Browse regulations

Exempts transfers of PISCES (Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System) shares from all stamp duties when traded under the PISCES sandbox arrangements established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. The regulations define key terms by reference to the PISCES Sandbox Regulations 2025 and came into force on 3rd July 2025.

This regulation creates a stamp duty exemption specifically for one regulatory sandbox, establishing preferential tax treatment that distorts market signals. If PISCES trading has genuine value, it should succeed on its merits without tax privileges. Targeted exemptions of this kind represent government picking winners, increase complexity by creating differential treatment within the securities market, and may attract activity to the sandbox primarily for tax reasons rather than genuine innovation. Furthermore, stamp duty itself is a distortionary tax on capital mobility — the appropriate response is comprehensive reform rather than scattered exemptions that entrench the underlying regime.

These Regulations amend the Branded Health Service Medicines (Costs) Regulations 2018 by updating payment percentages that pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers must pay to the NHS for branded medicines. The amendments increase the 'newer presentation payment percentage' from 15.5% to 23.4% (or 31.3% in certain cases) for the period beginning 1st July 2025, with further increases in subsequent years. The Regulations also insert new audit requirements in regulation 23, mandating that manufacturers/suppliers provide audited statements from qualified independent auditors regarding their presentation reports alongside their audited sales reports.

Britons would be worse off if deleted because these regulations control NHS expenditure on branded medicines, which represents a significant portion of healthcare spending. Without these price control mechanisms, pharmaceutical companies could extract substantially higher costs from the NHS, ultimately harming patients through reduced service availability, higher taxes, or budget reallocation from other critical services. The audit requirements ensure transparency and accountability in pharmaceutical pricing. While these are price controls that distort market signals, the NHS as a monopsony buyer has limited alternative mechanisms to control pharmaceutical costs given the market power of pharmaceutical companies. Deletion would transfer wealth from taxpayers and patients to pharmaceutical shareholders without any countervailing benefit.

The Wireless Telegraphy (Licence Award) Regulations 2025 establish the procedural framework for OFCOM to award wireless telegraphy licences for 26 GHz and 40 GHz spectrum bands via a clock auction mechanism. The regulations define bidder eligibility, deposits, principal stage rounds (where winning bidders and quantities are determined), assignment stage (where specific frequency blocks are assigned), and grant stage. The process involves seven 26 GHz lower lots, five 26 GHz upper lots, and fifteen 40 GHz lots, with prices determined through competitive bidding.

While complex, these Regulations represent a market-based approach to allocating scarce spectrum resources—a significant improvement over administrative allocation. Auctions ensure spectrum goes to those who value it most and will use it productively, promoting efficient resource use. The alternative—command-and-control administrative allocation—would be more prone to political influence, rent-seeking, and inefficiency. Deleting these Regulations would create regulatory vacuum, not free markets. That said, significant simplification of the 140+ regulations would be desirable to reduce compliance burden and OFCOM discretion.

Amends EMIR Article 89 transitional provisions to make permanent the pension fund clearing obligation exemption. Removes the 18 June 2023 deadline, deletes reference to transactions 'during this period', and omits the fourth sub-paragraph entirely. Extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

This amendment perpetuates a sector-specific exemption without proper parliamentary deliberation. Making temporary exemptions permanent via statutory instrument avoids the democratic scrutiny such policy changes warrant. The exemption distorts market competition by shielding pension funds from clearing obligations that apply to other entities, creating moral hazard and an uneven playing field. Furthermore, as retained EU law, this regulation was never subject to the independent cost-benefit analysis that should precede such fundamental regulatory decisions affecting systemic risk management in derivatives markets.

Amends the Antarctic Regulations 1995 by removing 10 Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) and 13 Historic Sites and Monuments (HSMs) from schedules, while adding replacement areas and monuments. Essentially a administrative update to bring Schedule listings in line with current scientific understanding and management needs under the Antarctic Treaty system.

This regulation implements the UK's obligations under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, an international agreement the UK negotiated and ratified. Unlike EU-derived domestic regulations that were gold-plated or added without parliamentary scrutiny, this amendment modifies lists within an existing framework to reflect updated scientific assessments. Removing these protections would not free Britons from regulation—it would breach binding international law, damage the UK's credibility as a Treaty partner, and expose Antarctica (a global commons) to potential environmental degradation. The Antarctic Treaty system, which designates protected areas based on scientific criteria, remains one of the most successful international environmental regimes. Deleting this would harm rather than help British interests.

These Regulations bring Part 4 of the National Security Act 2023 into force on 1st July 2025. Part 4 establishes a foreign influence registration scheme requiring individuals and entities conducting certain foreign activities to register with the appropriate authority. The regulations extend to all of the United Kingdom.

A foreign influence registration scheme is a prior restraint on speech, association, and commercial activity that deters legitimate foreign engagement. Such schemes carry substantial compliance costs, create chilling effects on legal international partnerships and speech, and are susceptible to mission creep and over-enforcement. The opaque category of 'foreign influence' risks capturing ordinary commercial negotiations, academic collaboration, and journalistic activities. These costs fall disproportionately on those seeking to do business with or advise foreign entities, reducing economic activity and knowledge exchange. While the underlying national security concerns are legitimate, a registration mandate is an intrusive solution whose burdens on free association and commerce outweigh its marginal security benefit, particularly since existing laws on espionage, treason, and fraud already address genuine threats.

These Regulations implement Part 4 of the National Security Act 2023 by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information about foreign activity and foreign influence registrations on a public website. The publication relates to political influence activities registrations, registrable activities of specified persons, foreign influence arrangements, and misrepresentations by foreign powers. Information must be published at registration and continue for 10 years, subject to exceptions for national security, crime prevention, individual safety risks, and commercially sensitive information.

This regulation imposes a regulatory burden that chills legitimate voluntary associations and business relationships with foreign entities. While national security is a legitimate government function, mandatory public disclosure of all foreign activity registrations creates a 'chilling effect' on lawful international commerce and association. The 10-year publication requirement is excessive and could deter foreign businesses from engaging with the UK market. The compliance and administrative costs of this transparency regime are borne by private actors. Less restrictive alternatives (such as confidential government records accessible to vetted authorities) could achieve legitimate national security objectives without burdening lawful international activities with public exposure that could harm reputations and commercial interests.

Exempts foreign power investment funds, educational arrangements, consular/government services, and UK public body arrangements from National Security Act 2023 foreign influence registration requirements. Investment fund exemptions apply to foreign power-directed funds engaged in overseas investment activities. Education exemptions cover financial assistance arrangements for UK further/higher education students. Consular exemptions cover passport, notarial, registration, legal, and administrative services for foreign nationals. Public body exemptions cover arrangements involving UK public authorities under FOIA definitions.

The investment fund exemption (Part 1) creates a significant loophole allowing foreign powers to conduct political influence activities through state-controlled investment vehicles without registration, undermining the transparency the Act intended. The public body exemption is overly broad, capturing arrangements with bodies that exercise substantial regulatory and policy functions, effectively immunising significant government-to-government engagement from scrutiny. The education exemption adds unnecessary complexity and potential for abuse through vague 'reputation management' conditions. While some consular services may be genuinely innocuous, the registration system should assess arrangements case-by-case rather than granting blanket exemptions that could be exploited by hostile actors.

A routine administrative order appointing specific named individuals as His Majesty's Inspectors of Education, Children's Services and Skills, effective 12th June 2025. The Schedule contains the names of appointees.

This is a mechanical appointment instrument that serves no regulatory function — it merely formally installs individuals into already-established inspector positions that exist under separate primary legislation. The inspection framework for education and children's services would continue unaffected by its deletion; only the named appointments would require alternative procedural handling. It imposes no compliance costs, trading restrictions, or supply constraints, and provides no regulatory benefit — it is pure administrative process that wastes Parliamentary time.

This Order amends the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023 and 2024 by introducing separate 'UK target' and 'EU target' calculations for vehicle manufacturers' specific emissions targets. Manufacturers must use whichever target is higher (UK or EU), unless they opt out within 30 days. The regulation maintains heavy reliance on EU regulations (2019/631, 2018/858) and includes provisions for Northern Ireland Protocol compliance.

This regulation creates a 'worst of both worlds' scenario by requiring manufacturers to comply with the higher of UK or EU emissions targets, punishing businesses for market fragmentation that Brexit was meant to remedy. It perpetuates reliance on EU regulatory frameworks despite post-Brexit opportunities for independence. The mandatory 'higher of' mechanism serves no environmental purpose—emissions reductions are achieved at either threshold—while adding compliance complexity, administrative burden, and potential cost increases for consumers. Manufacturers with predominantly UK sales are penalized relative to those with EU sales, distorting market decisions.

Amends the Trade Marks (Isle of Man) Order 2013 to update trade mark provisions extending to England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man, with enforcement date 10th July 2025.

Trade marks are fundamental to protecting business reputation and reducing consumer confusion — core property rights. This Order merely amends and maintains consistency of trade mark law across UK jurisdictions and the Isle of Man, a Crown dependency with close trading ties. Deletion would create legal uncertainty and gaps in brand protection, harming businesses that operate across these territories. As an amendment to existing law rather than new regulatory burden, it causes minimal harm while preserving necessary legal infrastructure for commerce.

This Order amends the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 to add 'ninja swords' (swords with 14-24 inch blades, dual straight cutting edges, blunt spine, and tanto-style point) to the list of prohibited offensive weapons. It establishes a mandatory surrender scheme (July 1-31, 2025) at designated police stations for affected weapons, with a compensation mechanism providing £5 baseline payment (higher amounts if valuation evidence is supplied). Possession becomes unlawful from August 1, 2025.

This Order criminalises the possession of a specific sword type by lawful owners who purchased these items before the ban. The detailed technical specifications (blade angles, edge length tolerances, etc.) represent bureaucratic micro-management of product design. The £5 baseline compensation for surrendered property is manifestly inadequate for items that may have been lawfully purchased for hundreds of pounds. While existing offensive weapons legislation serves a legitimate public safety purpose, the specific targeting of 'ninja swords' with these precise geometric definitions suggests gold-plating of definitions that go beyond the original policy intent. The compensation scheme does not remedy the fundamental injustice of converting lawful property into contraband through regulatory fiat rather than any demonstrated wrongdoing by owners.

These Regulations specify Russian foreign powers and associated persons under the National Security Act 2023's foreign influence registration scheme, establish a 3-month transition period for existing arrangements instead of the standard 10-day registration window, waive certain penalties during this period, and require periodic review of the regulatory provision.

The foreign influence registration scheme imposes compliance burdens that suppress legitimate international engagement and trade. The vague definition of 'foreign influence' creates scope for regulatory overreach that could deter beneficial activities. While national security is a legitimate concern, mandatory registration schemes of this nature inherently restrict economic freedom and may drive activity underground rather than achieve transparency. The periodic review requirement acknowledges regulatory burden but does not eliminate it. These costs are disproportionate to the marginal security benefit, given that the scheme primarily captures voluntary disclosures rather than addressing genuine security threats.

These Regulations specify Iranian foreign powers and associated persons for the Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme under the National Security Act 2023. They provide transitional relief: arrangements made before commencement must be registered within 3 months (instead of 10 days), with offences suspended during this period. A 5-year review mechanism is included requiring assessment of objectives, achievements, and less onerous alternatives.

The specified persons regime imposes registration requirements and criminal offences on individuals and entities engaging in lawful activities with Iranian counterparts, creating compliance costs and deterring legitimate international interactions. While national security concerns regarding Iran are acknowledged, the registration scheme represents significant regulatory intervention in private activities that could be achieved through targeted enforcement of existing laws rather than blanket registration requirements. The 3-month transition period and 5-year review provisions do not mitigate the fundamental regulatory burden imposed by the scheme itself.

These regulations amend the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 and Payment Services Regulations 2017 to impose stricter requirements on payment service providers when terminating framework contracts with consumers. Key changes include: (1) requiring detailed specific reasons for application refusals and terminations; (2) mandating 90-day notice periods for contracts entered on or after 28th April 2026 (up from 2 months); (3) requiring advice on complaint procedures and Financial Ombudsman Service rights; (4) creating exceptions for terminations related to money laundering, immigration, serious crime, and harassment offences; and (5) defining 'serious crime' by reference to the Serious Crime Act 2007.

These regulations impose significant compliance costs on payment service providers that will ultimately be borne by consumers through higher fees or reduced service availability. The 90-day notice period for new contracts (up from 2 months) exceeds EU requirements and puts UK institutions at a competitive disadvantage relative to New York, Singapore, and Dubai. The requirement to provide 'detailed and specific' explanations for termination decisions adds administrative burden and could discourage legitimate commercial decisions. Post-Brexit regulatory independence should reduce burdens, not create new ones. These appear to gold-plate consumer protection standards beyond what is necessary, raising costs for smaller fintech operators relative to large established banks, reducing market dynamism and competition.