Browse regulations

The Little Crow Solar Park Order 2022 is a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008 granting INRG Solar (Little Crow) Limited permission to construct and operate a solar photovoltaic park with battery energy storage in North Lincolnshire. The Order: defines 60+ terms; authorizes development within Order limits; permits transfer of benefits to other persons; temporarily closes public footpath 214; allows connection to watercourses, sewers and drains; grants land entry rights for survey/investigation; authorizes operation of the generating station; establishes a detailed process for removal of human remains; modifies Hedgerows Regulations 1997 and other statutes; and requires certification of numerous plans including environmental statement, archaeological management plan, and various management plans.

This Order exemplifies government picking winners in the energy sector — granting one specific company exclusive rights to operate a solar park through a quasi-judicial process that excludes competitors. The extensive definitions, modifications to existing statutes (Hedgerows Regulations, Environmental Protection Act, Control of Pollution Act, Water Industry Act), and special exemptions from general law demonstrate how this Order creates private benefit at public expense. The Planning Act 2008 regime requiring development consent for nationally significant infrastructure is itself a barrier to free markets in energy. Deletion would advance Better Britain's goal of restoring Britain's position as a free-trading nation by removing one example of corporate welfare through government-granted monopoly rights, exposing the NSIP regime's flaws, and allowing ordinary planning law under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to apply without the additional layer of state intervention.

Amends Council Tax regulations to provide discount disregards and exempt dwelling treatment for Ukrainian refugees arriving under the Homes for Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme. Creates Class G for discount disregards, defines 'relevant Ukrainian person', and modifies various Classes (N, S, U) to disregard occupation by Ukrainian refugees when determining unoccupied dwelling status.

Without this regulation, Ukrainian refugees fleeing war would face full council tax liability as additional residents or occupants, creating financial hardship during a humanitarian crisis. The regulation achieves equal treatment for Ukrainian guests with existing provisions for other refugee groups, and provides clear, simple rules rather than case-by-case discretion. Deletion would make Britons worse off by imposing unnecessary costs on those seeking refuge from armed conflict.

This Order amends the Broadcasting Act 1996 to permit national radio multiplex licence holders to renew their licences (or have them further renewed) for a period ending 31st December 2035. It introduces simplified renewal procedures and relaxes the timeline requirements for determinations related to such renewals.

This regulation creates regulatory lock-in by extending licence renewals to 2035, entrenching existing spectrum holders and blocking potential competitors from accessing scarce radio spectrum. By reducing competitive pressure over a 12-year horizon, it diminishes incentives for innovation and investment in digital radio services. The extended renewal mechanism effectively grants de facto perpetual access to those already holding licences, harming consumers by suppressing competition in a scarce-resource market. Furthermore, the use of a Legislative Reform Order to implement what amounts to a significant market structure change avoids proper parliamentary scrutiny.

These Regulations amend the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 to introduce a definition of 'local welfare provision' (occasional financial assistance from local authorities for immediate short-term needs arising from exceptional circumstances, or to help individuals establish settled homes after institutional care or homelessness). The Regulations add paragraph 18A to Schedule 10, providing that local welfare provision payments received within the past 12 months are disregarded when calculating capital for Universal Credit means-testing purposes.

Without this disregard, emergency lump-sum payments from local welfare schemes would be counted as capital, potentially reducing or eliminating Universal Credit entitlement precisely when vulnerable individuals face crises—creating a perverse result that penalises those receiving emergency assistance. The 12-month time limit and restrictive definition (limited to exceptional circumstances and short-term needs) constrain moral hazard. While any safety net provision carries some dependency risk, deleting this would harm vulnerable Britons by undermining the intended purpose of local welfare assistance without meaningful evidence that it significantly distorts saving incentives.

The Social Security and Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2022 amend two earlier statutory instruments to modify eligibility rules for housing benefit, state pension credit, and council tax reduction for persons subject to immigration control. The changes broaden access by removing certain restrictions and simplifying procedural requirements for claiming these benefits.

These amendments expand eligibility for vulnerable migrants and simplify administrative requirements, meaning Britons would be worse off without them. While broader social security programs raise legitimate free-market concerns about moral hazard and labor market distortions, this specific instrument corrects prior anomalies and removes restrictions rather than adding regulatory burden. The changes are domestic, targeted corrections to existing benefit rules, not EU-derived gold-plating requiring repeal.

These Regulations amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to expand sanctions against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. They add definitions for luxury goods, oil refining goods, and quantum computing/advanced materials goods and technologies. The regulations prohibit: export of luxury goods to Russia; import of iron and steel products from Russia; acquisition of Russian-originated iron and steel products; and supply/delivery of iron and steel products from Russia to third countries. They also create offences with defences for lack of knowledge.

These sanctions restrict trade between willing parties, harming British exporters who lose access to markets and consumers who face higher prices. They impose significant compliance costs on businesses. Historical evidence shows sanctions rarely achieve their stated foreign policy objectives of changing state behaviour, while the economic harm falls on ordinary citizens rather than regimes. Deleting these would restore Britain's historic free-trading position, benefit British businesses, and reduce prices for consumers, without meaningfully harming the Russian government.

The Russia (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 2022 amends the Russia (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2020, which extends UK Russia sanctions regulations to British overseas territories. The amendments include: updating definitions of 'authorised officer' to clarify enforcement powers; fixing regulatory cross-references; substituting 'Territory' for 'UK' references to reflect territorial applicability; adding definitions for regional currencies (Bermuda dollar, Cayman Islands dollar, etc.); modifying correspondent banking relationship rules; and adjusting shipping/aviation sanction provisions. The Order comes into force on 14th April 2022 and applies to all listed British overseas territories.

This Order adapts existing UK Russia sanctions policy to overseas territories through technical modifications. While sanctions represent government restriction of voluntary trade, deleting this would create regulatory gaps rather than reduce burden—the underlying UK sanctions policy remains in force. The amendments are predominantly textual substitutions (Territory for UK) and cross-reference corrections rather than new restrictions. Without this adaptation, overseas territories would lack clear regulatory frameworks for enforcing existing UK foreign policy, potentially causing greater inconsistency and confusion. The costs of deletion (regulatory vacuum, enforcement gaps) exceed the costs of keeping what is essentially administrative adaptation of existing policy.

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2022 amends the 2020 Order to extend enforcement powers, add new penalty provisions including uncapped daily penalties of £1,000/day, introduce 'authorised persons' alongside regulators, and incorporate additional EU regulations (Verification Regulation 2018, Free Allocation Regulation, Activity Level Changes Regulation) into the scheme. It creates new civil penalties for failure to comply with notices to return allowances, with a fixed penalty of £20,000 plus ongoing daily penalties with no maximum.

This amendment compounds the regulatory burden on UK businesses in an already heavily controlled scheme. The introduction of uncapped daily penalties (£1,000/day with no maximum) creates extreme liability exposure that could bankrupt compliant businesses through no fault of their own. Extending powers to 'authorised persons' without adequate parliamentary scrutiny increases the risk of regulatory overreach. Rather than reducing the EU-derived regulatory estate as post-Brexit opportunities allow, this adds additional compliance requirements from incorporated EU regulations. The compliance costs and enforcement risks drive investment and business activity away from the UK, harming the competitiveness of British industry in global markets.

This Commencement Order (No. 23) brings Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 into force on specified dates (March-April 2022) at specific Crown Courts (Great Grimsby, Kingston-upon-Hull, York, Bradford, Teesside). Section 28 provides for video-recorded cross-examination or re-examination of vulnerable witnesses, specifically applying to complainants in sexual offence or modern slavery proceedings who are eligible for assistance under section 17(4).

While this regulation imposes procedural requirements on court conduct, deleting it would harm the very vulnerable witnesses (sexual assault and modern slavery complainants) it seeks to protect. Without this framework, these individuals face potential re-traumatization through direct cross-examination, which could effectively deny them meaningful access to justice. The ability of victims of sexual offences and modern slavery to give evidence is a foundational requirement for the justice system to function. No superior market mechanism exists to ensure this outcome, and court flexibility in individual cases remains possible within this framework.

This Order amends the Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) Order 2015 to add search conditions as a licence condition type for terrorist offenders. It defines 'terrorist offender' by reference to the Terrorism Act 2000 and provides that such offenders may be required to submit to searches of their person under section 43C of that Act as a condition of their licence following release from custody.

This Order represents an expansion of state control over individuals post-release beyond what is necessary. The definition of 'terrorist offender' is tied to administrative classification under terrorism legislation rather than individualized risk assessment, creating a categorical rather than tailored approach. While public safety is a legitimate concern, this Order compounds the already substantial restrictions placed on released offenders through indefinite licence conditions. Search conditions without individualized suspicion represent a significant intrusion on liberty that should require specific judicial authorization in each case rather than blanket application by category. The underlying terrorism prevention framework in the Terrorism Act 2000 remains intact without this Order, so deletion would not eliminate existing safeguards but would prevent unnecessary accumulation of regulatory burden on a specific group.

These Regulations amend the Proscribed Organisations (Applications for Deproscription etc.) Regulations 2006 by updating the addresses where applications for deproscription must be sent. For general terrorism-related proscriptions, the address changes to the Proscription Team at 2 Marsham Street, London. For organisations connected to Northern Ireland terrorism, the address changes to the Security and Protection Group in Belfast. The regulations are purely administrative, updating contact details without altering the substantive criteria or process for deproscription applications.

These regulations impose no regulatory burden—they merely update administrative addresses for submitting deproscription applications. The underlying substantive framework remains in the 2006 Regulations and Terrorism Act 2000. Deleting this amendment would create confusion by reverting to obsolete addresses, achieving no liberalising benefit while potentially causing applications to be misdirected.

These Regulations establish the operational framework for conducting polygraph examinations on individuals subject to Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs) under the TPIM Act 2011. They prescribe qualification requirements for polygraph operators (APA accreditation, minimum 20 supervised examinations, 30 hours biennial continuing development), conflict-of-interest restrictions, pre-session notification procedures, session requirements (audio-visual recording, pre-test interview, examination with 2+ comparison and 2-4 relevant questions, post-test interview), operator reporting obligations, supervisor review requirements with 6-monthly operator meetings, and annual reporting by polygraph providers to the Secretary of State.

While these regulations impose procedural safeguards, polygraph testing for terrorism prevention purposes lacks robust scientific validation—studies indicate significant false positive and false negative rates. The qualification requirements, recording mandates, and supervisory oversight create an appearance of rigor without addressing the fundamental reliability problem. These costs fall on both the state (training, administration, supervision) and on relevant individuals who may face tightened TPIM restrictions based on scientifically questionable outputs. The regulations do not create market distortion in the traditional sense but institutionalize a surveillance mechanism with known accuracy limitations, adding bureaucratic overhead while perpetuating a practice that can cause genuine harm through erroneous results. The TPIM Act 2011 provides the primary legal framework; these technical procedural requirements could be handled through contractual arrangements with providers rather than statutory instruments.

These Regulations exempt transfers of capital market investments by qualifying transformer vehicles and securitisation companies (note-issuing companies) from stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax, subject to conditions. They define key terms including 'capital market arrangement' and 'note-issuing company', and specify exceptions where the exemption does not apply (e.g., when certain alternative tax treatments apply, or when securities carry conversion rights into other securities).

This regulation reduces rather than increases the regulatory burden by providing stamp duty exemptions that facilitate securitisation transactions. Deleting it would reintroduce stamp duty costs on these capital market transactions, raising borrowing costs and reducing market efficiency. The exemption targets legitimate commercial structures without mandating participation; market participants remain free to use alternative structures. While ideal tax policy would abolish stamp duties entirely, this targeted exemption represents a step in that direction and removing it would harm Britons by increasing transaction costs in capital markets without countervailing benefit.

Amends the Taxation of Securitisation Companies Regulations 2006 by: (1) modifying the interpretation of 'independent persons' for securitisation purposes, adjusting how 'control' is applied under sections 1122-1123 of CTA 2010 when Company A issues securities; and (2) reducing the threshold for 'note-issuing company' definition from £10 million to £5 million. The regulations do not apply to capital market arrangements entered into before 17th May 2022.

These amendments provide technical clarifications that maintain tax certainty for securitisation structures without introducing new restrictions. The reduced threshold from £10m to £5m extends rather than contracts the regime, allowing smaller securitisation transactions to benefit from the same tax treatment. While any regulation carries compliance costs, the underlying 2006 framework addresses genuine risks around related-party abuse in securitisation structures. Removing this amendment would simply revert to the prior rules, not eliminate regulation.

This Order amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 to bring funeral plan contracts under FCA regulation as a regulated activity. It creates article 59(1A) making 'carrying out a funeral plan contract as provider' a regulated activity requiring FCA permission. The Order establishes transitional provisions for existing providers, modifies the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to cover funeral plan provider failures, creates continuity arrangements for plan holders when providers become insolvent, and grants the FCA and FSCS information-gathering powers regarding funeral plan trust arrangements.

Funeral plans involve consumers making substantial upfront payments for future services with significant information asymmetry and moral hazard risk if providers become insolvent. Without this regulation, consumers who prepay for funerals face catastrophic loss if providers fail—the market alone cannot adequately protect them given the long-term nature of these contracts and the difficulty of valuing provider solvency. The FSCS safety net and FCA oversight address genuine market failures that contract law alone cannot resolve. Alternative consumer protection mechanisms (pure disclosure requirements, bonding schemes) have known limitations in this specific product category where consumers often purchase plans years before services are delivered and may not meaningfully compare providers.