How different is regulation in Wales likely to be from England for tertiary education.

The Tertiary Education and Research Wales Act 2022 sets out the requirements for a new regulatory system for tertiary education and training providers in Wales. Medr, Wales’s Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, is undertaking a consultation seeking views on matters including Medr’s proposed approach, the regulatory framework, the quality framework and the learner engagement code. You can find full details of the consultation here. The consultation is open until 17 December 2025.

Shakespeare Martineau is responding to the consultation as an organisation with an active interest in higher education and one which wishes to see effective regulation across all parts of the sector. If you would like a copy of our fuller consultation analysis to help inform your response please do email paul.greatrix@shma.co.uk.

In this blog we review the various ways in which the consultation suggests regulation in Wales will diverge from that in England.

Approach

The approach being taken is set out in broad terms in the covering note to the consultation and has the following key features:

• Monitoring and oversight is proportionate, risk-based and minimises burden;
• There is a strong focus on learners, including quality, outcomes and learner engagement;
• It aims to regulate in a way which creates the conditions for “trust, stability, collaboration and improvement;”
• Providers can plan for the future and stakeholders can feel confident that public funds are being used appropriately.

There are some significant differences here with the OfS. The key substantive difference is that this regulatory framework covers the whole tertiary sector in Wales (although the recent Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper in England suggests this may be the desired destination there too) but the approach, and the style and tone of the documentation feels much more collegial than its English counterpart.

A different feel

The recognition in Wales that trust, stability and collaboration are preconditions to successful regulation is encouraging. Medr also appears to be more willing to hold itself to account for good regulation. Its commitment to “regulating in a manner that is transparent, proportionate, consistent and risk-based, and aligned with our values.” is to be contrasted with the OfS’s frequent mantra that it is only obliged to have “due regard” to the principles of good regulation. Medr’s approach also seeks to integrate “the strengths of rules-based (compliance) and goal-based (continuous improvement) regulation, with the intention of securing provider compliance and driving forward improvements.”

This also feels refreshing. “As a learning organisation, Medr is committed to continuously evaluating and improving our approach.”

The register

Although the tone is different, Medr also has a register of providers and, like the OfS, has set out a series of initial and ongoing conditions of registration which, interestingly, it says are written in a way which respects institutional autonomy and academic freedom. Again, Medr’s emphasis on actually respecting autonomy, rather than merely having due regard to the need to do so is to be welcomed, but whether this will be delivered in practice remains to be seen.

Efficiency, effectiveness and coherence

There is a “make once, use many” approach to information and data and they have aligned their annual planning and assurance points with sector cycles wherever possible. In addition, Medr is trying to minimise reporting requirements and aiming to engage early and proportionately and be “clear whether a conversation is about assurance (i.e. compliance) or is an advisory, strategic dialogue.”

The initial consultation resulted in a request to separate the compliance baseline for quality from the wider ambition to improve over time which they have done and say that they will use information from QAA to avoid duplication. The framework also has the learner as central to it and has provided greater clarity on finance and governance.

With reportable events the aim is for no surprises and for issues to be resolved before they escalate. A similarly clear aim would be incredibly welcome in England – the OfS’s regulatory advice 16 merely refers to determining if there has been a breach of condition with little emphasis on or encouragement for action to remediate the issues.

The overall aim has been to ensure that the conditions, taken together, read as “a coherent system rather than a patchwork of separate rules.” Anyone who has grappled with English HE’s increasingly unwieldy regulatory architecture will feel a pang reading that description.

Monitoring and intervention

Medr has set out a series of ongoing conditions of registration covering areas such as quality, governance, financial sustainability, learner protection etc, all of which will sound familiar to English institutions. It monitors compliance in a number of ways including for example: annual monitoring and assurance returns; annual financial statements; quality information, including any assessment or inspection reports; published performance data; complaints received; and any serious incident reports. If there is non-compliance then it may intervene in line with a simple flowchart which covers low-level, mid-level and serious ‘directive’ interventions before moving on to end-stage intervention and then removal from the register. Depending on the nature of the intervention required there is then a spectrum of interventions available to Medr.

The regulatory framework

Medr’s regulatory philosophy is:

…guided by a proportionate, risk-based approach that blends the clarity of rules-based regulation with expectations for continuous improvement across tertiary education in Wales.

This is followed by a series of principles and expectations about the framework overall. It is not far removed from its 2022 OfS cousin but generally feels a lot friendlier.

This framework creates a very clear picture of when and how the regulator will intervene in a clear and proportionate way. Again, it remains to be seen whether this will result in a different approach to intervention than we have seen in England, where providers are frequently unclear why they have been selected for intervention and what process the regulator will follow in deciding how to act, and where there is less focus on encouraging compliance.

Quality framework

The principles developed for the quality framework include:

• Provider autonomy and responsibility for quality and standards
• Consistency of learner outcomes
• Robust, risk-based and proportionate
• Co-ordinated approach with other regulators.

Medr then sets out seven pillars which demonstrate quality – these range from learner engagement to externality to governing body engagement. In using external review by the QAA as a core component here Medr has set a very different course to the one currently the subject of consultation by the OfS in England. The approach really does have merit and as well as offering appropriate assurance to Medr and all other stakeholders will focus everyone’s attention on improvement rather than just compliance with a risk of punitive consequences for failure. This really does feel like a model the OfS would be wise to consider.

Learner engagement code

The definition of ‘learner engagement’ here includes opportunities for learners to participate in the making of relevant decisions that affect them. Each of the nine principles of learner engagement is explored in detail before setting out how activities and compliance will be monitored.

This clearly matters to Medr and again this feels a long way from the more limited student involvement requirements embodied in the OfS Framework – a single public interest governance principle.

And finally

Although many of the regulatory components set out by Medr look similar to those under consultation by the OfS in England at the moment, the emphases are very different and the tone is notably more collegial. The proof of the pudding will, of course be in the eating, but we do now have the intriguing prospect of two quite different regulatory approaches running in parallel. It will be interesting to see how much these systems and regulators learn from each other.

Paul Greatrix and Smita Jamdar