The short version
Right-touch regulation is a rule of thumb for regulators: use, in the words of its 2010 and 2015 editions, “the minimum regulatory force required to achieve the desired result” (PSA, 2015). It was conceived in the UK in 2009 and first published in 2010 (PSA, 2018). In our view, its logic now sits behind reforms in all four countries, even where the term itself is not used. Governments today talk of “right-sized” regulation (New Zealand), “top of scope” (Australia) and “labour mobility” (Canada).
Where it came from
Harry Cayton, chief executive of the UK body that oversees the health regulators (then the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, now the Professional Standards Authority, or PSA), set down its principles in September 2009 (PSA, 2018). CHRE published it in August 2010; the PSA, as CHRE became, revised it in October 2015 (PSA, 2015) and released a third edition on 7 October 2025 (PSA, 2025).
It grew out of the UK “better regulation” movement and its five principles of good regulation: proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted. Right-touch adds a sixth: agile, meaning looking forward to anticipate change rather than back to prevent the last crisis (PSA, 2015).
What it says
The framework rests on a few commitments:
- Professionalism comes first. “Principally, however, it is the professionalism of individuals and teams who deliver care that keeps the public safe.” Regulation sits behind professional judgement and employer controls (PSA, 2025).
- Zero risk is impossible. The 2015 edition said it “runs counter to the ‘precautionary principle’”, except where potential harm is very severe and the risks cannot be robustly quantified (PSA, 2015).
- Too much regulation is a failure too. It wastes effort and can create false assurance (PSA, 2025).
- Decisions follow eight steps: identify the problem before the solution; quantify and qualify the risks; get close to the problem; focus on the outcome; use regulation only when necessary; keep it simple; check for unintended consequences; and review and respond to change (PSA, 2015).
The PSA said in 2015 that it is “categorically not ‘light-touch’”, and in 2025 that it is “different from light-touch regulation, which seeks to reduce regulatory burden at the expense of other considerations”. To be fair to it: Cayton used right-touch reasoning in British Columbia to argue for stronger, more independent public protection, not for deregulation (Cayton report).
That said, the 2025 edition shifts in tone. It accepts that “a lighter regulatory touch could be taken, or even, at the extreme, that deregulation might be warranted” where risks have been well managed (“earned autonomy”). It maps itself onto the UK government’s Smarter regulation agenda, and speaks of supporting innovation and economic growth (PSA, 2025).
How it is used
Right-touch is used in two ways that are worth keeping apart:
- Deciding whether to regulate an occupation at all. The tool is a “continuum of assurance” running from employer controls, through accredited voluntary registers, to full statutory licensing (PSA, 2025). The PSA places its Accredited Registers on this continuum, and much of the UK’s wider psychological workforce, such as psychological wellbeing practitioners, is on those voluntary registers rather than regulated by law.
- Running existing regulators. For example, triaging complaints and enforcing advertising rules (PSA, 2018). Ahpra said in 2018 that right-touch was “embedded throughout” Australia’s national scheme (PSA, 2018), though its current principles no longer name it.
The criticisms
- No one has evaluated it. We have found no independent evaluation, in any of the four countries, of whether right-touch approaches improve patient outcomes. The PSA itself concedes the impact of regulation can be difficult to gauge (PSA, 2025).
- Its own tests are skipped. The framework demands evidence of risk, a check for unintended consequences, and review. In Australia, pharmacy prescribing pilots in NSW and Queensland were made permanent before their evaluations were published (tracker). Its 2015 edition warned that calling regulation risk-based “in the absence of a proper evaluation of risk is… misleading” (PSA, 2015).
- Risk-based regulation has known blind spots. Regulatory scholars argue it can miss cumulative, systemic and newly emerging risks (Black and Baldwin, 2010). In our view, that includes much psychological harm, which is hard to measure.
- It sits closer to government than it did. In our view, the 2025 edition aligns itself explicitly with the UK government’s Smarter regulation growth agenda.
And the case for it
The proponents’ arguments are real. Australia’s scope of practice review found barriers to working at full scope “unrelated to their education (skills and knowledge) and competence” (Department of Health). Cayton found that self-regulation in BC protected existing occupational boundaries, and that many but not all of its colleges showed “a lack of relentless focus on the safety of patients” (Cayton report). And professional bodies, like every party to these debates, have their own interests. A credible critique has to engage with that, which is why this site gives the case for alongside the concerns.
Our position
We do not oppose right-touch regulation. We ask that reforms made in its name meet its own standard: what is the problem, what is the evidence of risk, and how will we know if the change works?