Guide to Right Touch Regulation
Traditional regulation often focuses on reactive enforcement after harm occurs.
This approach creates heavy administrative burdens without reducing systemic risk. Leaders must pivot toward agile decision-making frameworks that balance public protection with broader public interest.
Proportional interventions offer a clear path forward. Regulatory bodies can evaluate risk profiles, use optional standards, and build flexible oversight systems. Applying these principles prevents overregulation while preserving resources for critical threats.
Alan Clamp, Chief Executive Officer of the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, joins the platform to share actionable insights. With over twenty-five years of experience across multiple sectors, Alan Clamp provides essential guidance for modern regulatory governance.
THINGS WE SPOKE ABOUT
Defining right touch regulation through proportionality, agility and impact.
Establishing a flexible continuum of assurance for target sectors.
Balancing public protection with broader public interest outcomes.
Shifting from reactive enforcement to preventative regulatory strategy.
Enhancing collaboration across multi-layered safety systems and stakeholders.
GUEST DETAILS
Alan Clamp serves as Chief Executive Officer of the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care in the UK. He oversees the performance of ten regulatory bodies covering more than two million healthcare professionals. Alan Clamp brings over fifteen years of executive experience leading three national regulatory organisations.
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-clamp-14247b110/
QUOTES
Right touch regulation is simply a way of thinking about whether something should be regulated, and if so, how it should be regulated. Alan Clamp
In regulation, we need more carrots and fewer sticks. Alan Clamp
If your regulatory system only tells you about a problem after somebody's been harmed, you're not really regulating the risk. Alan Clamp
KEYWORDS
#RightTouchRegulation #ContinuumOfAssurance #PreventativeRegulation #RegulatoryLeadership
TRANSCRIPTION
For your convenience here is an AI transcription
Alan Clamp 0:00
The real test of regulatory leadership is whether we can move from asking how do we respond when something goes wrong to asking what can we do now to make it less likely to go wrong, and ultimately, that's what right touch regulation is all about:
VO 0:19
Leading. Governing. Impacting. Welcome to Rethinking Regulation with Caroline Conroy and Johanna Morris.
Johanna Morris 0:32
Hi, I'm Johanna. Today we're talking about Right Touch Regulation, which helps regulators choose the most proportionate way to protect the public. I'm absolutely delighted to be joined by my guest today, who's a thought leader in this area. You're very welcome, Alan Clamp.
Alan Clamp 0:47
Thank you very much. Lovely to be here,
Johanna Morris 0:51
Alan. I'm delighted to have you on the podcast. I've wanted to have you on here for a long time. I'm always fascinated by how people come into regulation, so I'd love to ask you about your journey in regulation, and also about your current role as the CEO of the Professional Standards Authority in the UK.
Alan Clamp 1:09
Thank you. Well, actually, my journey into regulation started in the last century. So, we're getting into the kind of 2530-year, period. In terms of my background, I'm a public servant at heart, and I've always been interested in trying to make things work better, whether that's people, organisations, or systems in the public interest. In terms of how I got into regulation, well, in the 1990s, I was working on quality assurance and quality improvement in the education sector, and that led me to become one of Her Majesty's inspectors at Ofsted. So I was inspecting schools, colleges, and children services in local authorities. So that was the beginning, but I've now worked in regulation in both executive and non-executive roles in a range of sectors for over 25 years, and that includes 15 years as the chief executive of three national regulatory bodies. And then finally, in terms of the role of the PSA, although I said I'd led three regulators. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care is not really a regulator; it's an oversight body. So we oversee the performance of 10 regulators of professions in health and social care, who themselves in the UK regulate over 2 million people working in healthcare roles, so you could say we regulate the regulators.
Johanna Morris 2:47
Okay, and it's interesting because we don't have an equivalent body like that in Ireland. So it's interesting to hear about your experience and particularly that oversight role that you have, which is very significant when you're talking about 2 million registrants. That's a lot of people that are being regulated by the regulators that you oversee. I suppose, in terms of what we're talking about today, it seems to me that right touch regulation really sits at the heart of everything that the Professional Standards Authority does. So, I'd love to ask you about what right touch regulation is and what you think it means for regulatory leaders today.
Alan Clamp 3:20
Right touch regulation is simply a way of thinking about whether something should be regulated, and if so, how it should be regulated. So it's fundamentally about proportionality, agility, and impact, and it means using only as much regulatory intervention as necessary to achieve a desired outcome, no more, no less. So this might sometimes mean reducing regulatory activity, or sometimes being more robust, depending on the risk of harm. So very importantly, it's not about being busy regulating; it's about proportionate interventions that make things better, which also sometimes involves stopping doing things if they're not adding much value, or possibly even making things worse. So, for regulatory leaders, it's about asking ourselves a series of questions to aid our regulatory decision making, including what exactly is the problem we're trying to solve, and is regulation the answer or part of the answer? And if the answer to that is yes, what kind of regulation? Because it has to be proportionate to the risk you're facing, and we often talk in the PSA about a continuum of assurance. So, at one end of the scale, if you're going to do some kind of regulation, it could be quite light touch with setting some optional standards. For example, it could involve employer controls. You could have an accredited register, which. Another programme, the PSA run, you could then build that up in terms of intensity to licencing and then full statutory regulation. So that continuum has to flex depending on the risk that you're facing. And then back to that original question: What is the least burdensome intervention that will lead to the desired outcome? And it avoids, therefore, overregulation.
Johanna Morris 5:24
That's really interesting because I think in an Irish context, we probably wouldn't have a well-defined continuum of assurance in the way that you've described there, with the different levels going up. You know, and so we probably tend to have an all-or-nothing approach a lot of the time with the professions. So they either seem to be subject to the highest level of full statutory regulation or no regulation, and I suppose I'm just as a follow up. I'm just wondering, do you think sometimes there's a perception that full statutory regulation is the solution, and maybe if there was more analysis and more thinking, maybe people might come to different views, as you say, around where something needs to stay on that continuum.
Alan Clamp 6:02
Yeah, I think there are two parts in that. One is, as you've said, the awareness that there is something more than just regulation. It's not an all or nothing thing. So, I think one of the most useful questions to ask when people are talking about introducing or changing regulation, particularly those who don't work in the area, politicians and so on who may have the power. What exactly do you mean by regulation? And then, yes, there does tend to be the default to, well, we've encountered a problem, an issue is occurring, and therefore we need the maximum possible regulation that we can get. And it's understandable why people would want that when they introduce it. It's often on the back of something that's gone wrong. It's probably understandable why regulators would want to do that. There's the minimum chance of any comeback on something if you're incredibly thorough, but it can lead to overregulation and it can lead to being too burdensome and getting in the way of other things. So, I mean, by way of a quick example, what if we doubled the standards needed to qualify to be a doctor? For example, you could argue that that would reduce harm. You'd have more competent professionals, but you'd probably have many fewer of them. And actually, ultimately, is that in the public interest? So it is about weighing the pros and cons of regulation, and not just thinking that it is the answer, and very importantly, that it will eliminate risk.
Johanna Morris 7:26
So, I suppose you could be eliminating or mitigating one risk, but possibly inadvertently creating another risk at the same time.
Alan Clamp 7:32
Yeah, I think you nearly always are.
Johanna Morris 7:34
So, it's being aware of that trade-off piece.
VO 7:36
Yeah,
Johanna Morris 7:36
when you're using, and that's where right touch regulation is really important in terms of helping you to assess what way to approach it. I guess
Alan Clamp 7:43
that's right, and and I think that the key thing to remember about right touch regulation is keep it in your mind. It's all about balance.
Johanna Morris 7:51
Yeah, absolutely, balance and proportionality. I think the words that we use very frequently, and I suppose in terms of then applying it and kind of related to what we've just been discussing there, we're moving into then looking at how do we know what needs to be regulated because there's that tendency, as you said, there to say potentially at a political level everything should be regulated or regulation maybe sometimes is seen as a panacea to various ills. So I suppose it's how do we know when we're using or thinking about right touch regulation? Then how do we know what needs to be regulated? Is it a risk appetite issue? Like, how do we apply that then in a practical way?
Alan Clamp 8:29
Yeah, good question. And I think I'll fall back on a tool I use a lot, which is asking myself questions. So, right touch regulation can be summed up in three questions. First of all, and these are the questions to ask in response to your question: Are the risks bad enough to need some sort of intervention? Because we have to tolerate some low-level risks in our daily lives. That's question one. Question two is: Will regulation make a difference, or would it be better fixed by something else? And then question three is: If the answer to the first two is yes, what form of regulation, and that's where we get into that continuum of assurance idea. So it all starts with the question: Are the risks bad enough? And now what this means is that regulators need to assess risks carefully on the basis of the nature of the activity being undertaken, the vulnerability of the people involved, and the context where it's happening, because there may already be good controls in place. Or, in fact, the other thing to bear in mind is there may be controls in place that could be good if they were done properly, because unfortunately, they're not always there. Other relevant factors you might want to consider when deciding whether to regulate or not is the frequency of the activity. If it's happening a lot, the risk of harm or the expectation of harm will go up, and also in some sectors the incentives for non-compliance. I don't think this applies quite so much in education or health, but perhaps in things. Financial services, the incentives for non-compliance, taking big risks for big rewards, could be greater, and that's something else to bear in mind when thinking about regulating. So I've already said that nothing is zero risk, and that's not a realistic regulatory objective. Something that's very important to reinforce with stakeholders. So regulators need to have a clear and transparent level of risk tolerance, and in an ideal world, that will be one that's shared by the public, by governments, and by the media. So we're all agreeing collectively to tolerate a risk. If a regulator does try to eliminate every possible risk, it will inevitably overregulate. It'll burden professionals, it'll burden businesses, and very importantly, it'll divert its own resources away from the most significant risks. So it could ultimately make the system less safe. And one of the things that I say a lot, and sometimes I get an eyebrow raised about this is that regulators need to be aware that there is a difference between public protection and public interest, and right touch regulation is about finding a balance between the two. So if I just elaborate on that, when I say that public interest is not the same as public protection, they do overlap, of course, but one is about being protected from harm, and the other one recognises broader public concerns such as access to services, personal autonomy, and the importance of innovation and economic growth. So, if you get excessive regulation of any service that might protect me in one way, but it might disadvantage me in many others. And sometimes we have to compromise a little bit on public protection in the public interest. And if you get that balance right, it can even enhance public confidence in regulation. So maybe an example might help. In Wales, I think three or four years ago they introduced in the major towns and cities mandatory 20 mile an hour speed limits to protect people from harm. There are fewer accidents, there is less harm occurring. So if you wanted to take that from just a public protection point of view, why wouldn't you impose that everywhere, all the time. In fact, why wouldn't you just ban the cars? Because then that actually is compromising quite significantly the public interest. So it is all about the balance. And the final point I'd make about this is that it's important to emphasise that risks are not static and so need close monitoring, which takes us back to that first question about whether the risks are bad enough for regulatory intervention.
Johanna Morris 12:46
There's a lot to think about there, but I suppose one thing which really jumps out at me is the fact that you know, as you said, the regulators operating in a whatever sector you're in. If you're in health and social care, legal, financial, you know, whichever sector you're in, you're operating in a wider ecosystem. So, do you think that traditionally maybe regulators very much saw their role as just prevention of harm, but didn't maybe appreciate fully the implications or consequences maybe of some of their actions, or should they be moving more into the space of recognising that they are a very significant player in a wider ecosystem, there's ripples coming out from their decisions, and so they need to really, really be thinking very carefully about what they're doing and the potential for different types of harm.
Alan Clamp 13:33
Yes, again, I think there's two things in here. One is what you were talking about-the ripples, the effects of regulatory action in the wider ecosystem, I'm not sure how it works in Ireland, but in the the UK, most of our regulators have to be mindful of the growth duty, so they should consider the economic implications of their actions. It applies more in some sectors than others. So I think traditionally regulators have focused, and I think actually I've got a lot of sympathy with this because this is their primary role on public protection. I think that is the right thing. Whatever you do, don't shift too far from that, but you do need to think about the implications of it. And actually, back to your point about risk trade-off, whether you're actually increasing risks somewhere else. But the other thing that I think regulators need to be generally more aware of is that they're not the only player in the system. So when it comes to something like public protection, I often talk about the lines of defence model that people use in audit circles. So if I use an example of, let's say, a doctor in a hospital, the first line of defence is the professional themselves. That's where the vast majority, 80% plus, of the public protection comes into play. It's the conduct and the competence of the person who is treating you. And then the second line of defence is still local. It's the clinical governance within the hospital. It's the checks and balances of your colleagues and the processes that you have to follow. That's probably covering off well over 95% of the harm prevention, and then regulation only comes in after that. It's a safety net. It's not there 24-seven. It's operating at arm's length, and if regulators know about and are mindful of and collaborate with those other parts of the safety system, it's much more effective.
Johanna Morris 15:22
Absolutely. Well, I am very lensed on risk, so I could ask you about risk for the rest of our time together. But I'm going to force myself to move on at this point, and I'd love to ask you about. You touched on it there in terms of you know ethics and competence, and I suppose personal behaviours of you know individuals in the system, because I think it's interesting when you look at, say, regulation. As you say, it's the last line of defence. Sometimes regulation gets a lot of attention in the context of the more negative type of regulation that's there in terms of after the fact enforcement or complaints management or fitness to practice, whatever it's it's called in whatever sector you're in, and that obviously is very important to have a mechanism there to deal with serious issues. But I suppose you know it seems like regulators have a lot of other levers and tools that they can pull to maybe influence in a more positive way. So I'd love to ask you about that. Like, how does right touch regulation? How is that enabling that shift from maybe the negative model into the more positive model of regulation.
Alan Clamp 16:24
Yes, right touch regulation does encourage that shift primarily because it's more preventative. So, just to elaborate on that, I generally think of negative regulation as that which is focused on a very small minority of regulated professionals or entities, it focuses on what's gone wrong. Its main tools are compliance and enforcement, and it attempts to correct things after the event. But it doesn't correct the harm that's been caused. Although to be fair, it might prevent further harm, and it does, as you said, it does have its place. Sometimes robust enforcement is the answer. The problem is that it tends to be the default option for many regulators, and it is burdensome. It is very expensive. It's largely ineffective as a deterrent, and it's definitely not preventative. Positive regulation, on the other hand, uses tools to prevent harm. So it uses data, intelligence, advice, guidance, and engagement from the regulator to identify and address emerging risks, to build capability, and to improve systems. And it can be highly effective, but it is, in my view, underused by many regulators. My shorthand for this is: in regulation, we need more carrots and fewer sticks. So the optimal approach, as ever, is always about a balance. Is probably to follow the advice of Theodore Roosevelt, although at the time he was talking about U.S. foreign policy, and to quote the former president, speak softly and carry a big stick. That is how regulators should operate generally. And a bonus of this positive approach is that it's likely to result in the regulator being seen as beneficial by the people or the entities that it regulates. There is one catch to this, though, two catches. Sorry, the first is if you are more positive and preventative, then regulatory success is largely silent. Things don't go wrong. It's difficult to claim credit for that. And the other thing is that I think sometimes we, as members of the public and politicians and the media, we like to see enforcement because we feel as if something is being done. But as long as that enforcement is thought through and is robust where it needs to be, you can have a combination of the two. So all I'm recommending is the shift to use more positive tools and not over rely on the negative tools. But I'm not suggesting getting rid of enforcement.
Johanna Morris 19:03
No, I think as you say, there's a balance to everything. Does play an important, very important role, but it's that piece around influencing the positive behaviours and helping people to meet standards. And I suppose particularly as well, reflecting the fact that regulated communities are changing. They're you know different. You might have people in a regulated community who've come in from outside the country, or have different backgrounds, or who have different, you know, understandings of different things. And I suppose it's being live to that and being able to support, you know, your regulated community to meet your standards in whatever way. I'd love to ask you about what you think gets in the way for regulators, for regulatory leaders, what do you think it is that's getting in the way of being fully, genuinely in a preventative space rather than in that reactive after the event space?
Alan Clamp 19:51
Well, one of the first things I think is something you just referred to, which is about helping people to meet standards. Sometimes regulators don't think that that's the. Job. Now, I'm aware that you know there is a sensitivity in regulation that these are not membership organisations; they're not there to serve their registrants. But there is a difference between providing services for regulated entities and actually helping them with advice and guidance to meet standards, because that's in our interest. So that's one shift that might be required for some regulators. But if your regulatory system only tells you about a problem after somebody's been harmed, you're not really regulating the risk. You're just regulating the aftermath. So in the old world where regulators were created and their purpose was defined, we generally lived in an environment of relatively stable sector-based control systems, and the role of regulators was to detect, investigate, and enforce. But in the new world where we live and operate today, we have an environment where we need to be adaptive and data-driven and risk-based, so the role of regulators has shifted since they were created, and the longer ago they're created, probably the more it has shifted. And now we need to work on the basis of anticipation, influence, and prevention, and that old world, new world issue is a particular problem for regulators because they're squeezed between a rock and a hard place. So the rock is the anchor of outdated and possibly prescriptive legislation, which says what they must do and how they must do it, and the hard place is the current risks that we all face that need to be mitigated by regulation. So there is a mismatch between what regulators were set up to do and what they have to do today, and that mismatch is getting bigger with the passage of time, which ultimately brings the possibility that regulators could become or be seen to be becoming ineffective and irrelevant. So back to your point about leaders, leaders of regulators need to move their organisations to first mitigating the risks we face today instead of the risks we faced yesterday, and second to use better things like data and intelligence and positive regulation to prevent harm. So I'll finish with an example. If you think about fitness to practice, for each fitness to practice referral received by a regulator, the response is often limited to investigate, determine fitness to practice, and then remediate and/or sanction, and that's fine. But often, what is missing is the analysis of the whole cohort of fitness to practice cases, and you can use that to identify recurring risks, to investigate underlying causes, to use positive and preventative regulatory interventions to address those causes, and then, of course, very importantly, to monitor if those risks decline. So, as a final point, I would argue that every regulator should have a prevention strategy.
Johanna Morris 23:16
I agree. I think on the fitness to practice side, it does show up very valuable data on a macro scale, looking at an individual basis is limited utility. But would it be? I don't want to put words in your mouth. I'm just wondering what your views are in terms of what, say, if you're an executive leader or if you're on a board of a regulator that's regulating professionals, would you be expecting a dashboard in terms of you know length of time cases are at hearing or at the types of risks that are being presented. It'd just be great to kind of understand a bit more about your perspective on those things because I think they are issues that regulators are grappling with in Ireland at the moment in terms of you know what does good look like in that space.
Alan Clamp 23:54
Yeah, I think there's a difference there between operational performance, in which case yes, you are looking at the number of cases you've got, how long they take, how much they cost, that sort of thing. So a regulator obviously needs to be managing that, but more important is the impact. So if you are on a board or a council of a regulator, as well as having that dashboard of operational performance and looking at trends and patterns and direction of travel, you should be thinking about, for example, on fitness to practice. Why does this keep happening? If it does keep happening, why do we have the same cases? Why have we got the same number of cases now as we had 10 years ago? What more can we do to stop the flow coming in through the front door, and therefore enhance the conduct and the competence of the professionals we regulate. So I would argue that you need to have both of those. The impact is more important, but obviously, if you've got the system right, that operational performance is over time leading to a better impact.
Johanna Morris 24:55
Absolutely, I think in terms of, I mean, again, fitness practice as a whole topic. Could probably discuss for a full day by itself. So try and move myself away from it because it's tempting to get lost in it sometimes for myself. But you talked a couple of times about you know the importance of recognising you're not the only player, and also about the fact that regulators are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They've got probably older legislation. It was probably passed before AI was a thing, before various other societal changes happened that are impacting regulators now in the real world, so we'd love to ask you about the importance of agility for regulators. You know, in terms of being able to adapt and respond to what feels like an incredibly fast-paced external environment at the moment.
Alan Clamp 25:40
Well, as I said previously, risks change, so regulation has to change, and agility is critical to protect us from harm. And regulators now need to be so much more agile than they did five or 10 years ago. So the pace of change is increasing; the agility needs to increase because we're not keeping up with the risks. This does not mean abandoning due process. It doesn't mean ignoring the better regulation principle of consistency. And agility is definitely not about being less rigorous, but it is about reducing the time between seeing a problem and responding intelligently to it, and you mentioned about working with others. So, in terms of collaboration, no man is an island. Regulators, as I've said, work alongside numerous organisations, often with a shared interest in protecting the public. These might be governments, employers, professional associations, and definitely other regulators. So, if regulation is going to be really effective, which is about maximising impacts and minimising burdens, it is best done collaboratively, and that can often be synergistic. And we can see that, for example, in the world of the PSA with our approach to accredited registers because that's essentially a voluntary regulatory scheme. But if in places we get employer requirements for professionals to be on an accredited register, then you can't work in that area without being on it, and it makes registration pretty much mandatory. So it can work quite effectively. I should mention, actually, on the theme of collaboration, that the latest version of Right Touch Regulation, which was published in October 25, does have a section in the document on ways to improve collaboration, which people might be interested in looking at.
Johanna Morris 27:38
I think people will definitely check that out because I think collaboration is something everyone aspires to, but sometimes it can be challenging in your day-to-day work when there's so much going on to give enough time maybe to it. But as you say, it's such a critical feature. I think we probably know what poor collaboration looks like. It's probably a regulator that's maybe a bit siloed and isn't fully in touch with what's going on around it, what's the hallmarks of good collaboration look like for you? Or even if you had an example of good collaboration in practice, because again, for regulators, I'm keen for them to try and think about it and apply it on a day to day basis.
Alan Clamp 28:13
I have yes encountered many models of collaboration. If I start at the bottom end where it is not effective is when it feels like you're collaborating because you meet regularly. Lots of people sit around a table, they share their problems, they probably feel better about that and go away, but nothing much gets done. Where it tends to work really well is when regulators or regulators with others work together on particular issues, and so ultimately, if you're trying to foster collaboration, I think the primary thing has to be shared goals, because it's nobody's job, in effect, usually to collaborate, and therefore collaboration is extra work. It's something more you have to do. But if it helps you to achieve your goals more effectively, and the other party's goals more effectively, and they do add together, as I say, synergistically. And two plus two equals five. Then that is where collaboration can work really effectively.
Johanna Morris 29:12
Absolutely. And do you think it's important for that message to come from the top of the regulator? Because you might sometimes have units of the regulator that are good. I'm just wondering about if the message isn't coming from the top around the expectation of collaboration, or even the question being asked at board or council level. You know, who have we collaborated with on this? You know, I'm just wondering what your your perspective is. It from a leadership perspective.
Alan Clamp 29:33
Definitely, I think from a leadership perspective, a lot of messages, but particularly ones like that where you're encouraging it throughout the whole of the organisation, and also you're encouraging sensible sharing of data and information because people are often very risk averse about that. It's a message which definitely has to come from the top, and it also has to be repeated often.
Johanna Morris 29:55
Okay, well, look, we've covered a lot of ground there, and I have to say it's a lot of food for thought. In terms of kind of, I'm thinking of you know people going back to their desks and having lots of issues coming across their desks and thinking about different priorities. I'd love for people to have something to think about. You know, like what should I start doing, what should I stop doing, and what should I keep doing. So I'm just wondering if you have any advice for them.
Alan Clamp 30:19
I'll certainly try. This might be a good way, actually, to summarise the key messages in right touch regulation and its implications for leadership of regulators. I should say my view is that most regulators are doing a good job, so I could just put a long list in the keep doing category. But for the purposes of this podcast, I'll force myself just to try to separate these points out and try to to cluster them into the start, stop, and keep with roughly equal numbers. So, in terms of what regulators should start doing, I would say, and this doesn't mean that they're not doing it by any means. I would say start accepting some risk. The more we gold plate and chase zero risk-the less effective our work overall. And as I said previously, risk aversion distracts our efforts and resources for more urgent matters. I would also say start focusing more on prevention, not tidying up after the harm has occurred. I talked about every regulator having a regulatory strategy and a preventative strategy, and finally, I would say start making better use of data intelligence and, with care, AI to improve the impact of regulation. Most regulators, and I'd include the PSA in that, even though technically we're not a regulator, sit on top of a lot of information, and we barely have the time that we need to go through it and look for those patterns and trends. But it is something we should be doing more. Turning to stopping, regulators should stop using enforcement as their primary tool, and those positive regulatory tools of information, advice, and guidance are more effective and more preventative. Stop measuring performance on the basis of activity. So, good regulation is not about being busy; it's about having a positive impact. And picking up on a theme we've just been talking about, stop operating in isolation. People, real people like you and I experience systems, so regulation should reflect these systems. We need better alignment and harmonisation and collaboration, as mentioned previously. And then finally, with the keep doing, regulators should keep engaging with those that they regulate, I think an argument can be made for engagement being the most powerful regulatory tool. Explain what you do and why you do it, and as we've touched on today, support people to meet standards. Keep demonstrating agility. Avoid regulating yesterday's problems. Address today's harms and risks of harms, and of course start planning for tomorrow's. And then finally, keep using effective regulatory models. And the best place you predict me to say this would be with right touch regulation.
Johanna Morris 33:18
Okay, thanks, Alan. That's a lot for people to reflect on, and I think, as you say, there's some really good resources there on the Professional Standards Authority website. There's the 2025 Right Touch Regulation, and there's also, I think, other you know publications on specific issues as well that people can access if they want to read into it a bit more. At this stage, Alan, we've done a bit of a whistle stop tour through Right Touch Regulation and kind of current issues that you see. So I just love to ask you: Do you have any kind of final reflections or thoughts that you'd like to share?
Alan Clamp 33:49
Yes, I'm conscious that my sort of you know final summary thoughts, things for people to take away, was quite a long list, as you pointed out. So let's try be a bit more succinct. So for me, the real test of regulatory leadership is whether we can move from asking how do we respond when something goes wrong to asking what can we do now to make it less likely to go wrong. So that's the shift from reactive regulation to genuinely preventative regulation, and ultimately that's what right touch regulation is all about.
Johanna Morris 34:25
Okay, well, thank you so much, Alan. I have to say, I really could talk to you all day about right touch regulation and your practical experience in terms of the oversight that the PSA is bringing. But I think we'll have to leave it there for today. Thank you so much for your time and also for your generosity in terms of sharing your expertise with us, it's been an absolute pleasure. Alan Clamp, CEO of the Professional Standards Authority.
Alan Clamp 34:49
Thank you.
VO 34:52
Thank you for listening to our podcast today. If you would like to find out more about what we covered in this episode, you'll find notes, links, and. In the description area of this podcast. Do remember to press follow for our show so you get the next episode automatically. Also, please do share with a friend who you think would find it interesting. Just tell them to search for "Rethinking Regulation" on their podcast app. Our podcast today was produced by Dustpod.io. Until next time, thank you for listening.