Browse regulations

These Regulations amend the Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulations 2007, the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005, and section 41(1)(e) of the Environment Act 1995 by updating references from the old EU Regulation (EC) No. 850/2004 to the new recast EU Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 on persistent organic pollutants. The amendments are purely textual reference updates to reflect the EU recast regulation, with new coming-into-force dates for different regulations.

This SI is purely administrative housekeeping that merely updates regulatory cross-references without altering any substantive obligations or restrictions. It adds compliance complexity by creating new citation requirements while implementing no new policy. Britons would face identical regulatory obligations whether this SI exists or not — only the section numbers and paragraph citations would differ. Deleting it would reduce legislative clutter without removing any actual restrictions on persistent organic pollutants, which remain in force through the underlying retained EU regulations that this SI merely cross-references.

EU Exit statutory instrument making technical amendments to Northern Ireland agriculture, environment and rural affairs regulations. Removes references to EU member States, replaces EU directive citations with post-Brexit equivalents (e.g., Directive 2006/88 with Regulation 1251/2008), substitutes 'Community' terminology with domestic equivalents, and replaces 'European' with 'retained EU'. Extends to Northern Ireland only.

These are purely technical, house-keeping amendments that update outdated EU references to post-Brexit equivalents. Removing these amendments would leave the underlying regulations with references to EU directives, member State competent authorities, and Community marketing rules that are no longer applicable or could create legal confusion post-Brexit. No new regulatory burdens are imposed; the amendments merely ensure existing regulations function correctly outside the EU framework.

The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 amends the CIL Regulations 2010 to make various changes including: updated consultation procedures for charging schedules, new requirements when a charging schedule ceases to have effect (Regulation 28A), changes to CIL calculation and relief provisions, enforcement procedure updates using the Schedule 12 procedure, new annual infrastructure funding statement requirements (Regulation 121A), and various technical amendments to relief provisions and administrative processes. The regulations apply to England only.

CIL is a development tax that adds cost to new construction, discouraging housing supply at a time when Britain faces a housing crisis. These amendments layer additional bureaucratic requirements—including new annual reporting mandates (Regulation 121A), elaborate procedures for ceasing charging schedules, and expanded consultation requirements—without addressing CIL's fundamental problem as a supply-restricting levy. While the enforcement modernization using the Schedule 12 procedure is administratively neutral, the net regulatory burden is increased. A genuinely dynamic free-trading Britain would not tax development at the margin when housing affordability is at crisis levels.

These are 2019 Brexit amendment regulations (No. 2) for electricity network codes and guidelines, which come into force the day before exit day and revoke regulation 5 of the earlier 2019 version. They form part of the statutory instrument suite preparing electricity market regulations for EU exit.

This regulation is a technical amendment that merely corrects an earlier version of the same instrument and sets commencement dates. The revocation of regulation 5 represents a needed correction rather than a new burden. Electricity system operation requires clear regulatory frameworks to maintain grid stability; removing this would create legal uncertainty without providing any market benefit.

Commencement Order bringing Section 18 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 into force, which requires medical practitioners to notify a senior coroner of certain deaths. This is the 20th commencement order for this Act.

Section 18 establishes a critical legal obligation for medical practitioners to report deaths to coroners, serving the fundamental public interest in investigating unexpected, suspicious, or unnatural deaths. While any regulation imposes costs, this notification requirement is the minimum necessary legal mechanism to ensure the coronial system can fulfill its function of determining cause of death and detecting potential foul play. Without such a statutory requirement, reporting would be left to professional discretion alone, creating gaps that could allow suspicious deaths to escape scrutiny. The benefit to public safety and justice substantially outweighs the minimal compliance cost to medical practitioners.

The Single Source Contract (Amendment) Regulations 2019 amend the 2014 Regulations governing non-competitive defense procurement. Key changes include: adjusting contract value thresholds (£250,000, £1,000,000, £15,000,000, £10,000,000); replacing 'framework contractor' terminology with 'framework supplier' and 'primary contractor'; adding reporting requirements for sub-contracts over £15,000,000; modifying pricing method calculations; and inserting notification obligations to the SSRO. The regime governs single-source (non-competitive) defense contracts, requiring SSRO oversight, price adjustment mechanisms, and extensive reporting.

This regulation perpetuates a fundamentally flawed system that legitimizes non-competitive defense procurement. Single-source contracting removes competitive discipline that would otherwise prevent overpayment. The extensive SSRO bureaucracy, reporting requirements, and price control mechanisms add compliance costs while the core problem — government procurement without competition — remains unaddressed. The 2014 regime was itself a mistake; this amendment doubles down by adding further regulatory burden including new sub-contract reporting thresholds (£15,000,000) and notification requirements. Competitive procurement or market-based pricing mechanisms would better serve taxpayers and defense procurement efficiency.

Amends the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 to reduce fees for criminal record check services: criminal conviction certificates reduced from £25 to £23, criminal record certificates from £26 to £23, and enhanced criminal record certificates from £44 to £40.

This instrument merely reduces fees for criminal record checks—a service where the state holds a legitimate monopoly over criminal record data. The fees represent cost-recovery for a public safety function, not a revenue-raising tax. Unlike EU-derived regulations that imposed restrictions beyond original directives, this domestic amendment actually lowers costs. Removing it would revert fees upward, harming individuals and employers who need criminal record vetting for employment, licensing, and volunteering purposes.

Extends the Territorial Sea Act 1987 to the Bailiwick of Guernsey with specified exceptions, adaptations and modifications set out in a Schedule. Revokes the 2014 and 2015 predecessor Orders.

This Order is a routine legal-administrative instrument updating the extension of UK territorial sea legislation to the Bailiwick of Guernsey, a Crown dependency. It replaces two prior Orders with a consolidated version. No regulatory burden, economic restriction, or gold-plating is evident—merely technical legal extension to ensure jurisdictional consistency with a willing territory.

The Merchant Shipping (Falkland Islands) (Amendment) Order 2019 updates the legal framework for merchant shipping in the Falkland Islands by amending relevant instruments in the Schedule, and revokes four older Confirmation of Legislation Orders (1987, 1989, 1992, 2003) that are superseded by the new Falkland Islands Maritime Ordinance 2017. It is a technical-administrative instrument that aligns territorial merchant shipping law with updated local legislation.

This Order maintains necessary legal frameworks for merchant shipping in a UK Overseas Territory. Unlike regulations that impose costs on businesses or restrict trade, this instrument primarily updates and clarifies existing law by revoking outdated Confirmation of Legislation orders superseded by the 2017 Falkland Islands Maritime Ordinance. Deletion would create a legal vacuum in merchant shipping regulation for the Falkland Islands, causing uncertainty for shipping operators, ports, and maritime services without any corresponding economic benefit.

UK statutory instrument that brings the Falkland Islands Maritime Ordinance 2017 into force, revokes the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) (Falkland Islands) Order 1997, and revokes the Merchant Shipping (Helm Orders) Order 1935 insofar as it applies to the Falkland Islands. This modernises the shipping regulatory framework for the Falkland Islands by replacing outdated 20th century legislation with the 2017 Ordinance.

This instrument represents regulatory streamlining rather than expansion. It removes archaic 1935 and 1997 legislation specific to the Falkland Islands and replaces it with the modernised Falkland Islands Maritime Ordinance 2017. Without this Order, the Islands would remain under outdated regulatory frameworks ill-suited to contemporary maritime operations. The revocation of these territorial-specific orders suggests a reduction in regulatory burden, not an increase.

This Order ratifies a protocol with Israel providing double taxation relief for capital gains tax, corporation tax, and income tax, and establishes frameworks for international tax enforcement cooperation between the UK and Israel.

Britons would be worse off if deleted because double taxation treaties facilitate international trade and investment by removing tax barriers. Deleting this would create uncertainty for UK businesses operating in Israel, risk double taxation of cross-border income, reduce legal certainty for investors, and undermine international tax enforcement cooperation that helps ensure tax fairness and reduces evasion.

UK regulations requiring registered medical practitioners to notify senior coroners of deaths occurring on or after 1st October 2019 when certain circumstances apply, including suspicion of poisoning, violence, trauma, self-harm, neglect, medical treatment complications, employment-related injuries, unnatural deaths of unknown cause, deaths in custody, lack of attending practitioner, or unknown identity. Specifies notification procedures (oral in exceptional circumstances, otherwise written), required information, and timelines.

This regulation serves a legitimate public interest in ensuring proper coronial investigation of suspicious, unnatural, and custody deaths. While it imposes administrative costs on medical practitioners, deletion would create a serious gap in death investigation, potentially allowing murders, negligent deaths, and custody deaths to escape scrutiny. The notification requirements are narrowly targeted to circumstances where coronial involvement serves justice and public safety, not general economic activity. The information burden on doctors is minimal relative to the serious harms prevented.

UK-Cyprus bilateral tax treaty that updates double taxation relief arrangements, declaring that the Protocol varying the 2018 Order has been made with the Government of Cyprus with a view to affording relief from double taxation on income tax and similar taxes.

Double taxation of cross-border income is a distortion that discourages international trade and investment. Without this treaty, UK businesses and individuals engaged in legitimate activities with Cyprus would face double taxation, creating uncertainty and additional costs. Deleting this would harm Britons engaged in lawful Cyprus-UK commerce by exposing them to higher effective tax burdens, whereas the treaty reduces taxation and facilitates international economic exchange.

Post-Brexit transitional regulations enabling the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to UK entities that had approved applications under the EU's Preparatory Action on Defence Research and European Defence Industrial Development programmes, where the European Commission has declined to make further payments after Brexit. The regulations revoke retained EU legislation and establish discretionary taxpayer-backed payments for affected defence research companies.

This regulation perpetuates EU-style corporate welfare and industrial policy intervention. It bails out companies facing lost EU funding due to Brexit - a political outcome they accepted when participating in EU programmes. Rather than allowing market adjustment, it substitutes taxpayer money for Commission payments, creating dependency and distorting resource allocation in defence research. The regulation rewards companies that made funding decisions based on EU programmes and provides no sunset clause, suggesting permanent subsidy rather than genuine transitional support. As Mises recognised, such interventions distort economic calculation and delay necessary reallocation of resources.

The Air Navigation (Cosmic Radiation: Protection of Air Crew and Space Crew and Consequential Amendments) Order 2019 implements EU Directive 2013/59/Euratom on protection against ionising radiation for air crew. It establishes dose limits (1 mSv, 6 mSv, 20 mSv thresholds), mandates risk assessments, requires exposure monitoring using four specific approved computer programs (CARI-7, EPCARD, SIEVERT PN, PCAire), imposes medical surveillance and crew classification requirements, and creates extensive record-keeping obligations including 75-year retention periods for some records. It applies to UK-established aircraft operators and includes enforcement provisions with criminal offences.

This regulation exemplifies the problem of retained EU law never subject to democratic scrutiny. The prescribed computer programs (CARI-7, EPCARD, SIEVERT PN, PCAire) lock in specific technologies, preventing innovation in dose monitoring. The 75-year record retention requirements impose extraordinary administrative burdens disproportionate to the risk, which is already managed through natural variation in flight patterns and routes. The medical classification regime adds costs without clear evidence of benefit—workers can already be informed of risks through market mechanisms. The dose limits are arbitrary lines drawn from EU bureaucratic compromise rather than evidence-based standards. Most critically, the regulation imposes these costs without any demonstrated market failure: airlines already have strong incentives to protect crew health, and workers can negotiate through collective bargaining. This is regulatory overreach disguised as safety protection.