Browse regulations

These 2022 Regulations amend the Protection of Trading Interests (Authorisation) Regulations 2021 by adding definitions for the Helms-Burton Act (Cuba sanctions) and laws relating to Iran, and authorizing Three Crowns (Services) LLP to comply with a specific US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) licence related to Iran. The existing Schedule was renumbered as Schedule 1, and a new Schedule 2 was added authorizing compliance with OFAC licence IA-2016-331681-3.

This regulation authorises UK companies to comply with US extraterritorial sanctions on Iran, effectively legitimising and enabling US jurisdictional overreach into British commerce. The underlying US sanctions regime is itself a distortion of free trade that harms ordinary Iranians and British businesses alike. Rather than selectively permitting one firm to comply with OFAC licences, Britain should cease recognising these extraterritorial sanctions entirely. This amendment perpetuates a regime where US law effectively overrides UK law for sanctioned activities, undermines UK sovereignty, and creates preferential treatment for one company while restricting trade with Iran for all others.

Post-Grenfell fire safety regulations for high-rise residential buildings (18m+ or 7+ storeys) in England, requiring secure information boxes, external wall design records, floor/building plans, monthly checks of lifts and fire-fighting equipment, floor identification markings, resident fire safety instructions, and periodic fire door inspections (annual for individual premises, quarterly for communal areas).

These regulations impose significant ongoing compliance costs on building owners and leaseholders with no clear evidence of proportionate benefit. The monthly lift checks, quarterly communal fire door inspections, and annual individual door inspections create bureaucratic burden without demonstrating that market mechanisms or stronger insurance incentives could achieve better outcomes. The regulations duplicate existing guidance in Approved Document B while adding prescriptive administrative requirements. The secure information box mandate, detailed record-keeping obligations, and 5-year review provisions demonstrate regulatory creep rather than targeted intervention. Post-Grenfell fire safety could be better addressed through performance-based standards that allow building owners flexibility in achieving safety outcomes, rather than costly mandated processes that increase service charges for residents.

These Regulations revoke Part 4A (regulations 23A to 23D) of the VAT Regulations 1995, which established requirements for reverse charge sales statements. The Regulations come into force on 1st July 2022 and include transitional provisions limiting obligations for statements where the due date would fall on or after 17th October 2022, restricting required particulars to supplies made before 1st July 2022.

This regulation is itself a deregulatory measure that removes compliance burdens. Deleting it would restore the revoked Part 4A requirements, imposing additional administrative obligations on businesses submitting reverse charge sales statements. The transitional provisions are technical savings necessary to prevent gaps during the regulatory transition, not new burdens. Removing this instrument would harm businesses by keeping unnecessary VAT compliance requirements in force.

Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008 authorising the M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange upgrade in Surrey. Grants National Highways Limited development consent for highway improvements including new carriageways, junctions, bridges, and associated works. Confers powers of compulsory acquisition, temporary possession, street management, and road classification. Establishes traffic regulation measures including speed limits and clearways.

This is not a regulatory burden on private activity but an infrastructure authorisation that enables market efficiency. The M25 Junction 10/A3 is one of the most congested interchanges in Britain, imposing significant time costs on freight and commerce. Deletion would perpetuate congestion externalities, harming all users of this critical national transport corridor. The Planning Act 2008 process provides appropriate democratic scrutiny for nationally significant infrastructure projects. Without this DCO, the improvement cannot proceed, leaving a known bottleneck that distorts logistics costs and economic productivity in the region.

Commencement regulations bringing into force specific provisions of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 - covering special measures for domestic abuse victims in criminal proceedings (s.62, effective 19 May 2022), civil proceedings (s.64, effective 14 June 2022), and new strangulation/suffocation offences (s.70 and Schedule 2, effective 7 June 2022). Also activates provisions related to children Act orders (s.67).

This is a procedural commencement regulation that merely activates provisions already democratically enacted by Parliament. Deleting it would create legal uncertainty, prevent courts from implementing domestic abuse protections on schedule, and leave victims without established special measures. It imposes no economic burden, restricts no trade, and creates no market distortions - it is purely an administrative mechanism for implementing Parliamentary will.

The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022 amend the 2021 regulations to: (1) allow directions to relevant persons regarding abortion services without Executive Committee approval; (2) substitute Local Commissioning Groups for Regional Health and Social Care Boards; (3) require the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to allocate resources to implement CEDAW Report recommendations 85 and 86 on abortion services; (4) grant the Secretary of State powers to ensure implementation and provide financial assistance. The regulations bypass normal devolved democratic processes by mandating that Executive Committee non-involvement be 'disregarded'.

The regulations represent central government override of devolved democracy, mandate specific government funding commitments, and create conditions that suppress private healthcare alternatives. The repeated provisions that Executive Committee approval is to be 'disregarded' demonstrate how this regulation circumvents democratic accountability. Hayek identified that centralized direction of resources prevents the dispersed decision-making necessary for efficient allocation. These mandates foreclose private sector participation in healthcare provision and lock in government-financed monopoly supply, producing the exact wait times and supply constraints seen in NHS services. The regulations were also gold-plated from international obligations rather than reflecting genuine British policy judgment.

Tax Credits and Child Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022 - Amends multiple tax credits and child benefit regulations to: (1) add bank account requirements for non-direct credit transfer recipients allowing suspension of benefits; (2) remove references to qualifying young person Case 3 provisions; (3) remove certain Working Tax Credit entitlement conditions including 7D(3), 7E, and 30-hour element exceptions; (4) update childcare provider scheme references; (5) remove all coronavirus-related provisions including definitions, special notification dates, and the entire Child Benefit (General) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

These amendments are primarily housekeeping measures that remove temporary coronavirus emergency provisions that are now obsolete, update outdated scheme references, and add reasonable administrative requirements for bank account details to prevent fraud and ensure proper payment delivery. Britons would be worse off if deleted because: (1) removing the suspension mechanism for those not providing bank details would create payment delivery problems and potential fraud; (2) the childcare provider scheme updates ensure regulations reference current, valid schemes; (3) the substantive entitlement changes reflect policy decisions already made through proper democratic channels, not bureaucratic overreach.

This Order appoints 19th May 2022 as the date on which the access preparation period ends for coastal margin land between Shoreham by Sea and Eastbourne, implementing coastal access rights approved by the Secretary of State under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

This Order merely sets administrative dates for implementing coastal access rights that were already approved through the proper statutory process (Secretary of State approval on 19th December 2019 of Natural England's report). The underlying coastal access scheme was democratically enacted under the 1949 Act. Deleting this Order would create legal uncertainty and deny the public access rights that have been legitimately established through due process, without achieving any clear economic benefit.

Grants East Anglia One Limited a time-limited exemption from transmission licensing requirements for the transmission system connected to its offshore wind farm, valid from 10th June 2022 until either system transfer to a competitive tender winner or 13th April 2023.

This exemption is a narrow, time-limited carve-out that facilitates rather than hinders competition. It enables the UK government's competitive tender regime for offshore transmission licences to function, allowing the temporary operation of transmission infrastructure while a competitive bidding process determines the permanent licensed operator. The exemption has a fixed endpoint and applies only to East Anglia One. Deleting it would strand renewable generation capacity during the transition period without improving market competition — the competitive tender process itself is the market-friendly mechanism for allocating transmission rights.

A short regulation that comes into force on 14th June 2022, extends to England, Wales and Scotland, and revokes the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2021. It is essentially a regulatory rollback instrument.

This regulation is itself a deregulatory measure—it removes a prior layer of regulation by revoking the 2021 amendment. Britons would be worse off if this revocation were deleted, as it would restore the 2021 Regulations without any demonstrated benefit from those regulations that outweighs their regulatory burden. The regulation serves the agency's mission of reducing the accumulated regulatory stock.

Commencement regulations bringing into force provisions of the Building Safety Act 2022 on specified dates (May-June 2022), with transitional and saving provisions allowing existing Building Act 1984 regulations to continue in force and preserving section 106(3) for pending magistrates' court applications.

This is a procedural transitional instrument that manages the orderly implementation of the Building Safety Act 2022. Deleting it would create legal chaos: uncertainty about which statutory provisions are in force, loss of saving provisions that keep existing building regulations valid, and disruption to ongoing magistrates' court proceedings. Britons would be worse off facing regulatory ambiguity during a critical transition to a new building safety regime. The regulation itself imposes no new regulatory burdens—it merely coordinates the legal transition.

These Regulations specify offences for the purposes of triggering automatic eligibility for special measures in civil proceedings under section 64 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Schedule contains tables of specified offences (primarily violent and sexual offences) which qualify victims for special measures such as screens, video links, or intermediaries when giving evidence in civil proceedings.

Deletion would remove automatic eligibility for special measures for victims of these offences, forcing individual applications and likely deterring vulnerable victims—particularly of domestic abuse—from pursuing civil claims. The regulation merely implements primary legislation (Domestic Abuse Act 2021) and does not impose economic burdens or restrict market activity; it is a procedural protection enabling access to justice.

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 establish a government subsidy program providing grants to property owners to switch from fossil fuel or electric heating systems to air source heat pumps, ground source heat pumps, or biomass boilers. The scheme operates through certified installers who apply for grants on behalf of property owners, with vouchers issued specifying grant values, validity periods (3 months for air source/6 months for ground source), and eligibility verification. Key mechanisms include: eligibility criteria requiring properties not be social housing or new-build, have valid EPCs, and not have received prior public funding for similar installations; installer certification via Microgeneration Certification Scheme; seasonal coefficient of performance requirements (minimum 2.8 for heat pumps); budget allocation controls; and compliance obligations including suitability criteria and commissioning timelines.

This regulation represents government picking winners in the energy market through subsidies, distorting consumer choice and investment signals. The extensive regulatory apparatus—certification requirements, eligibility conditions, compliance timelines, and means-tested grants to property owners—imposes administrative burdens that likely exceed any benefits. The scheme props up heat pump and biomass boiler industries that should compete on economic merit alone. If decarbonization is desired, a carbon price would be far more efficient than targeted technology subsidies. The compliance costs, eligibility restrictions (excluding social housing and new-builds), and bureaucratic processes for what is essentially a wealth transfer to homeowners contradict free-market principles that made Britain great.

These Regulations establish the fee structure for court-appointed qualified legal representatives (QLRs) who conduct cross-examination in family and civil proceedings where parties are prohibited from cross-examining witnesses in person under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. They cover advocacy service fees, costs (travel, accommodation, subsistence), procedures for claiming payment for completed hearings, cancelled hearings, and terminated appointments, and include bolt-on fees for large document bundles (over 350 pages). The Regulations apply to payments from central funds and include detailed fee tables differentiated by judge level, case type (private law children/domestic abuse/finance, public law), and hearing type.

Without these regulations establishing clear payment mechanisms, court-appointed qualified legal representatives would face uncertainty or inadequate compensation for conducting cross-examination mandated by sections 65 and 66 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The prohibition on cross-examination in person exists to protect domestic abuse survivors from further trauma - deleting the fee payment structure would make this protection unworkable in practice, as lawyers would decline appointments if payment could not be guaranteed. While complexity could be reduced, the core mechanism of publicly-funded payment for court-appointed advocates is necessary to give effect to protections for vulnerable persons in family proceedings.

UK regulations implementing sections 65 and 66 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which prohibit cross-examination in person in civil and family proceedings where domestic abuse has occurred. Extends to England and Wales. Specifies offences (Schedule 1), protective injunctions (Schedule 2), and forms of evidence (Schedule 3) for purposes of Sections 31R-31T of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and Sections 85F-85H of the Courts Act 2003.

Deleting this regulation would expose domestic abuse victims to direct cross-examination by their abusers, causing additional trauma and deterring victims from seeking legal remedies. While courts possess some procedural discretion, statutory protection ensures consistent application across all family and civil proceedings. Without this framework, the court system would function less effectively for the most vulnerable participants, undermining access to justice. The protection of abuse victims from direct confrontation with perpetrators serves both humanitarian and practical purposes that cannot be adequately replicated through informal judicial discretion alone.