Institute of Regulation's Podcast

We’re pleased to look back on International Women’s Day by spotlighting two outstanding women Chairs in our latest podcast episode: Jo Clift and Helen Phillips. In this conversation, Institute Chair Marcial Boo explores what it takes to lead a regulatory body, drawing on Jo’s experience at the General Osteopathic Council and Helen’s leadership of both the General Dental Council and the Chartered Insurance Institute. 
The podcast guests explain that, for them, good regulation is proportionate, risk‑based, and consistent, but that really effective regulation also involves fostering high professional pride and standards, which can often protect the public more than rules alone, and clear communication with all stakeholders. The chairs of regulators have four key responsibilities:
Strategy, so there is a shared understanding of outcomes, not just activities.  
Scrutiny, so there is oversight of key indicators, but without Boards drowning in detail.  
Stakeholders, to bring a real focus on the regulated community and those they serve.
Culture, with Boards modelling the regulator's values.
Both speakers recognise the importance of trust, which is a relational, not procedural, quality. To build trust, Chairs, Boards and executives must invest time in getting to know each other, with clear roles and boundaries. High levels of trust between executives and non-executives leads to more efficient and effective performance overall.
In sum, good regulator chairs need a blend of strategic leadership, relationship building and an understanding of public accountability. Regulator chairs need to accept a degree of public exposure too, with political and media scrutiny for difficult decisions, and an ability to have calm, adult-to-adult dialogues with those being regulated, as well as with ministers and members of the public. 
Keywords: regulatory leadership, chairing a regulator, board governance, strategic leadership, public accountability, executive–non‑executive relationships, board culture, organisational values

In this month’s Institute of Regulation podcast, Marcial Boo speaks with Charity Commission CEO David Holdsworth and FRC Executive Director Mark Babington about how regulators can be both consistent and fair when overseeing organisations of very different sizes. They discuss the challenge of applying the same rules to entities ranging from sole traders to global firms, and how proportionate regulation, clear guidance, and an understanding of smaller organisations’ needs can support fairness. The conversation explores how regulators assess risk, reduce administrative burdens, and maintain public confidence, while keeping regulation stable and under review. They also highlight the value of collaboration between regulators.
Keywords: UK regulation, regulatory fairness, proportional regulation, Charity Commission, Financial Reporting Council, Institute of Regulation, risk assessment, balancing regulatory standards, reducing regulatory burden

In this month’s Institute of Regulation podcast, Marcial Boo, Chair of the Institute of Regulation, speaks to Australian winners of awards for good regulation: Gerard Brody from the Essential Services Commission in Victoria and Atul Sharma from the Australian Environmental Protection Agency. Rebecca Billings, Chair of the National Regulators Community of Practice (NRCoP), introduces the awards and explains how NRCoP supports regulators across Australia and New Zealand in much the same way the IoR supports the regulatory profession in the UK. Gerard discusses how his regulator secured better energy deals for consumers through clear purpose, proactive engagement, and targeted enforcement. Atul explains how data‑driven approaches helped reduce illegal waste dumping through collaboration and practical guidance for businesses. The speakers highlight the importance of communication, stewardship, and designing regulatory systems that respond to real‑world harms. Looking ahead, they emphasise the need for agility, long‑term thinking, and learning across jurisdictions to support growth and share effective practice.

Keywords: regulatory excellence, consumer protection, data‑driven regulation, compliance and enforcement, regulatory stewardship

Are regulators lightning rods for blame? This month's podcast talks to Matthew Flinders, a professor of politics at the University of Sheffield, and former regulator CEO Martin Stanley about the way politicians sometimes deflect criticism by blaming regulators. They discuss how easy it is for regulators to be blamed, whether by politicians, the media, or those they regulate, and how difficult it can be for regulatory leaders to deal with blame, perhaps especially if the regulatory leader has come from outside the political world. The threat of blame can be pernicious and, at worst, influence regulatory decisions and compromise independence, as well as put off good people from working in regulation or taking up senior roles. The speakers on the podcast discuss solutions - including having good, trusting relationships with ministers and civil servants, as well as being able to tell a clear, persuasive narrative to the media, the public, and opposition politicians about the regulator's work. Support networks are important too, including those set up by the Institute of Regulation to help Chairs, CEOs and regulatory staff to navigate these tricky areas and share advice and good practice. Finally, the speakers advise that regulators sometimes need to stand their ground when others blame them wrongly. And that's why good relationships with Whitehall are necessary. Regulators may be able to stand their ground with Ministers in private. But it's never good for a regulator, if blamed by a politician, simply to blame them back in public. You can listen to the podcast here.

Keywords: Regulators, blame, accountability, regulatory leadership, public trust, support networks, Institute of Regulation, regulation challenges

In this month's podcast, New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour MP talks to Institute of Regulation Chair Marcial Boo about regulatory reform in New Zealand, including their Regulatory Standards Act, just passed. David, who is also Minister for Regulation, says that regulation must maximise benefit and minimise cost. This includes the option not to regulate. He argues that regulation has often increased costs in response to infrequent risks: the fear of earthquakes increases burdens on property developers, for example. His new law sets a more consistent framework, so that new burdens are not imposed on the basis of emotion, but through a transparent methodology, so that the impact of new regulations is known. He recognises that some politicians find it hard to apply regulatory discipline in practice when under pressure to 'do something'. So, he will incentivise good behaviour through a regulatory standards board to assess new regulations and make sure that additional checks and balances are put in place through regulation, actually bringing benefits. He says that the regulatory profession needs to look at itself in the mirror too, to assess whether the benefit of their work outweighs the cost imposed. David also discusses international collaboration and how countries can benefit by trusting the regulatory scrutiny and assurance of other jurisdictions to save time and money, although he accepts that taking rules from others can reduce the scope for domestic innovation. David ends by advising UK policymakers to look carefully at the costs and benefits of each additional rule to assess whether regulatory accretion is really worthwhile.
Keywords: regulatory reform, cost-benefit analysis, risk management, transparency, international collaboration, improving regulatory discipline