King’s Speech: sandboxes central to ‘regulating for growth’ plans

The UK government’s plans to establish “cross-economy” regulatory sandboxes were set out in the King’s Speech and fall under a new Regulating for Growth Bill that is expected to be introduced to the UK parliament over the coming months.

• Read more: Starmer question casts doubt over King’s Speech policy delivery

“The intention is to enable controlled, live‑market trials where existing laws can be modified or suspended to allow experimentation in relation to technologies such as medicines, autonomous maritime and defence technology, AI and other fast‑growing technologies,” the government said in a background briefing paper (129-page / 2MB PDF). “This enables ideas that are proven in testing to be deployed at pace and scale, driving productivity and economic growth but also unlocking wider benefits for society.”

“These trials would operate under strict safeguards, including protections for consumers, workers and human rights, with clear accountability and regulatory oversight throughout. If a trial proves successful, the Bill will allow these changes to quickly be embedded permanently into law,” it said.

According to the government, there is a “current lack of agility and responsiveness to innovation and change” in the UK’s regulatory system. It said this is “undermining the UK’s competitive edge”, highlighting how countries like the US, China, Singapore and Canada are, in contrast, “accelerating market pilots, regulatory innovation and capital mobilisation”.

The government said: “To compete on the world stage we must ensure regulation keeps pace with the unprecedented speed of technological innovation. That means enabling rapid but controlled testing of new approaches through regulatory sandboxes, followed by the swift rollout of reforms.”

The plans reflect the government’s previous commitment to establish AI Growth Lab sandboxes.

Under the Regulating for Growth Bill, UK regulators will also face a strengthened growth duty. This will entail “elevating consideration of growth in regulatory decision‑making without undermining regulators’ core objectives”, such as on safety or the environment, and will be supported by powers for ministers to issue “strategic steers” to regulators on how they should support growth and innovation within their remits. Regulators’ delivery against their growth duty will also be measured for impact via new reporting requirements.

Technology law expert Malcolm Dowden of Pinsent Masons said the plans follow on from a comment contained in the AI opportunities action plan published early last year which he said implored UK regulators to have a greater appetite for risk and innovation.

“There was a suggestion in the AI action plan that if a regulator was found to be too risk averse then all or some of its functions might be transferred to a body with a greater risk appetite,” Dowden said.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is one of the UK regulators subject to a growth duty. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA) includes provisions that made economic growth and innovation a part of its regulatory remit and augmented the pre-existing growth duty it faces under section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015.

“The DUAA provisions sparked a debate – and amendments in the House of Lords – reflecting concerns that a duty requiring regulators to prioritise growth and innovation would fundamentally alter the balance of regulation and diminish regulators’ ability to protect consumers and individuals,” Dowden said. “In relation to a general strengthening of the growth duty, concerns are most likely to focus on the question of operational independence, particularly because of the plans to strengthen ministerial powers to ‘steer’ how the growth duty is delivered.”

“That said, the plans the government have announced seem to attempt to strike a balance in relation to regulators’ agility and their role in promoting specific innovations and consumer protection and performance of core duties,” he said.

“While the overall objective is likely to be welcomed by industry groups, the extent of ministerial powers to issue directions are likely to be a particularly controversial element in parliamentary debates on the bill, especially in the House of Lords,” Dowden added.