Browse regulations

Amendment to Employment Rights Act 1996 (Coronavirus, Calculation of a Week's Pay) Regulations 2020, extending the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme end-date reference from 31st March 2021 to 30th April 2021. Temporary COVID-19 measure affecting calculation of weekly pay for furloughed employees.

This regulation merely extended a reference date for an emergency COVID-19 measure by one month. The CJRS has long since ended, making this provision obsolete. Such emergency wage subsidies distorted labor market signals and created perverse incentives — keeping workers on furlough rather than transitioning to productive employment. The original 2020 regulations were a necessary-looking but ultimately harmful intervention that propped up an artificial employment relationship. Now that the crisis has passed, retaining this amendment serves no purpose while reminding us of how quickly government can accumulate control over wage-setting mechanisms.

Amendment Regulations 2021 that increase NHS prescription charges from £9.15 to £9.35 and £18.30 to £18.70, raise fabric support and wig charges by approximately 2-2.2%, and increase pre-payment certificate fees. These are annual price-updating amendments to the 2015 Charges Regulations.

Prescription charges are regressive taxes on healthcare that reduce access for lower-income patients. Pre-payment certificates effectively impose a chronic illness penalty. These charges prop up NHS monopoly provision and suppress private healthcare alternatives. Annual inflation-linked increases have never undergone democratic scrutiny as a comprehensive policy. The original 2015 Regulations codified a system of charges that creates market distortions, reduces healthcare uptake, and entrenches state monopolies over patient choice. Deletion would restore incremental freedom to patients and reduce barriers to private sector competition.

These regulations establish the written representations procedure for planning appeals under Schedule 17 of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Act 2021. They set out procedural requirements for handling appeals related to the HS2 phase 2 project, including notice requirements, third party representation procedures, questionnaire and statement submission timelines, response periods, and decision-making criteria for the appropriate Ministers.

These regulations merely establish procedural machinery for handling appeals under the HS2 Act 2021, which was authorized by democratic primary legislation. Without such procedures, there would be no clear framework for resolving disputes, creating uncertainty for the nominated undertaker, planning authorities, and third parties. The administrative processes are proportionate to the scale of a nationally significant infrastructure project. Deletion would not reduce the regulatory burden on business but would create procedural chaos and unpredictability in dispute resolution for an already-authorised project.

These Regulations establish a fee structure for planning approval requests under the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Act 2021. They prescribe fees for various categories of development (set out in Schedule 2), specify calculation methods based on gross floor space or site area, address payment mechanisms (bank transfer, cheque), refund conditions for invalid requests, procedures for dishonoured cheques, dispute resolution via appeal to appropriate Ministers, and termination provisions where fees remain unpaid.

Britons would be worse off if deleted because planning authorities processing approvals for this major infrastructure project would lack a statutory framework for cost recovery, creating fiscal uncertainty and administrative chaos. This is project-specific legislation with defined fee schedules tied to actual administrative costs—not a broad regulatory burden. The fees are cost-recovery mechanisms, not taxes, and there is no alternative mechanism to ensure planning authorities are compensated for processing complex high-speed rail planning approvals. The dispute resolution and termination procedures provide necessary procedural certainty for both authorities and the undertaker.

These Regulations (2021 No. 745) bring into force guidance entitled 'Immigration Act 2016: Revised guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention' under section 59(4) of the Immigration Act 2016. They apply across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, effective 25th May 2021. The guidance sets out how immigration authorities should assess and manage the detention of vulnerable persons.

This regulation imposes mandatory procedural requirements on immigration detention decisions affecting vulnerable persons, adding administrative burden without evidence of proportionate benefit. Such guidance creates perverse incentives—including incentives for detainees to present as vulnerable to avoid detention—while the underlying vulnerability assessment framework lacks robust empirical validation. A principles-based approach leaving discretion to trained caseworkers would achieve protective goals with less regulatory rigidity. The retention of EU-derived detention policy through these Regulations exemplifies the uncritical inheritance of rules never subject to proper democratic scrutiny in Parliament.

Extends a deadline in Article 10a(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (retained EU law on airport slot allocation) from 27 March 2021 to 30 October 2021. This provided COVID-19 pandemic relief by giving airlines more time before slot usage requirements resumed, preventing carriers from losing slots they couldn't fly due to travel restrictions.

Obsolete - the extended deadline (30 October 2021) has long passed, making this regulation purely historical with no current effect. Furthermore, slot allocation regulations like the underlying Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 are inherently anti-competitive, creating artificial barriers that protect incumbent airlines from competition and distort market signals. This amendment was emergency intervention layering additional controls onto an already problematic regulatory regime. The regulation should be deleted as both time-expired and reflective of the interventionist mindset that produced the underlying distortions in the first place.

These are technical amendment regulations that adjust the Official Controls and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2021, changing effective dates to 4th March 2021, inserting transitional period exceptions, and amending the description of regulated Plants for planting in the Xylella host plants table in Annex 7 to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072.

Phytosanitary controls preventing the introduction and spread of plant pests like Xylella serve a legitimate biosecurity function. The specific amendments here are technical corrections to implementation timing and plant categorisation rather than new regulatory burdens. Deleting these amendments would create legal uncertainty and potential gaps in plant health protections during the post-Brexit transition, potentially exposing British agriculture and horticulture to destructive pathogens. The amendments achieve their purpose of clarifying regulatory requirements with minimal compliance cost.

Amendment to the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006, effective 1st April 2021. Adds qualifying conditions and specific applicable amounts (£177.10, £270.30, £93.20) for claimants who attained pensionable age on or after 1st April 2021, including provisions for polygamous marriages where all members reached pensionable age after that date.

These are technical rate-setting provisions for an existing benefits framework. Without the amendment, those reaching pensionable age after 1st April 2021 would lack clear statutory entitlement to housing benefit at appropriate rates, potentially causing administrative chaos and harm to vulnerable claimants. While the underlying welfare system carries economic costs, this instrument itself is administrative machinery that provides codified benefit levels—it does not restrict market entry, impose licensing barriers, or create supply-side distortions. Deletion would create legal uncertainty and reduce welfare provision without restoring economic dynamism.

These Regulations establish carbon accounting mechanisms for the UK for the 2019 reference year, setting a domestic aviation emissions cap and rules for crediting/debiting carbon units to/from the net UK carbon account based on comparisons against the EU ETS surrender amounts and domestic aviation thresholds. They also provide for cancellation of certain credited carbon units and amend the 2009 Carbon Accounting Regulations to account for post-Brexit arrangements under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2012.

Cap-and-trade carbon accounting schemes impose complex compliance burdens that distort economic decision-making without achieving meaningful emissions reductions that market mechanisms alone would not produce more efficiently. This regulation compounds the 2009 Regulations' bureaucratic framework with additional credit/debit mechanisms tied to an EU ETS reference that is increasingly obsolete post-Brexit. The domestic aviation cap creates arbitrary competitive disadvantages for UK aviation operators vis-à-vis international competitors. Retention signals continued commitment to a centrally-planned approach to environmental outcomes rather than allowing price signals and innovation to drive emissions reductions organically.

Technical amendment to section 7(5A)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2005 clarifying how Scottish income tax rates apply to lump sum income. The amendment ensures that when calculating tax on lump sums for Scottish taxpayers, the correct Scottish rates are applied as if the income were wholly chargeable at Scottish rates. Takes effect from tax year 2020-21 onwards.

This is a technical precision amendment correcting how Scotland's devolved income tax powers apply to lump sum calculations. Without this clarification, Scottish taxpayers could face incorrect tax computations. It does not impose new regulatory burden, introduce EU-derived rules, or restrict supply or trade. The amendment is machinery necessary for the functioning of Scotland's democratically-devolved tax system and does not advance the regulatory reduction objectives of this review.

Amendment to Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2009 that: adds Scottish student loan definition and repayment threshold; updates notification methods to include electronic format; establishes repayment allocation rules when borrowers have multiple loan types (pre-2012, post-2012, and Scottish); and modifies threshold references for borrowers with combined loan types.

Without this regulation, repayment allocation between England's pre-2012, post-2012, and Scotland's distinct student loan systems would be legally ambiguous, potentially causing administrative chaos and borrower confusion. Deletion would harm borrowers by creating uncertainty about which loan gets repaid first with their contributions. The electronic notification flexibility actually reduces burden. While the underlying UK student loan system involves state intervention, this amendment coordinates between existing systems in a way that benefits borrowers with multiple loans.

Commencement regulations that bring into force provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2018 on specified dates: sections 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 for regulatory-making purposes on 25 February 2021, and Part 1 (whiplash) in full on 31 May 2021. Applies only to causes of action accruing on or after 31 May 2021.

This is a pure commencement instrument that merely activates previously enacted provisions on defined dates. Deleting it would create legal uncertainty about when the Civil Liability Act 2018's provisions take effect, without actually removing the primary legislation from the statute book. The substantive policy concerns about whiplashtariff reforms and FCA regulation belong to the primary Act—not this procedural instrument. Administrative chaos from undefined commencement dates would harm Britons by creating litigation uncertainty around when causes of action crystallise and what law applies.

Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2021 - Amends the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to introduce the RTA Small Claims Protocol for low-value road traffic accident personal injury claims. Creates new track allocation rules with £5,000/£10,000 thresholds, fixed cost medical report requirements for whiplash claims, special provisions for children and protected parties, and costs consequences for non-compliance with pre-action protocols.

This regulation exemplifies the British tendency to layer complexity upon complexity. The RTA Small Claims Protocol adds another pre-action protocol to an already cluttered landscape (RTA Protocol, EL/PL Protocol), creating compliance costs for claimants and defendants alike. The fixed cost medical report requirements restrict which professionals can provide expert evidence, reducing competition and potentially quality. The rigid £5,000 and £10,000 thresholds create arbitrary cut-offs that can deny access to appropriate track allocation. These rules were designed to reduce insurance costs and whiplash claims, but such price controls and access restrictions typically have unintended consequences - driving business to claims management companies, creating satellite litigation over threshold questions, and ultimately distorting the market for legal services and medical evidence in personal injury claims.

These Regulations revoke the Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020, which had capped or restricted exit payments in the public sector. The Regulations include transitional provisions requiring relevant authorities to pay any difference (plus interest under the Judgment Debts Rate of Interest Order 1993) to persons who received reduced exit payments during the period between the 2020 Regulations coming into force and these revocation Regulations coming into force.

The 2020 Regulations imposed restrictions on public sector exit payments, distorting the labor market by preventing competitive severance arrangements. While the revocation restores market flexibility, the transitional补偿 mechanism perpetuates the 2020 Regulations' interference by requiring calculations of 'what would have been paid' absent the restrictions — an administratively burdensome exercise that itself distorts behavior. The original 2020 Regulations were themselves problematic interventions; the transitional provisions necessary to unwind them reveal the complexity and unintended consequences of the initial restriction. A cleaner approach would have been to simply repeal the 2020 Regulations without the elaborate unwind mechanism.

A minor amendment to the School Discipline (Pupil Exclusions and Reviews) (England) Regulations 2012 that extends a key date definition ('relevant exclusion') from 25th March 2021 to 25th September 2021, and requires a Secretary of State review of the amendment's effectiveness during that period. This was a coronavirus-related temporal adjustment to school exclusion procedures.

The regulation's operative period has fully expired (the review period ended 24th September 2021). As a time-limited COVID-19 adjustment that merely extended a deadline by six months, it no longer serves any purpose. Deleting it restores clarity to the statute book without removing any substantive protection, since the underlying 2012 regulations remain intact. The unseen cost of retention is regulatory clutter that obscures the actual current law.