Consultation outcome

Analysis: Introducing principles into the General Conditions of Recognition​

Updated 4 September 2025

Summary

Ofqual proposed to introduce a new Condition, referred to as the Principles Condition, into the General Conditions of Recognition. 

The proposed Principles Condition contained 6 overarching principles that reflect the underlying expectations that exist in the General Conditions. It also explained how the principles should be interpreted and how they relate to the existing General Conditions. 

We also proposed to introduce statutory guidance to support the Principles Condition to help awarding organisations understand the principles. 

Across all respondents, there was general support for what the Principles Condition requires, and recognition that the principles it contains reflect appropriate standards and behaviours to expect of awarding organisations. Respondents agreed that, for example, awarding organisations acting with honesty and integrity and treating Learners fairly are the right things to do.

Awarding organisations and their representatives had concerns about how the Principles Condition will work and how the principles it contains would be incorporated into Ofqual’s regulatory framework, including:

• how to interpret them consistently, particularly where subjective language is used
• the interaction between Principles Condition and the existing General Conditions
• how to measure and evidence compliance with the Principles Condition, including as part of the annual statement of compliance
• how the Principles Condition will be used in enforcement
• the potential for increased regulatory burden

Some respondents suggested alternative approaches to implementing the Principles Condition, including updating existing General Conditions and/or statutory guidance.

Background

Ofqual consulted on introducing a new Condition (referred to as the Principles Condition) within its General Conditions.

The proposed Principles Condition contained 6 overarching principles and explained how these principles should be interpreted. The proposed principles were:

• Principle 1 – An awarding organisation must act with honesty and integrity
• Principle 2 – An awarding organisation must treat Learners fairly by acting and taking decisions with due impartiality and based on appropriate evidence
• Principle 3 – An awarding organisation must ensure that each qualification that it makes available, or proposes to make available is, and continues to be, fit for the purposes for which it is intended
• Principle 4 – An awarding organisation must act in a way that maintains and, where possible, promotes public confidence in qualifications
• Principle 5 – An awarding organisation must act in an open, transparent and co-operative manner with Ofqual and, as appropriate, with Users of qualifications
• Principle 6 – An awarding organisation must conduct its activities with a proactive approach to compliance with its Conditions of Recognition

To help awarding organisations understand the Principles Condition, we also consulted on introducing statutory guidance for each of the principles, as well as overarching statutory guidance to support the Principles Condition itself. 

The consultation was open for responses between 6 November 2024 and 12 February 2025. It received 49 responses.

Approach to analysis

The consultation on the introduction of the Principles Condition into the General Conditions was published on Ofqual’s website. It was available online and consisted of closed and open questions. 

One of the closed questions allowed respondents to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the proposals. This question used a 5-point scale (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree and strongly disagree). This was followed by an open question inviting comments.

There were also closed questions asking respondents if they had any views on each of the proposed principles and their supporting guidance, as well as the wording of the Principles Condition and its supporting guidance. For each of these closed questions, respondents were asked to respond with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Each of these questions was followed by an open question inviting comments.

The equality impact assessment and regulatory impact assessment  sections each included a closed question asking respondents if there were any impacts of the proposals that Ofqual had not identified. Respondents were asked to respond with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. These were followed by open questions where respondents could identify any impacts on equalities or regulatory considerations. Respondents were also invited to offer suggestions on ways to reduce or mitigate any impacts.

Respondents could choose which questions to respond to in the consultation. They did not have to respond to them all. This analysis provides tables setting out the responses to each of the closed questions, including where respondents chose not to answer. 

Respondents were asked to identify which group they belonged to, for example: awarding organisation, teacher or student. The total numbers for each respondent group are set out in the table below, based on these descriptions. The tables use these unverified self-descriptions. 

All responses to the open questions have been read in full. The key themes that emerged are presented in the detailed analysis below.

Some respondents gave similar answers to multiple questions. Because our analysis is structured question-by-question, and reflects the answers respondents gave, some issues and themes are repeated under different questions. 

Who responded?

There were 49 responses to the consultation. The following tables present the number of respondents by type.

Official organisational responses	Number of respondents
Awarding organisation	32
Other representative or interest group	4
Other	1
Total	37

Individual responses	Number of respondents
Awarding organisation employee	4
Employer	1
Private training provider employee	2
Senior leadership team member	1
Student	1
Other	3
Total	12

Detailed analysis

Question 1
Do you have any comments on Principle 1 (An awarding organisation must act with honesty and integrity) or the supporting guidance?

Question 1 response	Count
Yes	40
No	8
Not answered	1

Forty respondents commented on this principle and its guidance.

Twenty-four respondents (20 organisations and 4 individuals) made comments expressing support for Principle 1, some of these also raised challenges or concerns as part of their comments:

• 14 awarding organisations and a representative group commented on the importance of honesty and integrity to good practice in the sector. They said they are fundamental to what they do, and it is right for awarding organisations to act in this way, to maintain trust and public confidence in qualifications, and safeguard the interests of learners and other stakeholders.
• 3 awarding organisations and 2 individuals said the proposals had the potential to bring about positive changes, including a more consistent and accountable system, and ensure alignment across the sector.
• 3 awarding organisations commented that the Principles Condition would provide clearer guidance about awarding organisations’ obligations and help improve overall trust in the qualifications system.

Fourteen respondents (13 awarding organisations and one individual) suggested additional guidance, or amendments to the guidance that would further explain key terms and Ofqual’s approach to enforcement.

Fifteen awarding organisations and 2 individuals commented on overlap between this principle and other General Conditions. Of these, one also commented that many of the indicators in the guidance are also covered by General Conditions. 

Three awarding organisations also said the duplication between this principle and other General Conditions would create regulatory burden. 

Seventeen respondents (15 awarding organisations, a representative group and an individual) commented that this principle and guidance lacked clarity and was subjective in nature. This included 5 awarding organisations who said the principle and the terms honesty and integrity were broad and subjective, and that the indicators in the guidance could be open to interpretation. They suggested this could risk differences in interpretation between awarding organisations, and between awarding organisations and Ofqual.

Twelve respondents (11 awarding organisations and a representative group) commented on the potential difficulty of measuring and evidencing compliance with this principle. Some of these related to concerns above, about the principle being subjective. Awarding organisations wanted to know how they would be expected to evidence meeting this principle, beyond demonstrating compliance with existing Conditions. Awarding organisations also queried how Ofqual would measure degrees of non-compliance. They said measuring compliance would require an understanding of the intent behind an awarding organisation’s actions, which may be difficult to measure or evidence.

Three awarding organisations asked for clarity about enforcing the Principles Condition, and how it would relate to Ofqual’s Taking Regulatory Action policy. 

Four awarding organisations made comments relating to the potential impact on awarding organisations and their staff of being found to have acted without honesty or integrity. They said a finding of dishonesty was potentially damaging for an awarding organisation and its staff and may feel like a personal slight for staff.

Four awarding organisations commented on the impact of this principle on third parties with whom they had arrangements. They queried the extent to which an awarding organisation would be responsible for monitoring third parties, and how far an awarding organisation’s responsibilities extended into activities carried out by third parties.

Question 2
Do you have any comments on Principle 2 (An awarding organisation must treat Learners fairly by acting and taking decisions with due impartiality and based on appropriate evidence) or the supporting guidance?

Question 2 response	Count
Yes	39
No	10

Thirty-nine respondents (27 awarding organisations, 3 representative groups, one other organisation and 8 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. 

Seventeen respondents (11 awarding organisations, 3 representative groups and 3 individuals) made comments which were supportive of this principle. Awarding organisations said ensuring decisions are based on appropriate evidence is vital to maintaining trust in the qualifications system. They welcomed that the guidance recognised that fairness is not just about individual Learners but also considers the wider cohort, including past and future Learners. 

Nine awarding organisations and an individual commented on the proposed guidance, suggesting amendments or additions. These included requests for practical examples and positive indicators of an organisation meeting this principle.

Sixteen respondents (13 awarding organisations, a representative body and 2 individuals) commented on overlap or repetition between this principle and the General Conditions, saying fairness is already strongly embedded in several General Conditions. They said the principle and guidance would not provide additional benefit or clarity to what already exists. 

Ten respondents (9 awarding organisations and an individual) made comments about a perceived lack of clarity and the subjective nature of the principle.

Eight awarding organisations and a representative body commented on risks relating to differences of opinion about what is considered fair in all instances. An awarding organisation commented that perceptions of fairness can be impacted by the passing of time, and that where issues are identified after the fact, determining fair actions can be complex.

Four awarding organisations and a representative body made comments about the difficulty of evidencing or measuring compliance with this principle and queried how Ofqual would ensure fairness was appropriately and consistently measured.

Four awarding organisations made comments relating to the application of this principle alongside Ofqual’s guidance on making changes to incorrect results. They queried whether that guidance would be updated to reflect this principle. 

Question 3
Do you have any comments on Principle 3 (An awarding organisation must ensure that each qualification that it makes available, or proposes to make available is, and continues to be, fit for the purposes for which it is intended) or the supporting guidance?

Question 3 response	Count
Yes	37
No	12

Thirty-seven respondents (27 awarding organisations, 3 representative groups and 7 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. 

Eight respondents (7 awarding organisations and one individual) made comments indicating general support for this principle. These included 5 awarding organisations and a representative body who commented on the importance of this principle for ensuring the quality of qualifications and their ongoing fitness for purpose.

One individual and 3 awarding organisations made comments about the importance of this principle for employers, stakeholders and other Users of qualifications. 

Some respondents, while supporting the principle, commented on challenges it might pose. Three awarding organisations said they supported the focus on ensuring qualifications are fit for purpose at every stage of their lifecycle, but that there were significant overlaps with existing General Conditions. They said this could be burdensome for awarding organisations and questioned the necessity of a separate principle. Four awarding organisations suggested additions or amendments to the proposed guidance which they said may clarify aspects of fitness for purpose which are important for awarding organisations to consider.

Two awarding organisations commented on difficulties in ensuring fitness for purpose on an ongoing basis, as the principle does not consider how a qualification may be used in practice, regardless of how an awarding organisation intends or expects it to be. They said awarding organisations may not always have complete control over this, either because it is being used differently to how it is intended, or because rules with which it must comply limit the control an awarding organisation has in ensuring fitness for purpose.

Twenty-four respondents (21 awarding organisations, a representative group and 2 individuals) commented on overlap and duplication between this principle and the General Conditions, particularly General Condition D1 (Fitness for purpose of qualifications). Those who commented perceived the only difference to be the addition in the principle of fitness for purpose being maintained “for as long as the awarding organisation continues to make that qualification available”. 

Respondents were concerned the duplication could cause confusion rather than bring about an improvement in practice and could create additional burden for awarding organisations.

Many of those who commented on duplication between this principle and the General Conditions went on to suggest alternative ways in which the expectations behind this principle could be set out, such as by adding new statutory guidance or amending the existing Condition D1. This included 15 awarding organisations, a representative group and 2 individuals.

Four awarding organisations made comments about how compliance with this principle would be measured and evidenced. They requested further information about how the principle would be monitored and enforced, and how awarding organisations would be expected to demonstrate compliance.

Question 4
Do you have any comments on Principle 4 (An awarding organisation must act in a way that maintains and, where possible, promotes public confidence in qualifications) or the supporting guidance?

Question 4 response	Count
Yes	36
No	13

Thirty-six respondents (26 awarding organisations, 3 representative groups and 7 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. 

Ten respondents (7 awarding organisations and 3 individuals) made comments supporting this principle and the need for awarding organisations to maintain public confidence in qualifications. Of these, 4 awarding organisations commented that trust in the qualifications system is crucial to learners, employers and society.

Nine awarding organisations and a representative body commented on the lack of positive indicators in the proposed guidance. They said the guidance focused on what an awarding organisation should do to not diminish public confidence, rather than positive actions it should take to maintain or promote public confidence. They asked whether not doing the things that were indicated as negative, and which might diminish public confidence, was sufficient to demonstrate they were maintaining public confidence. Awarding organisations suggested providing best practice or positive indicators of how to demonstrate the maintenance or promotion of public confidence. 

Sixteen respondents (13 awarding organisations, a representative group and 2 individuals) commented on repetition or overlap between this principle and the General Conditions. 

Six respondents (5 awarding organisations and an individual) commented on the interaction between this principle and the others being proposed. 

Twelve respondents (10 awarding organisations, a representative group and an individual) commented on the extent to which this principle overlaps with Ofqual’s statutory objective to promote public confidence in regulated qualifications. They queried how an individual awarding organisation could be expected to promote public confidence in qualifications overall. 

Seven awarding organisations asked how an awarding organisation would be expected to evidence or measure compliance with this principle. They requested further information or guidance, including about how Ofqual would determine whether this principle had been met. Two awarding organisations queried, given the perceived overlap with the General Conditions, whether a breach of a Condition would automatically cause an awarding organisation to be non-compliant with this principle.

Four respondents (2 awarding organisations, a representative group and an individual) commented on the potential burden of this principle on awarding organisations.

Question 5
Do you have any comments on Principle 5 (An awarding organisation must act in an open, transparent and co-operative manner with Ofqual and, as appropriate, with Users of qualifications) or the supporting guidance?

Question 5 response	Count
Yes	36
No	13

Thirty-six respondents (27 awarding organisations, 3 representative groups and 6 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. 

Nine awarding organisations made comments which supported the purpose of this principle in general because they said they understood and supported the need for openness, transparency and co-operation. Another said that while further guidance should be provided, the principle of openness is a worthy one. Three awarding organisations commented that embedding a culture of collaboration and accountability is essential for maintaining trust and ensuring the effective regulation and delivery of qualifications. 

Two awarding organisations and a representative group commented on the importance of this principle for helping learners, users and other stakeholders. 

Thirteen respondents (12 awarding organisations and a representative group) commented on the requirement to provide information to Ofqual and requested clarity on the scope of this requirement or the information that an awarding organisation would be expected to provide. These comments related to the guidance that an awarding organisation should “…seek to provide information to us [Ofqual] which it considers Ofqual is likely to want to have for the fulfilment of its functions, even where Ofqual is not aware of the existence of that information.” 

Seven awarding organisations said it could be challenging to understand what is required by Ofqual, leading to unnecessary information sharing. Three awarding organisations and a representative body said it appeared awarding organisations would need to anticipate in advance what information Ofqual might require, and that this was an unreasonable expectation. Four awarding organisations suggested guidance might help with this concern.

Six awarding organisations requested further guidance, or amendments to the proposed guidance to support their understanding. 

Three awarding organisations and a representative group queried how compliance with this principle would be evidenced or measured. 

Eighteen respondents (14 awarding organisations, a representative group and 3 individuals) commented on repetition or overlap with the General Conditions or its guidance. 

Nine awarding organisations and a representative group commented on overlap between this principle and others being proposed, in particular Principle 1 (honesty and integrity). They questioned, given this, whether there was a need for a standalone principle. 

Seven awarding organisations and a representative group suggested alternative ways in which this principle could be implemented, including as statutory guidance to General Condition B4 or as a foreword to the General Conditions. 

Four awarding organisations commented that this principle was subjective or open to interpretation. 

Three awarding organisations and an individual commented on what they saw as the broad scope of this principle.

Three awarding organisations commented on the need for clarity about how an awarding organisation should balance being open and transparent and providing information, with ensuring confidentiality and maintaining commercial sensitivity.

Question 6
Do you have any comments on Principle 6 or the supporting guidance?

Question 6 response	Count
Yes	34
No	15

Thirty-four respondents (27 awarding organisations, one representative group, and 6 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. 

Seven awarding organisations commented that they support the intention or spirit of this principle, and its emphasis on proactive compliance with Ofqual’s rules. Three respondents (one individual and 2 awarding organisations) expressed support for the guidance to this principle.

Thirteen respondents (one individual and 12 awarding organisations) also commented on perceived overlap with or repetition of other General Conditions of Recognition. Eight awarding organisations also commented that they felt this principle added little value to the existing General Conditions of Recognition. 

Two awarding organisations also commented on potential overlap with other proposed principles (Principle 5 and Principle 1). 

Four awarding organisations suggested specific areas where additional guidance might be helpful.

Four awarding organisations commented on specific challenges with implementing this principle, including how it might work in relation to Ofqual’s monitoring and enforcement, and difficulties evidencing compliance.

Ten awarding organisations suggested alternative approaches to implementing Principle 6, including suggesting updating the existing General Conditions of Recognition and/or associated statutory guidance and incorporating this principle into Principle 5.

Question 7
Are there any principles you would expect to see but which have not been proposed?

Question 7 response	Count
Yes	6
No	42
Not answered	1

Seven respondents (3 individuals, 3 awarding organisations and one representative organisation) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. They suggested the following additional principles or issues that could be covered by the Principles Condition:

• meaningful employer and industry engagement for technical and vocational qualifications and that awarding organisations should review the impact of qualifications (looking at achievement rates, progression and Centre performance)
• awarding organisations should be resilient, and actively take steps to minimise risks to delivery of exams and marks, with the aim of ensuring that students get fair results in time
• more transparency in the setting of grade boundaries
• financial fairness and operating principles
• Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
• the links between the Principles Condition and Ofqual’s strategy
• value for money or decisions taken to increase assessment fees – noting that this was particularly important in the context of publicly-funded organisations purchasing qualifications

Question 8
Do you have any comments on the Principles Condition which will be used to incorporate the principles into Ofqual’s General Conditions of Recognition?

Question 8 response	Count
Yes	26
No	23

Twenty-six respondents (20 awarding organisations, and 6 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. 

Eleven respondents (8 awarding organisations and 3 individuals) commented on duplication or repetition of other General Conditions and suggested this created additional complexity within the regulatory framework.

Seven respondents (6 awarding organisations and one individual) also questioned how the Principles Condition might be enforced. Concerns included the potential for inconsistent enforcement, and the potential for ‘doubling up’ of enforcement action if a breach of another General Condition automatically led to a breach of the Principles Condition.

Four awarding organisations expressed concerns about the perceived subjectivity of the Principles Condition, and how this might make compliance difficult to measure. 

Four respondents (2 awarding organisations, one awarding organisation employee and one other individual) also raised concerns about regulatory burden, particularly in the context of the annual statement of compliance. In addition, one further awarding organisation commented that it was difficult to forecast longer-term impacts of the proposals without a better understanding of what would be required to evidence compliance.

Comments supportive of the proposed Principles Condition included one awarding organisation who felt it provided a “clear and structured framework for compliance” and another awarding organisation who understood the need to include the Principles Condition within the General Conditions “for completeness”.

Five awarding organisations suggested alternative approaches to implementing the principles or achieving the aims of the Principles Condition, including updating the other General Conditions instead of introducing the Principles Condition, or introducing the principles as guidance, rather than a new General Condition.

Question 9
Do you have any comments on the proposed statutory guidance to the Principles Condition?

Question 9 response	Count
Yes	22
No	26
Not answered	1

Twenty-four respondents (20 awarding organisations and 4 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question.

Views on the proposed statutory guidance were mixed. 

Three awarding organisations commented that they had no concerns with the proposed guidance. Two awarding organisations went further, expressing support for the guidance.

Four awarding organisations commented that the guidance was potentially confusing, with one awarding organisation commenting that some of the proposed statutory guidance would be difficult to interpret, measure and implement.

Several respondents commented that the proposed statutory guidance could be improved with the inclusion of more worked examples, greater use of positive indicators and more guidance on the interaction between the Principles Condition and the other general conditions.

Other comments in response to this question included:

• 2 awarding organisations who commented on the risk of a ‘cascade effect’ of failures to meet multiple principles, given how the principles interlink
• 2 awarding organisations commenting that the guidance was – or risked being – ambiguous

Question 10
Are there any other aspects of the Principles Condition for which you consider guidance to be necessary and if so, what are these?

Question 10 response	Count
Yes	8
No	39
Not answered	2

Eight respondents (6 awarding organisations and 2 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. These included:

• 2 awarding organisations who sought further clarity on how awarding organisations might demonstrate or evidence compliance, particularly in the context of the annual statement of compliance
• 2 awarding organisations who made general requests for additional guidance

Question 11
To what extent do you agree or disagree with Ofqual’s proposals to introduce these principles into the regulatory framework? Please provide any comments.

Question 11 response	Awarding organisations	Awarding organisation employee	Other organisations	Other personal responses	Total
Strongly Agree	2	1	1	5	9
Agree	8	0	1	0	9
Neither agree nor disagree	5	0	1	2	8
Disagree	10	1	0	0	11
Strongly disagree	7	2	1	1	11
Not answered	0	0	1	0	1

Views on the proposal to introduce the Principles Condition into the regulatory framework were mixed, with 22 respondents either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the proposals and 18 either agreeing or strongly agreeing. Views from awarding organisations and their employees were more negative overall, with 20 disagreeing or strongly disagreeing versus 11 agreeing or strongly agreeing. Other respondents were more positive about the proposals, with 7 agreeing or strongly agreeing and only 2 disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.

Thirty-nine respondents (28 awarding organisations, 3 other organisations, and 8 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question.

Supportive comments included: 

• 3 respondents (2 awarding organisations and 1 awarding organisation employee) commented that the proposals enhanced clarity of Ofqual’s expectations
• 3 awarding organisations commented that the proposals acted to codify existing expectations

Eleven awarding organisations also said they agreed with the intent behind the Principles Condition and that the principles reflected the behaviours and standards expected of awarding organisations.

However, while positive about the intent behind the Principles Condition, these awarding organisations did not support their introduction, citing concerns such as the perceived overlap with the existing General Conditions, potential regulatory burden and subjective nature of the Principles Condition.

These concerns were echoed by other respondents. 22 respondents (19 awarding organisations, 2 awarding organisation employees and one individual) said that the Principles Condition duplicated or overlapped with existing requirements in Ofqual’s General Conditions.

Twelve respondents (10 awarding organisations, one awarding organisation employee, and one individual) raised concerns about potential regulatory burden, or how awarding organisations would be expected to evidence compliance.

Nine awarding organisations commented on the subjective nature of the Principles Condition. 

Eight awarding organisations raised concerns about how the Principles Condition might be enforced.

Several respondents suggested alternatives to introducing the Principles Condition, including updating the existing General Conditions and/or supporting statutory guidance instead of introducing the principles as a new layer of regulation.

Question 12
Do you have any other comments about the introduction of the principles which you have not yet made?

Question 12 response	Count
Yes	13
No	35
Not answered	1

Thirteen respondents (11 awarding organisations and 2 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question.

Three awarding organisations commented on the need for clarity around how they should evidence compliance, including through the annual statement of compliance.

Two respondents (one awarding organisation and one individual) commented that Ofqual needed to consider and make clear how it will monitor and enforce compliance with the Principles Condition.

Two awarding organisations queried whether regulators in Wales and Northern Ireland were considering adopting similar principles and commented on the desirability of maintaining a consistent regulatory framework across the 3 countries.

Two awarding organisations suggested the Principles Condition should not be introduced as General Conditions.

Equality impact

As a public body, Ofqual is subject to the public sector equality duty. The consultation considered whether these proposals might impact (positively or negatively) on students who share protected characteristics.

The relevant protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

Question 13
Are there other potential equality impacts that have not been identified? If yes, what are they?

Question 13 response	Count
Yes	4
No	43
Not answered	2

Four respondents (2 individuals and 2 awarding organisations) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. Comments included wider impacts that go beyond protected characteristics, as well as issues outside the scope of the consultation.

One awarding organisation commented that organisations having to redirect time and resources to implement the Principles Condition may result in a disadvantage for learners outside of the standard general qualifications system, many of whom have disabilities.

An individual commented that where Conditions are subjective, they will disadvantage neurodivergent learners.

Question 14
If you have identified any negative impacts of these proposals, do you have any suggestions for how those potential negative impacts on particular groups of Learners could be mitigated?

Question 14 response	Count
Yes	11
No	33
Not answered	4

Eleven respondents (6 awarding organisations, one awarding organisation employee and 4 other individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. As with the previous question, some comments included wider impacts beyond protected characteristics, as well as issues outside the scope of the consultation.

Four awarding organisations suggested reviewing the existing General Conditions. 

Three respondents (2 other individuals and one awarding organisation) referred to the use of subjective terminology and suggested that it should be removed. 

Regulatory impact

Question 15
Are there any regulatory impacts that have not been identified arising from the proposals? If yes, what are they?

Question 15 response	Count
Yes	24
No	25

Twenty-four respondents (19 awarding organisations, 2 representative groups, and 3 individuals) provided comments in support of their answer to this question. Some of these responses repeated or provided views on areas discussed elsewhere in the consultation.

Four awarding organisations and an individual commented that any changes to Ofqual’s rules cause some burden for awarding organisations. They said the Principles Condition will add to the overall volume of regulation, and awarding organisations will need to take action to become familiar with the new requirements and demonstrate compliance with them. Three awarding organisations and a representative group said there would be an increased burden for awarding organisations caused by having to review and update systems, processes, documentation and to train staff. 

Three awarding organisations and a representative group said the subjective nature of the Principles Condition would create burden for awarding organisations. An awarding organisation said the Principles Conditions and guidance lack the specificity needed to ensure consistent application across different contexts. They said this could lead to inconsistent application and that clearer, more detailed, guidance was needed. Two awarding organisations said the subjective nature would lead to increased spending on legal and regulatory functions to ensure compliance. 

Six awarding organisations commented on burden caused by overlap between the Principles Condition and other General Conditions. One said this could cause confusion for awarding organisations regarding which take priority and how to meet both sets of requirements. An awarding organisation said that ensuring compliance with the Principles Condition and the existing General Conditions could require duplicative processes, documentation and reporting.

Six awarding organisations and a representative body commented that it was not clear how compliance with the Principles Condition would be measured. Two awarding organisations and an individual commented on Ofqual’s annual statement of compliance process, saying the Principles Condition would be significantly more difficult to measure than other Conditions.

Three awarding organisations made comments relating to Ofqual’s enforcement approach. One commented on the need for any regulatory action to be proportionate and said it would not be proportionate for a small issue to be recorded as a breach of multiple principles, due to the links between them. An awarding organisation commented on Ofqual’s Taking Regulatory Action policy saying it was not clear whether non-compliance with the Principles Condition as well as another General Condition would affect the severity of any regulatory action taken.  

Two awarding organisations commented that the burden may not be felt equally across all awarding organisations and that it may be greater on smaller awarding organisations. One said that awarding organisations operating in niche areas may find it particularly challenging to interpret and apply broad principles to specific qualifications and activities.

Question 16
Are there any additional steps that could be taken to reduce the costs or burdens of the proposals?

Question 16 response	Count
Yes	31
No	18

Thirty-one respondents (23 awarding organisations, 6 individuals, and 2 representative groups) provided comments in support of their answer to this question.

Two awarding organisations said they should already be meeting the Principles Condition so did not expect to need to change any processes, therefore the proposals were likely to be low cost and low burden. 

Six awarding organisations said there was insufficient information about how the Principles Condition would be evidenced, measured and enforced, or the estimated cost implications, to be able to fully comment. 

Two awarding organisations asked for additional guidance, including positive indicators, templates, best practice examples and shared resources. Two awarding organisations suggested providing clarification or mapping showing how the Principles Condition interacts with the General Conditions.

An awarding organisation and an individual suggested not introducing the Principles Condition would reduce potential burdens. Two awarding organisations and an individual suggested removing duplication between the Principles Condition and other General Conditions and removing subjective terms would reduce burden.

Fourteen respondents (11 awarding organisations, 2 individuals and a representative body) suggested implementing the principles as guidance or within the existing GCR could be less burdensome.

Question 17
Do you have any comments on the impact of the proposals on innovation by awarding organisations?

Question 17 response	Count
Yes	17
No	32

Seventeen respondents (15 awarding organisations, an individual, and a representative body) provided comments in support of their answer to this question.

One awarding organisation said the Principles Condition is likely to support innovation, by providing a clear framework within which organisations can explore new approaches. 

Five awarding organisations and a representative body said the additional time and resource needed to understand and comply with the Principles Condition will divert focus away from innovation. Four awarding organisations commented that the additional layer of regulation the Principles Conditions imposes would make it harder to innovate and make them more risk averse. One awarding organisation anticipated the Principles Condition may reduce its willingness to take risks and innovate, in case doing so was viewed as being reckless and in breach of the Principles Condition.

Two awarding organisations said they did not believe the Principles Condition would be helpful in new and novel situations as the guidance lacked clarity, and that existing General Conditions were sufficient. 

Annex A: List of organisational respondents

When completing the consultation questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate whether they were responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. These are the organisations that submitted a non-confidential response:

• ACCA
• AQA
• Ascentis
• ASDAN
• Association of Colleges
• BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT
• British Association of Teachers of Deaf Children and Young People (BATOD)
• Cambridge University Press & Assessment
• CFA Society of UK
• CILEX
• CIPD
• City & Guilds
• CPCAB
• ECITB
• End Sexism in Schools
• EUIAS
• Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB)
• Gateway Qualifications Ltd
• ICAEW
• ICM
• International Baccalaureate Organisation
• Laser Learning Awards
• Leadership Skills Foundation
• National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ)
• NCFE
• NEBOSH
• NHS England End Point Assessment Organisation
• NOCN
• OCN London
• Open Awards
• Pearson
• Professional Assessment Ltd (PAL)
• The Chartered Institute of Housing
• The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)
• Training Qualifications UK
• UAL
• WJEC-CBAC