Browse regulations

A commencement regulation appointing 15th September 2017 as the day on which sections 1 and 2 of, and the Schedule to, the Farriers (Registration) Act 2017 come into force. It is a purely administrative instrument that activates the parent Act's provisions.

This regulation merely activates a licensing regime for farriers. Occupational licensing of trades like farriery serves no compelling public interest — horseshoeing does not endanger public health in ways that require state monopoly control. Such requirements restrict supply, raise prices for farmers and horse owners, and create barriers to entry for skilled practitioners. Deleting this commencement regulation prevents the licensing regime from taking effect, allowing the market for farriery services to operate without artificial scarcity.

These regulations implement the Paris Convention nuclear third-party liability regime by specifying required contents of insurance certificates for nuclear matter during carriage. They require documents to include: responsible party details, nuclear matter description, origin/destination, coverage amount and period, security type, and operator statements. They also mandate periodic reviews every 5 years and revoke earlier 1965 and 1969 regulations.

Nuclear third-party liability insurance certificates serve a critical function in enabling accident victims to identify liable parties and secure compensation. Without mandatory disclosure requirements, the information asymmetry would leave compensation seekers unable to determine who bears liability for nuclear incidents during transport. These regulations implement binding international Paris Convention obligations that the UK remains subject to regardless of domestic regulation status. The requirements are minimal and administrative rather than burdensome substantive controls on nuclear activity.

This Order amends the Water Act 2014 (Commencement No. 9 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2017, adjusting the commencement dates and geographic scope of specific provisions from the Water Act 2014. It brings into force on 1st October 2017 and 1st April 2018 various paragraphs relating to sewerage and water undertakers, clarifying they apply to those whose areas are wholly or mainly in England rather than Wales.

Water and sewerage are natural monopolies where economic regulation is necessary to prevent exploitation of captive consumers. Unlike EU-derived regulations that impose blanket rules, this Order merely commences provisions of the Water Act 2014 with appropriate geographic scoping for England (recognising water is a devolved matter). Deletion would leave the 2014 Act's regulatory framework partially unimplemented, creating uncertainty. The underlying policy of economic regulation for monopolistic utility providers serves genuine consumer protection interests that markets cannot self-correct.

These Regulations commence section 45 and Schedule 7 of the Immigration Act 2016, which relate to bank accounts. The provisions require banks and building societies to conduct immigration status checks on current account holders, report suspected immigration violations to the Home Office, and maintain records. The regulations bring these provisions into force for 'all remaining purposes' on 30th October 2017, completing the implementation of the hostile environment measures in the banking sector.

These provisions impose significant compliance costs on financial institutions — requiring them to become de facto immigration enforcement agents, with all the attendant training, systems, legal liability, and operational burden. The policy has been demonstrated to cause serious harm, notably in the Windrush scandal where long-term lawful residents were wrongly denied banking services, damaging their livelihoods and dignity. The regulation creates perverse incentives for banks to over-comply and discriminate against foreign-sounding names or accent, chilling effect on legitimate banking relationships. While deleting this commencement order does not repeal the underlying Immigration Act 2016 provisions, it removes one more brick from the hostile environment edifice and prevents the full implementation of a policy whose costs demonstrably exceed its benefits for ordinary Britons.

These Regulations bring into force on 30th October 2017 a Code of Practice under section 40F of the Immigration Act 2014, providing procedural guidance for financial institutions on implementing freezing orders against bank accounts of individuals subject to immigration enforcement measures.

While government power to freeze bank accounts is a significant interference with property rights, this Code of Practice actually provides essential procedural constraints and guidance that prevent arbitrary or inconsistent application. Without this code, financial institutions would lack clear guidance on when and how to implement freezing orders, potentially causing greater harm to both individuals and banks through ad-hoc implementation. The regulation addresses a legitimate enforcement function (immigration control) where some procedural framework is necessary to prevent abuse. However, the underlying Immigration Act 2014 powers should be reviewed separately for proportionality.

Amends the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 to add that a payment account may be closed if required under section 40G of the Immigration Act 2014. This links bank account closure powers to immigration enforcement, effectively making financial institutions agents of immigration control.

This regulation repurposes financial regulation for immigration enforcement, turning banks into de facto border control agents. It extends state power into the private sector without financial justification, creates compliance burdens for financial institutions, risks driving affected individuals into cash-based economies, and could lead to discriminatory outcomes. The closure mechanism itself should be evaluated on its own policy merits rather than grafted onto financial services rules via consequential amendment.

This Order dissolves two NHS Foundation Trusts (Central Manchester University Hospitals and University Hospital of South Manchester) and transfers all their property, liabilities, and obligations to a new merged entity (Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust) effective 1 October 2017. It provides for continuity of instruments, contracts, forms, and legal instruments, while excluding employee contracts (governed by TUPE) and ongoing enforcement actions from the transfer.

This is a machinery of government reorganization that dissolves defunct public bodies and transfers their assets and liabilities to a successor entity. Without such an order, legal chaos would result—contracts, property rights, and liabilities would be left in limbo with no clear legal successor. It imposes no regulatory burden on private enterprise, does not restrict competition or supply, and does not create bureaucratic obstacles for market participants. It is administrative law necessary for legal continuity during public sector restructuring, not a regulatory instrument restricting economic activity.

These Regulations bring into force specific provisions of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 on 22nd September 2017, including the 'no-scheme principle' (s.32), repeal of Part 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (s.33), time limits for confirmation notices (s.34), compensation for disturbance (s.35), and joint acquisition powers for GLA/MDCs/TfL (s.36). They define key terms including 'compulsory purchase order' and 'special enactment', specify when various types of compulsory purchase orders are 'authorised', and contain transitional provisions applying the no-scheme principle and disturbance compensation only to compulsory purchases authorised on or after 22nd September 2017.

These are procedural commencement regulations that merely bring previously-enacted primary legislation into effect. They do not themselves impose new regulatory burdens but provide technical definitions and transitional rules for calculating fair compensation in compulsory purchase cases. The no-scheme principle (s.32) prevents acquiring authorities from using their own schemes to depress compensation—correcting a distortion where government action devalues land yet the owner bears the cost. Deleting these technical regulations would create legal uncertainty without reducing any substantive regulatory burden on individuals or businesses.

These are commencement regulations that bring sections 30-36 of the Energy Act 2016 into force on 21st October 2017, with a transitory provision delaying the sanctionability of section 31(2)(a) until 12th November 2017.

This is a purely administrative timing regulation that provides legal certainty about when Energy Act 2016 provisions take effect. Without it, legal ambiguity would arise about commencement dates, creating compliance difficulties. The transitory provision actually provides transitional relief by delaying when a sanction applies. Deletion would cause legal chaos rather than reduce substantive regulatory burden.

These regulations establish a comprehensive safety regime for fishing vessels operating from UK ports, applying different codes of practice based on vessel size (small under 15m, medium 15-24m, large 24m+). They require certificates of compliance, mandate surveys/inspections, prohibit unseaworthy vessels from sailing, establish enforcement powers including detention, and apply similar requirements to non-UK vessels in UK waters. The regulations implement EU fishing safety directives and the Torremolinos Protocol.

While this regulation was EU-derived and retained post-Brexit, deleting it would harm Britons because: (1) fishing is one of the world's most dangerous industries and certificates of compliance represent genuine safety verification, not bureaucratic box-ticking; (2) removal of these standards would create safety arbitrage where marginal operators cut costs by sacrificing vessel safety, directly endangering crew lives; (3) the Torremolinos Protocol and international port state control regime protect UK fishermen from being undercut by unsafe foreign vessels in UK waters; (4) while compliance costs are real, the costs of maritime accidents—death, disability, rescue operations, lost productivity—far exceed inspection fees; (5) the regulations already provide flexibility through exemption mechanisms for impractical requirements.

This Order adds two additional names ('Scottish Dawn' and 'NS131 (National Socialist Anti-Capitalist Action)') to be treated as alternative names for the already-proscribed organisation National Action under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. It ensures the existing proscription cannot be evaded through rebranding.

This regulation imposes no economic or regulatory burden on legitimate commerce. It is a targeted national security measure ensuring terrorist organisations cannot evade proscription through rebranding. Unlike regulations that distort markets, restrict supply, or create monopolies, this Order merely closes a technical loophole. Without it, National Action could operate under alternate names while remaining proscribed in substance, undermining the purpose of the Terrorism Act 2000's proscription regime.

These Regulations amend the Registration of Births, Deaths, Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Fees) Regulations 2016. They allow officials to reduce, waive or refund registration fees on grounds of hardship, compassion or error. The Regulations introduce regulation 3A requiring registrars to transmit portions of fees (£58, £47 or £40 depending on category) to the Registrar General, with provisions for proportional reduction when fees are waived. The instrument also makes minor amendments to other regulations removing fee requirements in specific procedural contexts.

The mandatory fee transmission mechanism to the Registrar General creates unnecessary administrative bureaucracy and compliance costs for local registration authorities. The detailed categorisation of fees (£58/£47/£40) and the proportional reduction requirements add complexity without clear benefit. While civil registration serves legitimate legal purposes, this fee transmission requirement represents Crown revenue extraction from local services rather than efficient service provision. The regulatory framework governing how fees must be split between local registrars and central government serves bureaucratic interests rather than citizens. Minor amendments removing fees in specific procedural contexts (waiting period applications) suggest the original fee structure was excessive. This regulation perpetuates an outdated centralised funding model that should be reconsidered.

This Order modifies five prior commencement orders (No. 17, 19, 22, 23 and 24) relating to the Welfare Reform Act 2012, covering universal credit, employment and support allowance, and jobseeker's allowance. It establishes procedural rules for deciding when claims are made, when claims can be treated as made on earlier dates, and modifies 'gateway conditions' for specific postcodes and dates. It also coordinates modifications across multiple related commencement orders.

This is a labyrinthine layering of modifications upon modifications across five separate commencement orders, creating impenetrable complexity with no discernible policy rationale visible in the text. The procedural rules governing when claims are 'treated as made' on earlier dates (paragraphs 4-5) and the patchwork of postcode-specific gateway condition modifications serve only to complicate what should be straightforward administrative processes. Such Rube Goldberg-style regulatory architecture — where provisions from one order modify provisions in another, which are then further modified by this order — exemplifies the bureaucratic accretion that increases compliance costs without corresponding benefit. The coordination of multiple commencement orders with overlapping modifications should be consolidated into clear, single instruments rather than perpetuating this web of cross-references that only lawyers and benefit administrators can navigate.

This Order establishes the NHS Counter Fraud Authority (NHSCFA) as a special health authority in England, effective 1 November 2017. It defines the Authority's counter fraud functions including preventing, detecting and investigating fraud against the NHS, transfers staff and assets from NHS Protect (within the BSA) to the new Authority, and revokes the 2008 Regulations. The Order sets out governance structure (chairperson, non-officer and officer members), staff transfer provisions with employment rights protections, and transfers property, data, records and liabilities to the Authority.

While counter fraud activities could theoretically be handled through private insurance mechanisms or existing law enforcement, the NHS operates as a public system with significant taxpayer funding. Without a dedicated counter fraud function, fraud against the NHS would go undetected and unprosecuted, directly wasting public resources. This Order represents an administrative restructuring rather than a new regulatory burden—it transfers existing functions from NHS Protect to a dedicated body. Deleting it would create a gap in NHS accountability at significant cost to taxpayers, with no clear alternative mechanism to recover fraudulent expenditure that currently funds NHS services.

This Order amends the NHS Business Services Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 2005 by removing paragraphs (h), (i), (j) and (o) from article 3, thereby deleting specified functions from the Authority's remit. It extends to England and Wales and came into force on 1 November 2017.

This regulation reduces, rather than expands, state bureaucracy by removing specified functions from the NHS Business Services Authority. Following the principle that removing functions from quangos and arm's-length bodies is preferable to retaining them, Britons are better off with fewer statutory functions assigned to this Authority. The amendment achieves a net reduction in regulatory scope at no cost to competition or market freedom.