UK Regulatory Innovation Office vows to slash red tape – but we've heard it all before

The real issue is a reluctance to invest

Comment Over summer, the UK witnessed a change in government. However, the incoming Labour Party shares some ideas about regulation and innovation with its Conservative predecessor.

Earlier this week, the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT) launched the Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO), which it said would "reduce the burden of red tape" weighing down innovative companies. What kind of companies? Those that provide "AI training software for surgeons to deliver more accurate surgical treatments for patients and drones which can improve business efficiency and quickly send critical deliveries to remote parts of the country," it said.

The RIO aims to "support regulators to update regulation, speeding up approvals, and ensuring different regulatory bodies work together smoothly." Its job is to tell the government of "regulatory barriers to innovation ... set priorities for regulators which align with the government's broader ambitions, and support regulators to develop the capability they need to meet them and grow the economy."

Science and technology secretary Peter Kyle said in a statement: "By speeding up approvals, providing regulatory certainty, and reducing unnecessary delays, we're curbing the burden of red tape so businesses and our public services can innovate and grow, which means more jobs, a stronger economy, and a better quality of life for people across the UK."

But haven't we been here before? A little more than two years ago, the previous Conservative government promised to carve a new data protection law that would unlock growth and save businesses around £1 billion ($1.3 billion) over the next ten years.

"We can't afford to stick with the status quo, to keep prioritizing process over results, and allowing unnecessary bureaucracy to stifle growth and innovation," said Nadine Dorries, who was digital and culture secretary at the time.

The reform to GDPR, which the UK has inherited from its EU-membership era, has yet to take place as the legislation only made it to the committee stage in the House of Lords before the July general election.

Since the Conservative and Labour parties spent the election criticizing each other, it might seem surprising that they have landed on the same page in terms of regulation and innovation. But then, ask a business if it likes regulation and you know what answer you'll get. Nobody likes regulations, but then nobody likes buildings falling down – or, more soberingly, catching fire.

Governments tend to blame regulation for "stifling growth and innovation" because the real culprit is a much mightier foe: lack of investment. This week, UK-born researcher in psychology and computer science Geoffrey Hinton won the Nobel Prize in physics – jointly with John Hopfield, a US professor emeritus at Princeton University – for work on artificial neural networks.

Hinton's career trajectory is suggestive of the malaise affecting UK innovation, which has little to do with regulation. His Wikipedia page states that though he gained a PhD at the University of Sussex, he left the UK after finding it difficult to get funding for his work. He has since spent the bulk of his career in the US and Canada.

In a coincidence spotted by writer Ananyo Bhattacharya, not long before Hinton got his gong, the UK government confirmed it was withdrawing £6 million of grant funding to establish a new National Academy focused on mathematical sciences.

Professor Jens Marklof, president of the London Mathematical Society, said the academy "could have been a huge driver of economic growth by improving the flow of mathematical analysis, cutting-edge research, and technological innovation into policy making." He said the organization would engage with the government's other efforts to promote and support mathematics.

In 2022, the Royal Society, British Academy, Royal Academy of Engineering, and Academy of Medical Sciences reported that UK investment in R&D was 1.74 percent of GDP, less than half the figure attributed to Korea (4.64 percent) and well below the OECD average of 2.48 percent. The previous government committed to match the OECD average by 2027, and in February pledged to spend £20 billion in the current fiscal year.

In its RIO announcement, DSIT said £1.6 million would be awarded to the Food Standards Agency for its Engineering Biology Sandbox Fund, designed to "test innovative regulatory approaches for products like cultivated meat." Fake meat aside, the government's autumn statement will tell us whether its ambitions in science and technology have real substance. ®