We are committed to regulating in accordance with the Better Regulation Executive’s five principles of good regulation. We therefore aim to be: transparent, consistent, proportionate and targeted as we undertake our regulatory role and to be accountable for our actions.

We target our regulatory activities in accordance with our assessment of risks to learners, standards, efficiency and public confidence, while having regard, amongst other matters set out in the Act, to the number of regulated qualifications available and the desirability of facilitating innovation. Our decisions are informed by evidence.

Our approach to regulating AOs is based on the premise that AOs are themselves accountable for the quality and standards of their regulated qualifications.

We will take action that is proportionate to the degree of risk associated with the nature or behaviour of a specific AO or class of AO, the type of regulated qualification in question, the number and type of affected or potentially affected learners and other users of qualifications, and the impact (or potential impact) on standards, public confidence in regulated qualifications, or the efficiency with which such qualifications are provided.

We will act consistently, but this does not mean we will always take the same action in response to similar events. We will consider all the circumstances of a case.  For example, where it appears to us that an AO has failed or is likely to fail to comply with its conditions of recognition, we will take into account all the facts relevant to that AO, including its past compliance history (including whether or not the non-compliant behaviour is a one-off or part of a pattern), whether the AO has identified the issue itself and taken steps to address its behaviour, the AO’s acceptance of responsibility, its co-operation with our investigations, and whether it acted in good faith.

We will be transparent in our approach. We will give reasons for our decisions and report publicly on the regulatory action we take.

In addressing any non-compliance by AOs, our approach will be informed by the Macrory report “Regulatory Justice: Making Sanctions Effective” (November 2006), and in particular the:

• six principles for regulatory compliance, namely that a regulatory action should:

1. aim to change the (potential) non-compliant behaviour in issue,
2. aim to eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance,
3. be responsive and consider what is appropriate for the particular parties involved and regulatory issue,
4. be proportionate to the nature of the non-compliance and the harm caused,
5. aim to restore the harm caused by the regulatory non-compliance, where appropriate, and
6. aim to deter future non-compliance.

• seven characteristics of regulatory action, namely that a regulator should:

1. publish an enforcement policy,
2. measure outcomes not just outputs,
3. justify their choice of enforcement actions year on year to stakeholders, Ministers and Parliament,
4. follow-up enforcement actions where appropriate,
5. enforce in a transparent manner,
6. be transparent in the way in which it applies and determines administrative penalties, and
7. avoid perverse incentives that might influence the choice of regulatory action taken.