The Regulatory Horizons Council is an innovative venture in response to the lack of systematic overview and capacity of regulators and Government departments to consider the regulatory implications of emerging technologies in a timely manner to enable innovation and to capitalise on socio-economic and environmental opportunities.

Furthermore, the Council is innovative not just in the 'what' it focuses on but also the how. It aims to embrace innovative tools and methods in engaging stakeholders, generating recommendations, undertaking monitoring and evaluation. This is outlined in more detail in 'innovation summary'.

The Council has undertaken two rounds of reports and have published our evaluation findings on our website (a mixture of qualitative interviews and findings from our team retrospective where we discussed what went well, what less went well, and what we have learnt.

We are now refining our approach to how we select priorities for our next programme of work and establishing a monitoring and evaluation framework to monitor progress on our recommendations and the impact of them.

The establishment of the RHC was as a result of a recommendation from the Government Paper on the Regulation of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and a letter from the Council for Science and Technology which advises the UK Prime Minister on science and technology.

To inform its recommendations, the Council works with

• Regulators
• Government Officials
• Civil Society Organisations
• Businesses and Innovators
• Academics
• International organisations

Sometimes, Government officials/regulators have limited resource to focus on the regulatory implications of new and emerging technologies. For example, the Council was commissioned by the UK Cabinet Office and Deputy National Security Adviser to explore the regulatory approach the UK ought to take towards neurotechnology.

For companies, academics and NGOs, the Council has acted as an effective conduit to voice their views to Government and inform the Council's recommendations to Government.

• Evaluation of our first four reports have been published and this is based on interviews with stakeholders and a team retrospective. We are refining our evaluation approach for future work.
• The feedback was that the RHC's independence added credibility to its reports and recommendations and enabled external stakeholders to be frank on where Government or other key actors could do better.
• The interviews highlighted that the RHC stakeholder engagement was incredibly effective. The RHC were generally seen to have spoken and engaged with the right groups and the right people, and critically, balanced these engagements well
• Participants discussed how the reports have been able to stimulate a lot of thinking on the areas of emerging technology; often bringing forward timetables for government consultations, taking bold steps within the recommendations, and/or providing balanced views that are not afraid to go against the grain of existing work and thinking in the wider discours

• Participants across the interviews noted that it was quite soon after publication to determine whether the RHC had been successful in enacting impact on the regulatory system.
• Resourcing challenges were encountered on the RHC’s deep dives though most interviewees appreciated this was unavoidable as there was a wider diversion of resources across government to focus on COVID-19.
• The work extensively engaged with a variety of stakeholders from each of the respective fields but there was discussion around the value of external assistance to develop reports. Going forward, we will consider formal or informal 'peer reviewers' or technical advisors' and partnering with organisations to deliver the project.

• Political will and passion for setting up a body but also an environment where the independence of the Committee to set its direction and develop its recommendation free from interference.
• Resources (both financial and human) is critical to ensure success. The team supporting the Council was lean to begin with and then with increased demand and awareness, the team has grown.
• Clarity on the purpose of the organisation is fundamental. Articulating the exam question of the organisation, how it is unique but also how it complements existing organisations is important.

There are multiple organisations within and outside the UK who have similar but not the quite same remit as the RHC (see examples below)

• Japan (Council on Investments for the Future);
• Sweden (Committee for Technological Innovation and Ethics, Komet);
• Singapore (Committee on the Future Economy)
• Canada (External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness);
• UAE (Dubai Future Foundation)

The RHC has liaised closely with the Swedish body above with their respective Chairs attending and we have learnt from each other on how we address certain challenges . I have spoken to other countries in Europe and outside Europe interested in replicating the RHC.

• Conduct ‘pre mortems’ - Exercises that are run at the beginning of a project and consider everything that could possibly go wrong
• Maintain flexibility in processes - Be willing to change an approach, even if it has worked previously.
• Continue to nurture an atmosphere of support and constructive challenge - Encourage flat hierarchy and value opinions from the entire team.
• Improve information management - Implement more robust structures/databases for information and ensure that these are maintained over time.
• Develop processes for trialling new approaches - Build in defined time to project timelines for testing and reviewing.