Browse regulations

This Order authorizes the closure of Kings Mill No. 1 level crossing (a bridleway crossing of the Nottingham-Worksop railway in Nottinghamshire) and its replacement with a new ramped bridleway bridge. It empowers Network Rail to compulsorily acquire land, temporarily use land during construction, and exercise airspace rights for cranes. The Order contains standard provisions for compensation, extinguishment of private rights of way, dispute resolution, and procedural matters for a railway infrastructure project.

This Order facilitates railway safety by replacing a level crossing with a bridleway bridge—an infrastructure improvement that aligns with market-friendly principles of efficient transport networks. It does not impose regulatory burdens on economic activity, restrict trade, or create bureaucratic obstacles. The compulsory purchase and temporary use powers are standard enabling powers necessary for infrastructure delivery, not regulatory interventions in the economy. Unlike EU-derived regulations that restrict economic freedom, this Order merely facilitates private infrastructure investment by a commercial entity (Network Rail).

A correction order that makes technical amendments to the National Grid (Richborough Connection Project) Development Consent Order 2017, fixing errors by substituting, inserting or omitting text as specified in a three-column table (location, correction method, replacement text).

This is a purely administrative correction order fixing clerical errors in a development consent order. It imposes no new regulatory burdens, creates no new policy, and does not gold-plate any EU requirements. Deleting it would leave uncorrected errors in the underlying statutory instrument, which would create confusion and potential implementation problems for the infrastructure project. Correction orders are housekeeping measures essential for legal accuracy.

The Silvertown Tunnel Order 2018 grants Transport for London development consent to construct a new twin-bore road tunnel under the Thames (Work No. 1 - the Silvertown Tunnel) between Greenwich Peninsula and Silvertown, along with associated works including approach roads, tunnel service buildings, and related infrastructure. It confers extensive powers on TfL including compulsory purchase authority, rights to stop up streets, deviate from approved plans, execute street works, and provides liability limitations. The Order also modifies the application of numerous statutory provisions, creates exemptions from various Acts and byelaws, and establishes a charging framework whereby TfL may levy tolls for tunnel usage. The Order comes into force on 31 May 2018.

The Order imposes substantial costs through its extensive exemptions from statutory protections (including provisions of the 1968 Act, Water Resources Act 1991 byelaws, and Environmental Permitting Regulations), its compulsory purchase powers enabling coercive acquisition of land, and liability limitations that shield TfL from ordinary tort claims. While user-pays tolling is preferable to general taxation, these mechanisms do not require the breadth of coercive powers granted here. A privately-financed toll road could be procured through voluntary negotiation and private legislation without requiring exemptions from public health and environmental protections, compulsory purchase mandates, or liability caps. The Order represents the worst of both worlds: government coercion combined with user-pays pricing. Britons would be better served by a regime where infrastructure providers must negotiate rights voluntarily and bear full liability for negligence, rather than one where TfL is exempted from ordinary legal obligations while enjoying compulsory purchase authority.

This SI makes technical amendments to approximately 40 different regulations in the environment, food, rural affairs, and animal health areas. It primarily updates cross-references from old EU directives to new EU regulations (e.g., replacing references to the Common Agricultural Policy Regulation 1234/2007 with 1308/2013), substitutes outdated UK statutory instruments with current versions, and makes minor definitional changes. It applies to England only for most provisions, with some extending to England and Wales.

This instrument is purely technical housekeeping that updates cross-references without removing any regulatory burden. It makes no substantive policy changes - all the underlying regulations it touches (including GMO regulations, environmental permitting, food safety rules, marketing restrictions, and animal health controls) remain intact with their full regulatory weight. A free-trading Britain is not advanced by merely updating citation numbers; the regulations that actually restrict trade, inflate compliance costs, and suppress agricultural and commercial flexibility remain in place. As Mises emphasized, the harm lies in the substantive restrictions, not the cross-references. This instrument should be deleted, and more importantly, the substantive regulations it references should be individually reviewed for removal.

These Regulations protect applicants for NHS positions who have made protected disclosures (whistleblowing) from discrimination during recruitment. They prohibit NHS employers from discriminating against such applicants, grant a right of complaint to employment tribunals with reversed burden of proof, allow compensation and recommendations as remedies, establish vicarious liability for workers and agents, and amend the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to include these complaints in its provisions.

While protecting whistleblowers has merit, these regulations impose significant costs: (1) The reverse burden of proof violates common law principles by presuming guilt until proven innocent; (2) NHS recruitment is already heavily bureaucratic and these additional compliance requirements slow hiring of critical staff; (3) Vicarious liability for workers and agents creates perverse incentives that could make NHS employers risk-averse, potentially blacklisting capable candidates who happen to have whistleblowing history; (4) This regulation derives from EU whistleblower protection frameworks that should be reviewed post-Brexit rather than retained automatically; (5) The compensation and tribunal mechanisms add costs to NHS bodies already under severe financial pressure, diverting resources from patient care.

Temporary Order extending licensing hours for the Royal Wedding celebration period (18-20 May 2018), allowing premises with existing licenses to remain open an additional 2 hours (until 1am) on May 18th and 19th. Does not extend off-license sales or off-premises club alcohol supply. Late night refreshment extensions only permitted where on-premises alcohol sales also occur.

The regulation is now obsolete (the celebration period was May 2018). More fundamentally, it represents arbitrary government intervention picking which occasions merit special licensing treatment — an approach inherently prone to NIMBYism and political favoritism. The differential treatment (on-premises alcohol allowed extended hours, but off-licenses excluded) creates distorted incentives and market fragmentation without principled justification. Temporary regulations of this nature, even when superficially permissive, establish precedents for future intervention and regulatory complexity that accumulates over time.

Amends Criminal Legal Aid regulations to expand legal aid eligibility to include 'Restricted Status Prisoners' and 'Restricted Status Inmates' for classification reviews. Adds definitions for these categories (those whose escape would present a serious risk to the public), alongside existing Category A definitions. Applies to reviews under the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000. Does not apply retroactively to matters determined before 12th June 2018.

While any legal aid expansion incurs public expenditure, this regulation addresses a specific fairness concern: without legal aid, Restricted Status prisoners who cannot afford representation would be unable to meaningfully challenge their classification, creating a two-tier system based on wealth rather than merit. Classification determines security category, which directly affects both public safety and prisoner liberty. The category is narrowly defined (serious risk, not extreme like Category A), applies only to classification reviews (not all criminal proceedings), and does not apply retroactively. The cost is proportionate to ensuring basic access to justice for a vulnerable, incarcerated population.

Amendment to CAP (Control and Enforcement, Cross-Compliance, Scrutiny of Transactions and Appeals) Regulations 2014, adjusting submission deadlines for single applications, aid applications and payment claims. For 2018 claims relating to commitments effective from 2016-2018, deadline extended to 15th June; in all other cases, deadline is 15th May (or next working day if weekend/bank holiday). Also defines Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/701.

This regulation is EU-derived retained law that simply adjusts administrative deadlines for CAP subsidy claims. While the deadline flexibility (next working day if weekend/holiday) is administratively sensible, the regulation serves the CAP basic payment scheme—a subsidy regime that distorts agricultural markets, inflates land prices, creates bureaucratic compliance burdens for farmers, and is fundamentally incompatible with Britain's free-trading heritage. Post-Brexit, such EU-derived regulations should be repealed wholesale rather than retained with minor technical amendments. The underlying 2014 framework and the CAP subsidy apparatus itself should be abolished rather than patched with technical amendments.

Amends the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 to create an exemption from the mobile telephone prohibition while driving, specifically for remote controlled parking functions. The exemption applies only when: (1) the driver continuously activates the remote control, (2) the signal between vehicle and device is maintained, and (3) the distance between vehicle and device does not exceed 6 metres.

This regulation adds regulatory complexity to an already heavily regulated area with minimal safety benefit. Remote controlled parking is inherently low-risk (vehicle moves slowly, driver maintains oversight) and the 6m distance requirement is arbitrary. Such narrow technological exemptions quickly become obsolete as parking assist technology evolves. The market and common law already provide adequate deterrence against reckless use of vehicles. This represents the type of unnecessary regulatory intervention that accumulates compliance costs without proportionate safety gain.

No regulation document was provided for review.

No statutory instrument or regulation was submitted for assessment. Without a specific document to review, no evaluation can be performed.

The Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018 implement EU Directive 2016/943 into UK law, establishing a comprehensive framework for the protection of trade secrets. The Regulations define trade secrets (requiring secrecy, commercial value, and reasonable protective steps), create causes of action for unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure, establish procedural safeguards for confidentiality in proceedings, provide for provisional measures (seizure, prohibition), final remedies (cessation, destruction, corrective measures), and damages. They apply across England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland with limitation periods of six and five years respectively.

This regulation was inherited wholesale from EU law without democratic scrutiny, implementing a directive that creates significant unintended consequences: it can be weaponised by incumbents to suppress legitimate competition and innovation; it restricts labour mobility by preventing former employees from applying general knowledge and skills; it adds compliance complexity that disproportionately burdens smaller enterprises; and it risks chilling normal business communications and collaborations. The core protections it offers (against actual theft of confidential information) can be adequately addressed through existing common law breach of confidence and contractual arrangements between parties. The Regulation's detailed procedural requirements and court mechanisms impose administrative burdens that serve attorneys rather than economic efficiency.

The Passenger Name Record Data and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2018 establish the UK's PNR framework, designating the Home Office as the Passenger Information Unit (PIU), mandating carriers to provide passenger name record data, setting 5-year retention periods with depersonalization after 6 months, establishing data protection safeguards including independent oversight and data protection officers, and creating mechanisms for exchanging PNR information with EU PIUs, Europol, Eurojust, and third country competent authorities for purposes of preventing terrorism and serious crime.

This regulation imposes substantial compliance costs on carriers (airlines, shipping companies) operating to/from the UK with no market-based justification. The 5-year data retention regime represents excessive government surveillance authority over millions of innocent passengers. While the stated purposes of combating terrorism and serious crime are legitimate, the framework was largely inherited from EU PNR Directive requirements and reflects bureaucratic expansion rather than careful cost-benefit analysis. Post-Brexit regulatory independence should mean dismantling such surveillance regimes rather than maintaining them. The exchange arrangements with EU agencies (Europol, Eurojust) also create inappropriate ongoing linkages to EU institutions contrary to the spirit of Brexit. Similar concerns to those raised by Friedman regarding regulatory unintended consequences apply: such data holdings create risks of abuse, function creep, and distortion of the proper relationship between state and citizen.

The Education (Postgraduate Doctoral Degree Loans) Regulations 2018 establish a government-backed loan system for students undertaking designated postgraduate doctoral degree courses in England. The regulations define eligibility criteria based on immigration/residency status, set loan amounts and repayment terms, and establish the administrative framework for the payment and recovery of these loans. Loans are available for courses beginning on or after 1st August 2018, with maximum loan amounts determined by study mode (distance learning vs. attendance-based) and academic year.

Without these regulations, doctoral students from lower-income backgrounds would face significant barriers to accessing postgraduate education, reducing the pool of qualified researchers and academics. The UK research sector and economy depend on a steady supply of doctoral graduates. While government-backed student loans do involve taxpayer subsidy and market distortion, the alternative of eliminating all support would disproportionately exclude those without private means, harming social mobility and potentially driving doctoral talent to other countries with state support schemes. The UK's competitiveness in research requires maintaining pathways for talented students regardless of socioeconomic background.

This Amendment Order 2018 modifies the 2008 Order on First-tier and Upper Tribunal composition by: (1) adding a definition of 'practice direction', (2) replacing article 2 to allow the Senior President of Tribunals to determine the number of tribunal members (1, 2, or 3) via practice direction, having regard to matter complexity and expertise requirements, (3) similarly amending article 3(2) for the Upper Tribunal, and (4) preserving prior arrangements until superseded.

This instrument is a technical procedural reform that delegates tribunal composition decisions to the Senior President of Tribunals via flexible practice directions, rather than rigid primary legislation. It does not impose regulatory burdens on businesses, suppress competition, or restrict supply. Rather, it enables appropriately sized panels based on matter complexity and expertise needs. Removing this flexibility would only restore more bureaucratic, less responsive arrangements for tribunal administration.

These Regulations supplement section 63 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 by defining 'relevant persons' and their 'relevant functions' for purposes of cooperation and information sharing in the higher education sector. The Regulations come into force on 18th June 2018 and incorporate by reference the most recent versions of company Memorandum and Articles of Association as registered with Companies House.

This regulation is a narrow definitional instrument that merely designates which entities are 'relevant persons' for mandatory information sharing under the HERA 2017 framework. It adds no substantive obligations itself but exists to operationalize a broader regulatory regime that concentrates oversight of higher education in the Office for Students (OfS). The information-sharing mandate itself—with its associated compliance burdens, data protection implications, and coordination costs—is a product of the parent Act, not this instrument. The Schedule's list of persons and functions would be more appropriately maintained through administrative guidance rather than primary legislation, allowing for more agile updates as organizational structures evolve. Deleting this instrument would remove one layer of regulatory architecture without fundamentally disrupting the existing higher education landscape, while signalling intent to revisit the broader information-sharing mandate.