DMA House of Commons debate

On Tuesday 25 October, the DMA hosted a debate in Westminster on the motion:

Industry co-regulation will protect consumers more than an Information Commissioner fine ever could.

With high-profile speakers from industry a fiery debate ensued.

Proposing the motion was DMC Chief Commissioner, Amerdeep Somal and Chief Strategy Officer at Pool Data, Gilbert Hill. Opposing the motion was PwC’s Data Protection Strategy, Law and Compliance Services Director, Fedelma Good, and DMA CEO, Chris Combemale.

The debate was chaired by Hannah Bardell MP (Livingston) who, prior to becoming an MP, worked in commercial television, marketing and comms.

This debate is hosted as part of the Debating Group, which brings together 12 bodies in the advertising industry to take turns hosting debates on hot topic subjects in the palace of Westminster.

The discussion was wide-ranging. Among other things, the proposition argued that:

• Self-regulation does not negate the need for government regulation - the debate was not about whether independent or government regulation ought to exist, but whether, in a functioning market, self-regulation is ideal for the most part.
• Co-regulation involves both industry and government developing, administering and enforcing a solution, with the industry buying into the arrangements because they want to be part of the solution, including having a say in how members are punished.
• The industry as a whole does not want to be tarnished by the poor behaviour of the few and so the industry has a vested interest in raising and maintaining high standards as they have decided what the rules of the club are and have signed up to those rules when joining the club.
• In the sphere of data protection, we still live in a global ‘Wild West’, and that policy, laws and government regulation is needed to ensure basic protections, particularly when trading between jurisdictions, for example, data adequacy agreements.
• Regulators can’t do everything; there’s not enough capacity for the ICO or any other government-based regulator to examine every UK company directly and in sufficient depth. Now would such a system represent value for money for taxpayers, whereas industry itself would cover the costs of industry regulators.

The opposition responded with arguments:

• There are inherent limits of industry co-regulation, and the effectiveness of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) fining regime is of utmost persuasiveness.
• Self-regulation and a government regulator could operate side by side but there could be reinforcing the principles of ‘us and them'.
• Accountability was one of the central tenets of the GDPR as seen in its support for codes of conduct. The GDPR allows and indeed encourages the drawing up of codes of conduct for approval by the appropriate regulatory body - the ICO. Companies that sign up must then be supervised by independent monitoring bodies. This is the co-regulatory approach where the private sector draws up the rules, and the public sector (via the data protection authorities) verifies and approves them. However, the ICO is still ultimately the overseeing regulator and fines remain an option.
• The Information Commissioner’s fining regime is the most effective form of regulation we could hope for. Research shows how well the Information Commissioner’s Office was recognised and its role understood by UK citizens, and that these levels of recognition and understanding had increased significantly since GDPR, rising from 30% in 2019 to 57% today.
• Transparency is another key tenet of the GDPR – meaning transparency and clarity for the individuals whose personal data is being processed for direct marketing purposes. There is a question about how industry co-regulation in one jurisdiction, such as the UK, could have a full and meaningful impact on consumers who are engaging with brands that operate globally.

Many interesting points from the floor followed, but the vote was decisive, and the motion was defeated.

To find out more details about the Debating Group or to attend a debate: Visit our LinkedIn group or view our Twitter account.