Browse regulations

The Electronic Monitoring (Responsible Persons) Order 2018 designates four private companies (Capita, Buddi, Serco, and G4S) as the only approved 'responsible persons' for electronic monitoring of individuals subject to community sentences, licences, and home detention curfew under various criminal justice statutes. It revokes two prior similar Orders.

This regulation creates a government-enforced oligopoly by designating only four specific companies as permitted electronic monitoring providers, with no competitive tendering process or objective quality standards that other providers could meet. This restricts market entry, artificially maintains prices, and reflects crony capitalism rather than genuine public safety requirements. The government could achieve legitimate security and monitoring standards through performance-based requirements open to any qualified provider, rather than pre-selecting incumbents. The revocation of prior Orders suggests this is an exercise in rotating preferred contractors rather than serving public interest.

These Regulations designate specific areas for special non-domestic rating treatment, establishing calculation rules in Schedule 2 for determining the proportion of a billing authority's rating income attributable to designated areas. This proportion is then excluded from various calculations under Schedule 7B (central share payments, levy payments, safety net payments, etc.). The designation periods vary: 25 years (Table 1), 16 years (Table 2), and 12 years (Table 3), all effective 1 April 2018.

This regulation implements targeted business rate subsidies that distort market competition by artificially advantaging designated areas over others. Such selective tax treatment represents economic planning rather than neutral tax administration — government picking winners through fiscal manipulation. The mechanism simply inflates property values in designated areas rather than generating genuine economic benefit, while creating an uneven playing field for businesses outside these zones. A truly dynamic free-trading nation would apply uniform business rating treatment across all areas, not perpetuate privileged enclaves. These are retained EU-derived provisions that should be reconsidered as part of post-Brexit regulatory cleanup.

This Order appoints 1st April 2018 as the commencement date for sections 16(4) and 19(3) of the Wales Act 2014, which disapply UK Stamp Duty Land Tax and UK Landfill Tax in Wales respectively. It is a date-fixing Order that gives effect to the Welsh tax devolution provisions of the Wales Act 2014, enabling the Welsh Government to establish its own replacement taxes for land transactions and landfill disposals.

This Order simply fixes a commencement date for provisions that were democratically enacted in the Wales Act 2014. While some may disagree with the principle of taxation, this Order merely facilitates devolved governance rather than imposing regulatory burden. Deleting it would create legal chaos, as thousands of land transactions and landfill disposals in Wales since 1st April 2018 have relied on the legal certainty provided by this Order. As a date-fixing instrument that removes UK taxes from Wales (allowing Welsh self-governance on these taxes), it aligns with the subsidiarity principle and jurisdictional competition between UK nations.

Amendment Regulations 2018 that amend the Street Works (Charges for Occupation of the Highway) (England) Regulations 2012 by omitting paragraph (3) from regulation 1 (Citation, commencement, expiry and application).

The amendment removes paragraph (3), which likely contained an expiry or sunset provision. Removing regulatory expiration mechanisms perpetuates rules indefinitely without democratic review, preventing the automatic reassessment that Parliament should periodically conduct on all retained regulations. This contradicts the post-Brexit opportunity to subject inherited EU-derived laws to proper parliamentary scrutiny, as expired regulations would require affirmative action to re-enact rather than persisting by default.

These Regulations define which criminal offences constitute 'banning order offences' under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, enabling courts to ban individuals from being residential landlords or property agents. The Regulations apply only to offences committed after April 2018, cover offences listed in a Schedule (items 1-14), and include conditions requiring offences against tenants or at rental housing, committed by landlords/agents, and sentenced in Crown Court.

This regulation grants authorities power to permanently exclude individuals from the rental market based on criminal convictions — a form of occupational licensing that reduces supply of rental housing. The unseen Schedule of qualifying offences could be overbroad, and the regime creates perverse incentives: rather than resolving disputes through civil litigation, it weaponises criminal law to remove landlords from the market. The 'collusion' and 'at or in relation to that housing' criteria risk capturing incidental conduct. A free society relies on tort law and contract to address landlord misconduct, not administrative banning orders that suppress market participation and drive房源 offshore.

This Order specifies certain bodies (listed in a Schedule) as 'qualifying bodies' that are entitled to additional R&D tax relief under Part 13 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009. It sets commencement dates for each body and revokes the 2012 version of the same Order.

This Order institutionalises preferential treatment for a government-selected list of bodies, creating barriers for other legitimate research institutions. It exemplifies regulatory capture risk — established institutions use political influence to secure exclusive tax advantages while potential competitors are excluded. The knowledge spillover rationale for R&D support is valid, but such relief should apply to qualifying activities universally, not to a closed list of approved institutions. Removing this Order would allow Parliament to redesign R&D relief as a principles-based incentive available to all firms undertaking qualifying research, rather than a cartel of pre-approved bodies.

Amendment regulations modifying teacher pension scheme death grant payment terms, changing mandatory language ('is payable', 'must be paid') to discretionary language ('may be paid', 'where a death grant is to be paid, the payment must be made') across multiple provisions in the Teachers' Pensions Regulations 2010 and Teachers' Pension Scheme Regulations 2014.

These are technical amendments to public sector pension scheme administration that modify payment discretion language for death grants. They impose no costs on businesses, restrict trade, or distort market incentives. The regulations affect only government-managed teacher pension schemes and provide administrative flexibility rather than creating burdensome obligations. Without these amendments, the original mandatory language would create stronger payment obligations that could complicate scheme administration without providing countervailing benefits.

Amends the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 to increase TV licence fees across all categories (black-and-white and colour, general and multiple forms), adjust instalment payment schedules, extend the over-75s concession to the Isle of Man, and update interim licence fees and hotel/hospitality fees. The regulation updates dozens of specific fee amounts throughout the schedules.

TV licensing is a coercive monopoly tax on television ownership used to fund a state broadcaster, raising £3.2bn+ annually from households with no market alternative. Price increases without competitive pressure provide no efficiency incentive. The mandatory nature distorts consumer choice and props up an institution that would struggle to survive market discipline. The Isle of Man extension merely expands territorial reach of this compulsory scheme. Repeal would allow market-based provision of broadcasting services and eliminate this regressive poll tax on television viewers.

The Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 amend the 2013 Regulations governing fees paid to advocates under the Advocates' Gradued Fee Scheme (AGFS) for criminal legal aid. Key changes include: replacing a 'Class' system with a 'Band' system for categorising offences; establishing detailed fee tables for basic fees, daily attendance fees, and fixed fees across 17 offence bands; modifying fee calculations for trials, guilty pleas, cracked trials, and sentencing hearings; and introducing new fees for case management hearings, plea and trial preparation hearings, and warrants for arrest.

This regulation represents state price-fixing in the legal services market, artificially suppressing remuneration for criminal defence advocates. The complex banding bureaucracy adds administrative compliance costs without improving outcomes. Market rates for legal services—driven by competition among providers and informed clients—would better allocate resources and maintain quality. The 2013 regime and its 2018 amendment perpetuate a system where government, not clients or practitioners, determines the value of legal work, distorting incentives and potentially driving competent lawyers away from criminal defence, harming both lawyers and defendants.

This Order prescribes when an HMO requires mandatory licensing under Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004. It applies to properties occupied by 5+ persons from 2+ separate households meeting either the standard test, self-contained flat test, or converted building test under s.254. It also transitions existing Part 3 licensed HMOs to Part 2 licensing and requires periodic review reports.

Mandatory licensing creates substantial compliance costs passed to tenants through higher rents, reduces supply of affordable shared housing, and imposes barriers on smaller landlords. The 5-person threshold is arbitrary with no empirical justification—risks do not suddenly materialize at this number. The three separate test criteria (standard, self-contained flat, converted building) add complexity without corresponding benefit. While some HMO regulation serves legitimate purposes regarding fire safety and habitability, mandatory licensing is an overly onerous mechanism that could be replaced by targeted enforcement of existing standards, mandatory disclosure requirements, or risk-based inspection regimes. The regulatory burden outweighs benefits, particularly for borderline properties near the 5-person threshold.

Amendment to Motorways Traffic Regulations 1982 permitting learner drivers to drive on motorways when supervised by a registered approved driving instructor (ADI) in Part 1 or Part 2 of the ADI register, using a category B vehicle with independently operable brakes from the front passenger seat. Also corrects cross-references in paragraph (4)(a).

While this amendment liberalises motorway access for learner drivers, it retains the underlying paternalistic prohibition and compounds it by tying the exception to a government-mandated instructor register. The ADI registration regime creates an artificial monopoly on driving instruction, raising costs and restricting supply. The technical requirements (disengageable transmission, passenger-accessible brakes) are arbitrary conditions that increase vehicle compliance costs without proportional safety benefit — a classic example of gold-plating. Deletion would restore the principle that competent individuals should be free to drive on any public road, with safety enforced through general road traffic law rather than categorical prohibitions and approved-instructor monopolies.

These Regulations establish review procedures for homelessness decisions under the Housing Act 1996. They set out requirements for local housing authorities handling reviews of decisions regarding eligibility for assistance, duties owed to homeless applicants, referrals between authorities, and suitability of accommodation. Key provisions include: written procedures for deliberate refusal to cooperate notices; requirements that review decisions be made by senior officers not involved in original decisions; timeframes for reviews ranging from 3 to 12 weeks depending on the decision type; and appointment procedures for independent reviewers in referral cases. The regulations revoke and replace the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999.

These regulations provide essential procedural protections for some of Britain's most vulnerable citizens at their moments of greatest need. Without statutory review procedures, homeless individuals—often without legal representation or financial resources—would have no enforceable right to challenge decisions that could leave them without shelter. The requirements that decisions be made by senior officers independent of the original decision, and that review timeframes be set, prevent arbitrary or delayed determinations. While procedural compliance imposes administrative costs on local authorities, these costs are proportionate to the fundamental interests at stake: a person's home. The alternative—unreviewable administrative decisions affecting homelessness—would be a denial of natural justice that free market principles cannot endorse.

Amendment to Motorways Traffic (Scotland) Regulations 1995 allowing provisional driving licence holders to drive on motorways in Scotland when accompanied by an approved driving instructor (registered under Road Traffic Act 1998) in a vehicle with dual controls where transmission can be disengaged and brakes operated independently by the front passenger.

This regulation expands freedom by creating an exception where provisional drivers previously could not drive on motorways at all. The safety requirements—dual controls and approved instructor supervision—are reasonable measures preventing genuine harm to inexperienced drivers and other road users. Unlike restrictive regulations that suppress supply or create monopolies, this simply sets proportionate safety standards for a potentially dangerous activity involving inexperienced drivers on high-speed roads.

Consequential amendments to multiple Acts arising from the Policing and Crime Act 2017, including updates to firefighter pension arrangements for the London Fire Commissioner, investment scheme participation for fire and rescue authorities, contempt of court procedural rules, police appeals tribunal eligibility for former officers, and corrections to various cross-references in fire rescue, housing, and high speed rail legislation.

These are technical consequential amendments that maintain legal consistency and prevent chaos. Deletion would create gaps in the statute book as the primary Acts they modify remain in force. The amendments either correct errors, update cross-references, or extend existing schemes to new authorities - none impose new regulatory burdens. Without these amendments, legal uncertainty would arise from inconsistent references, pension rights would be unclear, and investment powers would be ambiguous. The benefit of certainty outweighs any marginal regulatory cost.

Commencement regulations bringing into force various provisions of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 on specified dates (March-April 2018). They establish the London Fire Commissioner as a new body replacing the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, transfer property/rights/liabilities, and commence maritime and cross-border enforcement provisions.

These are purely administrative commencement regulations that simply specify effective dates for provisions already enacted by Parliament in the Policing and Crime Act 2017. They do not themselves impose any regulatory burden, restriction on trade, or economic cost. Deleting them would merely prevent the orderly implementation of primary legislation that has already been democratically sanctioned. The reorganization of London's fire services, whether or not one agrees with its structure, is a matter for primary legislation, not these commencement instruments.