Browse regulations

Amends ITEPA 2003 to add Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance (paid under SS(S)A 2018, Sections 24 and 31) to Table B of section 677(1), exempting it from income tax. Takes effect 19th March 2025.

Removing this exemption would effectively taxedisability benefits received by vulnerable adults, reducing their already-modest support. Unlike regulations that restrict supply or create market distortions, a targeted tax exemption for needs-based disability assistance produces minimal economic distortion while ensuring support reaches those intended. The benefit is Scotland-specific and properly within devolved competence.

The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 impose a statutory levy on holders of gambling operating licences in Great Britain, calculated as a percentage of leviable amounts (stakes/revenues), with rates ranging from 0.1% to 1.1% depending on licence type. The levy funds the Gambling Commission and must be paid by 1st October following each levy period.

This levy is a discretionary cost imposed on gambling operators that will be passed to consumers through reduced odds or higher house edges. The tiered percentage structure (0.1%-1.1%) distorts competition by imposing proportionally heavier burdens on certain licence types, disadvantaging smaller operators and entrenching larger incumbents. The exemption threshold of only £10 is trivially low, providing no meaningful relief for small operators. If regulatory services from the Gambling Commission are valuable, they should be funded via general taxation or flat fees—methods that avoid distorting gambling volumes and do not penalise high-turnover, low-margin business models. This regulation represents regulatory burden without demonstrated offsetting benefits that could not be achieved through less distortive means.

Commencement regulations that bring into force sections 4 and 5 of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, concerning use of languages other than English in legal proceedings and teaching of Ulster Scots in education. These are procedural regulations that activate previously enacted but dormant provisions.

These commencement regulations trigger two costly mandates: (1) section 4 requires non-English language facilities in court proceedings, imposing translation/interpretation costs on the justice system and potentially slowing proceedings; (2) section 5 mandates Ulster Scots teaching in education, restricting curricular freedom and imposing compliance costs on schools. Deleting these regulations keeps those provisions dormant, deferring their costs. The underlying 2022 Act remains but cannot impose these specific burdens without subsequent commencement regulations. This represents the kind of regulatory burden this review targets — requirements that distort resource allocation and impose unseen costs on businesses and public services.

These Regulations amend the Gambling Act 2005 Operating Licence Conditions to impose mandatory stake limits on online slots games for remote casino operators. Individuals under 25 are limited to £2 per game cycle; those 25 or over to £5 per game cycle. The regulations include a 6-week transitional period and require 5-year government reviews.

This regulation restricts consenting adults' freedom to spend their money as they choose, paternalistically assuming the state knows best. The £2 limit for under-25s is particularly arbitrary given that any adult can vote, marry, or serve in the military at 18. The regulation will drive stake-sensitive customers (who tend to be higher-value) to unregulated offshore operators, weakening UK competitiveness and the tax base while doing nothing to address the black market. Problem gamblers requiring protection would be better served by robust self-exclusion schemes and targeted support services rather than universal restrictions that harm recreational players. The objectives can be achieved through less restrictive means, and the age-based discrimination lacks scientific justification at the margin (a 24-year-old is treated identically to an 18-year-old, while a 25-year-old enjoys 150% higher limits).

These Regulations extend provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (sections 261M-261P on contracts, participant rights, limited liability, and segregated liability) to unauthorised co-ownership Alternative Investment Funds that are Reserved Investor Funds (RIFs). They apply modified versions of these provisions to such funds, including those previously classified as RIFs but currently not, provided they meet UK-based conditions.

Without these Regulations, there would be significant legal uncertainty around liability, contractual rights, and participant protections for unauthorised co-ownership AIFs. The modifications provide essential clarity on how existing FSMA provisions apply to RIF structures. While the Reserved Investor Fund concept restricts participation to certain investor classes, the underlying legal framework (limited liability, segregated liability, contract law) is precisely what enables investment structures to function with clear risk allocation. Deleting this would create ambiguity that harms investors and increases litigation risk, with no corresponding benefit.

These Regulations establish transitory arrangements for the movement of animals, feed, food, and plant health goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain following Brexit. They apply EU-derived Official Controls Regulation (2017/625) requirements to 'relevant movements,' specifying points of entry (Cairnryan, Fishguard, Heysham, Holyhead for certain goods), documentary requirements (health certificates, phytosanitary certificates), and official control procedures at border control posts. They modify Annex 6 requirements for frequency rates of official controls. The Regulations are explicitly framed as transitory, tied to a 'transitional staging period' defined in EU legislation.

These Regulations represent precisely the problem of retaining EU law without democratic review: they embed EU Regulation 2017/625 wholesale into UK law, impose costly documentary and physical control requirements, restrict entry points to specified ports, and add regulatory friction to internal UK trade. While described as 'transitory,' such arrangements routinely become permanent. The regulation achieves its biosecurity and compliance objectives through burdensome bureaucratic mechanisms when alternatives exist. However, given this appears to be genuinely time-limited transitional legislation managing a specific post-Brexit adjustment period, the primary remaining concern is that it perpetuates EU-derived controls beyond their justification — these should have been reviewed and replaced with lighter-touch UK-specific arrangements already. Delete and replace with a simplified, proportionate UK-wide framework.

Amendment Regulations that make technical updates to the Armed Forces (Discharge and Transfer to the Reserve Forces) (No. 2) Regulations 2009, primarily replacing gendered pronouns (he/him/his) with gender-neutral alternatives (they/them/their), updating the job title Director of Manning (Army) to Head of Personnel Policy (Army), and making minor textual deletions in regulation 6(1).

These are purely technical housekeeping amendments that modernize language without altering substantive policy or adding regulatory burden. Britons are not made worse off by retaining gendered pronouns in military regulations, but this amendment represents routine administrative improvement causing no harm. The regulation does not restrict supply, create monopolies, or impose costs on businesses or individuals.

This Order amends the Power to Award Degrees etc. (Norland College Limited) Order of Council 2019, substituting article 2 to grant Norland College Limited (company number 00193170) competence to award degrees under section 76(2)(a) of the relevant Act for an indefinite period, coming into force 13th March 2025.

While this amendment merely extends an existing arrangement indefinitely rather than creating new restrictions, degree-awarding powers represent a government-granted monopoly that restricts competition in higher education. The state deciding which institutions may award degrees is itself a barrier to entry that picks winners and losers. Britons would not be meaningfully worse off if deleted because the underlying 2019 Order granting degree-awarding powers would remain in force — this instrument merely removes any temporal limitation. The regulation perpetuates a system of regulatory privilege rather than allowing market reputation to determine educational credibility.

This Order amends the Enterprise Act 2002 (Bodies Designated to make Super-complaints) Order 2004 to add The Money and Mental Health Policy Institute to the list of bodies authorised to make 'super-complaints' to the Competition and Markets Authority. Super-complaints are a special mechanism allowing designated bodies to alert the CMA to market features causing significant consumer harm, triggering a priority investigation.

While I am generally sceptical of regulatory privileges that limit participation in complaint mechanisms to only designated bodies, removing this specific designation would harm vulnerable consumers facing the intersection of financial difficulty and mental health issues. The Money and Mental Health Policy Institute has demonstrated expertise in identifying genuine market failures affecting this demographic. Without such a designated body, exploitation of vulnerable consumers in financial services markets could proceed unchecked. The super-complaint mechanism, despite being a form of regulatory gatekeeping, provides a valuable consumer protection function for those who lack the resources to pursue individual remedies. Britons would be worse off if this vulnerable population lost this avenue for raising systemic concerns about their exploitation.

Amendment to Medical Profession (Responsible Officers) Regulations 2010 that redistributes prescribed connections for medical practitioner responsible officers between NHS England, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the General Council (GMC), and adds the General Council as a designated body in the Schedule.

This amendment merely reallocates regulatory connections between bodies without reducing overall regulatory burden. The changes create confusion by introducing the General Council as a new 'designated body' alongside existing bodies, adding layers of bureaucratic complexity rather than streamlining. The amendments shift oversight between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care without evidence that this improves outcomes or reduces costs. As a retained EU-derived law that underwent no democratic scrutiny when inherited, it represents regulatory accretion that should be reviewed holistically rather than patched incrementally.

These Regulations exempt authorised persons (allied armed forces, international military organisations, and their agents/contractors) from operator licence and range control services requirements under the Space Industry Act 2018 when carrying out permitted sub-orbital activities for national security purposes from Crown land, Ministry of Defence platforms, or ships in UK territorial waters. They also amend the 2021 Regulations to exclude such ships from the definition of 'space site'.

While these regulations create exemptions from the Space Industry Act 2018's licensing regime, they perpetuate a fundamentally flawed system of government discretion over space activities. The regulation maintains the principle that civilian and commercial space activities require government permission, creating a licensing regime that stifles innovation and自由市场 competition. The narrow exemptions for military allies do not justify retaining this regulatory infrastructure, which suppresses private enterprise in the space sector and establishes the dangerous precedent that the state may grant or withhold permission to conduct space activities based on its own discretion. The proper reform is repeal of the underlying Act, not selective carve-outs that entrench government control.

Statutory instrument authorising South Devon College to grant taught awards up to foundation degree level for an indefinite period beginning 17th March 2025, and permitting the College to authorise other institutions to award such degrees on its behalf.

This Order grants a government-privileged monopoly on degree-awarding powers to a single institution, creating an artificial barrier to entry in higher education. The 'indefinite period' authorization removes any competitive pressure for the College to maintain quality or innovate. Market competition and employer evaluation of actual competence would better serve students than state-sanctioned degree monopolies — Adam Smith's argument that professions should not be cartelized applies directly here. The restriction prevents rival educational providers from freely offering credentials, harming both competition and consumer choice.

This Order makes consequential modifications to multiple UK-wide Acts to recognize the new Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance (SADLA) within various benefit, tax, and exemption frameworks. It extends to England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland (in parts), modifying definitions in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, Welfare Reform Act 2012, Northern Ireland equivalents, Inheritance Tax Act 1984, Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, Finance Act 2005, and Armed Forces compensation schemes to ensure SADLA is treated equivalently to existing disability benefits for purposes of attendance allowance, disability living allowance, personal independence payment, carer's allowance, tax reliefs, and vehicle duty exemptions.

This Order imposes no new regulatory burdens on business or individuals — it merely ensures technical coordination between Scottish and rest-of-UK benefit frameworks. Removing it would create gaps in recognition of Scottish disability assistance, potentially leaving recipients unable to access associated tax reliefs (inheritance tax trusts, vehicle excise exemptions) or creating inconsistencies in carer’s allowance calculations. Without these modifications, cross-border coordination on disability benefits would fail, harming the very recipients the underlying policy aims to help. The modifications are purely definitional and administrative.

A minor amendment to the Protection of Trading Interests (Authorisation) Regulations 2021 that extends the expiration date of an existing authorisation for Three Crowns (Services) LLP from 31 March 2025 to 31 March 2027. The regulation consists only of this single change to a schedule entry.

This amendment merely extends an existing authorisation deadline by two years and imposes no new regulatory burden. Deleting it would cause Three Crowns (Services) LLP's authorisation to lapse prematurely on 31 March 2025, harming its trading interests. The underlying authorisation regime permits UK entities to engage in trade that might otherwise be restricted by foreign extraterritorial sanctions, which is consistent with protecting British trading interests. This is a routine administrative extension with no substantive policy change.

These Regulations establish threshold conditions for categorizing online services under the Online Safety Act 2023. Category 1 applies to user-to-user services with 34M+ monthly UK users using recommender systems, or 7M+ users with recommender systems and content sharing. Category 2A covers search engines with 7M+ monthly UK users. Category 2B targets user-to-user services with 3M+ monthly UK users offering end-to-end encrypted direct messaging. The Regulations define measurement methodology for active UK users over a six-month period.

These thresholds create regulatory moats that entrench incumbents (Meta, Google, TikTok) while blocking startup competition—the 34M, 7M, and 3M user thresholds are precisely calibrated to catch established platforms, not enable new entrants. Compliance costs under the Online Safety Act framework will be borne by all users via reduced innovation and higher service costs. The Category 2B threshold specifically penalizes end-to-end encrypted messaging, which provides genuine privacy and child safety benefits (protecting dissidents, journalists, and families), by treating secure communication as a regulatory trigger. The mean-average methodology across six months also creates perverse incentives to inflate or maintain user metrics rather than focusing on legitimate safety outcomes.