Browse regulations

Amends the Financial Services Act 2012 (Relevant Functions in relation to Complaints Scheme) Order 2014 to include functions under the Securitisation Regulations 2024 within the FCA's relevant functions for complaints scheme purposes, while explicitly excluding rule-making functions under Regulations 22 and 34.

This Order extends bureaucratic oversight by bringing Securitisation Regulations functions under the FCA complaints scheme without clear benefit to Britons. The UK retained EU securitisation rules represent the kind of inherited regulatory framework that should be reviewed rather than expanded. Complaints schemes add compliance layers without improving outcomes — if regulators behave improperly, existing accountability mechanisms (judicial review, Parliament, FOS) already provide recourse. The carve-out for rule-making functions under Regulations 22 and 34 demonstrates even the draftsman recognised the sensitivity of core regulatory powers, suggesting this incremental extension of complaints jurisdiction serves no essential purpose.

These Regulations amend the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003 to add new dwelling classes (G through M) for council tax purposes. Class G exempts dwellings marketed for sale with accepted offers (up to 1 year). Class H exempts dwellings marketed for let with accepted offers. Class I extends exemption for properties awaiting probate. Class J addresses job-related dwellings. Class K covers caravan pitches and boat moorings. Class L exempts dwellings with planning conditions restricting occupancy (holiday lets, non-primary residences). Class M addresses dwellings falling within Class D. The Regulations also make consequential amendments to other Council Tax regulations to account for higher amount determinations under s.11C.

These regulations perpetuate a complex web of council tax exemptions and premiums that distort housing markets. The Class L exemption for holiday lets and non-primary residences creates incentives to restrict occupancy through planning conditions, reducing housing supply for permanent residents. The Class G/H exemptions for properties being marketed may discourage prompt sales or lettings. Class J's job-related dwelling provisions complicate an already intricate tax system. Council tax itself is a distortionary tax on property; these subclasses multiply the administrative burden and create perverse incentives around occupancy, marketing periods, and planning conditions. A simpler, flatter council tax structure with fewer exemptions would promote efficient housing use and reduce compliance costs for both authorities and property owners.

These regulations bring the Seafarers' Wages Act 2023 into force on 1st December 2024, extending to all of the United Kingdom. As a commencement instrument, it merely triggers the operational date of previously enacted primary legislation.

These are purely administrative commencement regulations that merely activate the effective date of primary legislation already passed by Parliament. Deleting them would not eliminate the Seafarers' Wages Act 2023 itself—only delay its commencement. The regulatory cost lies in the underlying Act, not in this timing mechanism. Furthermore, without a defined commencement date, seafarers and shipping operators would face legal uncertainty regarding when obligations and rights under the Act take effect.

UK regulations establishing criteria and procedures for certifying films as 'low-budget' for corporation tax purposes, setting the budget threshold at £23.5 million, defining lead director/scriptwriter concepts, and requiring auditor-verified applications with statutory declarations.

These regulations impose significant compliance costs through mandatory auditor reports, detailed evidentiary requirements, and statutory declarations that increase administrative burden on film productions. While targeting low-budget film tax relief, the certification regime creates barriers for smaller productions and uses government-mandated verification processes that the market could provide more efficiently through existing contractual and due diligence mechanisms. The £23.5 million threshold itself is arbitrary and creates distortion in film financing decisions. A simpler notification or self-certification approach with remedies for fraud would achieve the policy goal at far lower cost to the film industry.

These Regulations appoint 30th October 2024 as the day before which an application for a low-budget film certificate may not be made under section 15(4) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024. They extend to all of the UK and are purely procedural administrative instruments that bring a statutory date provision into force.

This regulation is an unnecessary bureaucratic date-setter that adds nothing beyond what primary legislation could accomplish directly. The underlying section 15(4) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 imposes certification requirements and spending thresholds on low-budget film productions that constitute government price-controls distorting the film production market, limiting consumer choice and creating artificial barriers to entry. As a retained EU-era film subsidy mechanism adapted into domestic law, it perpetuates market distortion through Treasury-defined spending limits rather than allowing the film industry to operate freely. The regulation should be deleted as part of a broader repeal of such film certification regimes.

The Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2024 amend the Parole Board Rules 2019 to modify procedural matters for parole hearings in England and Wales. Key changes include: expanded delegation of functions to staff members with automatic review rights; removal of 'directions hearings' terminology; reduced notice periods for observers (12 weeks to 8 weeks, 3 weeks to 8 weeks); new requirements for panels to consider unconditional release for certain prisoners under section 31A(4E) of the Criminal Justice Act 1997; expanded oral hearing procedures allowing hearings in the prisoner's absence; extended slip rule correction period (12 weeks); and various other procedural refinements to case management, reconsideration of decisions, and error correction procedures.

These procedural rules govern quasi-judicial parole hearings concerning individual liberty - not economic activity or market regulation. Deletion would create procedural vacuum, uncertainty, and potential for arbitrary decision-making. The changes actually streamline processes (reduced observer notice periods, clarified delegation) while maintaining appropriate safeguards. Unlike EU-derived economic regulations that distort markets, these rules implement statutory requirements under the Criminal Justice Act 1997 and concern fundamental liberty interests where procedural clarity protects both prisoners and the public. Britons would be worse off without them due to increased litigation risk, procedural inconsistency, and erosion of safeguards in parole decision-making.

These Regulations abolish the pension lifetime allowance charge and make related amendments to ITEPA 2003, FA 2004, and TMA 1970. They take effect from 18th November 2024 for tax year 2024-25 onwards. Key changes include: removal of the lifetime allowance charge which taxed excess pension savings; recalibration of lump sum allowances (increasing individual lump sum allowance to £375,000); modifications to permitted maximum calculations for various death benefit lump sums; insertion of rules for multiple lump sum death benefits; changes to PAYE treatment of certain pension income; and transitional provisions for individuals with enhanced or primary protection.

These regulations remove a punitive tax charge that discouraged pension accumulation and reduced Britain's competitiveness in pension provision. The lifetime allowance charge represented a direct tax on savings and capital formation, acting as a disincentive to long-term financial planning. Removing this barrier is consistent with Britain's tradition of fostering savings and investment. The regulations simplify the tax treatment of pension lump sums by increasing allowances and streamlining definitions, which reduces compliance costs and administrative complexity for pension schemes and beneficiaries alike.

The Payment Services (Amendment) Regulations 2024 amend the Payment Services Regulations 2017 to add new paragraphs (2A)-(2D) to regulation 86, permitting payment service providers to delay crediting a payment order for up to four business days when there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud or dishonesty by a third party (not the payer). The amendments require notification to the payer, apply only to domestic UK transactions in sterling, and add regulation 94A making providers liable for charges and interest caused by such delays.

Without this regulation, providers would have no express power to intercede before a fraudulent payment order executes, leaving payers with no recourse until after funds vanish. The four-business-day ceiling, mandatory notification requirements, and the liability provision (94A) creating provider accountability for charges and interest appropriately balance fraud prevention against delay harms. These are targeted, bounded provisions that address a specific harm and properly internalize costs to the party best positioned to manage fraud risk—the payment service provider.

This is the Associated British Ports (Immingham Eastern Ro-Ro Terminal) Development Consent Order 2024, a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project consent under the Planning Act 2008. It grants ABP development consent to construct and operate a roll-on/roll-off terminal at Immingham Port, authorizing compulsory acquisition of land, creation of new rights, and extinguishment of private rights. The Order sets operational limits of 1,800 ro-ro units and 100 passengers per day, allows ABP to appropriate facilities for exclusive trade use, grants a deemed marine licence, and incorporates/modifies multiple Victorian and modern statutes (1847 Act, 1965 Act, 1981 Act, etc.) with bespoke provisions.

This DCO exemplifies the problem with Britain's infrastructure approval regime: it creates a legally-protected private monopoly at a critical trade gateway. The 1,800 unit/day cap artificially restricts throughput at Europe's largest bulk port, while the power to appropriate facilities for 'exclusive or preferential use' enables discriminatory pricing. The extensive compulsory acquisition powers extinguish private property rights not because of genuine public necessity but because a single corporate entity sought state-enforced control over port access. Such infrastructure should be liberalized—open access requirements, competitive tendering for terminal concessions, and removal of operational caps would serve Britain's free-trading heritage far better than granting ABP another layer of regulatory privilege over Immingham's Ro-Ro capacity.

These Regulations implement the Seafarers' Wages Act 2023, establishing detailed rules for calculating and enforcing minimum wage equivalent payments for seafarers working on UK-relevant services. They define complex formulas for basic vs UK additional remuneration, specify NMW-equivalent hourly rates by age category, establish harbour authority surcharge mechanisms for non-payment, and create enforcement powers allowing refusal of harbour access. The regulations cover detailed definitions of work hours, reductions, payments, and objections for seafarers employed under various contract types.

Creates a complex parallel wage system that gold-plats basic minimum wage protections into labyrinthine calculation formulas with extensive exclusions. The harbour access refusal mechanism is an extreme enforcement tool that disrupts maritime commerce and could drive operators to use non-UK ports. Detailed specification of what constitutes 'remuneration' versus 'reductions' imposes significant compliance costs and creates litigation risk. The regulatory burden falls disproportionately on smaller operators and harbours, potentially reducing competitiveness of UK maritime services. Market mechanisms and existing general NMW legislation already protect against exploitation; this layer of sector-specific complexity serves mainly to increase administrative costs without proportional benefit.

The Family Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2024 amend the Family Procedure Rules 2010 by introducing Rule 6.23A, which establishes special procedures for serving documents on persons believed to be residing in refuges (typically domestic abuse victims). Key provisions include: court-directed service methods with preference hierarchy; restrictions on personal service unless exceptional/urgent; prohibition on disclosing refuge addresses to serving parties; and cross-references to this rule across multiple other procedural rules.

This regulation protects vulnerable domestic abuse victims in refuges from being located by abusers through the court service process. Without this rule, service of legal documents could compromise victims' safety and deter them from seeking legal protection. The procedural safeguards (court direction required, exceptional circumstances threshold for personal service, refuge address protection) are proportionate protections that do not impose economic burdens or restrict trade. The rule achieves a legitimate social objective that would be difficult to accomplish through less regulatory means.

Amends Architects (Fees, Electronic Communications and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022 by omitting paragraph (2) and inserting new paragraphs 4A-4G establishing fee liability rules, annual transparency publication requirements for the Architects Registration Board (ARB), and payment method restrictions (prohibiting cash or cheque). Extends to all UK jurisdictions and comes into force November 2024.

The transparency requirements (4D-4F) impose unnecessary administrative burdens on the Board with no clear benefit—fee calculation explanations are typically available through normal market mechanisms or voluntary disclosure. The cash/cheque prohibition (4G) adds compliance costs and restricts payment options without justification. More fundamentally, this regulation supports the architects' licensing regime, which restricts supply of architects and contributes to the housing crisis by creating barriers to entry in the construction sector. The underlying licensing monopoly, not the fee structure, is the problem—and this regulation perpetuates that system.

Commencement regulations triggering the coming into force of sections 114, 115, 116, and 120 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 on 31st October 2024. These provisions establish remediation orders and contribution orders requiring developers/builders to pay for defects in residential buildings, along with associated interpretive provisions for the Building Safety Act 2022.

This is a procedural commencement instrument that merely activates provisions already enacted by Parliament. While Better Britain generally seeks deregulation, these provisions address a genuine market failure: developers building defective buildings and passing remediation costs to leaseholders. Without this SI, the timing of these protections would be uncertain, harming leaseholders awaiting remediation. The underlying policy internalises externalities rather than creating new regulatory burdens disproportionate to the harm being addressed.

These regulations amend multiple childcare-related statutory instruments to implement provisions from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, specifically creating a new registration category for 'childminders without domestic premises.' They update references to Early Years Foundation Stage statutory frameworks, modify registration requirements, fee structures, and certificate content provisions across the childcare registers (Early Years, General Childcare Part A and Part B), and add notification requirements mandating that childminders without domestic premises inform parents they cannot provide childcare from domestic premises under that registration.

While these regulations add regulatory complexity by creating separate categories for childminders with and without domestic premises, deleting them would create legal inconsistency with the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (primary legislation) which introduced this distinction. The transparency requirements (notifying parents that childminders without domestic premises cannot operate from domestic premises) serve a legitimate informational purpose. These are largely implementing/alignment amendments rather than new regulatory burdens — the underlying registration system itself remains intact.

A corrections order that rectifies drafting errors in the M3 Junction 9 Development Consent Order 2024, using a schedule table to specify corrections (substitutions, insertions, or omissions) to the original text. Signed by authority of the Secretary of State for Transport, coming into force on 10th October 2024.

This is a minor administrative correction order that fixes drafting errors in an existing development consent order. It does not impose new regulatory burdens, restrict competition, or create unnecessary costs. Without corrections of this nature, errors in legally operative instruments persist, creating ambiguity, legal uncertainty, and potential litigation. As a housekeeping measure that restores the intended text without changing substantive policy, deletion would leave uncorrected errors in force — making Britons worse off through legal confusion rather than through any freedom-limiting effect.