Browse regulations

These Regulations amend the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 by increasing the administrative earnings thresholds in regulation 99(6). Specifically, the threshold in sub-paragraph (a) is raised from 15 hours to 18 hours, and in sub-paragraph (b) from 24 hours to 29 hours. The Regulations also revoke the earlier 2024 Amendment Regulations and come into force on 13th May 2024.

This regulation tightens conditionality requirements on Universal Credit claimants by raising earnings thresholds, meaning more individuals must satisfy job-search conditions to receive benefits. Such welfare conditionality distorts labor market incentives, creates bureaucratic welfare traps, and expands state interference in individual employment decisions. The complexity of graduated thresholds (15/18 and 24/29 hours) adds administrative burden and creates perverse incentives where working slightly fewer hours becomes more attractive than exceeding thresholds. Britons would be better off with a simpler system that minimizes government conditionality and lets individuals make their own labor market choices without regulatory pressure.

The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 impose mandatory requirements on milk purchase contracts between business purchasers and producers in the UK. They mandate written contracts with specific terms including good faith clauses, fixed or variable pricing mechanisms, third-party verification procedures for variable pricing, collection arrangements, force majeure provisions, cooling-off periods, specific termination rights, complaint procedures, and enforcement through the Secretary of State with civil penalties up to 1% of turnover. The regulations apply to cow's milk contracts and include exemptions for contracts agreed through representative organisations and contracts with business purchasers having internal democratic structures.

This regulation imposes heavy-handed prescriptive requirements that restrict freedom of contract between willing parties. The mandatory contract structures, enforced by Secretary of State oversight with civil penalties up to 1% of turnover, create significant compliance burdens that raise costs for both purchasers and producers—costs ultimately borne by consumers. The prohibition on volume-based pricing in exclusive contracts (regulation 9) and the ban on fixed volume specifications (regulation 11) prevent innovative contracting arrangements that could benefit both parties. The third-party verification requirements add costly bureaucracy to variable pricing without clear benefit, while the prescribed termination procedures and cooling-off periods restrict parties from structuring relationships as they see fit. Such micro-management of private contracting was precisely the type of interventionist regulation that accumulated during EU membership; post-Brexit regulatory independence should be used to free markets, not replace EU-style intervention with domestic intervention. The market for agricultural products functions better when parties are free to negotiate without state-dictated terms.

Amendment Order exempting court fees for certain habeas corpus applications (relating to Immigration Act 2016 decisions) and Court of Appeal proceedings (relating to Upper Tribunal decisions under Illegal Migration Act 2023 s.44(6)). Modifies both Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 and Family Proceedings Fees Order 2008.

While this Order reduces fees for specific immigration proceedings, it perpetuates the entanglement of UK courts with EU-derived immigration frameworks (Immigration Act 2016 Schedule 10). Fee exemptions create market distortions by artificially increasing demand for particular legal routes. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 itself represents a complex regulatory apparatus for immigration control; exempting fees for certain appeals under s.44(6) does not reduce this regulatory burden but merely waives the toll for one narrow pathway. Furthermore, means-testing court fees or targeted exemptions is a blunt instrument that would be better addressed through fundamental reform of court funding rather than categorical waivers that distort litigation incentives without addressing underlying regulatory costs.

These Regulations (SI 2024/892) prescribe the procedural framework for the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) to grant individual permissions under FSMA 2000 s.138BA to disapply or modify specified financial regulator rules. They cover: application requirements, PRA information-gathering powers, decision notification obligations, tribunal referral rights, and publication requirements for permissions granted.

While section 138BA provides the substantive power, these Regulations institutionalize a discretionary exemption regime that: (1) creates regulatory uncertainty by allowing case-by-case departures from rules without clear standards; (2) advantages well-resourced firms with regulatory access over smaller competitors; (3) generates compliance costs through application and notification requirements; (4) creates opportunities for regulatory capture through individualized treatment; and (5) is fundamentally inconsistent with restoring the UK's position as a free-trading financial hub. From a Hayekian perspective, this is precisely the kind of discretionary regulatory intervention that distorts spontaneous order. If rules are too burdensome for certain firms, they should be repealed or amended generally—not handled through a bureaucratic exemption process that privileges some over others.

Post-Brexit regulations extending transitional staging periods for official controls on meat imports from April 2024 to January 2025, removing some EU-era import certification requirements (omitting Article 3(3) from Commission Decision 2000/572/EC and regulation 3 from the Meat Preparations Regulations 2020), with provisions applying to England, Wales and Scotland.

Extends rather than reduces regulatory burden, perpetuating EU-derived import controls and certification requirements that increase costs for meat importers and ultimately raise prices for British consumers. While some minor provisions are being removed, the net effect is to maintain restrictive import controls longer, delaying the Brexit dividend of simplified trade arrangements that should have been achieved by now.

The Official Controls (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 amend retained EU food, animal health, and plant health regulations to set requirements for goods entering Great Britain from third countries. Key provisions include: designated entry points for certain goods (Heysham, Fishguard, Holyhead, Cairnryan); Common Health Entry Document (CHED) requirements for prior notification; mandatory border control post use for specified categories; exemptions from routine controls for 'low risk' goods meeting specified conditions; and discretion for competent authorities when dealing with minor non-compliance. The regulation applies to England, Wales, and Scotland with certain England-only and Scotland-only provisions.

This regulation perpetuates the EU's bureaucratic border control regime that was never democratically reviewed in Britain. While food safety and biosecurity are legitimate concerns, the mandatory use of designated border control posts for certain goods creates artificial bottlenecks that increase costs and restrict trade flows. The pre-notification via CHED system adds unnecessary administrative burden. Most critically, thousands of retained EU laws like this one were inherited wholesale after Brexit with no parliamentary scrutiny — this is precisely the 'inherited burden' that should be subject to fundamental review. A risk-based approach to biosecurity could be achieved through lighter-touch mechanisms that do not restrict entry points or impose the same level of bureaucratic requirements on low-risk goods.

This Order brings into operation a revised code of practice under s.377A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 governing prosecutors' investigative powers, extending to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It comes into force on 26th April 2024 and revokes the 2021 Order implementing the previous code.

This Order introduces an expanded code of practice compared to the 2021 version it replaces. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has been widely criticised for creating overly broad civil asset recovery powers that can be deployed against individuals and businesses without criminal conviction. While this Order is procedural rather than substantive, it operationalises a revised framework that likely further extends prosecutorial powers. The underlying POCA 2002 framework of civil recovery operates on a lower evidentiary threshold than criminal proceedings, creating scope for state overreach against legitimate property rights. Without this Order, the 2021 code would remain operative, providing a less expansionary constraint on prosecutorial discretion. Maintaining the prior version is preferable until the substantive POCA 2002 framework itself can be reformed to respect property rights and due process.

Establishes a four-year electoral cycle for Thurrock borough councillors, providing for all-out elections every four years with all councillors retiring together. The first election under this scheme is scheduled for 2027. Revokes the 1997 electoral changes order for the borough.

Electoral cycle stability serves voters and candidates by providing predictability. Without a defined scheme, legal ambiguity would arise regarding election timing, potentially disrupting local democracy. While local authorities can request electoral changes, having a defined cycle prevents the costly confusion of ad-hoc arrangements.

Amends the International Tax Compliance Regulations 2015 to update how tax information exchange arrangements under the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) are specified — shifting from direct specification to publication by Commissioners' notice. Comes into force 14th May 2024.

This amendment removes democratic scrutiny of CRS arrangements by replacing explicit statutory specification with administrative notices. The shift to 'notices published by the Commissioners' means Parliament cannot properly debate or reject specific exchange arrangements. While the underlying CRS framework reflects international OECD commitments, the use of delegated legislation to reference changing notices rather than primary regulation undermines democratic accountability. Britons are not materially worse off in terms of tax information exchange capability — arrangements can continue under existing international agreements — but they are worse off through reduced parliamentary oversight of how their government exchanges financial data with foreign tax authorities.

The Trade Remedies (Amendment) Regulations 2024 amend the Trade Remedies (Dumping and Subsidisation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to introduce an 'early review' mechanism allowing the Secretary of State to request the TRA to review anti-dumping or countervailing amounts within 60 days of their imposition. The amendment strengthens Secretary of State oversight of TRA decisions, requires TRA to consider multiple options when making recommendations where the economic interest test may not be met, and adds 21-day reassessment periods before TRA finalises certain determinations. It applies to dumping investigations, subsidisation investigations, and reviews initiated after May 2024.

While the 2019 Dumping and Subsidisation Regulations provide the underlying framework, this amendment compounds their protectionist nature by creating additional bureaucratic intervention mechanisms. The early review process adds another layer of government discretion over trade remedies, extending political oversight of the TRA's technical determinations. The requirement for the TRA to propose multiple options to the Secretary of State introduces further uncertainty and delays. Rather than rolling back protectionism, these regulations expand it — granting the Secretary of State more power to influence anti-dumping and countervailing duties, which raise costs for British businesses and consumers. The net effect is to entrench government control over trade rather than restore Britain's free-trading heritage.

These Regulations grant income tax exemptions to UEFA-accredited persons performing activities connected to the 2024 Champions League Final in London (May 28 – June 2, 2024). The exemption applies only to non-UK residents and covers employment income and trade/profession profits arising during the specified period. Section 966 PAYE obligations are disapplied for exempt payments.

This is ad-hoc tax legislation that distorts the market by granting preferential treatment to one specific event and its participants. It creates unequal competitive advantage for Champions League Final workers over other UK workers and businesses. While proponents claim it attracts major events, London competed successfully for this event without needing the exemption in advance. Non-residents already enjoy natural tax advantages; this regulation adds bureaucratic complexity and foregone revenue with no demonstrated causal benefit to securing the event. The targeted, time-limited nature does not justify the principle of using tax policy to pick winners for specific industries or events.

These Regulations amend EU Regulation 2017/625 (official controls) to modify fees and charges for food/feed safety, animal health, plant health controls. Key changes include: removing mandatory fees at border control posts under Article 79(1); expanding competent authority discretion to reduce or waive fees under Article 79(3); changing cost recovery from mandatory to discretionary under Article 81; allowing flat-rates and collective competent authority arrangements under Article 82(1)(a); and permitting online publication for transparency requirements under Article 85(2). The Regulations extend to the United Kingdom and came into force on 30th April 2024.

These amendments actually reduce regulatory burden compared to the retained EU law by increasing flexibility, allowing collective arrangements to reduce administrative costs, and modernising transparency mechanisms. The original Article 79(1) requirement for fees at border control posts was a direct cost imposition on importers; its removal reduces friction for legitimate trade. The expanded discretion to waive fees (Article 79(3)) and discretionary cost recovery (Article 81) allow authorities to tailor requirements proportionally. Deleting these amendments would revert to more rigid, potentially more costly EU-era rules, leaving in place the very bureaucratic burden the original framework imposed. The changes maintain the regulatory structure while improving its proportionality.

This Order (2024 No. 1234) brings into operation on 26th April 2024 a revised code of practice governing officers acting under Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It extends throughout the UK and supersedes the 2018 Order. The code provides procedural guidance for authorized officers exercising powers of detention, search, and associated measures under terrorism legislation.

While codes of practice are administrative guidance rather than primary law, deleting this would remove the only structured framework governing how anti-terrorism powers under ATCSA 2001 are exercised. Without it, officers would have unchecked discretion. The procedural constraints—however limited—provide some accountability mechanism. Britons would be worse off without any guidance on how these serious powers (including detention beyond normal custody limits) are to be applied, as the alternative is arbitrary exercise of authority. The code addresses the real risk of abuse inherent in terrorism legislation.

These Regulations bring into force revised codes of practice under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 governing law enforcement powers to search, seize, detain property, and conduct financial investigations. They introduce a new code specifically for cryptoasset recovery and search powers. The regulations extend to all UK jurisdictions with some provisions limited to England and Wales or England, Wales and Northern Ireland only. They revoke two prior codes of practice orders from 2018 and 2021.

These are codes of practice governing law enforcement procedure, not regulations directly imposing burdens on citizens or businesses. They provide procedural safeguards and legal certainty for investigations. Deleting them would create legal ambiguity around how investigators must conduct searches, seizures, and cryptoasset recovery—potentially leading to more legal challenges, unlawful seizures, and uncertainty. They regulate the state, not the private sector, and represent procedural safeguards rather than economic burdens.

These Regulations bring into operation on 26th April 2024 a code of practice issued under sections 339ZL of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and section 22F of the Terrorism Act 2000, governing the use of certain information orders by law enforcement and regulatory authorities. The code applies across the United Kingdom.

While Better Britain favours regulatory reduction, deleting these Regulations would leave critical law enforcement powers operating without a defined code of practice governing procedure and safeguards. The underlying statutes (POCA 2002 and Terrorism Act 2000) are primary legislation addressing serious crimes including money laundering and terrorist financing. This instrument merely activates a parliamentary-laid code that constrains how information orders may be used, providing clarity for financial institutions and protection against overreach. Removal would create procedural vacuum rather than reduce substantive powers.