Browse regulations

These are the Electricity (Standards of Performance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which amend the 2015 principal regulations governing electricity distributor and connection provider performance standards. Key changes include: replacing the Scottish consumer advocacy body reference with Consumer Scotland; introducing prescribed caps with CPIH indexation for inflation adjustments; simplifying severe weather categories from 3 to 2; removing certain category 3 severe weather exemptions; and updating compensation sums and schedules. The regulations establish mandatory compensation payments to customers when electricity distributors fail to meet prescribed restoration standards following interruptions.

While these regulations purport to protect consumers, they exemplify how mandated compensation regimes distort market signals and create unintended consequences: (1) The bureaucratic apparatus of prescribed caps, sums, and categories adds compliance costs ultimately borne by all consumers through higher electricity bills, not just those who suffer interruptions; (2) Indexation to CPIH locks in the current framework and prevents future adjustment as circumstances change; (3) The three-tier severe weather category system was itself an arbitrary bureaucratic construct that the amendment admits was flawed by simplifying it; (4) Such regulations suppress innovative approaches to service delivery by mandating specific behaviors rather than letting markets discipline poor performance through reputation and competition; (5) The fundamental problem—interrupted electricity supply—is better addressed through tort liability for negligence, competitive market entry, and transparency about distributor performance, not prescriptive government-dictated compensation schedules. The regulations represent the typical regulatory tendency to address symptoms (inadequate restoration speed) rather than root causes (underinvestment, lack of competition) while creating new distortions in the process.

The Organic Production (Control of Imports) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 amend retained EU Regulation 1235/2008 by removing specified provisions (Article 13(8)-(10)) and deleting EU-referencing language ('as it has effect in Great Britain', 'as it has effect in the European Union') from certificates of inspection in Annexes 5 and 6. The regulation removes redundant EU jurisdictional references while maintaining the existing import control framework for organic products from third countries.

While this amendment technically removes text (deregulation), it preserves the underlying import licensing regime for organic products that constitutes a trade barrier. The retained EU framework (Regulation 834/2007 and 1235/2008) imposes costly certification requirements on organic imports that raise prices for British consumers and favor large established producers over innovative alternatives. The 'organic' label itself is a form of regulatory rent-seeking that private certification could handle more efficiently. Post-Brexit independence should mean not just scrubbing EU references but ending the special pleading embedded in organic import controls entirely.

A local access order appointing 19th July 2023 as the end date for the access preparation period for coastal margin land between Aust and Brean Down (covering five length sections surveyed by Natural England), pursuant to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

This is a narrow procedural instrument that simply specifies a date for when coastal access arrangements take effect in a defined area. Without a specified end date, access arrangements under the 1949 Act would remain in limbo, denying the public clarity on their rights to walk coastal paths. Deletion would create uncertainty rather than freedom, as the underlying statute remains and would still require implementation dates.

This Order amends the Power to Award Degrees etc. (The London Interdisciplinary School Ltd) Order 2020, granting The London Interdisciplinary School Ltd (company number 11082840) competence to award specific taught degrees including MASc, PGDip, PGCert, BASc (Hons), BASc, DipHE, and CertHE in Interdisciplinary Practice and Interdisciplinary Problems and Methods.

Without this Order, The London Interdisciplinary School Ltd would lack statutory competence to award degrees, forcing it to partner with existing universities for degree conferral. Students would lose the benefit of receiving credentials directly from their chosen institution, and LIS would suffer significant competitive disadvantage in the higher education market. While the underlying OfS regulatory framework for degree-awarding powers may warrant broader reform, this specific instrument enables educational competition and plurality that Better Britain supports.

Amendment regulations that create capital disregards in means-tested benefits for payments from the Scottish Infected Blood Support Scheme and approved blood schemes to children of deceased infected blood victims. The regulations insert new provision 5A into multiple benefit schedules and modify Universal Credit treatment of such payments.

These are ex-gratia compensation payments deriving from a state-created historical injustice (NHS blood contamination). Without this disregard, bereaved children would face benefit reductions when receiving inheritance from deceased victims, effectively penalising them twice for a tragedy for which the state bears responsibility. While general regulatory complexity concerns apply to all benefit carve-outs, this specific regulation corrects an anomalous treatment of compensation payments for victims of a state-caused catastrophe. The alternative — forcing inheritance from contaminated blood victims to count against means-tested benefits — would compound an existing injustice at additional cost to vulnerable families.

These regulations amend the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2022, adding definitions (current landlord, named manager, shared ownership lease), prescribing interested persons for remediation orders and contribution orders, modifying procedures for landlords to recover remediation costs from other landlords, adding requirements for leaseholder deed of certificate distribution to RMCs/RTM companies/named managers, and modifying landlord certificate requirements with various exemptions based on contribution conditions and lease value thresholds.

While building safety itself is a legitimate concern, this amendment compounds complexity in an already convoluted regulatory framework. The 2022 Regulations created an intricate system of liability allocation between landlords, multiple notice requirements, First-tier Tribunal appeal routes, and exemptions that vary by lease value and landlord contribution status. Rather than clarifying the original framework, this amendment adds further layers: new definitions (named manager), additional procedural requirements (30-day extension applications), and more categories of interested persons. This regulatory complexity creates compliance costs that are ultimately passed to tenants and deters property investment. The original 2022 regulations should be reviewed as a whole rather than patched incrementally.

These Regulations establish the Retail Movement Scheme (RMS) for moving specified retail goods from Great Britain into Northern Ireland post-Brexit. They create an approval system for businesses, define specified retail goods as those for final consumption in NI, set out documentary/identity/physical check requirements at entry points, establish powers for the Northern Ireland competent authority to conduct inspections, prevent vehicle entry, and seize/re-export/destroy goods posing relevant potential risks (biosecurity or IUU risks). The Scheme implements EU SPS Regulation requirements under the Windsor Framework arrangement.

While acknowledging Northern Ireland's unique post-Windsor Framework position requiring some border-type controls, this regulation imposes substantial regulatory burden on internal UK trade: mandatory approval requirements, seal protocols, 100% documentary checks, identity checks at percentage thresholds, physical check powers, and draconian seizure/destruction powers. These compliance costs fall disproportionately on smaller businesses and slow supply chains. The checks primarily serve to enforce EU single market rules against the UK itself, perpetuating the very bureaucratic constraints Brexit was meant to escape. Less intrusive alternatives (trusted trader schemes, electronic documentation, risk-based sampling) could achieve biosecurity objectives at lower economic cost.

Amends the Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2009 by inserting a new threshold period (1st September 2023 to 30th November 2023) with a 7.3% rate into the table in regulation 20B(3). Extends to England and Wales, effective 1st September 2023.

Without this amendment, the statutory repayment threshold framework would lack a defined rate for the September-November 2023 period, creating legal ambiguity and potential incorrect deductions from borrowers' incomes. While the underlying student loan system raises legitimate free-market concerns, deleting this specific instrument would harm borrowers by disrupting the administrative mechanism that ensures correct repayment calculations, with no market mechanism available to replace it.

These Regulations amend the Business and Planning Act 2020 to extend the expiry date of temporary pavement licence provisions (introduced during COVID-19 for outdoor hospitality) from 30 September 2023 to 30 September 2024, applying to England and Wales.

These regulations perpetuate emergency COVID-era controls by simply shifting a sunset clause forward by one year with no new policy rationale. This exemplifies regulatory creep — temporary measures becoming permanent through inertia. Extension of '30 September 2024' is no more principled than '30 September 2023'; the arbitrary date remains arbitrary. Rather than genuine deregulation through proper legislative process, this extends government control over public space allocation without democratic scrutiny of whether such controls should exist at all. Businesses and local authorities deserve permanent, predictable rules — not annual extensions of emergency powers.

Commencement regulation that brings section 1 and paragraph 49 of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 into force on 21st August 2023, limited only to preparatory work for statutory neonatal care pay payments. This is purely a timing/administrative instrument enabling the initial phase of implementation.

This is a procedural commencement regulation with no independent regulatory effect. It merely sets the date for limited preparatory work on neonatal care pay. Deleting it would not eliminate any regulation—it would only delay implementation. The substantive regulatory scheme derives from the primary Act, which is beyond the scope of this instrument. No additional compliance costs, market distortions, or regulatory burdens are imposed by this regulation itself.

These Regulations implement the Building Safety Act 2022's framework for managing safety risks in higher-risk buildings (typically 18m+ residential). They prescribe requirements for: building registration applications and certificates; mandatory occurrence reporting systems; safety case reports; information sharing with residents, non-resident owners, and clients; residents' engagement strategies; complaints systems; contravention and compliance notices; and appeals procedures. Key mechanisms includePAP (principal accountable person) obligations, 10-day reporting timeframes for safety occurrences, 3-week consultation periods, and regulator enforcement powers.

These regulations exemplify post-Grenfell regulatory overreach that layers disproportionate compliance burdens on building owners without clear evidence of commensurate safety benefit. The 100+ articles prescribe minute operational details (plain English summaries, electronic format requirements, consultation timeframes, complaint acknowledgment timelines) that could be addressed through existing negligence liability, contract law, and insurance markets. The mandatory occurrence reporting system creates new liability exposure rather than preventing accidents. Residents' engagement strategy requirements (3-week consultations for works) add cost and delay to building management. The vague 'principles' in regulation 11 could justify any intervention. Critically, these regulations were inherited wholesale from the EU-derived regulatory approach and impose gold-plated standards. Market mechanisms (insurance underwriting requirements, liability for negligence, consumer choice) would more efficiently incentivise building safety than this prescriptive bureaucratic framework which erodes the competitiveness of English property development and management.

Consequential amendments regulation that updates terminology in multiple local Acts and the Highways Act 1980 to reflect the new building control approval regime under the Building Safety Act 2022. Replaces references to 'plans deposited' with 'application for building control approval', updates appeal bodies from courts to the First-tier Tribunal, and incorporates the new building safety regulator. Applies to England and Wales.

This regulation merely maintains legal consistency after the Building Safety Act 2022 introduced a new building control approval system. Without these amendments, numerous local Acts would contain references to an outdated 'plans deposited' regime that no longer exists, creating legal inconsistency and uncertainty. The regulation imposes no new regulatory burdens—it simply aligns existing legislation with the new system. Deleting it would leave local Acts referring to obsolete procedures, creating confusion for property owners, builders, and regulators. While the underlying Building Safety Act 2022 itself may warrant separate review for regulatory burden, these technical consequential amendments are necessary to prevent chaos in the statute books.

These Regulations establish detailed procedural requirements for higher-risk buildings (HRBs) in England under the Building Safety Act 2022. They mandate building control approval applications, extensive documentation (construction control plans, change control plans, fire safety files, competence declarations), mandatory occurrence reporting systems, golden thread information requirements, and change control procedures. The regulations require consultation with fire safety authorities and sewerage undertakers, set 12-week determination periods, and establish regimes for completion certificates, partial completion, and regularisation of unauthorized work.

These regulations impose extensive bureaucratic burdens that increase construction costs and create barriers to building higher-risk buildings. The multiple required plans (construction control, change control, mandatory occurrence reporting, partial completion strategy, fire and emergency file, Building Regulations compliance statement, competence declaration) favor large developers with compliance departments over smaller builders, reducing market competition. The 12-week determination period plus mandatory consultation periods add significant delays. While fire safety is a legitimate concern addressed by these regulations, less restrictive alternatives (private certification, insurance-based accountability, streamlined documentation requirements) could achieve equivalent safety outcomes at lower cost. The cumulative effect of these requirements contributes to the housing crisis by making it more expensive and difficult to build the homes Britain needs, and concentrates power in a regulator rather than allowing market and contractual mechanisms to ensure safety.

Amends the Building Regulations 2010 to introduce a new Part 2A establishing a dutyholder and competence framework for construction projects in England. Key changes include: new definitions for client, contractor, designer, principal designer, principal contractor; client duties regarding suitable arrangements for compliance and building information; requirements for appointing principal designers/contractors; competence requirements for all dutyholders; general duties to plan, manage and monitor work; and additional duties for designers, contractors, and principal designers. The regulations disapply certain procedural requirements for higher-risk building work and extend new duties across all building projects.

These regulations impose substantial new compliance burdens on the construction industry at a time when the housing crisis demands more building, not more bureaucracy. The competence requirements, appointment obligations, documentation mandates, and coordination duties add costs that are ultimately passed to consumers, making housing less affordable. While motivated by post-Grenfell safety concerns, the regulations address coordination failures through prescriptive government mandates rather than market mechanisms such as insurance or professional liability. The definition of 'higher-risk buildings' creates regulatory distortion and arbitrary thresholds. Furthermore, much of this framework duplicates existing CDM regulations and Health and Safety at Work Act obligations, creating regulatory overlap without commensurate safety benefits. The principal designer/contractor appointment requirements and competence verification procedures impose particularly heavy burdens on smaller firms and may deter new market entry.

Tax regulations implementing the pension remedy for unlawful discrimination in public service pension schemes (the 'McCloud' case). They modify pension input amount calculations, treat certain lump sums as authorized payments, allow schemes to reclaim overpaid sanction charges, set deadlines for repayment applications (1st April 2027), and ensure tax rules align with remedy provisions under PSPJOA 2022 for legacy and new scheme transitions.

These regulations prevent severe tax harm to public sector workers who were subject to unlawful age discrimination in their pensions. Without them, individuals receiving remedy payments could face unexpected tax liabilities on lump sums, schemes could not reclaim overpaid sanction charges, and pension input calculations would produce incorrect results. The 1st April 2027 deadline ensures orderly resolution of these complex cases. Deletion would leave the pension tax system incompatible with the remedy Act, harming the very workers the remedy was designed to protect.