Browse regulations

The Iraq (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 implement UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq through asset freezes on designated persons connected to the former Iraqi regime, an arms embargo on military goods, and prohibitions on illegally removed Iraqi cultural property. Made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, they establish Treasury and trade licensing regimes, criminal offences for violations, and humanitarian exceptions. The regulations transpose the former EU Iraq sanctions regime into UK law following Brexit.

While sanctions inherently restrict voluntary transactions, these regulations implement binding UN Security Council resolutions (661, 1483, 1518, 1956) to which the United Kingdom is obligated as a permanent Security Council member. Deleting them would breach international law and diplomatic commitments. The regulations include humanitarian exceptions and licensing provisions that mitigate severe impacts. The alternative — non-compliance with UN obligations — would carry greater costs than maintaining a targeted sanctions regime with established exemptions.

Amendment to the Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) Regulations 2014, introducing 'SoS funds' - government financial assistance to the CFD counterparty - into the CFD quarterly contribution formula, reserve payment calculations, and additional total reserve amount calculations. Purpose: to allow Secretary of State funding to flow through the CfD scheme during the coronavirus pandemic period.

This amendment perpetuates government intervention in the energy market by formalising unlimited Treasury/SoS subsidy flows into the Contracts for Difference scheme. The 'SoS funds' mechanism lacks transparent caps or parliamentary approval requirements for amounts, creating open-ended contingent liabilities. It was enacted for COVID-19 support but has become permanent infrastructure in the regulatory framework, adding complexity to energy market calculations without addressing underlying market distortions created by the CfD scheme itself. The amendment fails the subsidiarity test - if CfD counterparty payments face shortfalls during extraordinary periods, the market should address this through contractual arrangements rather than perpetual government backstop mechanisms encoded in statutory instruments.

Technical Brexit amendment regulation that replaces 'exit day' references with 'IP completion day' in three earlier EU Exit statutory instruments relating to Climate Change Agreements, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, and Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme. This is purely a terminology correction following the Withdrawal Agreement.

This is a pure housekeeping amendment with no substantive regulatory content - it merely corrects cross-references from 'exit day' to 'IP completion day'. The underlying 2018 EU Exit amendments that this regulation modifies remain intact. No new regulatory burdens, compliance requirements, costs, or trade restrictions are created or removed by this amendment. A regulation that merely updates legal terminology without changing substance imposes compliance costs for no benefit.

Specifies seven UK Treasury Gilt securities (maturing 2023-2061) as 'gilt-edged securities' for the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, determining their eligibility for favorable capital gains tax treatment.

This is a simple definitional listing order providing legal certainty about which specific securities qualify for gilt-edged status under CGT rules. Deletion would create ambiguity and uncertainty for investors and HM Revenue & Customs regarding the tax treatment of these government debt instruments. The regulation imposes no restrictive burden, gold-plating, or market distortion—it merely identifies existing securities for established tax treatment. Without such specification, traders and investors would face legal uncertainty regarding capital gains calculations on UK government gilts.

These Regulations amend the Companies Act 2006 to impose two requirements on traded companies: (1) under s.360AA, companies must send electronic confirmation of receipt to members/proxies/representatives as soon as reasonably practicable after a vote cast electronically is received; (2) under s.360BA, companies must, upon request within 30 days of a general meeting, provide information enabling shareholders to confirm their vote was validly recorded and counted, within 15 days of the later of poll declaration or the request.

The regulation imposes mandatory administrative processes on traded companies that the market would naturally provide. Modern electronic voting systems inherently generate delivery confirmations as a technical matter—legislating this creates duplicative compliance costs with no corresponding benefit. The 15-day mandatory response window for vote confirmation requests adds bureaucratic burden without addressing any market failure; shareholders who genuinely cannot verify their vote can already use existing disclosure rights. The EU's Shareholder Rights Directive influenced similar measures across Europe, and UK gold-plating of such requirements puts British listed companies at a competitive disadvantage against New York, Singapore, and Hong Kong exchanges. These compliance costs ultimately harm shareholders through reduced corporate efficiency and may deter some companies from choosing UK listings.

This Order amends fee tables in four separate court fee orders (Non-Contentious Probate Fees Order 2004, Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008, Family Proceedings Fees Order 2008, and Magistrates' Courts Fees Order 2008), adjusting specific fee amounts for various court services including caveats, searches, document copies, and court appearances. It also makes technical amendments to wording and removes certain fee entries.

While court fee adjustments can affect access to justice, this Order merely adjusts modest amounts on existing fee schedules. Deleting it would simply revert to prior fee levels without addressing any underlying regulatory burden. The fees represent cost-recovery for court services, and the amounts are relatively small (£3-£94 range). Unlike gold-plated EU regulations or planning restrictions that distort markets and suppress supply, this is a routine fee schedule update that does not create barriers to trade, competition, or healthcare access.

Imposes a 50 mph speed limit on a specific section of the westbound carriageway of the M23 Gatwick Spur, beginning at the bridge over Peaks Brook Lane and ending at the eastern roundabout junction with Airport Way and Ring Road. Signed into law July 2020, effective August 2020.

Speed limits are a form of price control on a voluntary activity (driving) that restricts individual liberty without clear evidence of net benefit. While safety is the stated purpose, the regulation presumes drivers cannot assess safe speeds independently — a paternalistic assumption inconsistent with personal responsibility principles. The specified road is a straight motorway section where rational drivers already adjust speed for conditions. Enforcement resources could be better deployed addressing genuinely dangerous driving rather than penalising marginally excessive speed on a well-engineered road. No evidence this specific limit reduces accidents compared to the default motorway limit; the burden of proof should be on demonstrating harm, not assuming it.

These Regulations amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) Regulations 2020 by removing Serbia from the list of exempt countries and territories in Schedule A1. Arrivals from Serbia who arrived on 10th July 2020 were grandfathered under the previous exemption.

COVID-era travel restrictions that restricted international movement and commerce. The exemption-list system granted arbitrary bureaucratic power to determine which countries were 'safe,' creating uncertainty for travellers and businesses. Emergency regulations rushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny; such controls on freedom of movement should not persist years after the emergency has passed. The amendment itself demonstrates the ad hoc, politically-driven nature of these restrictions — a country added or removed based on fluctuating case numbers, with no democratic accountability for each decision.

Temporary COVID-19 measure (effective 15 July 2020 to 30 September 2021) that reduced VAT to 5% for hospitality and tourism sectors, including on-premises food/drink, hot food for takeaway, holiday accommodation, and cultural attractions. Also modified flat-rate scheme percentages for catering (12.5%→4.5%), hotels (10.5%→0%), and pubs (6.5%→1%).

This temporary COVID-19 measure has already expired (30 September 2021) and should not be revived. While presented as emergency relief, it represents government interventionism—picking hospitality and tourism as winners over other struggling sectors. The VAT reduction distorted consumer behavior, created compliance complexity with multiple rates, and propped up businesses that should have restructured. Such intervention sets a dangerous precedent that any sector can demand special tax treatment whenever facing difficulty. The free market, not Treasury diktat, should determine which businesses survive.

Post-Brexit statutory instrument amending three Trade Remedies regulations. It establishes the UK Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) framework to replace EU mechanisms, modifies rules for tariff rate quotas on steel products (safeguards), restricts the TRA's ability to vary quotas, amends anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigation procedures, and corrects various cross-references. Includes provisions for transition reviews and reconsideration/appeals processes.

This regulation perpetuates EU-style protectionist trade defense mechanisms post-Brexit. It restricts tariff rate quota flexibility, imposes costs on consumers through higher steel prices, creates bureaucratic discretion for restricting imports, and maintains the very protectionism this government claimed to escape. The TRA's power to impose and extend safeguard measures on steel products benefits domestic producers at consumers' expense. Rather than embracing free trade, these amendments replicate the EU's protectionist apparatus, complete with anti-dumping duties that distort markets. The regulation's complexity creates rent-seeking opportunities while failing to recognize that trade restrictions, however framed, ultimately harm British consumers and reduce economic welfare.

Temporary COVID-19 amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, effective July 16, 2020 to December 31, 2020. It corrected a cross-reference in regulation 35(3)(b) and temporarily relaxed document availability requirements for local planning authorities during the pandemic period, allowing electronic-only document access without the need to also make documents available at physical offices.

The temporary provisions have already expired (the relevant period ended 31 December 2020). This regulation was emergency COVID-19 legislation designed to expire automatically. Furthermore, the underlying document availability requirements in regulations 35 and 36 impose unnecessary costs on planning authorities and restrict efficient digital distribution of planning documents. The original requirement to make documents available at a physical principal office is an archaic mandate that adds compliance burden without corresponding public benefit when electronic access is already provided.

Temporary pandemic-era amendment to the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, effective 16th July to 31st December 2020. Modifies public inspection and publication requirements to allow digital/online alternatives (website publication instead of physical office inspection, electronic viewing instead of in-person inspection) during COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.

This regulation is temporally limited (expired 31st December 2020) and served only to temporarily relax procedural requirements during the pandemic. It is now obsolete. More fundamentally, the underlying rationale is flawed: rather than recognizing that excessive environmental assessment requirements themselves impose costs on development and economic activity, this amendment merely shuffles how the same bureaucratic inspection regime operates. The fact that physical inspection became impossible during COVID exposed how non-essential many of these requirements are. Rather than perpetuate the underlying assessment regime, this regulation should be deleted and Parliament should reconsider whether such assessments achieve their stated goals at costs that justify them.

Amends the Motor Vehicles (International Motor Insurance Card) Regulations 1971 to update specifications for the IMIC ('green card'), allowing electronic form alongside printed form, updating card particulars and schedules, and adding Andorra and Serbia to the list of covered countries in the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972.

This regulation facilitates cross-border motor insurance verification through the international green card system, a multilateral arrangement between insurance bureaus. Without standardized UK regulations implementing this system, British drivers could face difficulties proving insurance coverage when traveling abroad, potentially resulting in vehicles being detained at borders or drivers facing penalties. While some formatting details may seem prescriptive, these largely reflect international standards set by the Foreign Bureau system. The changes to allow electronic format represent a proportionate modernization.

These Regulations amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to introduce fee reductions for Health and Care Visa applications. They reduce visa fees by fixed amounts (£378-£944) or percentages (50%) for Tier 2 (General) Migrants and their dependants working in healthcare roles, as confirmed by certificates of sponsorship. The amendments apply to both entry clearance and leave to remain applications, and extend similar provisions to the Isle of Man.

This regulation uses immigration fees to subsidize NHS recruitment rather than allowing market-based pricing. Fee reductions for specific sectors distort migration patterns and create perverse incentives—healthcare workers should be recruited based on genuine labor market needs, not artificially low visa fees. The reductions are arbitrary figures (£378, £756, £472, £944, 50%) that bear no relationship to actual processing costs. This represents regulatory intervention in pricing to achieve social policy objectives, which is better addressed through direct NHS funding or wage structures. Additionally, referencing external policy guidance documents ('Tier 2 Policy Guidance', 'Confirmation of Employment Guidance') creates regulatory uncertainty as these change independently of the statutory framework. The regulation fails the basic test of regulatory efficiency: it layers costs onto general visa applicants to subsidize a favored category, without evidence that fee reductions actually improve healthcare staffing outcomes.

Amends the Official Feed and Food Controls (England) Regulations 2009 to update references to EU Regulation 2017/625 (official controls) and Regulation 2019/1666, clarify the definition of 'product' covering feed and food of non-animal origin including composite products, and update provisions on border control checks and cost recovery fees.

Without these technical amendments, the 2009 Regulations would contain outdated cross-references, creating legal uncertainty about which feed and food products fall under import controls and what fees may be charged. Deletion would create gaps in border control implementation rather than reduce regulatory burden — the amendments merely align retained EU law with its current references and do not introduce new substantive requirements beyond what Regulation 2017/625 already mandates for feed and food safety controls.