me speak on one or two of those dangerous the first I mentioned is the risk of assumption so assuming the facts and then finding that reality differs.

Dame Glenys Stacey: In a live setting more complex and with that comes an increasing need I know to be clear enough of the facts to know enough about the extent of nature of the problem.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And the influences on it and the potential ways to make the most positive difference to that and we find increasingly that we just need to do this at pace.

Dame Glenys Stacey: that's what it's going to be like so to give an example, during GCSE reform ministers and other influential stakeholders.

Dame Glenys Stacey: question the relative ease of one exam boards proposed math GCSE exam and they certainly wanted it withdrawn, so they thought it week compared to other offers other examples.

Dame Glenys Stacey: off called media to know the facts here so under took three quick research projects really it pays to get to the facts as part of that incidentally hundreds of students.

Dame Glenys Stacey: took these proposed examinations from each of the examples to help off call contrast and compare and make it fair decisions and, in fact.

Dame Glenys Stacey: It turned out the easier papers were pitched right they were the gcs standard and the others were reasonably difficult.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So off call rather than withdrawing the easy papers regulated swiftly to bring the level of difficulty of the papers of other examples, down to the right standard and I hold that out as a pretty good example actually listening to concerns.

Dame Glenys Stacey: get into the root of it and regulating for your purpose yeah.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So when we do need to find ways I need to be sure enough of our facts in a reasonable time and it's notably difficult in some areas linked to the environment, actually so so quality, for example, the good one.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And then we must understand trends and rates of change and always be able to predict the future, and this requires a good deal of careful effort actually for regulators in this field.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And it also requires collaboration with others, others can help they have information they have data sense.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And there's a shared responsibility, I think, for us to be clear, of the facts and to help each other in that sense, let me move on to a second and quite profound danger and that's the danger of losing the competence of the public.

Dame Glenys Stacey: We don't know how many regulators on this call have been anywhere near that.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But it can be lost overnight and My point is that in volatile times in times of change, there is just a greater risk of this happening so in 2018 another awful example you know, we know that.

Dame Glenys Stacey: It was controlling standards pretty well but by 2020 we are independent and awful was then working closely with government and other UK regulators.

Dame Glenys Stacey: After my time actually but to develop and implement a system of grading using standardized teacher assessments that didn't lead to access your grade inflation.

Dame Glenys Stacey: compared with the previous year's results that was the policy ask and the policy intent Ultimately, however, the approach fail to win at public confidence even in circumstances where it operated fairly and exactly as intended.

Dame Glenys Stacey: It was sound in principle, but this is the rock of it candidates who had reasonable expectations, you need to do well on a good day in an examination.

Dame Glenys Stacey: we're not willing to accept that they've been selected, not just on teacher rankings but statistical predictions at computer effectively.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And they were then to receive a lower grade you know to be told that you can't progress as you want.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Not because you had a bad day good, because you were given a lower grade in that way was simply unacceptable.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And so the approach at the door and the great deal of anxiety and concern was course to students and their parents and teachers, because of that loss of public confidence.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Now it's difficult to fully protect against this risk, as I think about it so sometimes the ground does shift overnight and now we're looking at shifts at the moment.

Dame Glenys Stacey: In relation to some of our utilities that are concerning you mentioned that earlier.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But one way to reduce reduce the risk of a loss of public confidence is to really listen to people on the ground.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Just bear with me on this so listening to their ideas, for example, you might think the idea is ill informed or you know bit off the mark, but really listened to those ideas of work those ideas up you know, to the best they can be discussed some fully, this is what I call active listening.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And it's way beyond just simply having a stakeholder group and or a consultation, and this is perhaps my.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Last point actually the time I have regulators most work ever holder to actively listen and be careful not to dismiss too readily ideas are not invented here or others country news.

Dame Glenys Stacey: You can work them up, if you don't agree them or to be that person is much more like to accept that.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And also much more likely to come to your rescue when you get into difficulties less likely to slag your foot, you know not listening so it's a good investment in my view.

Dame Glenys Stacey: So to sum up then yeah regulators must be of the right scale and competence on encumbered by other responsibilities.

Dame Glenys Stacey: purpose and context are central and i'm encouraging a fresh look at that good in this moment in time.

Dame Glenys Stacey: I do think the public expect more you know from an individual regulator not expect this wider view actually and a recognition of the context in which we regulate.

Dame Glenys Stacey: and considering again our purpose and developing regulators strategies it's important to consider the whole spectrum of regulation.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And I think this is the moment of opportunity actually to do that poster ux and with governments renewed interest in effect of regulation.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And it's also incumbent on us all to stimulate the thinking about policy colleagues and just as important to really listen to stakeholders.

Dame Glenys Stacey: In that way, you know we stand the best chance of developing an approach that's tailored to the issue.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And the circumstance and the context and is sufficiently forward thinking and then lastly local solutions have an increasing role to play in many areas of endeavor.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But, particularly in relation to our environment working locally, incidentally, does provide the opportunity anywhere to pilot to innovate and to engage.

Dame Glenys Stacey: The regulators have a central role and place at the table that's it for me, so thank you, thank you very much for listening give me a chance to speak about my favorite subject, thank you.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Great.

Charles Nancarrow: Thank both speakers on behalf of all of the participants we've just got time for a couple of quick questions, if I may so that they've been a few questions coming in, but i've.

Charles Nancarrow: package them up into a couple of subjects, so the first one is really that given that regulators often have to work with other public bodies to achieve their aims what examples have you seen a where organizations have worked well together in delivering public policy outcomes.

Charles Nancarrow: I don't know which he wants to pick that one up first.

Dame Glenys Stacey: i'll have a go to you, if you like, by talking about.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Should I choose well the Oxford, Cambridge Arc is a pretty good example I mean that is a program of work by stigmatic by governments intent to increase GDP so.

Dame Glenys Stacey: As I understand it's hard to believe outside of London, the area with a positive GDP is this Cambridge Oxford.

Dame Glenys Stacey: But there is a great potential for it to be increased, you know, three or four fold, and so this is the driver to the world's going on there's a lot of things need to be done there, yes, increasing.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Travel infrastructure, but also building a very good number of new homes and that's going to be a contentious issue know where that place and so on.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And what is interesting to me is how one or two of the regulators have really pitched in.

Dame Glenys Stacey: To get the governance arrangements right so it's a bit of a gap in these local initiatives you know there isn't a governance framework.

Dame Glenys Stacey: You know, you need to bring people around the table, but you need some way of making decision you need key leaders there but also you need to involve local industry in business in a purposeful way and you need to somehow have someone holding the ring in all of that.

Dame Glenys Stacey: and regulators have worked and they tend to be good at governance so they've worked in that area and probably elsewhere in the country to really set that the governance framework.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And then also to encourage your level of ambition, so I mentioned when I spoke earlier that there's a there's a commitment on the Oxford, Cambridge job.

Dame Glenys Stacey: To increase and improve biodiversity, not by 10% but by 20% and all local leaders have signed up to that and that's been stimulated really.

Dame Glenys Stacey: By environmental regulators and other environments as well, so it's just one example I think we're at a local that's quite a big locality that it sort of.

Dame Glenys Stacey: make the difference at that level, there are other examples around catchment areas in in the south.

Dame Glenys Stacey: For example, where EA have really sorry environments have really done very good working holding the ring there with farmers and local authorities.

Dame Glenys Stacey: To actually collect the data to identify where the problem is, and then to deal with the problem in the most constructive way, making a very big difference, for example, for muscle bands, thank you.

Charles Nancarrow: Great Thank you and.

Charles Nancarrow: time for one final question, which is actually about risk assessment, so the question is.

Charles Nancarrow: The.

Charles Nancarrow: person will be interested to know what you think about how climate risk assessments and maybe pandemic risk assessment feed into broader government risk planning approaches.

Gareth Davies: Like to kick off on that one little note to add, but the.

Gareth Davies: I think I wanted to return to a point I made briefly earlier on, which was.

Gareth Davies: A big learning, I think, from the pandemic is how inadequate quite a lot of the risk assessment processes in government were patiently because they they didn't allow government to be well prepared for what turned out to be needed.

Gareth Davies: And so the interesting question is, why was that the case because quite a lot of effort going into it.

Gareth Davies: And a lot of this thing I know is going on in the Cabinet Office at the moment and there's stronger central leadership around risk risk assessment, risk management coming through from that functioning government, but I think I mean some of this is.

Gareth Davies: This resisting the temptation to compartmentalize risk to neatly and I think both of us have tried to make this point this morning bonus more articulately than I than I have, but I think the.

Gareth Davies: The the temptation to regard the risk register as a kind of governance chore that needs defending at the audit committee and the board.

Gareth Davies: Rather than a genuine tool to aid strategic thinking and proper contingency planning I think that's the that's the big lesson here and standing back from the risks, the risk assessment to say actually.

Gareth Davies: We we may have captured most of the likely areas here but, but how could these combine in a way that we can't we haven't been able to imagine before.

Gareth Davies: what's coming over the horizon, that it's not adequately represented enough thinking and.

Gareth Davies: Using that.

Gareth Davies: using different techniques to challenge your lack of imagination that's that's what I would say, from this which.

Gareth Davies: is not easy, by definition, is not easy, because you having to push everybody to territory they're not familiar with, but that's what this is showing us, you know.

Gareth Davies: I think we're going to become quite tired of hearing about black swan events as if they there was no chance of human ingenuity being prepared for these things, and this this weekend the energy market has been described as another black swan week isn't it.

Gareth Davies: I don't think we can accept that any longer I don't think these are going to be so rare has to be put in a separate category and and.

Gareth Davies: accept that your risk planning can't cope with them, I think we are going to have to push our expertise and our techniques to better do this, otherwise we're going to be constantly on the back foot and and find ourselves with having to do what they you know the pandemic is a story of.

Gareth Davies: Rapidly devised contingency plans with varying levels of effectiveness, some amazingly effective, and you know, a testament to great innovation actually and and.

Gareth Davies: real expertise others abysmally unsuccessful and yeah usually wasteful so so there's there's a lot for us to do here, and you know we will.

Gareth Davies: I think a big step for everybody is just kind of accepting this challenge and then and then rethinking our approaches, including the NAO rethinking our approaches to to bring that greater degree of challenge and rigor but also, as I said.

Gareth Davies: realizing the importance of innovation and new thinking in in this whole field.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Thank you, and just just from a you mentioned these two risks of you know another pandemic and climate change, climate change, isn't the risk, you know, climate change and.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Desperate changes to our levels of biodiversity that issue is there already materialized knew that that they're not risk register stop that action you know.

Dame Glenys Stacey: The issue, if you like, is that for years environmentalist have been concerned about these things and talking about these things, and they haven't reached a wider audience but.

Dame Glenys Stacey: you're always talking to themselves about it, and now we've broken through that we've broken through that and we've got this opportunity this here with.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Our leadership across 26 you know in in in Scotland in October to share what leadership.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And to bring others along and the real issue is, can we follow that through we've got a 25 year environment plan.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And we've got an opportunity to refresh that in a year or twos time.

Dame Glenys Stacey: And really for me, I think, the key is how much we can engage enough people who can make a material difference actually need to to get something meaningful and purposeful by way of the plan that to tackle these issues.

Dame Glenys Stacey: On the primetime is quite interesting and I think we've been living in in Europe and and it's for at least a decade we've had several actually but I haven't really got off the ground and i've been that good at contagion you know we looked at some of the early this one.

Dame Glenys Stacey: This infection is remarkably good at contagion and so we've had just a massive massive impact on us, and I think.

Dame Glenys Stacey: it's rather trite but nothing beats experience of it, you know we've been world leaders in this country managing exotic animal disease outbreaks because we've had enough of them.

Dame Glenys Stacey: we've got governance arrangements are terribly tried and tested and sophisticated real stepped into specific roles.

Dame Glenys Stacey: we've got continuously contracts, we know how to dispose of carcasses, we know how to track and trace animals we know the absolute controls that must come in on day one.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Preventing animal movement, for example, and these things are so tried tested and pretty easy to impose because they don't actually affect a good number of people, a good amount of time.

Dame Glenys Stacey: Here we're dealing with something completely different we haven't had something on the scale for a century we didn't really have, in my view, the.

Dame Glenys Stacey: tried and tested government arrange governance arrangements in place and perhaps it was very difficult to see just the impact in all fields in all fields of endeavor so just one example, there were a lot of attempts to produce.

Dame Glenys Stacey: A decent phone APP you know that would help us to manage movement of people, but we didn't we didn't have the technology off the shelf we didn't have the organization.

Dame Glenys Stacey: ready in skilled and man to do it, we didn't have the government's there, we will be, in other words, we were starting from a standing start on this, but the experience of this pandemic.

Dame Glenys Stacey: World server so well, we get the next one, I think we can assume we're in the age of age of pandemics don't want to be gloomy about it, but you know, I think it will be, it will be a sensible assumption to make when we're looking at contingency planning, thank you.

Charles Nancarrow: Great Thank you very much, I think that's all we've got time for So can I just send, on behalf of all participants are great thanks to Davison Dame glenna Stacy and I think that really does set.

Charles Nancarrow: The context for the second half of the session where we're going to be delving into these issues in in more detail, so thank you very much and i'll hand over to rich Solomon James who's going to take us through the second half.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: jaws and and, yes, thank you again to Kevin Thank goodness for already excellent and really fascinating first half.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: And thank you also to everyone again for your patience, for those who joined early and and had to bear with us, as we saw some technological changes, those who joined later, you may notice, some of you.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: are not showing up as with your name and, but we have now on top of it everything's going fine, so we are going to crack on with the second half, and.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: I would just briefly share.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: This slide again that Charles did share earlier.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Just as a reminder of who we have for our panel, and so this is a panel discussion, and we have five excellent speakers from quite different perspectives in terms of practitioners and other related experts and.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: And the the theme, again, is very similar to to the first half as the whole event is it's about risks and opportunities facing.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Regulators and adapting responding to change external threats and challenges.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: am so delighted to introduce our panelists so firstly we have Chris carr and director of regulation at base, we have a ritual arundale deputy policy director from the image sorry we've heard a bit about already this morning.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: We have a will hater head of the digital markets unit that we see me.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: We have TIM Johnson policy director at the Civil Aviation Authority and, finally, for the academic perspective, we have Martin large professor of political science and public policy at LSE.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: So if I can remind all the panelists to have your cameras on and when you're speaking to your microphone on.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: And, and again for all participants and attendees please do feel free to use the chat function to ask any questions you may have for any old speakers.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: And so I think we will just jump in, and so I think I will take it will go in the order that I choose everyone so Chris car, we may start with you, if that's okay and and, if you would like us to share your slides for you let us know and, but please repeat yourself.

Chris Carr: Thanks rich it says, I cannot start screen share, while the other participants sharing.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: just stop sharing.

Chris Carr: let's try that right.

Chris Carr: There we are.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: perfect.

Chris Carr: There we go.

Chris Carr: There we are good morning everybody, my name is Chris car i'm the director of better regulation at base and.

Chris Carr: i've only got five minutes so i'm not going to say too much about what we do, we are the central policy unit on regulation and effectively the rules for making rules, so we don't sponsor any regulators ourselves, and we don't make any rules ourselves.

Chris Carr: We work with ministers to set the policy for how other departments do that with regulators.

Chris Carr: And people might be pleased to know that i'm not going to talk about go bid 19 today the stars of that show or the M hra who you'll hear from shortly and i'm probably not going to get away without talking about net zero.

Chris Carr: What I am going to do is to talk about four things that we do so i'm going to talk a bit about metrics about horizon scanning.

Chris Carr: about what we do do working to work with regulators and then i'm going to say a bit about our technology program which you might not have heard about, even though it was very quietly announced by Lord frost last week.

Chris Carr: Okay.

Chris Carr: i'm going to move straight on assuming that you can all read and that the slides will be shared in full, after the event for people to refer back to.

Chris Carr: So first thing i'm going to talk about is how you measure the impact of regulation, this is something.

Chris Carr: Government, the British Government has been doing progressively better over the last couple of decades and we're quite widely recognized internationally as being one of the world leaders in this area and it's very important to get this right, because.

Chris Carr: If you don't you can have poor policy outcomes and perverse incentives on decision making and i'll give you a couple of examples of this one is the first bullet there.

Chris Carr: If you have a system which we I should say at this point where we're consulting currently on this system, and if you have any views on.

Chris Carr: How we should measure the impact of regulation, you should respond to the consultation, if you go to golf.uk and search for better regulation you'll find our consultation document it's open till the first of October, and you can give us your views.

Chris Carr: One of the reasons we're consulting is because there are a couple of big problems with the current metric one is that it doesn't differentiate between small costs that affect a large number of businesses and large costs.

Chris Carr: That affect a small number of businesses and clearly there is a big policy difference in there, but the system just works on the numbers and doesn't make that distinction, so that that reduces the quality of outcomes that we get.

Chris Carr: The second bullet is about impeding action on important societal issues, and this is where I am going to mention net zero.

Chris Carr: Because if you were to adopt a one into out regime like the 2010 to 15 administration.

Chris Carr: There would not be enough red tape on the statute book for you to get rid of, in order to pay for the burdens of net zero This is very important net zero is.

Chris Carr: The biggest government commitment, since the Second World War it's widely described as the you know, the largest ever government commitment in peacetime.

Chris Carr: And that's going to have costs for consumers and the Exchequer and businesses, and if you have the wrong kind of metric and the wrong kind of system for measuring impact, you will essentially distort.

Chris Carr: That delivery and take the costs off businesses and put them either on to the exchequer or to consumers.

Chris Carr: And then, finally, the third problem that we're trying to fix with the existing metric is that it doesn't account for indirect costs it measures only direct costs because those are easy to measure.

Chris Carr: And, and we have found some significant distortions and difficulties because indirect costs are not represented, and of course it doesn't measure benefits that's the other big problem with it.

Chris Carr: It only measures, the benefits to the regulated businesses and, in most cases regulations placed on businesses are for the benefit of other people.

Chris Carr: And you have to measure those in order to look at both sides of the equation, but that's enough on metrics if you want to know more, please read the consultation document and give us your views.

Chris Carr: Second thing i'm going to talk about is the regulatory horizons Council so two years ago, and what a long time ago that seems, although I said I wouldn't mention the pandemic.

Chris Carr: We published a White Paper on regulation for the fourth industrial revolution all about how regulation can and should anticipate and embrace technological change.

Chris Carr: And we've created something called the regulatory horizons Council which, again, I think, is is the first thing of its kind in the world, which is where we have technological and regulatory experts joining together.

Chris Carr: To look at specific technology areas and send advice to government on how.

Chris Carr: to anticipate the regulatory changes that will be needed because regulation is not all about placing burdens on business to protect people it's also about.

Chris Carr: Building public trust and investor confidence by making rules by which new markets can operate and grow and and the Council has.

Chris Carr: already published a report on fusion energy and the report on genetic technologies and one on medical devices and there's a fourth one on drones, which is the end of its essentially first year of operation and next year they're.

Chris Carr: going to be publishing reports on pro innovation principles, Ai in healthcare newer technologies and hydrogen.

Chris Carr: And this, I just want to stress is is a very small initiative, and given that this is an NGO event very good value for money, there are only five experts on the panel, all of whom.

Chris Carr: are working for a very modest per diem and only six of my team in the Secretariat so 11 people are producing all this value.

Chris Carr: And if you again, if you are interested in the reports, all three of the published reports are on golf.uk so please do go and find them, and let me know what you think.

Chris Carr: Thirdly.

Chris Carr: i'm going to tell you about the regulations pioneer fund we This is where we work with all regulators inviting them to bid for a very modest pot of money.

Chris Carr: So each of these projects in the first round, I think we funded projects up to a million, and I think in the second round we're funding smaller projects up to a few hundred thousand.

Chris Carr: Because we've got more less money and more bidders we had 10 million last time we've got about three and a half million this time we've just launched the second round.

Chris Carr: We you know, we had a lot of interest we had bids from regulators and local authorities and partnerships between them.

Chris Carr: And 20 out of 21 grant offer letters were returned within a fortnight of the launch event which is fantastic news.

Chris Carr: And the only one that wasn't returned is the one that requires the personal signature of the Mayor of London so i'm sure that will be coming shortly as soon as it gets to the top of his intro i'm not going to talk about the CIA.

Chris Carr: project, because of course I don't want to steal tim's thunder and similarly them hra, so there is a reason that the panel looks like it does today, but the rp F is is the way that we.

Chris Carr: Encourage regulators to think outside the box, a little bit, these are These are projects quite explicitly projects that regulators could not afford to fund without this money, and there are additional pieces of work to.

Chris Carr: Look at innovation and how innovation happens in their regulated sectors and how they can support that and anticipate that and it's it's going very well and then My final point is a series of projects that we're running inside government to.

Chris Carr: take advantage of technology and make regulation more accessible and more understandable for UK businesses, and this, this is a slow burn these.

Chris Carr: These projects were all conceived a couple of years ago, the digital regulation navigator was announced in the 2019 White Paper and they're all if you if you understand the lingo of it projects they're all in either alpha or beta stages, none of them is finished yet.

Chris Carr: But, unlike most government it projects we're doing these slowly and carefully rather than rushing to produce something that doesn't work.

Chris Carr: And the idea here is that we're effectively digitizing the statute book and turning it into machine readable code and obviously the Statute, because already online legislation.gov.uk.

Chris Carr: But you can't you can read it with your eyes, but you can't tell her computer program to go and analyze it and make decisions for you.

Chris Carr: What the open regulation platform will do is create a thing called an API and application programming interface, which will allow third party developers to get into the the database of machine readable legislation and actually.

Chris Carr: work out what regulations apply and what the requirements are what the fees are what the reporting obligations are etc, etc, and be able to create value added Apps.

Chris Carr: For their regulated sectors and the digital regulation navigator is the kind of lowest common denominator front end of that which will sit on golf.uk and be free to everyone, we assume that the third party Apps will.

Chris Carr: You know charge for their added value for their particular niche audiences and then the smart REG tool is is an inward facing thing for.

Chris Carr: policymakers and analysts, to again to look at regulation in a in a sort of.

Chris Carr: Value Added way and be able to analyze cumulative burdens and stuff like that so i'm conscious that i've got slightly over five minutes, but I will pause there and there's my email address if anybody wants to follow up on any of those Thank you very much and back to rich.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Thank you, Chris That was really interesting stuff and do want to touch on you know all the main kind of big thematic issues that were the sort of.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: And the person of this disciplinary so thank you for that, and of course there'll be a chance for questions and discussion and after the speakers, thank you and I will now pass on to Rachel arundale from the amatory Rachel.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Hello everybody, I will attempt to follow chris's good work and sharing my screen say it again.

should be coming up, so if you just let me know.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: If i'm showing up now fantastic i'll put it on to slide.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: There we go Okay, so this is me thank you everybody Thank you Victor and thank you for the invite to the M hra to join this session and it's been.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: it's been a really interesting session for me and i'm really grateful for all of the very kind words that people have said about the mh harveys work already and it's my privilege really to talk about some of the work of the.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: During these five minutes and but, in doing so I know I can't possibly do justice to the work that colleagues across the across right across the Agency have put into the work on.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Over the last year and they're super expert incredibly incredibly committed people, and I will be talking just about very small part of the work that's been done.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: I won't be touching, for example, and some of the work that's been done around.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: The ventilators and devices, more generally, and just work across much of the Agency and play with 19 2032 tix when you're just going to focus on two main things today, which is the flexibilities we put in place when the pandemic kit and then the development of the Kevin 19 vaccines.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: To start though i'm just going to mention the work where we were in a way in the change environment.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And an hra when the cave pandemic hit, because of course it didn't come, as others have said, in a vacuum.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: There was always to change for us and for other regulators and for us predominantly those around science and technology advances and where there's potential transfer transformative new treatments that we want to.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: encourage him make find ways of getting to into patients and making access easier.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: There was also a particular context for us at the time the pandemic was starting to become the issue that it was, which was the im n DS honor that's a really.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Long acronym isn't it, but if you look at the picture it's reported the independent medicines and medical devices safety with you.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: A very important with you, led by bareness college, which did I highlight some very serious lessons and some very serious learnings for us as an organization and for others, but definitely for us as an organization.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: About times, where we didn't do some of the things that Dan clearness was talking about listening as hard as we could have done.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: In the past, and and and the report also sets out areas for improvement and standards which were taken seriously That report was published in July last year, so it was very much.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: happening at the same time that we were responding to the pandemic and then of course there's a ux it affecting the whole country and but one of our challenges has been over the last year and continuing is establishing the ma.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: ma Charlie as a standalone agency and making the most of the opportunities we have and then of course there's pandemic.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: So the first thing we did was to look at the code 19 flexibility, so I wouldn't say so much about those there's a website here.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Which way you can read about the flexibilities in detail, but of course fairly immediately, we all have to start working in a very different way to the way we've been working in the past and.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: and different requirements started needed to be made, because some of the regulations we had weren't going to work in the in the new situation and, of course, we had to take proportion to create.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: While maintaining safety is being the watchword of what we do where's your guidance on how to manage clinical trials, when people couldn't attend hospitals in the way that they wanted to.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: or research centers for follow up on trials, we instigated desk based non non on site inspections for to inspect good manufacturing another another areas of G xp.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: We moved we use digital more and, perhaps, perhaps for all of us we've been forced into digital use in the way that we're doing this webinar now.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: more quickly than we would otherwise have done those technologies were there so some of the flexibility, so we put in place where perhaps ones, we should have been considering much earlier such such as not requiring hard copy distributions or wet wet signatures.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And we were flexible looked at the flexibility we could give on timelines and other and other requirements that we had.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: These these, the question that still comes as well what's going to happen to the flexibilities and the answer is.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: We it's we're still operating in quite an exceptional situation, but we are looking at hard at what we can do at the flexibility so.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Whether the effects of elitists it should and I don't think there were any of those at the moment, but whether those that should be kept for the duration of a pandemic, then we think about when when the pandemic is over, when we get back to normal operating practice.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: In terms of the flexibilities, we need to maintain and then what we can learn and just terms of better ways of working.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: we've had a series of workshops and consultations with the industry that you see represented on this slide.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: But also, very importantly, through patient groups and healthcare professionals as well to consider those issues, we hope to be putting together recommendations and over the next few months from, and this is a memo publicly.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: To move them to cope with 19 vaccine development is slightly word your slide.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: We did a number of things to to help move through the vaccine development as quickly as possible.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And thinking about those vaccine development process, the first things were rapid reviews of clinical trial applications to support manufacturers and researchers.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And the clinical trial approval time reduced from around 19 to eight days, those that got meant that things could get moving very, very quickly, and I know that.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Colleagues are also available for discussions when, as when those were needed during the conduct of those trials.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: In a very similar kind of a way we put in place willing reviews of applications for authorization of vaccines.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And there's always an open invitation for those developing Kevin 19 vaccines there's still applies to come for early regulatory advice so rolling review means.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: instead of waiting until you have all of the evidence together your early animal studies through to the early phase one trials through to the next stages.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: All of the packages of information nicely presented for us and signed off and proof read.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And the data was coming to us, as it was available so could be considered up to the point that it was available, meaning that when the.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Very important final results came in from the phase three trials, it was only those last results that needed to be considered before authorization could be given.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And because the other, the other work had already been done on the earlier data, and I think there's a really important.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Part of the process, and one of the real stories in the early authorizations.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: We also did some regulatory development we used a regulation, Regulation 1748 trips off the Tongue now for us it's our emergency authorization that does not mean.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Any shortcuts or any quick and dirty authorization it simply is a route to put in place and authorization for the use of medicines in a pandemic and some other situations.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: which could take a different approach to the normal set out processes.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: But we did also put in place a new statutory instruments working very closely with our DHS see colleagues who really put this when.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: to back up the use of that regulation, when I use those words and then we added some additional regulation to make it absolutely clear.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: That we could put conditions on the regulation 174 it wasn't it wasn't just Okay, you can use this medicine this medical medical.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: This this vaccine is authorized, we could put in place conditions for that organization, and indeed we did, and those are also on our website.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And so it just made that absolutely explicit and elaine was to make the there's also a stations as close to a normal authorization of medicine or vaccine as possible while adapt and get one that were necessary.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: and generally there was a principle of having everything ready for the time of vaccine could be approved so when those what final packages of data could be could be considered.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Fully by our experts and our Commission for Human Medicines and everything else had to be in place at that point we didn't want to be salt in SEC oh and.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Has has the manufacturing plant had had a an inspection all of that was done in effect in advance of that moment, so the form of vigilance since fail and plans were already in place.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: The inspections there's advanced consideration of those issues and showing relevant expansions and any scrutiny of.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: documentation and intelligence have been carried out in advance and there was readiness for batch testing effects vaccines every biological product every batches tested.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And the technic tech transfers and the the means by which.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: The standards in a way against this batch is can be tested all completed and ready to go by the time that those final packages of data came through, and I did just that are most in two minds about this.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Policy in concert by so already prepared and ready to go as well, like take some comfort from going glamis talking about.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: The importance of maintaining confidence in the regulator were very conscious that these would be seen as fast and therefore somehow questionable.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And authorizations of vaccines, and so I really want to recognize the work that we've we did on the policy advice for ministers policy liaison the Department of Health.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: and also the communications work that was put in place in advance of that of the authorization and very speedy announcement of those authorizations after they happened.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Looking to the future, then we published our delivery plan, I think, in July this year and that's a two year delivery plan.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And it is available on our website it doesn't talk in huge amount of details about the Kevin 19 pandemic it's is looking for the future, but I think.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: To draw it back to the change that I was talking about it, beginning I think what we've done this, taking the lessons from the curve 19 pandemic and the other changes.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: The other environmental factors affecting goes to accomplish with you, he wakes it, as well as the technology advances and.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: crystallized some I hope into the goal set out here aims of scientific innovation healthcare access patient safety, the outcomes we're seeking to achieve.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And the ways in which we're seeking to achieve them, and of course the things you'd expect to have any organizations such as financial sustainability, but also collaborative partnerships.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And then, right at the Center a priority for me for everybody in the Agency is to deliver better patient and public involvement to ensure we put patients first and then doing so.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And will be taking the lessons that we've we've taken from the kV 1919 pandemic, the development of vaccines in how we deliver faster healthcare access and while doing it safely, while evolving the patients patients and the public.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: In doing gold work so i'll finish that and i'll say thank you very much, and I look forward to hearing from the other speakers.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Thank you very much Rachel and really interesting and really great to hear from them hra about.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: You know what what's your take on the key factors, the key things that really allowed to just be the response so yes i'm sure we'll have a chance to discuss that further later and i'll move on now to will hate her from the cma and he will.

Will Hayter : Thank you very much, rich, thank you very much for having me and my name is will hater i'm senior director for the digital markets unit for least in its shadow form within the cma so i'm going to see him briefly on the dmv context and then address the specific issue of change.

Will Hayter : In the competition world come to consensus has been building for some time now that, for all the benefits we get from digital products and services.

Will Hayter : The supercomputers we have all have in our pockets, these are also markets to tend towards market power is the combination of.

Will Hayter : Network effects, the importance of data economies of scale and scope lack of transparency vertical integration.

Will Hayter : Or that can result in very big very powerful firms and there's little have a little that a competitor customer and user can do in the face of that power.

Will Hayter : So the government's consulting on a new pro competitive pro-competition digital markets framework and this planning to legislate, I quote, when Parliament time allows.

Will Hayter : And, just to be very clear i'm not speaking to the government, here we have our own views as to how this should work, we think, but we will dope do in the end, as we are told my apartment is actually just deep, we will be.

Will Hayter : The framework, though, is based around the concept of strategic market status, a particular level of entrenched market power and firms designated with that status which by the way, is probably only a handful.

Will Hayter : will be subject to three potential remedies first legally enforceable code of conduct setting the rules of the game and managing the effects of the market power.

Will Hayter : Second, so called pro competitive interventions which might be, for example, around different types of data access.

Will Hayter : which would seek to chip away at that power and thirdly adjustments to the merger control regime, so that there can be some greater level of caution against SMS firms cutting off potential competitors by buying them.

Will Hayter : The nature of these markets means that we really have to think very hard about change.

Will Hayter : In many, many respects the introduction of a new regulatory framework itself is a big generator train of changing markets and.

Will Hayter : we're working hard to help the government I get that right, we have to think very hard about what's unlikely to change and because we think that market power absent intervention.

Will Hayter : And we have to think very hard about what is, what is more likely to change which is many elements of the technology in this in these markets.

Will Hayter : And, in some ways, what we're really looking for is more change the chance that other firms might come along and challenge the likes of Google and Facebook, for their positions.

Will Hayter : You know, be a new framework in a fast moving market, so how it's set up to handle changes, exactly one of the issues that's in play at the moment.

Will Hayter : With enough certainty for businesses to be able to operate, but the flexibility to be able to respond to changing circumstances.

Will Hayter : And I suppose that's that's probably always a balancing act of regulators, but i'd say, particularly where regulators aspire to be fleet of foot, which we do in this case.

Will Hayter : So he proposed a five year SMS cycle to give some stability, but the ability to remove that SMS status before the five years are up and the code of conduct that can be amended on an ongoing basis, not reliant on a particular particular cycle.

Will Hayter : And i'll just touch on one of the key tenants of the framework, which was originally put forward by Professor Jason furman and his colleagues.

Will Hayter : In the report that cemented this debate in the UK in 2019 and that's the notion of quotes participant of regulation.

Will Hayter : Which is an idea we've been supported in our subsequent proposals.

Will Hayter : I don't think, by the way this implies any sort of magic trick, and this might go back to some of the things that take lenses talking about but it's more of a statement of intent on our part.

Will Hayter : You know, in a way it's fairly obvious if we can arrive at a situation where we regulate it firms and other stakeholders have a sufficient be trusting set of relationships that we can resolve issues quickly.

Will Hayter : Without going through the full legal process then also the good into the event, to the benefit of consumers, but it will only work if we.

Will Hayter : Perhaps invoke Roosevelt speak softly and carry a big stick, and it will only work if the SMS firms play ball and of course they weren't all that these are these are different firms, they weren't all do things the same way.

Will Hayter : Interestingly, we all end up in a way, attempting a version of this at the moment, or the through a competition acts commitments process given to the new framework hasn't come into play it.

Will Hayter : And that's with Google and it's plans to remove that party cookies from its chrome browser which we think is likely to disadvantages competitors and favor itself.

Will Hayter : So we're doing that I said through it's a competition that commit commitment process but that's really about anticipating a coming change in the market and trying to make sure it doesn't cause competitive art.

Will Hayter : Beyond that we're we're tooling up to handle change touching on some of the things that Chris was mentioning.

Will Hayter : Building the kinds of capabilities and skills that are needed, so a deep understanding of these markets through our market studies framework.

Will Hayter : And now quite well established team of data scientists data engineers tech experts behavioral scientists and increasing the kind of rises cutting work that is much more familiar to a regulator, that it is to a competition enforcer.

Will Hayter : So just to finish change a key issue for the CMU and we hope to handle it through a combination of the industry framework building capabilities and the regulatory approach itself but i'm very much looking forward to hearing comes in questions.

Thanks.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Fantastic thanks well and, yes, again, another really interesting area, and you know new new and developing areas various regulations so to order a more about it later on.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Thank you, OK, I will now hand over to TIM Johnson from the Civil Aviation Authority, the gaming industry being one that again seems to touch on all of the different topical issues we've.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: covered in terms of you exit and data and technology and climate change and the impact of fluid So yes, at 10.

Tim.Johnson: Times just check, you can see this.

Tim.Johnson: see my slides.

Yes.

Tim.Johnson: Thank you so like others I thank you very much for the opportunity to come and.

Tim.Johnson: share some thoughts and have a debate today and I thought just do two things really from a.

Tim.Johnson: sort of introduction perspective, firstly, just talk about some of the kind of change issues that we're dealing with at the moment and then reflect a little bit on what this means for us as a regulation, how we go about.

Tim.Johnson: sort of doing what we do, but with a focus on some of the kind of internal changes that we talked about as well.

Tim.Johnson: So it is a sort of a bit of perspective on so currently on risks and opportunities, I guess they'll be some very familiar themes.

Tim.Johnson: In here i'm covert recovery aviation sector has been very deeply affected by that and it will take some sort of time to recover and perhaps reorganize and restructure yourself.

Tim.Johnson: You accept the end of the two year recognition period gives us some particular challenges with.

Tim.Johnson: Ongoing recognition of licenses at the end of next year.

Tim.Johnson: But also the How do we make the most of the new freedoms that we've got some posted you.

Tim.Johnson: Aviation is part of a sort of a UN backed global standards framework as well, so the UK has some discretion, but not total total discretion about varying that framework for aviation net zero n number of speakers have spoken about that and.

Tim.Johnson: In one sense it's such a big issue that no one one actor.

Tim.Johnson: In particular, for aviation given it says of Ascension international issue in a proportion of.

Tim.Johnson: National but how is the sort of a UK based regulated reason play a leading role in that we've got a lot of value to add to the debate and to move the help support admin section along but sort of how that works, I think the challenge.

Tim.Johnson: tickets it's covered we've seen unprecedented investments in new technologies, and this is, this is by.

Tim.Johnson: investors and players who haven't traditionally been in the aviation market, who have not traditionally been regulated.

Tim.Johnson: so easy to sort of try and taxes and sort of package carrying drones unprecedented levels investment which is on the 100 really exciting bits of gives us a challenge particular how they get integrated in a very safe way into our space.

Tim.Johnson: Currently we.

Tim.Johnson: Because legislative framework for spaceflight is is now live and we're starting to accept applications from operators okay.

Tim.Johnson: and high standards of service, I mean much of.

Tim.Johnson: What to what to say ages it's about regulating companies, but we have we regulate pilots engineers, we have about take about 50,000 decisions here, many of whom relate to sort of individuals.

Tim.Johnson: And I guess like in many parts of the economy, we are seeing higher expectations about service standards.

Tim.Johnson: Both sort of both in terms of the timeliness and ability to interact digitally.

Tim.Johnson: So we find that scenario world sort of having to up our game they'll always be events.

Tim.Johnson: want to can Thomas Cook failures in the last couple of years, but won't always be of that nature, but I think.

Tim.Johnson: To the points about black swan events nearly always have to be ready and to adapt and respond to events and then to others cybersecurity becoming an increasing focus, I think I mean certainly across the economy.

Tim.Johnson: And therefore, what that means in in aviation, and I mean the extent to which is a regular to we've got a role.

Tim.Johnson: sort of assessing and everything standards in in the sector in a way that's kind of commensurate with with risk and then probably Lastly, on here, this is not an exhaustive list, but sort of setting an example on on on stem and diversity, I mean, I think you know in each of our sectors.

Tim.Johnson: We have a role in in in in a set setting examples.

Tim.Johnson: and helping kind of support and control the sector on some of these important issues there as well, which is probably not strictly written down and statutes.

Tim.Johnson: But I think it goes to kind of our credibility and legitimacy as a regulator and I guess that's probably one of the themes that some accounts.

Tim.Johnson: across all of the he says, there is a really important call regulatory role to do missing number of these areas it's prompting us to kind of think of the boundaries of that, and most of the galleries in we kind of influence, as well as with a big stick.

Tim.Johnson: to stick when we.

Tim.Johnson: How how what all these mean for us and what are the sorts of things that CIA was sort of thinking about organizationally.

Tim.Johnson: And so to speak out a few invest in understanding issues up front.

Tim.Johnson: Where where moxie investors placing that that's what a stakeholder thing and trying to get as diverse perspectives that of us not to predict what the future is going to be, but what some of the issues are and understand those perspectives to try to be very multi perspective.

Tim.Johnson: This is slightly different point of create mechanisms to engage upstream, and this is where the funding from from the IPF has been incredibly helpful.

Tim.Johnson: And before someone comes and asks received the approval there's lots of the sector, who wants some support and advice on the regulatory frameworks that apply and water safety cases.

Tim.Johnson: and actually we're finding we get a lot of value from that, as well as the operators as well, so thinking about what those mechanisms are.

Tim.Johnson: Trying to have the courage to, and I emphasize the word safely try things and learn and adapt properly applies a little bit more internally but but.

Tim.Johnson: I think particularly aviation, we found, we like to have all the answers before we make a decision.

Tim.Johnson: So I think on some things have we get so far well actually this is good enough for now we're gonna try some things i'm going to learn about hasten to add that's a loss on on the question question of sort of safety.

Tim.Johnson: Then, think about our organizational agility to anticipate and respond to events.

Tim.Johnson: This is a real focus at the moment is how we.

Tim.Johnson: move from a way where we've got kind of quite well established structures vertical structures in the organization to say increasing these challenges, or horizontal and require some of our colleagues to work across the organization and be willing to kind of FLEX what they do.

Tim.Johnson: You know relatively relatively quickly so that's a you know that's that's quite a cup kind of coach challenge, but I think that's an essential way because we can't predict over things coming up.

Tim.Johnson: in detail what the organizational model looks like, so I think that for agility is the key setting organizational mindset.

Tim.Johnson: I think it's particularly relevant for aviation, we were you know, one of lost the aviation regulation was set to European level, and now being outside Europe really being really clear this actually the UK has more.

Tim.Johnson: discretion women's Bible framework, of course, and then guess guessing our corporate mindset.

Tim.Johnson: open to that I think about where the weather changes could be worse where's the most benefit from them relentless focus on doing cool regulatory job well.

Tim.Johnson: When there's lots of change going on, we have to anticipate and respond to that, but fundamentally is our regulator legitimacy.

Tim.Johnson: and credibility dependence on on doing that making good regulatory decisions today and and therefore in the organization gets me pumped to be.

Tim.Johnson: Focusing on tomorrow, preparing for anticipating it never, ever, lose sight of doing the job really well today last two points really quickly one is about sort of flexibility of.

Tim.Johnson: The framework, both in terms of the believers that we've got in the legislature, the legislative framework kelly's entirely right that kind of Parliament sets the standards.

Tim.Johnson: that some of our kind of particular historic legislation will settle on a long time ago and actually quite a lot of details that are in primary legislation.

Tim.Johnson: that's quite hard and timely to change, so I think, as we were introducing new frameworks we're going to say actually what's the.

Tim.Johnson: Rule principles, the principles and core tenants that needs given legislation and then how can we build some more agility into second police station or guidance that.

Tim.Johnson: out and then the final point i'm sorry, Mr America as well, but it's the regular funding model we are paid enough in normal times by those who are licensed today, and one of the challenges we've got is a lot to work is about.

Tim.Johnson: Those will be in sector in future your current pay off charges So how do we get some some equity.

Tim.Johnson: into that arrangement is we prepare the future bodies buddies is also reasonable on on today.

Tim.Johnson: So I hope that's been useful quick cancer through some current challenges and sorts of issues that the CIA that we're kind of thinking about in you know.

Tim.Johnson: putting us in a better position to manage that change and look forward to questions and discussion shortly.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Okay, thank you very much, Tim and finally i'll hand over to Martin lodge from LSE and then we'll have hopefully around about 20 minutes for q&a discussion again at feel free to add questions in the chat.

15,000.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Hello.

Martin Lodge: Sorry.

Martin Lodge: So you can see that smile is not to say that i'm Chris cars private think tank here.

Martin Lodge: Despite our logo so i'm Center for analysis within regulation so and as.

Martin Lodge: Think rich, I saw just your announcement of this event, so I county as as as some i'll take my role here as sort of the equivalent of Greek tragedy sort of the choir who provide some irony.

Martin Lodge: In the final three minutes so so I just wanted to, so I think your report and this discussion has been really.

Martin Lodge: very insightful and I just want to sort of make sort of three provocations, in that sense by by these provocations I don't want to say anything particular about English politics or the UK I think these are sort of more.

Martin Lodge: European trends and we are currently conducting some research that suggests, as indeed a.

Martin Lodge: European by train so so first challenge, I think, for you know kind of thinking about regulation and a particular sort of context about mandates and clarity and so on, is, I think that we are sort of.

Martin Lodge: It seems to be a sort of a different age of politicization and I noticed that politicization of a dirty word, especially when we sort of in these kind of circles and I don't mean it in a dirty word.

Martin Lodge: context, but here politicization more in the context of as growing conversation about what the role of regulation is and it's more salient as well, and I mean we always had saved audience about fat cat salaries price rises and so on, but.

Martin Lodge: regulators themselves have become more salient in the in the media, and so on, so that is what what we mean here, and I think there's sort of politicization raises in two issues which are fundamental, I think, for the regulatory.

Martin Lodge: landscape, one is to what extent is sort of a changing party system where you might say that is growing polarization How does that impact on the operation of.

Martin Lodge: agencies that would like to be called an independent or seem to be independent, so there are a lot of.

Martin Lodge: Informal understanding surroundings, a form of rules of appointment, for example, which you might sort of called patterns of regulatory bargain.

Martin Lodge: And, just a brief illustration, five, six years ago, we ran a workshop looking at basically this informal conventions of the.

Martin Lodge: of regulatory state and we had many observer from Washington who basically were all amused at sort of the.

Martin Lodge: claim by British of service that is informal conventions will maintain neutrality and sort of keep sort of the gentleman's agreement which might also be.

Martin Lodge: Female of course alike, and they basically predicted that the UK would end up in a polarized party environment.

Martin Lodge: With highly politicized appointment hearings was in a few decades, and you know, basically, I would not.

Martin Lodge: You know, I just want to raise this question about how was the UK regulatory landscape was English regulatory landscape respond to Green Party polarization about some things.

Martin Lodge: The second point which I think is sort of about net zero and so on, I think it's a critical point about one things about.

Martin Lodge: expansive understandings of mandates, and so I think for regulates the particular the ones that are consumer facing I think they become explicitly part of the redistributive.

Martin Lodge: process, I mean the tradition is that regulators do sort of certain things and redistributive decisions are part of politics, and I think here.

Martin Lodge: there's quite a lot of you know kind of scope for blame games people might like to call it, and there's also you might say, very uncomfortable kind of position for regulators to what extent.

Martin Lodge: They would like to be industry shaping by taking decisions about what kind of type of industry.

Martin Lodge: As they would like you know our regulators there to educating might say, an existing industry interested of moving into a particular kind of and context.

Martin Lodge: Second point very quickly, I just wanted to raises.

Martin Lodge: A lot of discussion is on the regulatory agencies themselves or particular aspects and I think sort of the critical point by moving to a net zero is to.

Martin Lodge: Think about sort of the dispersed nature of risk and also the disperse nature of authority so and I think he is sort of I think the stress testing for system is to think about.

Martin Lodge: The working together, between those that are gathering information, those that might be setting standards and those that might.

Martin Lodge: sort of dues enforcement and here again I think the question is how do you overcome these organizational boundaries that basically people think.

Martin Lodge: of themselves as part of regulatory regime or system rather than have a particular organizational unit so point even more quickly, I think next zero increases even further discussion about how clear cannon mandate will regulate your objective be and I think.

Martin Lodge: It raises fundamental question about who who should be or how should How should this conversation be conducted about the you know what is the mandate of a regulatory agency to deal with issues like climate change.

Martin Lodge: means that there is indeed you know, I think that will sort of already criticized early on.

Martin Lodge: of us that regulator should not be doing that sort of things, this is basically for the broader political context and then basically you select accordingly.

Martin Lodge: In this kind of political will, and so, to what extent are we willing to have non majority area agencies, if you want to take that position to add extensions they'd be in the driving seat to define how.

Martin Lodge: net zero should be understood in particular when the political environment might actually welcome.

Martin Lodge: Proactive regulators and in doing so in orders and you know kind of to possibly put into account, later on, and I think that raises and also an interesting question about.

Martin Lodge: engagement and to what extent do you want to sort of a DNS is kind of question between consistency and local experimentation, I mean I think there's a key question here about To what extent can organizations.

Martin Lodge: regulate the organization's handle analyze a decentralized expectation, to what extent does that raise fundamental capacity questions about sort of understanding.

Martin Lodge: You know sort of 26 different English regions or and such like, just a random example here and there's also a question here about the constituencies of engagement sort of to what extent is it.

Martin Lodge: You know how burdensome is it to be meaningfully experimenting at the local level and to what extent to local.

Martin Lodge: level say Oh, you know might like decentralization, but to what extent.

Martin Lodge: Was there always be a sort of creeping call for growing centralization, not by those that's the Center you might say, but those who who live in the regions, and I think that is sort of a fundamental issue.

Martin Lodge: That we've come across in principle based regulation all along that basically.

Martin Lodge: People always call for a lot of discretion, but once they have given it as they would like to have a policy document to know exactly how to behave according to this discretion, so I think it is an old chestnut debate in many ways, but I think sort of.

Martin Lodge: forcing the discussion towards the net zero raises sort of these questions about you might say, what is the appropriate scope for regulators to define their mandate.

Martin Lodge: To what extent does it does it play into sort of changing political foundations, you might say, and to what extent are sort of oh debates about regulatory interventions do they need to be sort of reconsidered and we sat I conclude.

Martin Lodge: Thank you.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Thank you, Martin, for your provocations, as I think you've described them, but I think some some really interesting questions there and.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Some of which actually is other other questions have been raised for discussion and four panelists and.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: that's you know I think relates to some of those those points that you raised and.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: I will kick off the the Q amp a now there was actually one one question put in the chat that I think that's put in at the end of the previous session, but it was not time to ask it and, but I cannot return to it, so it was about.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: That specific ones, about being able to learn from the leadership in financial regulators and.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Beautiful day there was you know it it's in mind my spot for the question here around the policy of regulators and and indeed relatively policymakers to learn each other and learn from good practice.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: And, and also, I was thinking about, for example, you know the interesting things you talked about Rachel with the image era and the the key and the lessons.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: With vaccine development and, as well as the other point of things that were going on about how he was able to be done quickly and effectively.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: And, and especially so I might start start with Question maybe in with with Rachel then open up to others, and in a sense of what extent, although those lessons from the vaccine work.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: A political more widely and more general question how can marketers and government get better at learning for each other and sharing this kind of insight and i'll stop recording and we can move throughout the panel.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Thank you, which I think is a really interesting question and one i've been reflecting on during this morning because I don't have real busy.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: I don't have so often, the opportunity to hear from other regulators, particularly regulators outside the health sector, I typically talk to the other.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Health regulators and health bodies and, but I would really appreciate and welcome the chance to talk to other regulators more because I think a lot of the issues are very similar.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: So many things i've been scribbling down this morning to go to the vaccines and development points it's a process there's not in some ways there's nothing special about vaccines in that way and it's a process where you go through an early development of the product or.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: The service or was i'm trying to think of other things which are regulated through to some application for the authorization or recognition three two to post authorization.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: checks and consideration through to the policy and cons and we talked about life cycles.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: In in the development of mentors medicinal products and devices and that that's what happened, but I reckon that's pretty similar to many other regulatory and development processes and.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Essentially, what happened was a redesign of that process so things that happened sequentially happens in parallel, up to the point of the critical point of.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: When did we know that the vaccines were safe and they worked everything else had to be good to the point where that data was coming in, so at the point we knew that nothing else would hold up.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: The access into patients and at the same time, and your colleagues across the NHS we're working towards.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: An anticipated date of when that might happen as well, so the deployment then happened extremely quickly afterwards.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: And I would think that's extremely applicable across all sorts of processes in a way, people are talking about renovation, but it's one of those things.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: It doesn't feel like rocket science it's something that you can see, it makes sense and sensible today and i'd be really welcome other's comments as well, but.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: I would like not to others in a second to report them the way of describing Rachel it was there a sort of a.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: talks of structured way of thinking about the distinction between one of the things we have to do in certain order because that's the way to make sure, things are safe, effective.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: This is one of the things that we do by conventional because being practical, but actually don't need to be done that way that.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Was there towards the description distinction or was it more and.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: I don't.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Imagine the people making calls every day about what was the most critical things and we keep it the heart what we're there to do is assess safety, quality advocacy and quality.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: and also the discipline product of the vaccine and I don't think there was compromise on that at all.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: and actually most of what was done wasn't about changing what was done that was about changing the process more about when it was done.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Actually genuinely it was more about the reorder of that life cycle of them sequential to a parallel process and we are trying to learn from that in terms of some of the innovative licensing pathways we're now putting in place to make things.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: More sequential and more connected into other parts of the health system, so there isn't a sudden falling off the cliff when you get.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: An authorization for a product and we're linking out more with other partners like nice to see them through into their qualities that their health.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Technology Assessment and through into access, so I think there's lessons about things in crisis and power come into play, but I don't think there was.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: Real consider it ration.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: or compromise, if you like, around the the actual processes themselves, they pretty much happened as they do justice a different time and that's actually been a really important thing for us to keep trying to get across because.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: The the continuous says or persist this idea that it was too fast and something it got we can't trust that toes, so I think.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: We probably we didn't go the other way to address the same, but I think we've been at pains to try and emphasize it's been normal process just done slightly differently, and there is nothing or or or dodgy about the authorization of these vaccines.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Thank you very much open up the same for the question you know in broader terms or specific terms to the others, no matter how many volunteers to take it next.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: To us, please.

Tim.Johnson: um I mean I mean, I think the points Russia lessons is.

Tim.Johnson: really good one, I mean we have some established networks like.

Tim.Johnson: A regulators network and under something similar on the safety side, and I think they've got a really important role to play.

Tim.Johnson: I mean, I do think there's a.

Tim.Johnson: bit of a question I think we've done we've done this to some extent, but some sharing of staff through sort of the comments or or different arrangements can can help we've just got someone coming to us based team from from he brings a wonderfully kind of rich.

Tim.Johnson: hinterland of sort of experience and and good is having a repository that and just kind of challenging some of the ways in which things.

Tim.Johnson: done so, I think this.

Tim.Johnson: I mean.

Tim.Johnson: Alongside of the mechanisms to sort of really get kind of different perspectives and not feel as our sort of a bunker so we've got carrying kind of testing we've also kind of different artists and and also agree definitely key phrase is always.

Tim.Johnson: is always to kind of keep focused on what what the outcome is, which is kind of keeping and if that's the lodestar and the first thing I have in mind and then everything that follows from that is.

Tim.Johnson: Clear and encourages us to sort of think about well actually is there a different way, we can address the problem different preferences.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Thank you, yes brilliant and Chris I think your your hand was raised.

Next.

Chris Carr: Thank you, yes, I want to make a slightly different point.

Chris Carr: Apps is absolutely right that networks and sort of there are various forms of best practice, if you like, for sharing best practice, but one of.

Chris Carr: One of the things that really helps people learn from each other is the ability to experiment and I just want to.

Chris Carr: make a plug here for our consultation, because one of the things that talks about in the consultation is the proposal from the task force for innovation, growth and regulatory reform to move the UK from a.

Chris Carr: Co defied system of regulation, where the rules are set down in statute to a common law system of regulation, where the powers and objectives are given to the regulators in law.

Chris Carr: But not the details of the rules and there are all sorts of issues with that there are pros and cons to either approach.

Chris Carr: But the ability to experiment is much easier if there is homogeneity of of power and legal.

Chris Carr: ability for regulators at the moment, the problem we have is that regulator powers are all completely heterogeneous they're all set down in different pieces of legislation.

Chris Carr: And it's very difficult it's more difficult to learn from each other, because one thing can do something that the other one can't one regulated can do something that others can so we'd welcome views on how to fix that Thank you.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Thank you, Chris and yes indeed point around sort of powers and funding and statute is another one that I might I might touch on and off.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: As shortly in, then I think I will your hand was raised next.

Will Hayter : yeah thanks rich and.

Will Hayter : I think I recognize this as think we've already all words rachel's point about.

Will Hayter : The big difficult to really learn when you're just busy during the day job, I suppose, for us, in setting up additional markets either we're fortunate in that we.

Will Hayter : Are in the running process and i'm actually if we didn't learn that very carefully and.

Will Hayter : In a plan the way from other frameworks would be, we would we would be doing our job so we've been really doing that quite a lot.

Will Hayter : Less I was just going to get an underline tim's point about so if human capital now.

Will Hayter : it's quite hard to really, really understand another regulatory framework until you've been in cited in the end, so I mean we've as well as the UK around which are also members of.

Will Hayter : We have a thing snappily name of the digital digital regulation cooperation forum with Ofcom the ICO the fca and there's actually been already have a bit of exchange of stuff.

Will Hayter : between our organizations, including on the digital market Task Force, which was the advice we put into the Government in December.

Will Hayter : and actually by having someone from off come in, in a project team for 612 months you that's that's when you really understand how things are done.

Will Hayter : I think it could be hard to sort of dip in from the outside and and get an understanding of all the background context of the the constraints of the objectives and so forth, you know, in an hour or two hour seminar, for example.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Thank you, oh yeah I think it's really good insight, in the end again that you know.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: it's interesting question, though the number of different particular groupings of regulators and departments and other organizations and that share many Members and but clearly focus on different subjects and.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Of course, and martin's I think you wanted to come in on the question I mean.

Martin Lodge: I think it's sort of a general problem, I think that and frankly tree sort of systems disappear into their own sectors and that's partly why.

Martin Lodge: My Center exist is to plug myself here, but I, you know, to have this kind of conversation, but I think in order to get this learning done, I think you need you know we need safe spaces.

Martin Lodge: where people can talk without having the institutional self interest you know the institutional reputation at stake.

Martin Lodge: I think this comic communication has to be or compensation has to be around certain stress points of you know, for example, a licensing process and such like so take it out of the specific environment and sort of think about that and, but I would also say.

Martin Lodge: there's sort of two challenges to it, one is you know I think learning challenges, fundamentally, you might say, dominant views within an organization, I think that is sort of where.

Martin Lodge: Who is allowed to learn and who is about to sort of forecast I think there's sort of some.

Martin Lodge: You know, there might be less Code as a learning, which is sort of acceptable but there might also be learning as challenge and I think that is sort of where.

Martin Lodge: Where this becomes dangerous, you could say i'm you know I think these places, need to be protected, and I think learning is also important because it.

Martin Lodge: I think one has to sort of be careful about form, where one learns and that might also include politically or otherwise i'm popular sources, and I think that is again where.

Martin Lodge: You know I think there's probably less regulation, but it's you know if we look at delivery and other kind of to have us.

Martin Lodge: There might be certain constituencies that are maybe not favored but which might be quite important, and then to justify resources to go where.

Martin Lodge: You know people might say, these are not the ones we would like to you to consider, I think, is quite something which needs to be carefully considered in an organizational context.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Thinking about the every different point.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: And i'm going to ask one one final question for anyone who wants to jump in with them before we we wrap up and now we're going to get some lunch and and that's so Martin, you you.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: mentioned in your in your introductory.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: remarks, so the difference between regulators and regulatory systems and and timmy raised in your in your slides around and.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Some of the important features around again why the system powers funding statute, etc, and quite a few times and it didn't come up in some of our recent work.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: And I suppose the question really is what more can government and, especially, by extension, Parliament.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: do to support regulators to be effective in getting you get the right things in place and to to allow responsiveness and lightness and we're Certainly this is quickfire questions if anyone wants to volunteer to go first on that.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: i've stopped, you will we will right excellent.

Will Hayter : Taking your quickfire mandates.

Will Hayter : better resource to parliamentary scrutiny of regulators and regulation.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Thank you, Tim.

Tim.Johnson: Can you hear me now.

Tim.Johnson: yep yeah i'm.

Tim.Johnson: focus as 50,000 pages of aviation regulation, it would take on a long time so really focus on those areas that make the biggest difference, I can really think about this model.

Tim.Johnson: Was the things that Parliament really need to kind of set and and what what kind of structurally can then even other areas, which is them or more discretion, the regulators.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Essentially point Martin, I think your hand up next.

Martin Lodge: I don't know what politics can do, but I think the focus will be here by organization to think clearly about.

Martin Lodge: How good how much do standard, such as know about those CDs enforcement how much does enforces know.

Martin Lodge: about what is sort of data or what information is gathered so thinking about the taking fragmentation csv rosen's a core competency might sort of, say, of that organization, that is.

Martin Lodge: What I would and I don't know who would encourage that and therefore I would take it seriously in the first place, but that is not academic luxury here.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Or perhaps perhaps Chris from from the base.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: salary perspective might be able to come in on that.

Chris Carr: No i'm i'm coming in a complete at a.

Chris Carr: completely different level.

Chris Carr: What I want is one of the things Martin mentioned in his remarks.

Chris Carr: A more honest debate about what the bargain is regulation costs businesses money, and this is almost universally seen as a bad thing.

Chris Carr: But what does it by and how valuable is that and what is the value for money measure of any given regulation in any given domain let's have a more honest debate about that, and then the we can put in perspective, how bad those 50,000 pages are.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: We thank you.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: And finally Rachel.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: you're on mute okay don't worry we've all been there.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: You got through almost two hours for that saying that my apologies and.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: we've we've already had an opportunity to learn from politicians and politics with the excellent report done by bonus come village, and I think the, the more the political debate can help us do what that.

Rachel Arrundale, MHRA: game plan is encourages all to do of active listening and it's acting challenge, and then I think that's really important, in addition to the points that others are making thanks.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: So, thank you very much, and thank you again to all the panelists all of our speakers today and did all the attendees and for those new people ask questions or leaders were just watching and Charles I don't know if you wanted to say any final words and wonder.

Charles Nancarrow: notice to ECHO thanks on behalf of all panelists and any Oh, thank you all for your time, and you know I hope you have a good rest of the day and a nice lunch, thank you very much.

Rich Sullivan-Jones: Take care, thank you.