Medr’s second consultation on its regulatory framework reminds us both of the comparatively small size of the Welsh tertiary sector, and the sheer ambition – and complexity – of bringing FE, HE, apprenticeships and ACL under one roof.
Back in May, Medr (the official name for the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research in Wales) launched its first consultation on the new regulatory system required by the Tertiary Education and Research Wales Act 2022.
At that stage the sector’s message was that it was too prescriptive, too burdensome, and insufficiently clear about what was mandatory versus advisory.
Now, five months later, Medr has returned with a second consultation that it says addresses those concerns. The documents – running to well over 100 pages across the main consultation text and six annexes – set out pretty much the complete regulatory framework that will govern tertiary education in Wales from August 2026.
It’s much more than a minor technical exercise – it’s the most ambitious attempt to create a unified regulatory system across further education, higher education, apprenticeships, adult community learning and maintained school sixth forms that the UK has yet seen.
As well as that, it’s trying to be both a funder and a regulator; to be responsive to providers while putting students at the centre; and to avoid some of the mistakes that it has seen the Office for Students (OfS) make in England.
Listening and responding
If nothing else, it’s refreshing to see a sector body listening to consultation responses. Respondents wanted clearer signposts about what constitutes a compliance requirement versus advisory guidance, and worried about cumulative burden when several conditions and processes come together.
They also asked for alignment with existing quality regimes from Estyn and the Quality Assurance Agency, and flagged concerns about whether certain oversight might risk universities’ status as non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) – a technical thing, but one with significant implications for institutional autonomy.
Medr’s response has been to restructure the conditions more clearly. Each now distinguishes between the condition itself (what must be met), compliance requirements that evidence the condition, and guidance (which providers must consider but may approach differently if they can justify that choice).
It has also adopted a “make once, use many” approach to information, promising to rely on evidence already provided to Estyn, QAA or other bodies wherever it fits their purpose. And it has aligned annual planning and assurance points with sector cycles “wherever possible.”
The question, of course, is whether this constitutes genuine simplification or merely better-organised complexity. Medr is establishing conditions of registration for higher education providers (replacing Fee and Access Plans), conditions of funding for FE colleges and others, and creating a unified quality framework and learner engagement code that applies across all tertiary education.
The conditions themselves
Some conditions apply universally. Others apply only to registered providers, or only to funded providers, or only to specific types of provision. As we’ve seen in England, the framework includes initial and ongoing conditions of registration for higher education providers (in both the “core” and “alternative” categories), plus conditions of funding that apply more broadly.
Financial sustainability requires providers to have “strategies in place to ensure that they are financially sustainable” – which means remaining viable in the short term (one to two years), sustainable over the medium term (three to five years), and maintaining sufficient resources to honour commitments to learners. The supplementary detail includes a financial commitments threshold mechanism based on EBITDA ratios.
Providers exceeding certain multiples will need to request review of governance by Medr before entering new financial commitments. That’s standard regulatory practice – OfS has equivalent arrangements in England – but it represents new formal oversight for Welsh institutions.
Critically, Medr says its role is “to review and form an opinion on the robustness of governance over proposed new commitments, not to authorise or veto a decision that belongs to your governing body.” That’s some careful wording – but whether it will prove sufficient in practice (both in detail and in timeliness) when providers are required to seek approval before major financial decisions remains to be seen.
Governance and management is where the sector seems to have secured some wins. The language around financial commitments has been softened from “approval” to “review.” The condition now focuses on outcomes – “integrity, transparency, strong internal control, effective assurance, and a culture that allows challenge and learning” – rather than prescribing structures.
And for those worried about burden, registered higher education providers will no longer be required to provide governing body composition, annual returns of serious incidents, individual internal audit reports, or several other elements currently required under Fee and Access Plans. That is a reduction – but won’t make a lot of difference to anyone other than the person stiffed with gathering the sheaf of stuff to send in.
Quality draws on the Quality Framework (Annex C) and requires providers to demonstrate their provision is of good quality and that they engage with continuous improvement. The minimum compliance requirements, evidenced through annual assurance returns, include compliance with the Learner Engagement Code, using learner survey outcomes in quality assurance, governing body oversight of quality strategies, regular self-evaluation, active engagement in external quality assessment (Estyn inspection and/or QAA review), continuous improvement planning, and a professional learning and development strategy.
The framework promises that Medr will “use information from existing reviews and inspections, such as by Estyn and QAA” and “aim not to duplicate existing quality processes.” Notably, Medr has punted the consultation on performance indicators to 2027, so providers won’t know what quantitative measures they’ll be assessed against until the system is already live.
Staff and learner welfare sets out requirements for effective arrangements to support and promote welfare, encompassing both “wellbeing” (emotional wellbeing and mental health) and “safety” (freedom from harassment, misconduct, violence including sexual violence, and hate crime). Providers will have to conduct an annual welfare self-evaluation and submit an annual welfare action plan to Medr. This represents new formal reporting – even if the underlying activity isn’t new.
The Welsh language condition requires providers to take “all reasonable steps” to promote greater use of Welsh, increase demand for Welsh-medium provision, and (where appropriate) encourage research and innovation activities supporting the Welsh language. Providers must publish a Welsh Language Strategy setting out how they’ll achieve it, with measurable outcomes over a five-year rolling period with annual milestones. For providers subject to Welsh Language Standards under the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, compliance with those standards provides baseline assurance. Others must work with the Welsh Language Commissioner through the Cynnig Cymraeg.
Learner protection plans will be required when Medr gives notice – typically triggered by reportable events, course closures, campus closures, or significant changes to provision. The guidance (in the supplementary detail from page 86 onwards) is clear about what does and doesn’t require a plan. Portfolio review and planned teach-out? Generally fine, provided learners are supported. Closing a course mid-year with no teach-out option? Plan required. Whether this offers the sort of protection that students need – especially when changes are made to courses to reduce costs – will doubtless come up in the consultation.
And then there’s the Learner Engagement Code, set out in Annex D. This is where student representative bodies may feel especially disappointed. The Code is principles-based rather than rights-based, setting out nine principles (embedded, valued, understood, inclusive, bilingual, individual and collective, impactful, resourced, evaluated) – but creates no specific entitlements or rights for students or students’ unions.
The principles themselves are worthy enough – learners should have opportunities to engage in decision-making, they should be listened to, routes for engagement should be clear, opportunities should reflect diverse needs, learners can engage through Welsh, collective voice should be supported, engagement should lead to visible impact, it should be resourced, and it should be evaluated. But it does all feel a bit vague.
Providers will have to submit annual assurance that they comply with the Code, accompanied by evidence such as “analysis of feedback from learners on their experience of engagement” and “examples of decisions made as a result of learner feedback.” But the bar for compliance appears relatively low. As long as providers can show they’re doing something in each area, they’re likely to be deemed compliant. For SUs hoping for statutory backing for their role and resources, this will feel like a missed opportunity.
Equality of opportunity is more substantial. The condition requires providers to deliver measurable outcomes across participation, retention, academic success, progression, and (where appropriate) participation in postgraduate study and research. The supplementary detail (from page 105) sets out that providers must conduct ongoing self-evaluation to identify barriers to equality of opportunity, then develop measurable outcomes over a five-year rolling period with annual milestones.
Interestingly, there’s a transition period – in 2026-27, HE providers with Fee and Access Plans need only provide a statement confirming continued commitments. Full compliance – including submission of measurable outcomes – isn’t required until 2027-28, with the first progress reports due in 2028-29. That’s a sensible approach given the sector’s starting points vary considerably, but it does mean the condition won’t bite with full force for three years.
Monitoring and intervention
At the core of the monitoring approach is an Annual Assurance Return – where the provider’s governing body self-declares compliance across all applicable conditions, supported by evidence. This is supplemented by learner surveys, Estyn/QAA reviews, public information monitoring, complaints monitoring, reportable events, data monitoring, independent assurance, engagement activities and self-evaluation.
The reportable events process distinguishes between serious incidents (to be reported within 10 working days) and notifiable events (reported monthly or at specified intervals). There’s 17 categories of serious incidents, from loss of degree awarding powers to safeguarding failures to financial irregularities over £50,000 or two per cent of turnover (whichever is lower). A table lists notifiable events including senior staff appointments and departures, changes to validation arrangements, and delays to financial returns. It’s a consolidation of existing requirements rather than wholesale innovation, but it’s now formalised across the tertiary sector rather than just HE.
Medr’s Statement of Intervention Powers (Annex A) sets out escalation from low-level intervention (advice and assistance, reviews) through mid-level intervention (specific registration conditions, enhanced monitoring) to serious “directive” intervention (formal directions) and ultimately de-registration. The document includes helpful flowcharts showing the process for each intervention type, complete with timescales and decision review mechanisms. Providers can also apply for a review by an independent Decision Reviewer appointed by Welsh Ministers – a safeguard that universities dream of in England.
Also refreshingly, Medr commits to operating “to practical turnaround times” when reviewing financial commitments, with the process “progressing in tandem with your own processes.” A six-week timeline is suggested for complex financing options – although whether this proves workable in practice will depend on Medr’s capacity and responsiveness.
Quality
The Quality Framework (Annex C) deserves separate attention because it’s genuinely attempting something ambitious – a coherent approach to quality across FE, HE, apprenticeships, ACL and sixth forms that recognises existing inspection/review arrangements rather than duplicating them.
The framework has seven “pillars” – learner engagement, learner voice, engagement of the governing body, self-evaluation, externality, continuous improvement and professional learning and development. Each pillar sets out what Medr will do and what providers must demonstrate. Providers will be judged compliant if they achieve “satisfactory external quality assessment outcomes,” have “acceptable performance data,” and are not considered by Medr to demonstrate “a risk to the quality of education.”
The promise is that:
…Medr will work with providers and with bodies carrying out external quality assessment to ensure that such assessment is robust, evidence-based, proportionate and timely; adds value for providers and has impact in driving improvement.
In other words, Estyn inspections and QAA reviews should suffice, with Medr using those outcomes rather than conducting its own assessments. But there’s a caveat:
“Medr has asked Estyn and QAA to consider opportunities for greater alignment between current external quality assessment methodologies, and in particular whether there could be simplification for providers who are subject to multiple assessments.
So is the coordination real or aspirational? The answer appears to be somewhere in between. The framework acknowledges that by 2027, Medr expects to have reviewed data collection arrangements and consulted on performance indicators and use of benchmarking and thresholds. Until that consultation happens, it’s not entirely clear what “acceptable performance data” means beyond existing Estyn/QAA judgements. And the promise of “greater alignment” between inspection methodologies is a promise, not a done deal.
A tight timeline
The key dates bear noting because they’re tight:
- April 2026: Applications to the register open
- August 2026: Register launches; most conditions come into effect
- August 2027: Remaining conditions (Equality of Opportunity and Fee Limits for registered providers) come into full effect; apprenticeship providers fully subject to conditions of funding
After all these years, we seem to be looking at some exit acceleration. It gives providers approximately six months from the consultation closing (17 December 2025) to the application process opening. Final versions of the conditions and guidance presumably need to be published early 2026 to allow preparation time. And all of this is happening against the backdrop of Senedd elections in 2026 – where polls suggest that some strategic guidance could be dropped on the new body fairly sharpish.
And some elements remain unresolved or punted forward. The performance indicators consultation promised for 2027 means providers won’t know the quantitative measures against which they’ll be assessed until the system is live. Medr says it will “consult on its approach to defining ‘good’ learner outcomes” as part of a “coherent, over-arching approach” – but that’s after registration and implementation have begun.
Validation arrangements are addressed (providers must ensure arrangements are effective in enabling them to satisfy themselves about quality), but the consultation asks explicitly whether the condition “could be usefully extended into broader advice or guidance for tertiary partnerships, including sub-contractual arrangements.” That suggests Medr has been reading some of England’s horror stories and recognises the area needs further work.
And underlying everything is the question of capacity – both Medr’s capacity to operate this system effectively from day one, and providers’ capacity to meet the requirements while managing their existing obligations. The promise of reduced burden through alignment and reuse of evidence is welcome.
But a unified regulatory system covering everything from research-intensive universities to community-based adult learning requires Medr to develop expertise and processes across an extraordinary range of provision types. Whether the organisation will be ready by August 2026 is an open question.
For providers, the choice is whether to engage substantively with this consultation knowing that the broad architecture is set by legislation, or to focus energy on preparing for implementation. For Welsh ministers, the challenge is whether this genuinely lighter-touch, more coherent approach than England’s increasingly discredited OfS regime can be delivered without compromising quality or institutional autonomy.
And for students – especially those whose representative structures were hoping for statutory backing – there’s a question about whether principles-based engagement without rights amounts to meaningful participation or regulatory box-ticking.
In England, some observers will watch with interest to see whether Wales has found a way to regulate tertiary education proportionately and coherently. Others will see in these documents a reminder that unified systems, however well-intentioned, require enormous complexity to accommodate the genuine diversity of the sector. The consultation responses, due by 17 December, will expose which interpretation the Welsh sector favours.
