Browse regulations

These 2017 Regulations amend the Healthy Start Scheme and Welfare Food Regulations, replacing the specified format of Healthy Start vitamins with a broader 'products containing vitamins' standard, and formally establishing the NHS Business Services Authority as the administrative body responsible for managing framework agreements with manufacturers, storers, and distributors of Healthy Start vitamins, as well as carrying out administrative functions related to supply of Healthy Start food, vitamins, and welfare milk through approved day care providers.

This regulation perpetuates a centrally-planned distribution system for welfare vitamins that restricts consumer choice, creates artificial barriers to entry for alternative suppliers, and delegates significant purchasing power to a bureaucratic body with no competitive market discipline. The Healthy Start scheme's goal of addressing vitamin deficiency among low-income families could be achieved more efficiently through direct cash transfers, tax credits, or deregulation allowing charities and private markets to compete in supplying affordable vitamins. The NHS BSA framework agreement system merely transfers administrative costs to the public purse while maintaining a monopoly-like structure for vitamin distribution that disadvantages competing products and suppliers.

The Family Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2017 insert Part 3A into the Family Procedure Rules 2010, establishing procedural protections for vulnerable persons in family court proceedings. It defines key terms (child, intermediary, live link, mental disorder, participation direction), imposes duties on courts to consider vulnerability of parties and witnesses, lists factors to consider (mental health, disability, intimidation, age, cultural background), specifies available measures (screens, live links, communication devices, intermediaries), and sets out application procedures. The rules apply to family proceedings involving parties who may face diminished participation or reduced evidence quality due to vulnerability.

Without these rules, vulnerable parties—children, those with mental disorders or disabilities, and witnesses facing intimidation in sensitive family proceedings (custody disputes, abuse cases, domestic violence)—would have no structured right to participate effectively or give evidence. The procedural mechanisms (live links, intermediaries, screens) are targeted tools addressing specific access-to-justice problems that cannot be adequately addressed through general case management alone. While these rules add procedural steps, the cost of not protecting vulnerable participants is far higher: unjust outcomes in family cases affecting children's welfare and protection from harm.

The Non-Contentious Probate (Amendment) Rules 2017 amend the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 to introduce two new alternative procedures: Rule 4A for solicitor/probate practitioner online applications and Rule 5B for personal applicant online applications using statement of truth instead of sworn oaths. Both allow applications to any registry, replace traditional signature requirements with electronic alternatives, and modify notice and verification procedures.

These amendments actually reduce regulatory burden compared to the original 1987 rules by allowing online applications, replacing cumbersome oath-based verification with statements of truth, permitting applications at any registry rather than restricting to specific locations, and simplifying signature requirements. Deleting this regulation would revert to more burdensome paper-based, in-person probate procedures that would harm Britons by increasing costs, delays, and inconvenience when administering estates.

Court of Protection Rules governing procedural conduct of proceedings involving persons lacking mental capacity (P). Covers overriding objective of dealing with cases justly at proportionate cost, active case management duties, party participation requirements including accredited legal representatives, case pathways (Personal Welfare, Property and Affairs, Mixed), hearing procedures (public/private), document requirements including statements of truth, and court administrative provisions.

These are foundational court procedural rules for the Court of Protection, a specialized tribunal protecting vulnerable people who lack mental capacity. Unlike economic regulations that distort market incentives, procedural court rules provide the essential framework for orderly adjudication. Deleting them would create a procedural vacuum harming the very persons (P) the Court of Protection exists to protect. While some specific provisions could be streamlined, the core framework ensuring fair, transparent, and efficient resolution of capacity cases is indispensable. The regulation imposes no burden on economic activity or trade.

These regulations govern the use of police stations as 'places of safety' for adults experiencing mental health crises under sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. They establish safeguards including: requirements for 30-minute welfare checks by healthcare professionals, hourly reviews of whether detention remains necessary, conditions for when police stations can be used as places of safety, and specifications for which additional professionals (occupational therapists, paramedics) can be involved in assessments.

Britons would be worse off if deleted because vulnerable people in mental health crisis would lose statutory protections when detained at police stations. Without these regulations, there would be no legal requirement for 30-minute welfare checks, regular reviews of whether continued detention is necessary, or healthcare professional availability. While these requirements impose some administrative burden, the countervailing benefit is protecting some of the most vulnerable members of society from harm during mental health crises. The regulations do not restrict trade, competitiveness, housing supply, or private healthcare markets—they are protective safeguards for vulnerable individuals.

This Order amends Schedule 14 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to add 'for Wales' to Mental Health Act 1983 tribunal entries, change 'Chairman' to 'President' for one tribunal, and insert new entries for the President and members of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales. It ensures the appointment and discipline framework accurately reflects Welsh tribunal structures.

This is a purely technical administrative amendment that corrects tribunal naming conventions to reflect Welsh devolution. Deleting it would leave incorrect titles in the statute book, creating confusion in judicial appointment processes. There are no regulatory burdens, economic restrictions, or supply-side constraints imposed by this amendment — it merely ensures the statute accurately reflects existing institutional structures.

A commencement order bringing into force provisions of the Mental Health Act 2007 (section 38 on Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales) on 1st December 2017, with transitional provisions preserving the positions of existing tribunal chairmen and presidents.

This is a procedural commencement order that merely activates provisions already enacted by primary legislation through the democratic process. The transitional provisions prevent legal uncertainty by preserving existing tribunal leadership roles during the transition. While the underlying Mental Health Act may raise broader regulatory concerns, deleting this order would create administrative chaos, legal gaps, and harm to the functioning of mental health tribunals without achieving any deregulation benefit.

Amendment rules that rename 'chairman' to 'President' throughout the 2008 Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales Rules, swap related references, and provide a transitional qualification clause allowing those previously approved as presidents to serve as chairmen.

This instrument imposes no regulatory burden, cost, or restriction on economic activity. It is purely a terminological and administrative amendment correcting the governance titles of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales, with a reasonable transitional provision preserving continuity. Deletion would leave the 2008 Rules in their original form with confusing inconsistent terminology and no mechanism for existing approved presidents to serve in the renamed role, creating practical governance problems without any corresponding benefit.

These Regulations specify certain provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991 (sections 21, 39(2) and (5), and 40) for the purposes of section 102(5)(b) of the Water Act 2003. They serve as a machinery provision that determines which existing water management rules apply under the 2003 Act framework, covering minimum acceptable flows, protection of existing water rights and privileges, and obligations to consider river flow in abstraction decisions.

While water abstraction regulations can impose costs, this instrument is purely a cross-referencing provision that ensures the proper functioning of water law. Without it, the legal framework connecting the Water Resources Act 1991 to the Water Act 2003 would be unclear, creating uncertainty for water abstractors and regulators alike. The specified provisions address legitimate concerns about protecting river ecosystems from over-abstraction and safeguarding existing rights holders from arbitrary changes. Deleting this would create legal ambiguity rather than reduce burden — it would not remove any substantive regulation, only confuse which rules apply.

This Order brings into force various provisions of the Water Act 2003 on 1st January 2018, including sections on rights of navigation and harbour authorities (s.5), abstraction rights for drainage purposes (ss.7-8), visiting forces provisions (s.32), border rivers (s.73), and associated consequential amendments and repeals (s.101, Scheds 7 and 9). It is the 12th commencement order for the Water Act 2003.

This commencement order activates regulatory controls over water abstraction rights and entrenched statutory powers for harbour and navigation authorities. Water abstraction licensing regimes create artificial scarcity and distort water markets, while harbour authorities often operate as state-backed monopolies. Border river regulations add further coordination costs. The regulatory burden of these provisions — controlling who may extract water and how waterways may be used — suppresses competition and market mechanisms that would otherwise allocate water resources efficiently. Post-Brexit, these retained EU-influenced water regulations should be reviewed rather than automatically commenced into law.

These Regulations provide exemptions from water abstraction and impounding works restrictions under the Water Resources Act 1991. They specify circumstances where abstraction or impounding works may occur without the normal restrictions applying, including: navigation/harbour authority water transfers, dry dock operations, emergency abstractions (with notice requirements), temporary dewatering for building works, surface water abstraction for engineering works, dredging, abstraction within managed wetland systems, and abstraction from saliferous strata in listed areas. They also address transitional provisions for existing abstractions and licence cessation.

These regulations are deregulatory in nature, removing bureaucratic constraints on specific activities that would otherwise require abstraction licences under the 1991 Act. Without these exemptions, activities such as temporary dewatering for construction, emergency navigation operations, and managed wetland maintenance would require formal licensing, incurring costs, delays, and uncertainty. While the underlying abstraction licensing regime itself may warrant scrutiny, removing these specific exemptions would increase regulatory burden and harm legitimate activities with no demonstrated ecological benefit from additional oversight.

This is a commencement order bringing into force on 1 January 2018 certain provisions of the Environment Act 1995 relating to the application of certain enactments to the Crown — specifically section 116 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 21.

This is a purely procedural commencement order that has already taken effect. It does not impose regulatory burdens, create compliance costs, or restrict economic activity. It merely determines the date on which existing statutory provisions relating to Crown application come into force. Deleting it would have no practical effect as the provisions are already operative.

Water Abstraction (Revocations etc.) (England) Order 2017 - A deregulatory instrument that revokes multiple statutory orders relating to water abstraction licensing and amends the Northumbrian Water Authority Act 1981 to remove exceptions for small abstractions from licensing control. The Order removes regulatory carve-outs that allowed certain water users to operate without permits, while simultaneously revoking obsolete secondary legislation.

While this Order removes exceptions to water abstraction licensing, it represents a net reduction in regulatory complexity by consolidating and simplifying water abstraction rules. The small abstraction exceptions created fragmented property rights in water resources, potentially leading to overuse of commons resources. Removing these exceptions creates more consistent licensing coverage that better manages water as a shared resource. The revocation of obsolete Orders reduces regulatory volume overall. A licensing system with consistent rules, even if more comprehensive, is preferable to a patchwork of exceptions that distorts market incentives and risks resource depletion.

These Regulations establish transitional arrangements for water abstraction activities that were being carried out without a licence in the seven years prior to 1st January 2018. They allow such persons (or their successors) to apply for licences during a transitional period ending 31st December 2019, permit continued abstraction during the application process, require the appropriate agency to maintain a public register of applications, and provide for compensation where applications are refused or granted for more limited abstractions. The Regulations apply to England and Wales and contain detailed definitions referencing the Water Framework Directive and related legislation.

This regulation creates a preferential regime for existing water abstractors that circumvents normal licensing requirements, effectively grandfathering in potentially unlawful abstractions. The compensation provisions impose financial liability on the state for refusing or limiting water abstraction rights that were never properly allocated in the first place. As a retained EU law implementing the Water Framework Directive, it adds regulatory complexity without clear evidence that licensing achieves outcomes superior to market-based water allocation. The hands-off flow constraints and detailed ecological status requirements reflect typical EU regulatory overreach that restricts water use without adequate cost-benefit analysis.

This Order amends the Whittington Hospital NHS Trust establishment order to change the trust's name to 'Whittington Health National Health Service Trust', with effect from 6th November 2017. It includes standard savings provisions preserving existing rights, obligations, and the validity of instruments made under the old name.

This is a purely administrative name change that imposes no economic restrictions, creates no market distortions, and adds no regulatory burden. It merely updates official records to reflect a renamed public institution. Deleting it would create legal documentation gaps without any benefit to Britons — the trust operates under the amended establishment order regardless, and the name change is already effectuated. No free-market harm flows from retaining this administrative amendment.