Browse regulations

The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 extend same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland by removing the prohibition on religious marriage for same-sex couples, establishing a governing authority consent system for religious bodies choosing to solemnize such marriages, creating a registration framework for officiants, and adding conscience protections for religious bodies and individuals who decline to participate in same-sex marriages.

This regulation expands rather than restricts liberty — it removes a prohibition by allowing same-sex couples to have religious marriages and gives religious bodies the choice to conduct such ceremonies through a voluntary governing authority consent mechanism. The conscience protections (Article 17A and s.204A) specifically prevent government coercion of religious bodies, protecting the very freedom that a free society requires. Far from imposing new restrictions, this regulation dismantles barriers that prevented same-sex couples from accessing religious marriage ceremonies in Northern Ireland.

This Statutory Instrument amends the Terrorism Act 2000 by adding 'Feuerkrieg Division' (a reported neo-Nazi extremist organisation) to Schedule 2, the list of proscribed terrorist organisations. It comes into force the day after it is made.

Deleting this regulation would remove legal prohibitions on membership, support, and recruitment for Feuerkrieg Division, allowing this extremist organisation to operate openly in the UK. While the state should minimally regulate speech and association, terrorism designations carry significant consequences (asset freezes, criminal penalties) that serve as barriers to hostile foreign and extremist organisations establishing UK operations. Without this designation, pursuing such a group would require case-by-case prosecution of specific acts rather than organisation-wide restrictions, creating enforcement gaps that could harm Britons.

This Order amends the 2014 Order to extend corporate insolvency, moratorium, and restructuring mechanisms (from the Insolvency Act 1986 and Companies Act 2006) to 'relevant CCBS' (co-operative and community benefit societies). It introduces the concept of 'relevant CCBS', applies Part A1 of the 1986 Act (moratoriums) with modifications, applies Part 26A of the 2006 Act (arrangements and reconstructions), adds FCA participation and enforcement powers, and modifies various procedural requirements to account for these societies' unique governance structures (committee members instead of directors, rules instead of articles, etc.).

Without this regulation, co-operative and community benefit societies would lack access to standard corporate rescue and restructuring procedures that companies enjoy. Proper insolvency frameworks facilitate market efficiency by enabling orderly restructuring or wind-down of unviable entities, rather than allowing them to limp on indefinitely. Deleting this would leave creditors and members of these societies worse protected than their counterparts in companies, creating an arbitrary regulatory gap for no principled reason. The mechanisms exist to serve these societies' needs; this Order simply adapts them to their specific governance structures.

The A19 Downhill Lane Junction Development Consent Order 2020 grants development consent for highway improvements to the A19 at Downhill Lane junction, authorizing Highways England to construct, alter, maintain and operate trunk roads and associated infrastructure. The Order contains standard DCO provisions including: definitions of key terms; limits of deviation; powers to acquire land compulsorily; street works provisions; classification of roads; temporary and permanent stopping up of streets; traffic regulation powers; drainage provisions; and requirements for environmental management. It applies various enactments (Highways Act 1980, New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, etc.) with necessary modifications and grants statutory powers to the undertaker (Highways England Company Limited).

This Development Consent Order is a project-specific legislative authorization for a road infrastructure project, not a regulatory instrument constraining economic activity. It grants permissions rather than restricting them. The compulsory purchase powers, street works provisions, and traffic regulation powers are necessary legal mechanisms that cannot be replicated through private contract. Without such a consolidated statutory framework, each major infrastructure project would require bespoke legislation. The Order's provisions represent standard highways law applied to a specific project, not an added regulatory burden. Unlike EU-derived regulations that impose compliance costs on businesses, this Order simply establishes the legal framework for constructing and maintaining public road infrastructure.

Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2020, which amends the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to introduce: enhanced costs budgeting procedures including new variation costs rules (3.15A), caps on recoverable budgeting costs (1% and 2% limits), new procedural requirements for Part 3 costs management; new rules requiring claims against Welsh public bodies to be issued in Wales (7.1A-7.1B); notice of eviction requirements for possession proceedings (83.8A - 14 days notice with specific delivery requirements); updates to evidence gathering abroad procedures (Part 34); and various technical amendments to contempt proceedings, charging orders, and fine enforcement provisions.

Procedural costs budgeting requirements impose substantial compliance burdens: the 1% and 2% caps on recoverable budgeting costs and mandatory Precedent H completion create administrative overhead that particularly disadvantages smaller litigants; the variation costs procedure (rule 3.15A) adds layers of procedural complexity requiring certification, service on all parties, and court approval for any budget changes driven by 'significant developments' - incentivizing satellite litigation over merits. Rule 83.8A's eviction notice requirements (14 days, specific delivery methods) add procedural friction to enforcement of legitimate possession orders without clear evidence of systemic abuse. These changes represent regulatory accretion in a domain already burdened by excessive proceduralism, raising costs for all litigants without demonstrating that the underlying goals (cost control, fair process) cannot be achieved through market mechanisms or simpler procedural defaults.

These Regulations require bus operators and local transport authorities in England to provide open data about local bus services to a government-designated digital service site. They mandate disclosure of operator details, service routes, stopping places, timetables, fare information (in TransXChange and NeTEx standardized formats), automatic vehicle location data (updated every 10-30 seconds), and punctuality data. The data must be made publicly available free of charge, and third-party App developers must meet certain conditions to use it.

While open data benefits competition and consumer information, these regulations impose significant compliance costs through mandated standardized formats (TransXChange/NeTEx), real-time tracking requirements updated every 10-30 seconds, and timing deadlines on small bus operators. The regulation uses regulatory compulsion to achieve what market demand and industry coordination could accomplish more efficiently. App developer conditions and attribution requirements represent government overreach into how private parties use information. The compliance burden falls heavily on smaller operators providing 40 or fewer services, with no evidence the mandated technical specifications (rather than any open standard) are necessary. Regulation 17's conditions on App developers who use the data go beyond ensuring data quality into controlling how private parties develop products.

Temporary amendment to Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 introducing coronavirus-related procedural provisions for housing/possession claims following expiry of court stays. Adds Rule 55.7A and Rule 55.A1, with subjection to Practice Direction 55C for a specified period.

This is a time-limited temporary coronavirus provision that has already expired by its own terms. The specified period in Practice Direction 55C has long since ended. As a purely procedural rule with no ongoing effect, it clutters the statute book. Furthermore, this was never an EU-derived regulation—it is domestic procedural law that Parliament can amend at will, so it does not represent the 'retained EU laws' problem this agency was created to address. Delete and allow the underlying CPR Part 55 to operate without obsolete pandemic-era scaffolding.

The Sudan (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 implement UN Security Council resolutions 1556, 1591, and 2035 concerning Sudan, creating a sanctions regime including asset freezes, arms embargoes, and trade restrictions against designated persons involved in human rights violations, obstruction of humanitarian aid, or threatening peace in Sudan. The regulations establish designation procedures, licensing exceptions, and criminal offences for circumvention.

Sanctions regimes are inherentlymercantilist instruments that restrict trade and economic freedom. They create compliance burdens for City of London financial institutions, restrict legitimate commerce, and may drive business to less-regulated jurisdictions. The regulations' extraterritorial reach over UK persons abroad and broad 'involved person' definitions risk overreach. While UN obligations currently bind the UK, post-Brexit regulatory independence should include reassessment of whether unilateral sanctions regimes serve British economic interests versus merely importing inherited EU/EU-derived policy. The regulations also embed complex licensing regimes that burden legitimate humanitarian and commercial activity with Sudan.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020, in force 31 August 2020, introduces Class AA permitted development rights allowing homeowners to add up to two storeys to existing residential buildings (one storey for single-storey houses) without a full planning application. The amendment includes extensive restrictions (height limits of 18m absolute and incremental caps of 3.5-7m, exclusion of SSSIs, article 2(3) land, post-2018 buildings, etc.), mandatory prior approval requirements covering amenity impacts, external appearance, air traffic/defence assets, and protected views, plus construction management and notification conditions. It also extends similar provisions (Class AA) for adding storeys above commercial buildings to create new flats.

This regulation directly advances Better Britain's goal of fixing Britain's restrictive planning regime and addressing the housing crisis. It liberalises planning rules to permit upward extension of dwellings and commercial buildings converting to flats, reducing the regulatory barrier that has suppressed housing supply. The extensive restrictions (height limits, SSSI exclusions, heritage safeguards) protect genuine public interests rather than rent-seeking NIMBYism, while the prior approval process handles specific technical concerns (amenity, aviation safety, protected views) without imposing full planning application burdens. Deleting this would leave Britain's housing supply artificially constrained by bureaucratic obstacles, maintaining the planning regime that has made property prices unaffordable and driven talent to competitor nations.

This Order amends the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 to add Class ZA to Part 20, allowing demolition of certain detached buildings (single purpose-built blocks of flats or detached office/research/industrial buildings) and their replacement with new dwellinghouses under permitted development rights, subject to prior approval from the local planning authority. The amendment includes extensive restrictions (building size, height, vacancy requirements), prior approval conditions covering transport, contamination, flooding, design, appearance, light, amenity, noise, heritage, demolition method, and landscaping, plus a 3-year completion deadline and construction management requirements.

While this Order attempts to expand permitted development rights to boost housing supply, it is heavily bureaucratic with a prior approval process that functions as a de facto planning application in disguise. The 6-month vacancy requirement, footprint cap of 1,000 sqm, 18-metre height limits, storey restrictions (X+2), and mandatory prior approval covering 13 separate matters (transport, contamination, flooding, design, appearance, light, amenity, noise, business impact, heritage, demolition method, landscaping, and defence assets) add cost and uncertainty that undermines the stated goal of streamlining development. The extensive application documentation requirements (drawings, plans, written statements, flood risk assessments, heritage statements) replicate full planning application burdens. This gold-plating approach creates barriers to redevelopment and suppresses supply. The Order should be deleted and any beneficial provisions incorporated into a simpler, less restrictive framework.

These Regulations amended the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 in England, effective 1st September 2020. Key changes include: (1) creating a new Class E (Commercial, Business and Service) consolidating former A1 Shops, A2 Financial/Professional Services, A3 Restaurants/Cafes, and B1 Business uses; (2) introducing new F.1 (Learning/Non-residential institutions) and F.2 (Local community) classes; (3) adding specific new sub-categories for drinking establishments, hot food takeaways, live music venues, cinemas, concert halls, bingo halls, and dance halls; (4) establishing transitional provisions ('material period' to 31 July 2021) to preserve pre-amendment references for existing applications and directions. The regulations apply to England only and modify related instruments including the GPDO and CIL Regulations.

While transitional complexity is unfortunate, this regulation liberalises planning controls by consolidating four separate use classes (A1, A2, A3, B1) into single Class E categories, reducing the planning permission requirements when businesses change between similar uses. This represents a net reduction in regulatory burden despite the new specific categories for drinking establishments and entertainment venues, which codify previously contentious interpretations rather than creating new restrictions. Deletion would revert to a more fragmented system requiring more frequent planning applications.

Amends the Family Procedure Rules 2010 by updating cross-references in rules 10.12, 10.13, and 11.15 regarding contempt applications, removing redundant phrasing ('Chapter 2 of', 'with the necessary modifications'), and substituting the entirety of Part 37 with a new version set out in the Schedule. Primarily concerns procedural requirements for family court contempt proceedings.

Procedural rules governing court process are fundamentally different from regulatory burdens on economic activity. These amendments actually simplify and clarify existing rules by removing redundant cross-references and dead language. Family courts handle sensitive matters involving children and financial disputes where orderly procedure protects vulnerable parties. Deleting these rules would create procedural chaos, harm Britons seeking family law remedies, and provide no economic benefit. No gold-plating or EU-derived substantive burden is identified here — only housekeeping amendments to retained procedural law.

UK Criminal Procedure Rules governing court procedures including case management (Part 3), sentencing (Parts 24-25), warrants for arrest/detention (Part 13), enforcement of orders (Part 28), and warrants to take goods for fines (Part 30). Contains procedural rules for magistrates' courts and Crown Court.

Court procedural rules are not regulatory burdens in the economic sense this review framework addresses. However, the document is almost entirely placeholder text (dots) with notes indicating truncated content — the actual substantive rules are not visible for analysis. Procedural court rules governing criminal procedure are outside the scope of economic deregulation aimed at restoring free trade, competitiveness, housing supply, or healthcare choice. These rules govern judicial administration, not economic activity.

The Direct Payments Ceilings Regulations 2020 amend the retained EU Direct Payments Regulation (1307/2013) by adjusting two numerical values in Annexes 2 and 3 for the year 2020, reducing the ceiling amounts for direct payments to farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy.

This regulation merely adjusts historical ceiling figures for 2020 that have already been applied. The underlying retained EU Regulation 1307/2013 remains intact regardless. Since 2020 has passed, these specific figures serve no ongoing function. Furthermore, direct payment schemes represent government intervention in agriculture that distorts market signals and benefits large agribusiness over efficient producers — the CAP regime this implements has historically been one of the world's most distortive agricultural subsidy systems. Deleting this spent regulation would have no practical effect while acknowledging that Britons would be better served by comprehensive agricultural policy reform rather than incremental adjustments to EU-derived subsidy ceilings.

Temporary COVID-19 amendment to Infrastructure Planning regulations allowing digital notification and website publication instead of physical notice locations for public consultations. Applied from 22nd July 2020 to 31st December 2020.

This regulation is a time-limited pandemic response with an automatic sunset clause (31st December 2020) that has already passed. The underlying permanent regulations remain intact. Keeping this expired amendment serves no purpose — the original physical-notice requirements automatically reasserted themselves after the expiry date. Furthermore, had this been a permanent reform, the better approach would have been to amend the primary regulations directly rather than layering temporary modifications that create legal complexity and regulatory uncertainty.