Getting back to basics in regulation: Three key questions from the UK panel

Last week, Objective RegWorks and the Institute of Regulation (IoR) co-hosted a live panel discussion exploring the idea of “back to basics” in regulation. With regulators under pressure to modernise, digitise, and do more with less, the event asked a simple but timely question: are we drifting too far from our core purpose? 

Moderated by The Modern Regulator’s Paul Leavoy and IoR’s Naomi Nicholson, the session featured three senior regulatory leaders: 

• Nic Granger OBE, Chief Information and Financial Officer, North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) 
• Dr Colin Sullivan, Chief Executive, Human Tissue Authority (HTA) 
• Karen Walker, Director, MP Services, Strategy and Change, Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) 

Together, they reflected on what back to basics means in practice, why it matters now more than ever, and how regulators can refocus on what really counts. 

Let’s take a look at the three most important questions answered during the session. 

1. What does “back to basics” actually mean for regulators today? 

While the term may sound reductive, each speaker pointed to back to basics not as a return to old methods, but a re-grounding in purpose. 

For Sullivan, it’s about remembering why regulators exist in the first place. In the case of the HTA, that means going back to the ethical and legal foundations that followed public outrage over organ retention scandals in the early 2000s. “When I think of back to basics,” Sullivan said, “I think about why we were created.” 

Walker, for her part, emphasised simplification. At IPSA, which oversees MP pay and expenses, Walker has led efforts to reduce the administrative burden on MPs while still upholding transparency and accountability. “Regulation isn’t about adding complexity,” she said. “It’s about making it as easy as possible for people to do the right thing.” 

Granger brought a data-driven view, framing back to basics as an opportunity to refocus on measurable public outcomes – particularly in high-stakes domains like energy security, emissions reduction, and stewardship of the UK’s offshore resources. “We create value through regulation,” she said, “but it starts with having the right data and a clear purpose.” 

2. Are regulators drifting from their core responsibilities. If so, how would we know? 

Sullivan outlined a range of common drift factors: unclear legislative frameworks, external lobbying, mission creep, and pressure to do more in response to political or public scrutiny. “It can happen unconsciously,” he noted, “especially when regulators are on the back foot instead of actively regulating.” 

Granger offered a counterpoint, suggesting that while drift is possible, it isn’t inevitable. At the NSTA, she said, change in focus has been deliberate and tied to evolving national goals – particularly the shift from fossil fuels toward decarbonisation and carbon storage. The challenge, she suggested, is less about drift and more about adapting without losing sight of first principles. 

Walker added that media scrutiny plays an important role in keeping IPSA aligned to its core. “If we stray too far, we’ll know about it,” she said. “We have a very busy press office. But we also monitor performance and pay close attention to how MPs respond. If we’re adding complexity that doesn’t serve the public, we see that reflected in behaviour.” 

Sullivan noted that for smaller agencies, internal pressure points, including overwhelmed teams or uneven enforcement practices, can also signal that priorities may be misaligned with purpose. 

3. How can regulators embrace innovation without losing sight of their foundations? 

Rather than seeing innovation and core regulation as opposing forces, all three speakers stressed their interdependence. 

Walker described how IPSA has transformed from a rigid, rules-based regulator into one focused on principles and service delivery. “We’ve co-designed many of our regulatory changes with MPs,” she said. “It’s about making the system easier to comply with – not softer, just smarter.” 

Granger shared how the NSTA has introduced protected innovation time, setting aside one day a month for the entire organisation to step back and think differently. This has helped surface new ideas, such as the National Data Repository, which consolidates more than a petabyte of industry data and enables carbon storage initiatives capable of capturing up to 10 percent of the UK’s annual emissions. “We regulate progress,” she said. “And we do that by using data, not just enforcing rules.” 

Sullivan added that innovation doesn’t have to mean flashy tech – it can also mean rethinking inspection models, building stronger relationships with the regulated, and creating space for proportionality. At the HTA, this has included a renewed focus on unannounced inspections where needed, alongside lighter-touch methods such as virtual assessments and self-reviews. “It’s about putting your effort where it’s most needed,” he said, “and doing it in a way that earns trust.” 

Other takeaways: practical steps and signs of success 

The panel also offered specific advice for regulators seeking to return to basics in their own work: 

• Automate where possible: Granger described how the NSTA digitised paper-heavy consent processes, freeing up regulatory staff to focus on advisory work. 
• Reduce admin burdens: Walker stressed the importance of eliminating unnecessary friction, especially when regulators ask others to comply. 
• Use data to lead: The NSTA’s emissions reporting and decommissioning data projects have improved both industry behaviour and public accountability. 
• Listen to your staff: Sullivan noted that innovation is often best sourced internally, not from consultants. He also underscored the role of both senior and technical leadership in making change happen. 
• Know your tipping points: All three panellists emphasised the need to be aware of capacity issues, creeping mandates, and gaps between organisational values and day-to-day practice. 

Is back to basics just regression? 

One attendee asked whether back to basics risks romanticising the past or undermining innovation. All panellists were clear: the answer is no. 

“It’s not about going backwards,” Walker said. “It’s about always revisiting your core purpose.” Granger echoed the point: “AI and other tools are only useful if they’re grounded in your mission. The technology is the how, not the why.” 

Sullivan summed it up succinctly: “Going back to basics is not regression. It’s reflection.” 

Final reflections 

At a time when public trust is fragile, budgets are tightening, and complexity keeps rising, the message from this panel was both grounded and hopeful. Regulation works best not when it tries to do everything, but when it is focused, deliberate, and proportionate. Innovation is welcome – but only when it supports the core purpose of protecting the public and enabling good outcomes. 

For UK regulators navigating the future, that may be the most basic insight of all.