Blog

<h3>Strengthening the UK’s Cyber Defences: What the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill Could Mean for Industry</h3> The proposed Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill aims to modernise the UK’s cyber regulatory framework by expanding its scope to managed service providers and critical suppliers. While many of the implementation concepts are still under development and not yet agreed government policy, the proposals signal how the UK’s approach to cyber resilience could evolve in the coming years.<h3> Introduction </h3>As cyber threats continue to evolve and digital systems become increasingly interconnected, governments are reassessing how best to regulate cyber risk across critical infrastructure and supply chains. The UK’s proposed Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill represents a significant step in this direction, aiming to expand the scope of existing cyber regulations and strengthen the resilience of services that underpin the economy and society. While many of the implementation concepts currently being explored are not yet finalised government policy, they provide an indication of how the UK’s cyber regulatory framework could develop in the coming years.<h3> Strengthening the UK’s Cyber Resilience Framework </h3>The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill builds on the Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations 2018, which currently regulate operators of essential services and certain digital service providers. The new legislation proposes to expand the scope of the regulatory framework to include additional organisations whose services play a critical role in supporting the UK’s digital infrastructure and economic activity. The proposed reforms aim to: - broaden the range of organisations subject to cyber regulation - strengthen regulators’ ability to respond to cyber incidents - improve information sharing between government, regulators and industry - enhance cyber resilience across supply chains supporting essential services. “The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill represents a significant expansion of the UK’s cyber regulatory framework, reflecting the growing importance of digital infrastructure to the economy.” Taken together, these changes are intended to ensure the UK’s cyber regulatory framework reflects the increasing complexity and interdependence of modern digital systems.<h3> Implementation Will Be Phased </h3>Although the Bill has been introduced to Parliament, its provisions will not come into force immediately once it receives Royal Assent. Instead, implementation is expected to take place in stages. The Government has indicated that further consultation, secondary legislation, and guidance will be required to operationalise the framework. Current indicative timelines suggest that consultations on implementation could take place in late summer or early autumn 2026, with implementing regulations expected to follow once the legislative process is completed. Businesses are also expected to be given a proportionate adjustment period to allow organisations time to prepare for the new regulatory requirements.<h3> Bringing Managed Service Providers into Scope </h3>One of the most significant proposed changes is the inclusion of Relevant Managed Service Providers (RMSPs) within the scope of cyber regulation. Managed service providers have become increasingly important to the operation of modern digital infrastructure, providing services such as monitoring, maintenance, and administration of IT systems for organisations across both the public and private sectors. Under the proposed framework, medium and large managed service providers operating in the UK could fall within scope of the regulatory regime, with oversight expected to sit with the Information Commission. Managed services are expected to be defined as services delivered under contract for the ongoing management of a customer’s information technology systems, typically involving activities such as system monitoring, support, and active administration. To qualify as a managed service, the service must involve connection to or access to the customer’s network and information systems. This distinction is intended to exclude services that simply use IT but do not involve ongoing management of systems. Certain services such as data centre provision and public electronic communications networks are not expected to fall within this definition.<h3> Proposed Obligations for Managed Service Providers </h3>Organisations that fall within the RMSP category may face a number of regulatory obligations under the proposed framework. These could include requirements to: - register with the Information Commission - provide organisational and service information during registration - report significant cyber incidents to both the Information Commission and the National Cyber Security Centre - notify customers when incidents affect service delivery - implement appropriate and proportionate security measures to manage cyber risks associated with their services. Further technical requirements including the thresholds for incident reporting and the detailed security expectations are expected to be defined through secondary legislation.<h3> Risk-Based Registration and Oversight </h3>To support effective oversight, regulators may require additional information from organisations during the registration process. Examples of potential information requirements include: - company size, including headcount and revenue - high-level descriptions of services provided - the approximate number of UK customers served - whether services are supplied to critical national infrastructure sectors - general information on existing cybersecurity measures. These measures are intended to help regulators understand the risk profile of organisations within the sector, enabling them to apply a proportionate and risk-based regulatory approach.<h3> Addressing Supply Chain Risks </h3>Alongside the inclusion of managed service providers, the Bill proposes a new mechanism for designating Critical Suppliers. This reflects growing recognition that cyber vulnerabilities increasingly arise from complex digital supply chains. Essential services often depend on a network of technology providers, and disruption to a key supplier can create cascading impacts across multiple sectors. The proposed Designated Critical Supplier (DCS) mechanism would allow regulators to designate a small number of suppliers whose disruption could have a significant impact on the economy or the day-to-day functioning of society. Suppliers designated under this framework could be required to meet enhanced security and resilience requirements proportionate to their systemic importance.<h3> A Targeted and Proportionate Approach </h3>The proposed supplier designation framework is intended to be highly targeted. Rather than applying regulation broadly across all suppliers, the mechanism would focus only on suppliers whose disruption could create systemic risks across sectors or services. The framework emphasises that designation decisions must be evidence-based and follow defined statutory processes, including consultation and opportunities for suppliers to challenge decisions. This approach is intended to strengthen cyber resilience while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens on the wider technology sector.<h3> Looking Ahead </h3>The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill signals a significant evolution of the UK’s cyber regulatory landscape. By expanding regulation to include managed service providers and introducing mechanisms to address systemic supply-chain risks, the proposals reflect the growing importance of digital infrastructure to the UK’s economy and society. However, much of the framework remains under development. Many of the concepts currently being explored are not yet finalised government policy, and further consultation will shape how the regime is ultimately implemented. For organisations operating within the UK’s digital ecosystem, engaging with this process will be essential to ensure that the emerging framework delivers both strong cyber resilience and practical, proportionate regulation.

Strengthening the UK’s Cyber Defences: What the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill Could Mean for Industry

Fraud Now Makes Up Nearly Half of UK Crime. Here’s Why That Changes Everything.&nbsp;Fraud has quietly become the UK’s most dominant form of crime. Not violent crime, not theft but fraud. According to the Government’s latest strategy, around 45% of all crime recorded in the Crime Survey for England and Wales is now fraud or cyber-related. That single figure changes the conversation entirely. Fraud is no longer a niche issue for banks or a specialist concern for law enforcement. It is now one of the defining public safety and economic challenges facing the UK. And the Government’s response reflects that shift.<h3> A System Built for Yesterday’s Problem </h3>For years, fraud prevention has been reactive and fragmented. A bank might work with law enforcement. A technology platform might tackle abuse within its own ecosystem. Telecom providers might address scam calls in isolation. Each effort has value but together, they fall short. Fraud does not respect organisational boundaries. Criminals move seamlessly between platforms, services, and jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the systems designed to stop them have remained largely siloed. The result is predictable: fraud scales faster than the response to it.<h3> Enter the Online Crime Centre </h3>At the heart of the UK’s new Fraud Strategy (2026–2029) is a new concept: the Online Crime Centre (OCC). Its ambition is simple, but significant to bring together government, law enforcement, and industry into a single, coordinated effort to tackle fraud and cybercrime at scale. This is not just another enforcement body. It is intended to solve a coordination problem that has existed for years: how to move from isolated, bilateral relationships to structured, multi-sector collaboration. In practice, that means: - Prioritising the most important fraud threats collectively - Sharing intelligence more effectively - Acting earlier before harm spreads<h3> Designing Out Fraud, Not Just Responding to It </h3>One of the most striking ideas in the strategy is the shift toward “designing out” fraud. Rather than chasing criminals after the fact, the focus is on identifying the weak points that enable fraud in the first place and removing them. Sometimes, small changes can have outsized impact. For example, adjustments to how users authenticate when enrolling in digital wallets have already led to material reductions in fraud for some banks. Similarly, tackling issues like malicious online advertising known as malvertising could disrupt entire fraud pathways. The lesson is clear: If you remove the enabler, you reduce the crime.<h3> The Power of Shared Signals </h3>Another key shift is how information is used. Today, organisations often hold valuable pieces of the puzzle an email address here, a suspicious phone number there but lack the ability to connect those dots quickly enough. The OCC aims to change that through large-scale signal sharing. These “signals” might include: - Email addresses - URLs - Phone numbers - IP addresses On their own, they may seem insignificant. But when combined across organisations, they can reveal much larger networks of criminal activity. In one example discussed, a small set of signals from law enforcement, when combined with a platform’s internal data, helped identify and shut down a far broader network of fraudulent accounts. This is where scale matters. The more connected the system, the more powerful each piece of data becomes. <h3> The Hidden Problem: Underreporting </h3>Despite fraud’s scale, much of it still goes unreported. People don’t report fraud for many reasons low confidence in outcomes, reimbursement from banks, embarrassment, or simply not knowing where to go. But this creates a critical blind spot. Reporting is not just about solving individual cases. It feeds the intelligence needed to detect patterns, identify enablers, and prevent future attacks. Without it, the system is always one step behind. Closing this gap will be essential if the OCC is to succeed.<h3> A New Expectation for Business </h3>Perhaps the most important shift is what this means for industry. The direction is clear: Businesses will increasingly be expected to play an active role in tackling fraud not just within their own walls, but as part of a wider ecosystem. This includes: - Sharing data in secure, usable ways - Contributing to coordinated interventions - Collaborating across sectors For organisations in financial services, telecoms, and technology, this is not a distant possibility. It is the emerging operating model. And while it brings new demands, it also creates opportunity for those able to enable faster decisions, better collaboration, and measurable outcomes.<h3> Technology Will Shape the Next Phase </h3>The strategy also points toward a more technology-driven future. The OCC is expected to explore: - Automation of manual fraud analysis - AI-assisted investigations - Faster identification of emerging threats At the same time, the threat landscape is becoming more sophisticated. Deepfakes, digital identity manipulation, and increasingly convincing impersonation attacks are already changing the nature of fraud. The response will need to be just as adaptive.<h3> A Fundamental Reset </h3>What emerges from the UK’s new Fraud Strategy is not just a set of initiatives, but a fundamental reset. Fraud is now too large, too fast-moving, and too interconnected to be tackled in isolation. The future lies in coordination, prevention, and scale. The creation of the Online Crime Centre is an early step toward that future but its success will depend on something broader: whether public and private sectors can truly work together in a more open, operational, and data-driven way. Because when nearly half of all crime is fraud, the cost of standing still is simply too high.<h3> Where Does Business Fit in a Coordinated Anti-Fraud Ecosystem </h3>The shift outlined in the UK’s Fraud Strategy creates a clear and immediate opportunity for businesses to move beyond internal fraud controls and position themselves as active contributors to a wider, coordinated ecosystem. As the Online Crime Centre (OCC) drives greater collaboration between government, law enforcement and industry, there will be growing demand for capabilities that can translate shared intelligence into rapid, actionable outcomes. This includes solutions that enable real-time signal sharing (such as suspicious accounts, devices or identifiers), orchestrate cross-sector workflows, and support the testing and scaling of interventions that “design out” fraud at its source. At the same time, organisations that can facilitate secure, governed data sharing at scale, while demonstrating measurable impact, such as reduced fraud volumes or faster response times will be particularly well placed. In this environment, the opportunity is not just to protect individual firms, but to enable system-wide fraud reduction, aligning commercial value with national priorities.

Fraud Now Makes Up Nearly Half of UK Crime. Here’s Why That Changes Everything

<h3>DTAC Reform: Simplifying Digital Assurance in the NHS</h3>The NHS’s Digital Technology Assessment Criteria (DTAC) framework has been updated following a multi-year review led by NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The revised framework introduces an updated assessment form and accompanying guidance designed to simplify digital assurance processes while maintaining strong standards for patient safety, data protection and interoperability. While the latest changes focus on improving the usability of the current framework, they also signal the beginning of a broader reform programme aimed at modernising how digital health technologies are assessed and adopted across the NHS.<h3>A Framework for Safe Digital Innovation.</h3>DTAC- the Digital Technology Assessment Criteria- provides the NHS’s national baseline for assessing whether digital health technologies meet the requirements necessary for deployment within health and care settings. The framework brings together a range of mandatory standards covering areas such as clinical safety, cybersecurity, data protection, interoperability and usability. By consolidating these requirements, DTAC aims to create a clearer and more consistent process for evaluating digital health technologies. As Sam Tallents from NHS England’s Transformation Directorate explained: “DTAC is the Digital Technology Assessment Criteria. It's an assessment framework that brings together all of the mandatory standards and policy requirements that the NHS has for using digital health technologies in the NHS.” While responsibility for adopting technologies and managing associated risks ultimately sits with local NHS organisations, DTAC provides a common structure that helps ensure those assessments are carried out consistently across the health system. The framework also provides suppliers with greater clarity about what is required to bring digital products into NHS environments.<h3> Responding to Industry and NHS Feedback.</h3>The latest DTAC update follows several years of engagement with industry and health system stakeholders. Feedback highlighted that although the framework played an important role in digital assurance, aspects of the process had become difficult to navigate. Suppliers in particular pointed to overlapping requirements across multiple regulatory and assurance processes, which could create confusion and increase administrative burden. Rebecca, who co-led the DTAC review alongside colleagues from NHS England and DHSC, explained that the latest update focuses on simplifying the framework while maintaining its core safeguards. “We’ve produced an update on DTAC a couple of weeks ago. So that is both an updated form and updated guidance to accompany the form.” The revised documentation introduces a streamlined assessment form and clearer guidance intended to make the process easier for both suppliers and NHS organisations.<h3> Making the Framework Easier to Use</h3>The immediate reforms focus on improving the usability of DTAC within the existing assurance model. Key changes include: - Simplifying and updating the DTAC assessment form - Removing duplicated or outdated requirements - Clarifying how specific standards apply to different types of digital &nbsp; &nbsp; technologies - Improving links to supporting guidance and relevant standards Tallents described these changes as initial improvements designed to streamline the current process. “These are some initial changes just to streamline the existing process, make things a little bit easier to navigate and remove and update some of the requirements.” While these updates are relatively targeted, they address several practical challenges identified by suppliers and NHS organisations using the framework.<h3> A Longer-Term Vision for Digital Assurance</h3>Alongside these interim improvements, policymakers are also considering more fundamental changes to how digital health technologies are assured in the NHS. One option currently being explored is a move towards a certification-based approach to digital assurance. Such a model could provide suppliers with a clearer national route for demonstrating compliance with NHS requirements. Tallents noted that this concept remains under development as part of the broader reform programme. “Longer term, we’re looking at some more substantive reforms… we’ll be looking to move to more of a certification-based approach.” A certification model could potentially reduce duplication across local procurement processes and create a more scalable approach as the volume of digital health technologies continues to grow.<h3> Navigating Regulatory Complexity</h3>The discussion around DTAC reform also highlighted the complexity that can arise when multiple regulatory frameworks apply to the same technology. Digital health products may be subject to medical device regulation while also needing to comply with clinical safety standards and NHS digital assurance requirements. Participants noted that interpreting how these frameworks interact can sometimes be challenging, particularly where technologies fall into regulatory grey areas. Tallents acknowledged that applying these rules in practice can quickly become complicated. “The application rules get very complicated very quickly… which is probably not an ideal situation to be in.” Where a product is fully covered by medical device regulation, the regulatory process is intended to provide assurance around patient safety. However, officials recognised that determining when this applies can require careful judgement.<h3> Clarifying the Scope of DTAC</h3>One important clarification from the discussion concerned the relationship between DTAC and medical device regulation. Technologies regulated as medical devices do not automatically fall outside the scope of DTAC. Instead, applicability depends on how the product is intended to be used and how it interacts with NHS systems. Rebecca emphasised that DTAC continues to apply in many cases because it addresses broader requirements beyond clinical safety. “It isn’t the case that if products have medical device regulation, then they automatically fall out of the scope of DTAC.” This ensures that digital technologies used in the NHS meet system-wide expectations around cybersecurity, interoperability and data governance.<h3> Improving Guidance and Transparency.</h3>To help suppliers navigate these complexities, the updated DTAC documentation includes clearer links to supporting guidance and related standards. In particular, the guidance now provides more direct access to step-by-step information on applying clinical safety standards, which had previously been less visible. Tallents noted that the documentation will continue to evolve alongside changes to relevant standards. “There is also step-by-step guidance on the application of the DCB standards, and we've linked to that more clearly in the document that we hadn't done previously.” By improving access to guidance and clarifying how standards apply, the updated framework aims to reduce uncertainty for suppliers entering the NHS market.<h3> Supporting the Next Phase of NHS Digital Transformation.</h3>Digital technologies are playing an increasingly central role in healthcare delivery, from remote monitoring tools to AI-enabled diagnostics and digital therapeutics. Ensuring that these technologies are safe, secure and interoperable is essential to building trust in digital health innovation. The latest DTAC updates represent an effort to strike the right balance between maintaining robust assurance standards and enabling innovation to move more quickly through the health system. While further reforms are expected as the programme develops, the current changes signal a clear intention to make digital assurance processes more transparent, consistent and easier to navigate for both suppliers and the NHS. As digital transformation continues to accelerate, frameworks like DTAC will remain critical to ensuring that innovation is introduced safely and effectively across the health service.

DTAC Reform: Simplifying Digital Assurance in the NHS

dices and pawns isolated on a white background

Across Europe and the United Kingdom, gambling regulation is entering a period of profound change. Governments are tightening consumer protection rules, introducing new product restrictions and increasing gambling taxes. These measures reflect legitimate concerns about gambling harm and the need for stronger safeguards in digital markets. Yet they are also reshaping the economics of the industry in ways that policymakers are still beginning to understand.The challenge for governments is that gambling policy now sits at the intersection of public health, digital regulation and fiscal policy. The industry is both a potential social risk and a significant contributor to national treasuries through gambling duties, corporate taxation and employment. If regulatory and fiscal pressure becomes too intense, the unintended consequence may be the erosion of the regulated market itself. <h3>The UK’s regulatory transformation </h3>The United Kingdom has emerged as the most influential regulatory testing ground following reforms to the framework established under the Gambling Act 2005. The government’s policy agenda, outlined in the white paper High Stakes: Gambling Reform for the Digital Age, introduces several structural changes designed to reduce gambling harm in online markets.Among the most visible reforms are online slot stake limits, which cap bets at £5 per spin for players aged 25 and over and £2 for those aged 18–24. These limits target products that allow rapid and continuous betting cycles, which regulators believe carry higher risks for consumers.Another major reform is the introduction of financial risk checks, often referred to in industry discussions as affordability checks. Operators will be required to assess whether a customer’s gambling behaviour could cause financial harm, potentially triggering interventions or restrictions.The UK is also introducing a statutory gambling levy, replacing a voluntary system of industry contributions. The levy will fund research, prevention and treatment programmes and is expected to raise around £100 million per year.Taken together, these reforms represent a significant shift in regulatory philosophy. Gambling companies are no longer simply providers of licensed products; they are increasingly expected to monitor consumer behaviour and intervene when risks emerge. <h3>Rising taxes across Europe </h3>At the same time that regulation is tightening, many European governments are increasing gambling taxes.The Netherlands has already begun raising its gambling tax rate from 30.5 percent of gross gaming revenue to over 34 percent, with further increases planned. Sweden has raised its tax rate from 18 percent to 22 percent, while France has increased several levies on online betting and gaming operators.For finance ministries, gambling taxes are an attractive policy tool. The industry generates visible revenues and taxing it can be politically easier than raising income or consumption taxes. However, the economic dynamics of gambling markets are more complex than the simple assumption that higher rates will always produce higher revenues.When taxes rise sharply, operators often respond by reducing promotional spending, offering less competitive odds or slowing investment in regulated markets. These adjustments can reduce the attractiveness of legal platforms relative to offshore operators that are not subject to the same rules or taxes. <h3>The growing risk of the black market </h3>The most significant long-term risk for European regulators is the expansion of the gambling black market. A central objective of modern gambling regulation is channelisation ensuring that the majority of gambling activity occurs within licensed and regulated operators.When channelisation is high, governments benefit in several ways. Consumer protection standards apply, financial transactions can be monitored for fraud and money laundering, and gambling activity generates tax revenue. If channelisation falls, these benefits disappear.Several European markets already illustrate the consequences of regulatory imbalance.In Germany, the introduction of strict deposit limits, advertising restrictions and relatively high taxes following the 2021 Interstate Treaty on Gambling has been widely criticised for pushing consumers toward unlicensed platforms. Industry estimates suggest that a significant portion of online gambling activity now occurs outside the regulated system.The Netherlands has experienced similar concerns following tax increases and tighter regulatory requirements introduced after its online gambling market opened in 2021. Analysts have warned that rising taxes may undermine the competitiveness of licensed operators, potentially increasing the share of activity taking place in unregulated markets.Even in Sweden, which initially achieved strong channelisation after regulating its online market in 2019, regulators have acknowledged that a substantial proportion of online gambling traffic is now directed toward unlicensed sites.These cases highlight a fundamental policy dilemma. Measures designed to strengthen consumer protection may inadvertently encourage players to migrate toward platforms where no protections exist at all. <h3>Policy signals: what governments are planning next </h3>Across Europe, governments have already indicated that the current round of gambling reforms is unlikely to be the end of regulatory change. Instead, many countries are moving toward stricter controls on advertising, higher taxation of online gambling and stronger enforcement against unlicensed operators.In the United Kingdom, the next phase of reform centres on implementing the remaining elements of the government’s gambling review. This includes the rollout of financial risk checks for online players and the introduction of a statutory gambling levy to fund research, prevention and treatment programmes. The Treasury is also examining the possibility of restructuring gambling duties, potentially merging several existing taxes into a single remote gambling tax that reflects the convergence of betting and casino products on digital platforms.Several EU countries are pursuing more restrictive policies. Italy has implemented one of the most stringent approaches in Europe through its Dignity Decree, which introduced a near-total ban on gambling advertising and sponsorship. Spain has imposed strict advertising rules limiting gambling advertising to late-night hours and restricting the use of celebrity endorsements and sports sponsorship. Meanwhile Belgium and the Netherlands have introduced significant restrictions on gambling marketing and are tightening rules around sponsorship in sports.Fiscal policy is also evolving. Countries such as Romania have raised gambling taxes significantly, increasing the tax on online gambling operators to roughly 27 percent of gross gaming revenue, while other European governments continue to review similar increases as part of wider fiscal policy debates.At the same time, regulators are increasingly focusing on enforcement against illegal operators. In Germany, the federal gambling regulator has expanded its powers to issue fines, block payments and target affiliate networks promoting unlicensed gambling platforms. These enforcement measures reflect a growing concern among European policymakers that stricter regulation may inadvertently push players toward offshore platforms.Taken together, these developments suggest that the next stage of European gambling policy will likely focus on tightening advertising rules, increasing fiscal contributions from the industry and strengthening enforcement against the expanding online black market. <h3>The economic consequences of industry relocation </h3>Beyond gambling taxes, the industry supports a wider economic ecosystem that includes technology development, marketing, payments infrastructure and sports sponsorship. Many gambling companies operate large digital platforms that require highly skilled employees in fields such as software engineering, data science and financial compliance.These jobs are often well paid and concentrated in major European cities such as London, Stockholm, Dublin and Malta. As regulatory and fiscal pressure increases, however, companies may reconsider where they locate these operations.If operators shift investment or relocate business functions to other jurisdictions, the fiscal consequences for governments can be significant. The loss of high-skilled jobs means reduced income tax receipts and lower spending in local economies. Corporate tax contributions may also decline if profits are booked in more favourable jurisdictions.In addition, many gambling companies provide substantial funding for sports through sponsorship agreements. If operators scale back marketing budgets or withdraw from certain markets, sports organisations may lose an important source of revenue.These broader economic effects rarely appear in debates about gambling regulation, which tend to focus primarily on gambling duties and consumer protection. Yet they form an important part of the industry’s overall contribution to national economies. <h3>Opportunities within a changing regulatory environment </h3>Despite these pressures, regulatory reform may also create opportunities for parts of the industry.The increasing complexity of compliance requirements is likely to accelerate consolidation, favouring companies with the scale and technological capability to operate across multiple regulated markets.At the same time, the need to monitor gambling behaviour and conduct financial risk assessments is driving innovation in data analytics and artificial intelligence. Firms specialising in responsible gambling technologies, identity verification and behavioural monitoring may become key partners for operators seeking to meet regulatory obligations.Finally, several European countries are still transitioning toward regulated online gambling markets. For operators able to navigate complex regulatory frameworks, these emerging markets offer opportunities for growth and investment. <h3>Finding the right balance </h3>Europe’s gambling sector is undergoing a structural transformation driven by rising regulation and taxation. The policy objective to reduce harm while ensuring that the industry contributes fairly to public finances is widely shared.The difficulty lies in achieving the right balance. If regulatory and fiscal measures are calibrated carefully, governments can maintain strong consumer protections while preserving a competitive legal market that generates tax revenue and employment.If that balance is lost, however, the consequences may extend beyond the gambling industry itself. Players may migrate to unregulated platforms, high-skilled jobs may relocate, and governments may ultimately collect less tax revenue than expected.For policymakers across Europe, the central challenge in the coming years will therefore be ensuring that efforts to control gambling risks do not unintentionally weaken the regulated markets designed to manage them.

Europe’s Regulatory Gamble: Protection, Taxation and the Risk of a Growing Black Market

Telecommunication tower with mesh dots, glittering particles for wireless telecommunication technology

The UK stands at a decisive moment for its digital infrastructure. After more than a decade of heavy investment and rapid fibre rollout, the question is no longer whether the UK can build next-generation networks, it is whether it can create the right regulatory environment to sustain investment, deliver universal coverage, and unlock the next wave of digital growth.At the centre of this moment is Ofcom’s Telecoms Access Review (TAR) 2026–2031, which will set the rules governing fixed telecoms markets from April 2026 through to March 2031. While technical in nature, its implications are profound: the review will shape how billions of pounds of capital are deployed, how competition evolves, and whether the UK can fully realise the economic benefits of its digital infrastructure.This is not just another regulatory cycle. It is a defining policy decision that will determine whether the UK transitions successfully from a period of rapid network build to one of sustainable growth and innovation.&nbsp; <h3>The UK is approaching the end of the fibre build era and the beginning of a new phase</h3>The review arrives at a critical inflection point. Gigabit-capable broadband now reaches roughly 85–90% of UK premises, and the government is targeting around 99% coverage by the early 2030s. Meanwhile, the industry is approaching the final phase of fibre rollout, preparing for the switch-off of copper networks by January 2027, and responding to surging demand for high-capacity connectivity driven by cloud, AI, and digital services.Tens of billions of pounds of private capital have already been deployed into UK fibre infrastructure. But the next phase extending coverage to harder-to-reach areas, improving network resilience, and enabling new services will require sustained investor confidence.The Telecoms Access Review will determine whether that confidence holds.&nbsp; <h3>A complex regulatory process with far-reaching consequences</h3>Led by Ofcom, the review has followed a multi-year process beginning with evidence gathering in 2024, followed by a major consultation in March 2025 and further targeted consultations through late 2025 and early 2026. Final decisions are expected in March 2026, with the framework coming into force in April 2026.The review covers wholesale markets that underpin the entire connectivity ecosystem, including physical infrastructure access, wholesale broadband markets, leased lines, and core network connectivity. Decisions across these areas will ripple across the sector, influencing everything from fibre rollout economics to enterprise connectivity pricing and mobile network performance. <h3>The central policy challenge: balancing investment and competition</h3>At its core, the Telecoms Access Review is about managing a delicate trade-off. The UK must maintain competitive markets while preserving strong incentives for long-term infrastructure investment.This balance is becoming harder to strike. As the market matures, returns on new fibre build are becoming more uncertain, particularly in rural and less densely populated areas. At the same time, the market has seen rapid entry by alternative network providers, many of which now face financial pressure as capital costs rise and growth slows.The risk is clear: regulation that leans too heavily towards price control or short-term competition could undermine investment just as the UK enters the most challenging phase of deployment.<figure id="figure-tbjq6yx6yimm28d4jo"><img id="tbjq6yx6yimm28d4jo" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/d6Yuftagf2aDIVCRJ9QvD4561pSo9J59filuPJvVb21TSaRI3rm7fKL0CMoygKrH.jpeg" alt="Aerial View of a Telecommunications Tower in the British Suburban Landscape" title="Aerial View of a Telecommunications Tower in the British Suburban Landscape" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/d6Yuftagf2aDIVCRJ9QvD4561pSo9J59filuPJvVb21TSaRI3rm7fKL0CMoygKrH.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> <h3>Why the review will shape the wider telecoms ecosystem</h3>The Telecoms Access Review is often framed as a fixed broadband regulatory exercise, but its impact extends far beyond that.It will determine the pace of progress towards nationwide gigabit connectivity, influence the success of the copper switch-off, and shape the economics of fibre backhaul required for standalone 5G deployment. In doing so, it will affect everything from smart infrastructure to industrial digitalisation.It will also shape consolidation across the alternative network sector. The UK is likely to see fewer, larger infrastructure players emerge over the next decade, and regulatory certainty will determine whether this consolidation strengthens or weakens competition.Ultimately, the review will influence retail pricing and affordability, shaping digital inclusion outcomes across the country. <h3>The opportunity: creating a world-leading investment environment</h3>If calibrated correctly, the Telecoms Access Review presents a major opportunity for the UK to reinforce its position as one of the most attractive digital infrastructure investment markets globally.Regulatory certainty through 2031 could unlock continued private investment in network expansion, upgrades, and new services. The shift from network build to network monetisation also creates opportunities in enterprise connectivity, edge computing, private networks, and smart infrastructure.The UK has the potential to move beyond infrastructure deployment and position itself as a leader in digital infrastructure services but only if the regulatory framework supports innovation and long-term investment. <h3>Where government must be bold and where it must be cautious</h3>The government and regulator must recognise that the UK is entering a fundamentally different market phase. Policy designed for a period of rapid competition and network entry may not be appropriate for a more mature market focused on sustainability and returns.There are several areas where policy decisions will be critical.First, regulation must avoid undermining investment incentives. The final phase of fibre rollout is inherently more expensive, and overly aggressive price controls risk slowing deployment precisely where connectivity gaps remain.Second, policymakers should accept that some consolidation among alternative network providers is inevitable and, if managed correctly, can strengthen the market. The goal should not be to preserve the maximum number of operators but to ensure sustainable competition and resilient infrastructure.Third, affordability policies must be targeted and proportionate. Protecting vulnerable consumers is essential, but blunt pricing interventions risk distorting market incentives.Fourth, the framework must remain flexible. Telecoms is increasingly converging with cloud, data infrastructure, and digital platforms, and regulation must be able to adapt to technological change.Finally, policy alignment is essential. Decisions within the Telecoms Access Review must complement planning reform, spectrum strategy, cybersecurity policy, and digital inclusion initiatives to ensure a coherent investment environment. <h3>Policy recommendations for the next regulatory period</h3>To maximise the benefits of the review, policymakers should focus on five priorities.The first is to prioritise investment certainty by maintaining a stable and predictable regulatory framework that supports long-term capital allocation.The second is to adopt a pro-investment approach to pricing, allowing sufficient pricing flexibility for fibre networks while ensuring targeted protections for vulnerable consumers.Third, government should actively support market consolidation where it strengthens long-term competition and network resilience.Fourth, policymakers should accelerate measures that reduce deployment costs, including planning reform and streamlined infrastructure access processes.Finally, the review should be used as a platform to support innovation by encouraging new wholesale models and enabling investment in next-generation digital infrastructure services.<h3>A once-in-a-decade opportunity to set the direction of the market</h3>The Telecoms Access Review is more than a regulatory exercise it is a strategic decision about the future of the UK’s digital economy.If the framework strikes the right balance, the UK can move confidently into the next phase of its digital infrastructure journey, characterised by universal connectivity, strong competition, and continued private investment.If it gets the balance wrong, the risk is slower deployment, reduced investment, and missed opportunities to capitalise on the economic potential of next-generation networks.The decisions taken in this review will shape the UK telecoms landscape through to 2031 and beyond. Policymakers should treat it accordingly, not simply as a technical consultation, but as a cornerstone of the country’s long-term growth strategy.

The Telecoms Access Review is the UK’s defining digital infrastructure decision and government must get the balance right

For decades, defence spending sat largely outside Britain’s economic debate a necessary function of the state, but rarely a defining fiscal question. That era is ending.The emerging discussion is no longer just about moving core defence spending toward 3% of GDP. Increasingly, policymakers and strategists are considering whether the UK should move toward spending closer to 5% of GDP on defence and wider national security, reflecting a broader definition of security that includes resilience, infrastructure protection, cyber capability, and economic preparedness.At roughly £66 billion today around 2.3–2.4% of GDP the UK already spends above NATO’s baseline, with plans to rise to 2.5% by 2027. But a broader 5% framework would represent one of the largest structural reallocations of public resources in decades, potentially requiring tens of billions in additional annual spending once wider security investments are included.The strategic logic is increasingly clear. In a world of rising geopolitical risk, economic resilience and national security are becoming inseparable. But while the direction of travel is justified, the scale of the shift means difficult choices will shape government priorities, industrial strategy, and the wider economy for years to come.This is not simply a defence policy, it is a defining economic decision about what Britain chooses to prioritise._________________________________________________________________________________<h3>The industrial upside: reinforcing Britain’s strategic strengths</h3>Higher defence spending has the potential to reinforce some of the UK’s most competitive industries, particularly where long-term procurement supports innovation and high-skill employment.The Ministry of Defence already manages spending approaching £80 billion annually, with significant capital investment flowing into major programmes such as the Dreadnought nuclear submarine programme, expected to cost over £30 billion, and the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) the next-generation fighter jet initiative with Japan and Italy.The government’s long-term shipbuilding pipeline, alongside continued investment in naval capabilities, ensures sustained demand across maritime supply chains.These programmes provide decades-long investment certainty, supporting advanced manufacturing, engineering, and research-intensive industries that typically deliver strong productivity gains.Defence procurement is also increasingly innovation-led, with commitments to direct around 10% of the equipment budget toward emerging technologies, including AI, cyber, and autonomous systems.If aligned with industrial strategy, this spending can strengthen export capability and reinforce the UK’s position in high-value manufacturing sectors.<figure id="figure-k8i0pob6eomls2awq7"><img id="k8i0pob6eomls2awq7" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/32LnLCvPa1vD1TqrFyFcwwJqkXIM7lLVckwkhqIbjGkmY542gg3d8blLcwITHk7Y.jpeg" alt="Energy and Power icons set with flag" title="Energy and Power icons set with flag" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/32LnLCvPa1vD1TqrFyFcwwJqkXIM7lLVckwkhqIbjGkmY542gg3d8blLcwITHk7Y.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>_________________________________________________________________________________<h3>Regional growth: defence as place-based policy </h3>Defence investment has historically been one of the most powerful drivers of regional industrial activity.Shipbuilding in Scotland, aerospace in the South West, and advanced manufacturing across northern England anchor skilled jobs and supply chains that support local economies.A sustained increase in spending, particularly when broader resilience and infrastructure security investments are included could deepen these industrial clusters, supporting regional productivity and reinforcing efforts to rebalance the economy geographically.In effect, defence spending becomes a form of place-based economic policy creating long-term employment and investment outside London._________________________________________________________________________________&nbsp; <h3>Technology spillovers: innovation beyond defence </h3>Modern defence spending increasingly overlaps with frontier technologies.Investment in cyber capabilities, space systems, advanced materials, and digital infrastructure has the potential to generate spillovers across the wider economy, much as defence R&amp;D historically contributed to major technological breakthroughs.Across Europe, defence innovation spending is rising sharply, reflecting a broader shift toward technological competition between advanced economies.For the UK, this presents an opportunity to strengthen its technology ecosystem while supporting long-term productivity growth.&nbsp;_________________________________________________________________________________ <h3>Learning from Europe: a shared strategic shift </h3>The UK’s move toward higher defence spending mirrors a broader trend across advanced economies.Germany’s €100 billion special defence fund demonstrates how governments are treating defence as a strategic investment in industrial capability and resilience.Poland has gone further still, raising defence spending toward 4–5% of GDP, using increased budgets to expand domestic production and strengthen national resilience in response to geopolitical risk.The lesson from these countries is clear: higher defence spending can support growth and industrial capacity, but only when supported by disciplined fiscal planning and clear strategic priorities._________________________________________________________________________________<h3>The unavoidable trade-offs </h3>Even with strong economic and strategic justification, higher defence spending will inevitably reshape priorities across government.Recent spending plans already illustrate this dynamic. Overseas aid budgets have been reduced, while departments such as justice, local government, and environment face tighter settlements and slower spending growth.Transport and long-term infrastructure projects are particularly exposed to shifting priorities, with some major programmes facing delays or reduced funding as fiscal pressures intensify.These adjustments reflect a fundamental reality: expanding the security envelope does not simply increase public spending , it changes the balance of government priorities.<figure id="figure-rp0jkfoqfmls2c3te"><img id="rp0jkfoqfmls2c3te" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/20XIW51f58oZPKsbCcM6hWAv2MXgOECqAbvcO5TFL5P6OJddwuXT2e0rALIa8QqH.jpeg" alt="UK and EU" title="UK and EU" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/20XIW51f58oZPKsbCcM6hWAv2MXgOECqAbvcO5TFL5P6OJddwuXT2e0rALIa8QqH.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>_________________________________________________________________________________&nbsp; <h3>Fiscal credibility and the macroeconomic balance </h3>The broader economic impact will depend heavily on how increased spending is financed.With UK growth running at roughly 1% and public debt elevated, maintaining fiscal credibility will be essential to avoiding higher borrowing costs.Markets will closely watch whether higher spending is accompanied by credible fiscal planning, particularly as sustained increases reduce flexibility to respond to future economic shocks.For consumer-facing sectors, the impact may be indirect but meaningful if tighter fiscal policy slows disposable income growth.&nbsp;_________________________________________________________________________________<h3>A structural shift toward a security-led state </h3>The move toward a 5% framework reflects a deeper change in economic thinking.For much of the post-Cold War period, governments prioritised efficiency and social spending in a relatively stable geopolitical environment. Today, resilience, strategic autonomy, and economic security are becoming central policy objectives.Across NATO, defence budgets are rising rapidly, signalling a structural shift toward a more security-focused model of government spending.For the UK, this represents a recalibration of the state, one where defence and resilience play a larger role in shaping economic priorities._________________________________________________________________________________&nbsp; <h3>The critical question: investment or consumption? </h3>Ultimately, the long-term economic impact will depend on whether higher defence spending drives productivity and innovation.If spending supports high-skill employment, exports, technological development, and infrastructure resilience, it could strengthen the UK’s growth trajectory.If it primarily displaces other productive investment, it risks becoming largely consumptive spending that increases fiscal pressure without boosting economic potential.Execution will determine which path dominates._________________________________________________________________________________&nbsp; Winners and losers at a glance Likely winners:<ul><li>Defence and aerospace industries</li><li>Advanced manufacturing and engineering</li><li>Cyber, AI, and dual-use technology firms</li><li>Regional industrial economies</li><li>Energy and infrastructure resilience sectors </li></ul>Likely under pressure:<ul><li>Overseas aid and international development</li><li>Justice, local government, and environment budgets</li><li>Long-term infrastructure and transport investment</li><li>Consumer-facing sectors if fiscal policy tightens</li><li>Overall fiscal flexibility</li></ul>___________________________________________________________________________________________<h3>Conclusion: a necessary shift that demands discipline</h3>Moving toward spending closer to 5% of GDP on defence and national security reflects a changing world in which economic resilience and security are increasingly intertwined.Done well, it could reinforce Britain’s industrial base, support innovation, strengthen infrastructure resilience, and drive regional growth. Done poorly, it risks crowding out investment and narrowing fiscal flexibility.The experience of countries like Germany and Poland shows that higher security spending can support economic resilience but only when matched with clear strategy and fiscal discipline.For the UK, the opportunity is significant. But so is the responsibility to ensure that this shift strengthens not only national security, but the long-term foundations of economic growth.Because once spending priorities move at this scale, they shape the economy for decades.<figure id="figure-rf3hyys5a8mls2dvgd"><img id="rf3hyys5a8mls2dvgd" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/2eqH7aZqR95iSTC9fswWf8RWgHOEcp2NhfGjVLE8FtHMZbGKcHP6g1LUYvu4dBDT.jpeg" alt="United Kingdom economy and financial market growth concept, 3D rendering" title="United Kingdom economy and financial market growth concept, 3D rendering" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-2xl md:rounded-3xl lg:rounded-4xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure>

Defence at 5%: Britain’s Strategic Investment and the Economic Choices It Demands

Larkspur International

Where Government Meets Business Growth
Larkspur International operates at the intersection of business and government where decisions are shaped, risks emerge, and opportunities are realised.

Larkspur International is a business consultancy with a growth mindset working alongside clients to navigate government systems, eliminate barriers, and deliver measurable commercial outcomes.

INSIGHTS

Strengthening the UK’s Cyber Defences: What the Cyber Sec...

Fraud Now Makes Up Nearly Half of UK Crime. Here’s Why Th...

DTAC Reform: Simplifying Digital Assurance in the NHS

Europe’s Regulatory Gamble: Protection, Taxation and the ...

The Telecoms Access Review is the UK’s defining digital i...

Defence at 5%: Britain’s Strategic Investment and the Eco...