Browse regulations

These Regulations establish the procedure for the Secretary of State to review and decide upon transitioned trade remedies (anti-dumping amounts, countervailing amounts, and tariff rate quotas) that originated under the EU system and were transitioned to UK jurisdiction post-Brexit. The regulations set out: the call-in process by which the Secretary of State takes over decision-making from the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA); requirements for public files, confidential information handling, and evidence gathering; the TRA's obligation to investigate and provide a Report of Findings; the Secretary of State's decision-making powers regarding maintenance, variation, or revocation of trade remedies; and appeal rights to the Upper Tribunal.

These Regulations perpetuate a protectionist framework that contradicts Britain's heritage as the world's leading free-trading nation. Rather than removing barriers post-Brexit, this elaborate regime maintains and administratively reinvigorates anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, and tariff rate quotas—all forms of trade protectionism that distort markets, raise prices for consumers, and favor incumbent domestic producers over more efficient foreign competitors. The bureaucratic apparatus created (TRA investigations, Reports of Findings, confidential information regimes, economic interest tests, judicial appeals) imposes substantial compliance costs while preserving a system whose fundamental purpose is to impede free trade. The repeal of the Corn Laws demonstrated that Britain once understood free trade benefits all; this regulation represents a step backward.

The Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2022 amends retained EU Regulation 2019/2072 to update plant health protective measures. It adds new pests to regulated lists (Scolytus morawitzi, Thaumetopoea processionea, and others), imposes new requirements for wood and plant imports from Russia and other countries, modifies official statement requirements for phytosanitary certificates, and removes certain existing entries. The changes implement ISPM4 international standards for pest-free areas.

Phytosanitary regulations protect agriculture, forestry, and ecosystems from invasive pests that can cause irreversible damage. Unlike many EU regulations that impose static bureaucratic requirements, these plant health measures are dynamically updated in response to evolving pest risks and allow multiple compliance pathways (kiln-drying, heat treatment, fumigation, or irradiation). Deletion would leave British agriculture and forests vulnerable to invasive species like the Eastern six-eyed bark beetle (Scolytus morawitzi) or oak processionary moth (Thaumetopoea processionea), which have caused severe damage elsewhere. While compliance costs exist, they are proportionate to the verified pest risks and mirror international standards already adopted by trading partners.

Establishes a 500m safety zone around a specified offshore installation (Well P41 SM7C, Block 9/18b, Ballindalloch Field) using World Geodetic System 1984 coordinates, and amends the 2019 Order by removing an obsolete entry for that well. The Order applies across the entire UK.

Safety zones around offshore petroleum installations address genuine externalities — preventing vessel collisions that could cause loss of life, environmental disasters, and damage to critical energy infrastructure. Markets alone would not adequately protect these hazards given the coordination problems in maritime navigation. The 500m radius is a straightforward, internationally-recognized standard that does not involve gold-plating or unnecessary regulatory burden. Deletion would leave workers and the environment unnecessarily exposed to preventable risks, and Britons would be worse off as a result.

This Order establishes the end date of the access preparation period (8 February 2022) for coastal margin land between Silecroft and Silverdale, following approval of a Natural England report under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. It formalises the designation of coastal access rights for a specific stretch of coastline.

While public access to the countryside has merit, this Order represents government compulsion over private land without adequate compensation mechanisms. It imposes regulatory costs on landowners while access rights are determined by bureaucratic process rather than voluntary agreement or market mechanisms. The coastal access framework under the 1949 Act reflects post-war thinking that has accumulated decades of gold-plating and EU-derived bureaucratic requirements. The specific path could be delivered more efficiently through voluntary easements or negotiated access agreements, avoiding the unintended consequence of suppressing coastal land values and deterring investment in coastal properties.

The Plastic Packaging Tax (General) Regulations 2022 implement the Plastic Packaging Tax created by the Finance Act 2021, effective April 2022. The regulations define key terms (chargeable plastic packaging components, indicative components, product lines, production runs), establish methodology for determining plastic content versus other materials (aluminium, steel, glass, paper, wood), set out rules for calculating recycled plastic proportions, define substantial modification, establish tax credit mechanisms for exports, set registration/notification requirements, define quarterly accounting periods, establish payment and return filing procedures, and prescribe extensive record-keeping and measurement requirements.

This regulation imposes substantial compliance costs through its intricate definitions of indicative components, product lines, and production runs that allow large manufacturers to minimize tax through sampling techniques while small businesses face disproportionate administrative burdens. The quarterly reporting, payment obligations, and six-year record-keeping requirements create ongoing bureaucratic overhead that distorts business decisions and acts as a barrier to entry for smaller competitors. The tax itself may prove counterproductive as manufacturers shift to alternative materials (paper, glass, aluminium) that may carry worse environmental footprints across their lifecycle, while the costs are largely passed through to consumers making it a regressive levy. The retained EU-style regulatory approach embodied in these detailed prescriptive rules is precisely the post-Brexit bureaucratic burden that should be eliminated to restore Britain's free-trading heritage.

This Order brings into force sections 1 and 2 of the Safeguarding (Code of Practice) Measure 2021 on 1st March 2022, and makes transitional provisions allowing existing House of Bishops safeguarding guidance to remain in operation until new codes of practice under section 5A of the 2016 Measure come into effect. It also preserves the pre-substitution form of clergy discipline provisions for failures to comply with the continued duty.

This Order is a spent transitional instrument — sections 1 and 2 of the 2021 Measure are already in force as of 1st March 2022, and any transitional provisions have long since expired. The Order no longer serves any practical function. Furthermore, the underlying regime (the 2016 Measure as substituted) imposes a compliance duty on 'relevant persons' with due regard to bishops' guidance — a structure that concentrates authority in the House of Bishops without democratic accountability, creates undefined duties that could be applied arbitrarily in clergy discipline proceedings, and uses vague concepts like 'due regard' that provide little actual protection while imposing significant compliance costs. The transition has concluded; this relic should be removed.

A commencement order bringing into force provisions of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, including sections on airspace change proposals, directions to progress/cooperate, delegation of functions to the CAA, information provision, appeals, and enforcement mechanisms. Appointed day is 18th February 2022.

This is a procedural commencement order that merely activates provisions of an Act of Parliament already passed through democratic process. Deleting it would prevent Parliament's intent from taking effect. While the underlying 2021 Act may warrant separate policy review for regulatory burden, a commencement order is not the appropriate vehicle — full repeal of the parent Act would be the proper course. Additionally, aviation airspace management involves natural monopoly characteristics and externalities where some regulatory framework has legitimate justification, and the CAA delegation in section 5 provides a degree of independent technical oversight rather than pure ministerial discretion.

These Regulations define 'prescribed aerodrome' for the purposes of section 19A(3) of the Transport Act 2000, specifying that it means an aerodrome receiving an approach control service provided under a licence granted under section 6 of that Act. They establish which aerodromes have standing to appeal air traffic services licence modifications by the Civil Aviation Authority.

While air traffic licensing regimes warrant scrutiny, this instrument is merely definitional—it simply identifies which aerodromes may appeal licence modifications. Deleting it would create legal uncertainty rather than reduce regulatory burden. The aerodromes covered already operate under the section 6 licensing regime; this merely determines appeal rights. The real regulatory architecture lies in the underlying Transport Act 2000 licensing framework, not in this procedural definition.

Amends the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 by changing a citation reference from 'seven' to 'nine' in regulation 1(c). This is a technical amendment with no substantive policy changes.

This is merely a technical correction to a cross-reference number, not a substantive regulatory change. The underlying policy question is whether mandatory dog microchipping itself should be retained—but this instrument alone, which merely corrects a citation error, provides no regulatory benefit and merely consumes parliamentary and administrative resources. If the underlying 2015 Regulations are to be reviewed, that review should assess the substantive costs and benefits of mandatory microchipping itself, not this pointless amendment.

Amends the Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order 2015 to add Alexander Stadium (Birmingham City Council) to Schedule 1, designating it as a sports ground requiring a safety certificate under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. Comes into force 7th March 2022.

Public safety at large sporting venues with tens of thousands of spectators involves genuine information asymmetries and externality risks that private markets would under-provide. The Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 requires certification for structural safety, exit capacity, and emergency provisions—without such designation, Birmingham's Alexander Stadium (a major venue hosting athletics, football, and concerts) would lack mandatory safety oversight. Unlike economic regulations that distort competition, this targets physical safety externalities where government intervention addresses genuine market failure rather than creating it.

The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 amend the Russia (Sanctions) Regulations 2019 to expand designation criteria for persons involved in destabilising Ukraine or supporting the Russian Government. It defines 'involved persons' to include those engaged in business with Russian-affiliated entities, strategic sectors (chemicals, construction, defence, electronics, energy, extractives, financial services, ICT, transport), or who are members of or associated with such persons. The regulation requires the Secretary of State to have reasonable grounds to suspect involvement and consider appropriateness.

While these sanctions restrict voluntary commerce, the deliberate destruction of Ukraine's sovereignty represents a fundamental breakdown of the rule of law and property rights that underlies a functioning free market. The procedural safeguards (reasonable grounds suspicion, appropriateness test) provide meaningful constraints. Deleting this regulation would leave the UK unable to respond to naked aggression through economic means, emboldening further violations that would be far more destructive to economic liberty than targeted sanctions against aggressors and their enablers.

This Order created a temporary exclusion from the Competition Act 1998's Chapter I prohibition to permit NHS bodies and independent healthcare providers to coordinate during the COVID-19 pandemic. It allowedcollaboration on capacity information sharing, staff deployment, facility sharing, joint purchasing, and service provision coordination. The Order required notification to the Secretary of State and maintained a public register. It applied to agreements made between December 7, 2021 and March 31, 2022, coming into force on March 9, 2022.

The Order has already expired (March 31, 2022) and has no current legal effect. While enacted for legitimate crisis circumstances, it temporarily suspended competition law to permit anti-competitive coordination between NHS bodies and private providers — establishing a dangerous precedent where 'public policy' can override market competition. Even time-limited waivers of competition law create moral hazard and established frameworks that can be extended beyond their original scope. As a matter of principle, Britons are better served by maintaining competitive markets in healthcare rather than creating carve-outs that legitimize collusion between state and private providers. The regulation should be formally deleted as it is obsolete and embodies a fundamentally flawed approach to healthcare provision.

These Regulations amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) Regulations 2021, modifying COVID-19 international travel restrictions, testing requirements, country classifications, and operator liability obligations. Key changes include removing category 1/category 2 country classifications, modifying workforce testing requirements for arriving passengers, updating self-isolation obligations, adding countries to and removing countries from various schedules, and inserting new operator compliance obligations (regulation 15A) requiring operators to implement processes to verify passenger documentation. The regulations create criminal offenses for breaches and impose obligations on transport operators to ensure passengers possess required documentation.

These regulations were emergency COVID-19 public health measures enacted in February 2022. By March 2026, the pandemic emergency has long passed, and maintaining these restrictions serves no current public health purpose while imposing ongoing costs on travel operators, restricting international movement, and creating criminal liability for administrative failures. These are precisely the type of bureaucratic constraints that should be removed to restore Britain's position as a free-trading, open destination. The operator liability provisions alone impose significant compliance burdens without demonstrated benefit.

These regulations amend council tax rules to require billing authorities to include a statement on demand notices about the £150 Energy Bills Rebate for households in council tax bands A-D, and to require council tax reduction schemes to disregard Energy Rebate Scheme 2022 payments when determining eligibility or reduction amounts.

The disregard provision prevents perverse unintended consequences where means-tested council tax reduction recipients would have their support reduced by exactly the amount of the rebate, rendering the stimulus payment hollow. Without this regulation, billing authorities would face inconsistent approaches across England, creating postcode-lottery administration. While the mandatory statement on demand notices imposes minimal compliance costs, deleting this would harm the very households the rebate intended to help.

The Gosport (Electoral Changes) Order 2022 abolishes existing wards of Gosport borough and replaces them with 14 new wards, each represented by 2 councillors (28 total). It establishes election timing, retirement rotation schedules for councillors elected in 2022, and procedural rules for determining retirement order when votes are equal or elections uncontested. The Order implements boundary changes identified on a map held by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

This is a routine administrative reorganization of local electoral boundaries—purely a matter of democratic governance structure, not regulatory burden. It imposes no economic restrictions, creates no market distortions, and does not restrict any commercial activity. Deleting it would leave no legal framework for the new ward boundaries, creating confusion in local elections and governance. Unlike the EU-derived regulations, financial rules, or planning restrictions in my mandate, this instrument simply administers democratic representation and has no plausible free-market objection.