Browse regulations

These Regulations amend the Insolvency Practitioners Regulations 2005 to modify requirements for surety bonds/caution that insolvency practitioners must hold. Key changes include: raising the general penalty sum to £750,000, adding provisions for successor insolvency practitioner costs, establishing a minimum 2-year run-off period for claims, a minimum 6-year SPS indemnity period, and 60-day notification requirements before bond expiration. The regulations include transitional provisions for bonds issued before January 2026.

These regulations impose mandatory minimum bonding requirements (£750,000 general penalty sum), arbitrary time periods (6-year indemnity period, 2-year run-off), and prescriptive notification procedures that increase costs for insolvency practitioners without evidence these specific parameters are optimal. Such government-mandated minimums create barriers to entry, reduce competition among sureties, and drive up fees for insolvency services—costs ultimately borne by creditors and businesses. The market, not regulators, should determine appropriate bonding levels through competition and contractual negotiation between practitioners and sureties.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations 2024 extend partner donation definitions to include same-sex female couples and create a new pathway allowing HIV-positive individuals to donate eggs/sperm to their partners under specific medical conditions (suppressed viral load, 6+ months antiretroviral treatment, recipient informed consent). It modifies Schedule 3A of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

This regulation creates a novel exception allowing HIV-positive donors to provide eggs to partners despite the EU Second Directive's requirement that donors be HIV-negative. While framed as protecting reproductive rights, it: (1) extends beyond the original EU directive scope through new definitional expansions not required by any treaty obligation; (2) prioritises the desire of serodiscordant couples to conceive over recipient safety by substituting recipient declarations for fundamental health protections; (3) establishes a precedent that infectious disease screening requirements can be waived through informed consent provisions, potentially opening doors to further risk-tier exceptions; (4) the regulatory framework introduced (with its 200 copies/ml threshold, 6-month treatment requirements, and declaration procedures) is paternalistic in its conditions yet permissive on fundamental risk acceptance, suggesting this should have been addressed through guided clinical practice rather than statutory modification. A better approach would maintain the existing directive requirement that donors be HIV-negative and address serodiscordant couple needs through alternative fertility pathways (use of donor gametes, embryo adoption) that do not require modifying core safety standards.

This Order amends the Income-related Benefits (Subsidy to Authorities) Order 1998, updating technical provisions for calculating housing benefit subsidy payments to local authorities. It revises definitions of 'self-contained' accommodation, technical overpayment rules, and updates numerous schedule references including dates, circular numbers, and specified amounts for Welsh local authorities. The amendments apply to subsidy calculations for years beginning April 2023 and 2024.

This is a routine administrative amendment that merely updates dates, circular references, and specified amounts in an existing subsidy mechanism. While the underlying 1998 Order establishes a legitimate framework for administering housing benefit subsidies, this specific amendment adds no new regulatory burdens—it simply corrects references and adjusts figures for administrative accuracy. However, the entire structure of means-tested housing benefit subsidies, administered through this Order and the 1998 Order it amends, creates dependency, distorts housing markets by decoupling rent from ability to pay, and represents ongoing state intervention in housing allocation. The subsidy mechanism itself should be deleted as part of broader welfare reform, with housing support addressed through direct market mechanisms rather than bureaucratic subsidy schemes.

The Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment) Regulations 2024 amend Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 by adding species to its protected appendices, including: Ailuronyx spp. (Seychelles bronze geckoes) to SAURIA; Daboia palaestinae (Palestinian viper) to SERPENTES; Papilio phorbanta (Small Réunion swallowtail) to LEPIDOPTERA; and modifying listings under APOCYNACEAE and COMPOSITAE. It extends across all UK jurisdictions and implements the CITES convention.

While regulation inherently creates compliance costs and can distort markets, the trade in endangered species presents a genuine externality problem—individual economic actors lack incentives to preserve species for future generations, and unilateral deletion would breach CITES obligations which the UK has ratified. Without this domestic implementation, illegal trade would likely increase, biodiversity would suffer, and the UK would face international sanctions. Alternative mechanisms like property rights on endangered species are impractical given their transboundary nature. The regulation achieves its conservation objective in a way that markets alone cannot.

A minor amendment to the Royal Mint Trading Fund Order 2002, increasing the trading fund's permitted total indebtedness limit from £50 million to £105 million. The amendment takes effect 26th November 2024 and applies across all UK jurisdictions.

This amendment merely increases a borrowing cap for a state-owned monopoly with no parliamentary debate on underlying policy rationale. The Royal Mint's monopoly on coin production is itself an anticompetitive privilege that free markets would eliminate. Increasing its financial latitude from £50m to £105m (a 110% increase) without scrutiny of the Mint's business case, cost structure, or competitive alternatives represents continued state capitalisation of an institution that should be subject to market discipline. No evidence is presented that Britons benefit from this expanded state involvement rather than from private competition in minting services.

Designates bodies listed in the Schedule for the 2023-2024 financial year for purposes of section 10 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, enabling the Treasury to obtain information for Whole of Government Accounts consolidation. Extends to all UK jurisdictions.

This Order imposes no regulatory burden on private enterprise—it concerns only government accounting coordination. Deletion would create ambiguity about which public bodies must report for WGA consolidation, undermining parliamentary accountability and transparency into public finances. The administrative cost falls entirely on government bodies, not citizens or businesses, and Adam Smith's principles of transparent public accounts remain relevant to preventing government waste.

Designates area 'Wild Thang Customs Site No 1' in Liverpool as a free zone for 10 years under the Special Procedures Regulations, appointing Wild Thang Limited as responsible authority. Imposes obligations including record-keeping, providing Crown facilities at operator expense, access control, prevention of unauthorised activities, compliance monitoring, and HMRC notification requirements.

While free zones facilitate trade by suspending certain duties and taxes, this Order imposes significant compliance costs on the operator (Wild Thang Limited) including: providing and maintaining facilities at Crown expense, enclosing the site with controlled access points, maintaining records, ensuring customs compliance, and notifying HMRC of any breaches or changes. These substantial regulatory burdens represent ongoing costs that could deter other businesses from operating free zones, suppressing supply of such facilities. The 10-year designation without review mechanism locks in these obligations. Deleting this Order would not remove the legal framework permitting free zones (Special Procedures Regulations remain), but would remove one instance of regulatory burden on a specific operator, potentially encouraging more free zone development by private enterprise.

These Regulations amend Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/354 on feed for particular nutritional purposes, update authorisations for various feed additives (Bacillus subtilis, selenised yeast, 6-phytase, metal chelates of methionine), authorise butylated hydroxyanisole for cats only, and modify DCAD values for milk fever prevention. They extend stock disposal periods for previously authorised products.

These Regulations maintain a centralised authorisation regime for feed additives that restricts agricultural freedom and creates barriers to market entry. Rather than allowing farmers and feed producers to make informed choices through private certification, labeling requirements, and tort liability for harm, the government picks winners through bureaucratic authorisations that favour established corporate interests. The extensive stock disposal provisions (extending to 2026 for some products) reveal the regulatory inertia inherent in this system — once a product is authorised, it takes years to wind down even when the underlying authorisation is being modified. A free market in feed additives, with robust private certification and transparency, would better serve both farmers and consumers without the unintended consequence of suppressing private quality standards that the regulation ostensibly aims to achieve.

Designates a specific area at Wild Thang, Liverpool (Customs Site No. 2) as a free zone for 10 years, establishing Wild Thang Limited as the responsible authority. The Order imposes obligations on the responsible authority including: maintaining enclosed perimeter and access points, providing free facilities and accommodation to HMRC, record-keeping under Special Procedures Regulations, preventing unauthorized activities, reporting breaches, ensuring health and safety, and controlling goods entry/exit. The zone operates under the Customs (Special Procedures and Outward Processing) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

This Order creates a government-enforced preferential enclave requiring the responsible authority to provide free facilities to the Crown, maintain elaborate security infrastructure, comply with extensive record-keeping mandates, and prevent 'unauthorized activities' under threat of regulatory sanction. Such centralized designation of specific businesses as 'responsible authorities' with sweeping duties constitutes corporatism rather than free markets. Free zones can exist through private contractual arrangements; they do not require statutory designation granting HMRC officers sweeping inspection powers, mandatory free accommodation provision, and decade-long government control over specific commercial premises. The regulation perpetuates post-Brexit EU-derived customs bureaucracy rather than simplifying trade.

This Order designates a specific area at SSO International Forwarding, Unit 6, Express Industrial Estate, Widnes as a 'free zone' for a 10-year period. It establishes SSO International Forwarding Ltd as the 'responsible authority' tasked with enforcing customs compliance, maintaining records, allowing HMRC inspections, providing facilities at its own expense, preventing 'unauthorised activities', controlling goods movement, and ensuring health and safety standards within the zone. The Order incorporates requirements from the Special Procedures Regulations and imposes numerous compliance obligations on the responsible authority.

This Order creates a government-designated monopoly authority controlling a specific geographic area under extensive HMRC oversight. While free zones can facilitate trade, this Order imposes significant compliance costs (maintaining records, providing facilities, allowing inspections, preventing unauthorised activities) that are passed to businesses using the zone. The 10-year fixed term creates artificial uncertainty. Most critically, the prohibition on 'unauthorised activity' (defined vaguely against Special Procedures Regulations) could restrict legitimate business activities. Britons would be better served by simplifying general customs procedures rather than maintaining patchwork geographic exemptions that require a designated authority, government-granted permissions, and extensive compliance apparatus. The free zone model inherently involves government control rather than market facilitation.

This Order designates a specific area in Humber as a free zone for 10 years, naming CAT-UK Services Limited as the responsible authority. It imposes extensive obligations on the authority including: maintaining enclosed perimeters with controlled access; providing free accommodation, facilities and land to HMRC; record-keeping and disclosure requirements; taking steps to prevent 'unauthorised activity'; ensuring customs compliance; health and safety responsibilities; and mandatory notifications to HMRC regarding breaches, non-compliance, and planned construction. The Order incorporates definitions from the Customs (Special Procedures and Outward Processing) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 and the Customs (Import Duty) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

This Order grants CAT-UK Services Limited a state-bestowed monopoly as the designated 'responsible authority' for a customs zone — a privileged position unavailable to competitors. The extensive obligations imposed (providing free accommodation/facilities to HMRC, record-keeping mandates, enclosure requirements, authorization enforcement, and mandatory HMRC notification duties) create bureaucratic costs and restrict market entry. Rather than facilitating trade through reduced friction, it codifies a licensed regime where a single private entity enforces government rules. Free zones can promote trade, but this instrument perpetuates the very bureaucratic control structures that free zones should escape — including Crown privileges, authorization requirements that restrict activities, and compliance mandates better suited to managing a regulated monopoly than enabling free commerce.

Designates the Global Nigg Energy Park area (Inverness & Cromarty Firth Green) as a free zone for customs purposes for 10 years. Establishes Global Energy Nigg Limited as the responsible authority, imposing obligations including record-keeping, customs compliance oversight, health and safety, infrastructure provision to the Crown, and restriction of 'unauthorised activities' as defined under the Special Procedures Regulations.

While free zones theoretically reduce trade friction, this regulation exemplifies government-managed privilege rather than genuine free market policy. The 10-year sunset and case-by-case designation process create artificial competitive advantages for specific companies and locations, distorting investment decisions away from natural market signals. The 'responsible authority' is burdened with extensive compliance obligations (customs monitoring, record-keeping, health and safety enforcement) that replicate the bureaucratic apparatus the free zone claims to escape. True free trade requires neither special zones nor central designation — it requires removing barriers universally. This regulation perpetuates the very EU-style interventionism it was meant to replace post-Brexit, just with British characteristics.

This Order amends the Free Zone (Customs Site No. 1 Thames) Designation Order 2021 by inserting a definition of 'unauthorised activity' by reference to the Special Procedures Regulations, and substituting DP World Logistics UK Ltd as the responsible authority for the free zone, with the amendment coming into force on 10th November 2024.

This is a purely administrative designation establishing the responsible authority for an existing free zone. Free zones facilitate international trade by allowing duty deferral and customs simplification. Deleting this amendment would leave the free zone without a designated responsible authority, creating operational uncertainty. The regulation imposes no restrictions, duties, or compliance burdens—it merely identifies the operator. No evidence of gold-plating or EU-derived burden exists in this instrument.

Commencement order bringing into force section 180 and Schedule 9 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (cryptoassets: civil recovery) on 7th November 2024. Extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Commencement regulations that activate civil recovery powers for cryptoassets without requiring criminal conviction create perverse incentives for enforcement agencies, chill legitimate cryptoasset activity through regulatory uncertainty, and establish a precedent for seizure of property based on mere suspicion rather than proven wrongdoing. Deleting this commencement order would pause the expansion of these controversial powers pending genuine parliamentary scrutiny of their civil liberties implications.

Amends the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 to increase fees for criminal record certificate services: criminal conviction certificates rise from £18 to £21.50; criminal record certificates from £18 to £21.50; enhanced criminal record certificates from £38 to £49.50; and update information requests from £13 to £16.

These fees represent a tax on employment — many workers must obtain these certificates for legally mandated background checks, yet the state holds a monopoly on their provision. Fee increases of 19-30% (enhanced certificates up 30%) are passed to employers and job seekers, disproportionately affecting lower-wage sectors where background checks are routine. Rather than expanding choice or competition in this space, the regulation reinforces government pricing power over a compulsory service. The underlying system of state-managed criminal record monopolies should be reformed to allow private-sector alternatives, not have its pricing hiked.