Browse regulations

These Regulations amend the Radioactive Contaminated Land (Enabling Powers) (England) Regulations 2005 and the Radioactive Contaminated Land (Modification of Enactments) (England) Regulations 2006. They modify definitions in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, including updating the definition of 'harm' (changing 'a radiological' to 'an'), revising 'remediation' references, and substituting a new definition of 'substance' to cover radionuclides from emergencies or past practices. The regulations also insert references to Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom (basic safety standards for ionising radiation protection) and modify provisions regarding protective or remedial measures, incorporating ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principles for dose optimisation.

Radioactive contamination represents a genuine externality where private parties cannot internalize costs—clear regulatory definitions serve to clarify property rights rather than restrict them. Without these definitions, the contaminated land regime under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would lack necessary precision for 'substance', 'harm', and 'remediation', creating legal uncertainty that would be more costly than having clear rules. The ALARA principle embedded in these regulations explicitly balances technical knowledge against economic and societal factors, representing a reasonable cost-benefit framework rather than zero-risk absolutism. While these originated as EU-derived regulations, they address a legitimate government function (preventing harm from radioactive contamination) and provide essential technical definitions without which enforcement would be arbitrary. The specific nature of radiological hazards—irreversible harm at sufficient exposure—justifies this focused regulatory framework.

Amends the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004 to implement Euratom Directive 2013/59/Euratom, updating references from the 1996 to the 2013 Directive. Introduces new regulatory requirements for consumer products involving ionising radiation, establishes a regulatory framework for non-medical imaging practices including approval requirements, individual justification, dose constraints, consent requirements, and creates an inspection regime with criminal offences for breaches.

While this regulation imposes significant bureaucratic costs including approval requirements, justification decisions, and inspection regimes, the subject matter involves ionising radiation which causes serious and irreversible harm including cancer and genetic damage. The justification framework ensures societal benefit must outweigh health detriment before permitting new radiation practices. Without such regulation, Britons could be exposed to unevaluated radiation sources in consumer products and imaging practices with no assurance of net benefit. The health costs of deletion would be severe and difficult to remedy after the fact, whereas alternatives such as market disclosure requirements or private certification could not adequately protect the public from a hazard where harm is cumulative and often delayed.

This Order amends the Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust (Establishment) Order 1993 to: (1) change the trust's name from 'Plymouth Hospitals' to 'University Hospitals Plymouth', (2) update board composition to 6 non-executive and 5 executive directors with a requirement for a University of Plymouth appointee, (3) remove obsolete 'operational date' definitions and provisions, (4) set the accounting date as 31st March, and (5) revoke articles 6 and 7 regarding pre-operational date functions and health authority assistance. The Order provides continuity provisions ensuring existing rights, obligations, and instruments remain valid under the new name.

This is a housekeeping amendment that modernises and simplifies an existing NHS Trust establishment order rather than imposing new regulatory burdens. It removes obsolete provisions (operational date definitions, pre-operational date articles 6 and 7), consolidates governance structures, and effects a administrative name change. Britons would be worse off if deleted because: (1) the trust could not validly operate under its intended new name, (2) governance structures would remain anchored to 1993 provisions including obsolete pre-operational arrangements, and (3) the cleanup of unnecessary definitions reduces complexity without removing any beneficial function. The underlying policy question of whether NHS Trusts should exist is beyond the scope of this instrument review.

The Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2018 imposes a compulsory levy on construction industry employers to fund the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB). The levy is calculated as 0.35% of emoluments plus 1.25% of contract payments. Employers with aggregate payments under £80,000 are exempt; those between £80,000 and £400,000 receive a 50% reduction. The Order establishes assessment, notice, appeal, and payment procedures.

This regulation imposes a compulsory industry levy that distorts labor and contracting markets. The 0.35%/1.25% rate structure and £80,000-£400,000 exemption thresholds are arbitrary government interventions that penalize growth and success. Training decisions should be made by individual firms based on market demands, not compelled contributions that create cross-subsization between firms. The administrative apparatus—assessments, appeals, certificates—imposes compliance costs with no demonstrated benefit beyond what market mechanisms would achieve. The CITB structure represents the kind of corporatist cartel arrangement that Adam Smith warned would suppress individual initiative and innovation.

These Regulations, effective 28th March 2018, revoke the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 while simultaneously amending the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011. They remove dental profession subjects (dental hygiene, dental therapy) and postgraduate pre-registration courses from eligible student support schemes, consolidating these under pre-registration course definitions. The regulations contain saving provisions for applicants who submitted applications before the effective date.

Government should not be in the business of picking winners among professional training courses. These regulations arbitrarily exclude dental hygiene and dental therapy students from financial support while permitting other healthcare professions to continue receiving it — creating market distortions in educational choices. The saving provisions for pre-existing applicants add complexity without justification. Student support schemes distort price signals in higher education, artificially inflating demand and driving up costs. Removing this layer of regulation would allow educational institutions and students to negotiate terms freely, with financial institutions offering loans based on actual earning potential rather than political categories.

This Order amends the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to grant the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (Ofgem) seizure powers under the Electricity and Gas (Market Integrity and Transparency) Regulations 2013, specifically for investigations involving entry to premises. It extends existing seizure powers to cover enforcement of market integrity regulations in energy markets.

This Order extends coercive seizure powers to a regulator enforcing EU-derived market integrity regulations (the 2013 Regulations were originally implementing EU REMIT). Post-Brexit regulatory independence demands these EU-derived enforcement regimes be reviewed rather than passively expanded. Seizure powers are among the most invasive tools available to regulators and should not be accumulated through incremental secondary legislation. The original 2013 Regulations were never properly scrutinized by Parliament when retained — they were inherited wholesale from EU law. Additionally, the duplication (the same power is listed twice in the amendment) suggests hasty lawmaking. Market integrity can be pursued through less coercive means: information requests, fines, and civil enforcement rather than criminal-style seizure of property.

These Regulations implement powers and duties for inspectors appointed under section 82N(1) of the Energy Act 2008 to monitor, investigate and enforce compliance with Part 4A of that Act (relating to offshore energy infrastructure and works detrimental to navigation). They grant inspectors extensive powers to board installations or vessels, conduct examinations, install monitoring equipment, require testimony and documents, take possession of items, and create criminal offences for obstruction, false statements, or non-compliance. The Regulations include a mandatory regulatory review provision requiring periodic assessment of whether objectives could be achieved with less onerous provision.

These regulations grant government inspectors extraordinarily broad powers — including compelled testimony, document production, and possession of materials — backed by criminal penalties. While navigation safety near energy installations is a legitimate concern, the regulatory review provision itself acknowledges these are 'onerous regulatory provision' requiring periodic assessment. The compliance burden on energy sector operators (mandatory attendance at inspections, document surrender, criminal liability for obstruction) adds cost without proportionate benefit, particularly given that similar safety objectives could be achieved through less coercive means such as voluntary compliance schemes or industry self-regulation. The sheer breadth of these powers — combined with criminal consequences for non-compliance — represents the kind of bureaucratic overreach that suppresses private sector initiative and drives investment elsewhere.

These Regulations enforce EU marketing standards for fishery products in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. They establish enforcement authorities (including MMO, local councils, Welsh Ministers, DAERA), grant authorized officers powers to enter premises and inspect fish, create compliance notice mechanisms, define offences with criminal penalties (fines up to level 5), and establish appeal procedures to the First-tier Tribunal (England/Wales) or magistrates' courts (Northern Ireland). The regulations implement Council Regulation 2406/96 and Regulation 1379/2013.

These are retained EU regulations imposing EU bureaucratic burden without democratic scrutiny. Marketing standards for fish function as protectionist trade barriers rather than genuine consumer protection — food safety is already covered by other legislation. The multiple enforcement authorities, criminal offences for non-compliance with administrative notices, and complex compliance requirements impose costs on legitimate fish traders with no corresponding benefit to consumers or market efficiency. Post-Brexit, Britain should not perpetuate regulations whose primary effect is restricting trade and entrenching EU-derived bureaucratic processes.

These are the sixth commencement regulations for the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, bringing certain subsections of section 20 (consequential amendments) into force on 6 April 2018. They include a transitional provision ensuring that 'existing claimants' under the Loans for Mortgage Interest Regulations 2017 are treated under the old rules during a transition period, avoiding abrupt changes to their benefit position when the new regime takes effect.

This is a technical commencement instrument that provides legal certainty by specifying when provisions take effect. The transitional provision actively benefits existing claimants by preserving their prior rules during the transition, reducing regulatory shock. Deleting it would create ambiguity about when consequential amendments take effect and remove protections for vulnerable claimants mid-transition, without any corresponding economic gain.

The Public Service Vehicles (Registration of Local Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 amend the 1986 Regulations to require bus operators in England to provide drafts of registration, variation or cancellation applications to local transport authorities at least 28 days before submitting to traffic commissioners. It also allows authorities to demand detailed operational data (passenger journeys, revenue, fare types), creates disclosure rules for this information to other operators, reduces certain notice periods, and requires periodic review.

This regulation adds significant regulatory friction to bus service registration and variation, creating a 28-day pre-submission delay that impedes operators' ability to respond dynamically to market demand. The information disclosure regime (requiring passenger counts, revenue data, fare types) imposes substantial compliance costs and risks exposing commercially sensitive data to competitors, potentially through the very disclosure provisions meant to facilitate tendering. Such detailed operator disclosures to local authorities and subsequent sharing with other operators create barriers to entry, reduce competitive dynamics, and give authorities leverag to delay or obstruct service improvements. The regulation's burdens fall disproportionately on smaller operators and new entrants, stifling the competitive bus market that exists in England.

Amends the Family Procedure Rules 2010 to introduce a standard/fast-track procedure distinction for financial remedy proceedings, extend default timelines (4-8 weeks to 6-10 weeks for first hearing dates, 14 to 21 days for first hearing), and add Divisional Court provisions for High Court proceedings. Includes rules for requesting procedure changes and modifies FDR appointment processes.

Court procedural rules govern the mechanics of justice administration rather than economic activity. Unlike regulations that create monopolies, distort prices, or burden businesses, these rules simply organise how family courts handle financial remedy applications. The standard/fast-track distinction, while adding terminology, reflects genuine procedural differences in case complexity. Without such rules, ad hoc litigation would produce worse outcomes for all parties. Britons would be worse off with deleted rules because undefined procedure creates uncertainty, lengthens disputes, and disadvantages litigants without legal training who rely on predictable frameworks.

The Landfill Tax (Disposals of Material) Order 2018 defines what constitutes a 'disposal' for landfill tax purposes under Part 3 of the Finance Act 1996. It specifies that material placed in landfill cells is treated as disposed of, while excluding certain activities (drainage layers, extraction infrastructure, restoration with inert material, temporary structures and haul roads). It also prescribes enactments defining 'prohibited disposal' for England and Northern Ireland.

This Order provides necessary clarity on tax liability boundaries. Without these definitions, operators would face uncertainty about what attracts landfill tax, creating litigation risk and compliance costs. The exclusions for drainage, extraction infrastructure, and temporary structures are reasonably targeted to prevent taxing non-disposal activities. While Landfill Tax itself may distort waste management decisions, this Order merely clarifies its application rather than imposing the underlying fiscal burden.

These Regulations amend the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 to add new definitions for 'dental profession subject' and 'postgraduate pre-registration course', restrict eligibility for student support on postgraduate pre-registration healthcare courses to those beginning on or after 1 August 2018, exclude distance learning postgraduate pre-registration courses from designated course status, prevent students already registered in a profession from receiving support for courses leading to the same qualification, and include clinical training time in attendance calculations for long courses loan purposes.

This regulation restricts government intervention rather than expanding it. It tightens eligibility criteria to prevent double-dipping (students already registered in a profession cannot receive support for the same qualification), excludes distance learning courses from support, and limits support to new postgraduate pre-registration courses starting from a specific date. These are targeting provisions that narrow the scope of taxpayer-funded student support rather than creating new regulatory burdens. Unlike EU-derived regulations that were transposed without democratic scrutiny, this amendment represents deliberate Parliamentary policy choices about healthcare education funding.

This Order amends two prior statutory instruments concerning the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. It adds a requirement that the Mayor or deputy Mayor must vote in favor for any Housing Investment Fund decisions, extends the independent remuneration panel's scope to cover committee/sub-committee members, expands allowance provisions to those members, and makes technical amendments to police and crime commissioner financial definitions including changing a deadline from 1st March to the penultimate working day in February.

The Order concentrates power in the Mayor's office by requiring Mayoral veto over Housing Investment Fund decisions, effectively overriding the democratic judgment of local representatives. It expands bureaucratic remuneration structures to additional governance layers without demonstrated benefit. While some technical amendments appear innocuous, the overall thrust increases centralised control at the expense of local democratic accountability—contrary to the principle that political decisions should be made at the lowest effective level. The combined authority model itself represents an unnecessary tier of regional government; this amendment worsens rather than remedies that fundamental flaw.

The Electronic Communications (Universal Service) (Broadband) Order 2018 establishes universal service obligations requiring broadband connections and services to be provided throughout the United Kingdom. It amends the 2003 Order and includes Schedules specifying required broadband services and guidance. The amendment also removes facsimile services from the universal service definition for publicly available telephone services.

Universal service mandates force telecommunications providers to cross-subsidise uneconomic deployments, raising costs for all consumers to serve remote areas where market demand is insufficient. This Order codifies into law an obligation that distorts price signals, discourages investment in efficient technologies, and prevents the market from organically determining where and how broadband infrastructure is deployed. As Friedman recognised, such mandates function as a hidden tax on consumers. Post-Brexit Britain should allow market forces to determine broadband rollout, with any subsidy for rural coverage provided transparently through general taxation rather than regulatory coercion on specific providers.