Browse regulations

A commencement order bringing into force on 1st June 2015 provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 relating to civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct, civil recovery investigations, and related enforcement powers. Includes savings provisions preserving the prior regime for applications, orders, warrants, and proceedings that existed or were made before 1st June 2015.

This is a transitional commencement order, not primary legislation establishing policy. The savings provisions are necessary to protect legal certainty for ongoing proceedings, pending cases, and existing orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Deleting it would create legal chaos by leaving provisions partially in force without proper commencement, harming legitimate parties with active cases. The underlying civil recovery regime (a matter for primary legislation) is not subject to deletion via this instrument.

A commencement order that brings into force specific provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in England on 27th May 2015. It activates Chapter 3 of Part 3 (and related section 77 and Schedule 5 provisions), plus Schedule 9, applicable to England only.

This is a procedural commencement order that merely activates provisions of an Act of Parliament already passed through full democratic scrutiny. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 was thoroughly debated and enacted by Parliament. Deleting this Order would merely delay implementation of already-established law without changing the underlying policy. As a commencement order, it creates no new regulatory burden—it is the mechanical operation of bringing into effect what Parliament has already decided. The substantive debate about consumer rights legislation belongs to primary legislation, not to this administrative instrument.

These Regulations implement EU-derived controls on explosives precursors and poisons, establishing a licensing regime for regulated substance supply, record-keeping requirements for trade/business suppliers, storage rules for retail shops, and fees for licence applications. They create criminal offences for unauthorized supply and require retailers to store poisons in dedicated, segregated spaces.

EU-derived regulation imposing licensing, record-keeping, and storage requirements on legitimate businesses handling common chemicals. The £39.50 licence fee and administrative burden of compliance falls on trade purchasers. Storage rules are excessively prescriptive, requiring separate cupboards/shelves in retail settings. While public safety is the stated goal, the regulation restricts legitimate commerce in substances with many lawful uses, treats business owners as potential criminals through licensing checks including physical/mental health assessments, and lacks evidence that the specific restrictions achieve meaningful terror prevention. The Act itself (Poisons Act 1972) provides underlying controls; this instrument adds layers of bureaucracy without proportional benefit.

These Regulations implement the 'Right to Move' provisions in the Housing Act 1996, allowing social housing tenants to transfer across local authority boundaries. They define qualification criteria including: (1) local connection requirements, and (2) work-based exceptions for those who work or have offers of work in the target district. The regulations exclude short-term, marginal, ancillary, or voluntary work from qualifying. Applies to England only.

These regulations perpetuate government rationing of social housing, restricting labor mobility through local connection requirements that prevent workers from accessing social housing in areas where they work. The 'Right to Move' framework itself codifies a non-market allocation system that distorts housing markets, creates perverse incentives, and maintains artificial barriers to labor movement. The elaborate criteria (local connection, work exceptions, exclusions for voluntary work) represent bureaucratic complexity that could be eliminated entirely by liberalizing social housing allocation. Post-Brexit regulatory independence should include removing such interventions in housing markets, which currently drive talent to more flexible markets like New York, Singapore, and Dubai.

This Order implements Schedule 21 of the Deregulation Act 2015 by revoking the Poisons List Order 1982, Poisons Rules 1982, and the Control of Explosives Precursors Regulations 2014, replacing them with regulatory framework under the Poisons Act 1972. It contains transitional provisions treating existing licences and applications under the 2014 Regulations as applications under the Act, and extends to England, Wales, and Scotland only.

While framed as deregulation, this Order merely rearranges the regulatory architecture rather than reducing burden. Poisons and explosives precursors remain controlled under the Poisons Act 1972 with new regulations replacing the revoked ones. The 2014 Regulations were themselves relatively recent (2014) and should have been reviewed before being retained wholesale. Additionally, extending only to England, Wales and Scotland creates regulatory asymmetry within the UK. Genuine deregulation would involve substantive review of whether such controls are necessary, not procedural consolidation that preserves the underlying regulatory regime.

These Regulations set the monetary penalty amounts for household waste violations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and London Local Authorities Act 2007. They establish a penalty range of £60-£80 for fixed penalties and penalty charges, and require a minimum early payment amount of £40. They also apply modified Road Traffic Contraventions appeals procedures to waste penalty appeals.

While this regulation does create compliance costs, deleting it would leave Britons worse off because: (1) without the £80 upper limit, authorities could set arbitrarily high penalties with no ceiling; (2) the £40 minimum early payment provision provides a valuable consumer protection - removing it could allow authorities to set nominal amounts with no discount for prompt payment; (3) without standardized ranges, penalty amounts would become unpredictable and subject to local political whims rather than reasonable bounds. The regulation's primary effect is protective rather than restrictive, establishing floors below which penalties cannot fall and caps above which they cannot rise.

This is a commencement Order for the Deregulation Act 2015, specifying when its provisions and associated Schedules 1-5 (containing consequential amendments to other legislation) come into force on three dates: 26th May, 8th June, and 30th June 2015. It is purely procedural, establishing timing for already-enacted legislative changes.

This Order is purely procedural—it sets commencement dates and activates Schedules but contains no independent regulatory content. The actual regulatory changes are in the referenced Schedules, not in this instrument itself. As a mechanistic timing mechanism rather than a substantive regulatory instrument, it adds bureaucratic structure without creating any direct regulatory burden or benefit. Deletion would leave the underlying Deregulation Act 2015 and its consequential amendments unaffected in substance.

This Order amends Schedule 13 to the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to clarify that independent trustees appointed for NHS trusts under paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 to the National Health Service Act 2006 are only subject to the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014's provisions if the NHS trust is not a charitable trust. Charitable NHS trusts remain governed by their existing charity regulatory framework.

This amendment merely clarifies an existing scope demarcation rather than imposing new regulatory burdens. Without this clarification, non-charitable NHS trusts could face ambiguity in accountability requirements while charitable NHS trusts could face inappropriate double-regulation under both the Local Audit and Accountability Act and charity law. The deletion of this Order would create regulatory uncertainty and potential gaps in oversight for non-charitable NHS trusts, or duplicative compliance burdens for charitable ones. No new controls or costs are introduced — only clarification of which existing framework applies.

Prohibits local authorities from charging residents fees to enter, exit, or deposit household waste at recycling centres under their general power. Contains a transitional exemption until April 2020 for authorities already charging.

While this regulation restricts local authority discretion, deleting it would harm residents by enabling regressive flat-fee charges on essential waste services, disproportionately affecting lower-income households. The regulation also preserves recycling rates by removing financial barriers to centre use, avoiding increased landfill and associated environmental costs. Since the transitional exemption period has expired, removal would retroactively expand charges with no corresponding benefit to residents.

This Order appoints 1st April 2015 as the date on which sections 101 and 102 of the Finance Act 2009 come into force, bringing the Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) into effect. DPT targets multinational companies that divert profits to low-tax jurisdictions through complex arrangements, imposing a 25% tax charge on diverted profits along with associated penalties.

The Diverted Profits Tax represents classic government overreach—punishing multinational corporations for engaging in legal tax planning that other jurisdictions permit. DPT imposes significant compliance burdens, creates uncertainty for legitimate cross-border business operations, and risks driving investment to more competitive jurisdictions like Ireland, Singapore, and the UAE. The 25% charge on diverted profits far exceeds standard corporate tax rates, making Britain less attractive for headquarters and regional operations. Far from being a legitimate revenue protection measure, DPT is a penal tax on legal commercial activity that adds complexity without addressing underlying structural issues in the international tax system. Its removal would signal Britain is open for business and competitive on tax.

Amendment Regulations 2015 adding a clarifying note to the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, specifying that the Act applies to special trustees for hospitals only if the trust is not a charitable trust. Comes into force 1st April 2015.

This is merely a clarifying note that LIMITS the scope of the principal Act by excluding charitable trusts — it creates no new obligations. Once the principal Act is amended, this instrument serves no independent purpose. The exclusion of charitable trusts (which already have their own regulatory regime under the Charity Commission) is appropriate, but this amendment adds no value beyond restating that exclusion. It is a bureaucratic formality that should be absorbed into the principal legislation during routine consolidation.

This Order specifies additional conditions under section 80(2)(b) of the Housing Act 2004 that local housing authorities in England must satisfy before designating an area for selective licensing of private rented houses. The conditions require: (1) a high proportion of private rented sector properties, (2) properties occupied under assured tenancies or licences, and (3) satisfaction of one of four condition sets relating to: housing condition inspections, migration influx, deprivation, or high crime levels. The Order excludes properties managed by private registered social housing providers.

Selective licensing imposes significant regulatory costs on private landlords, reducing the supply of private rented housing and increasing rents for tenants. The conditions essentially restrict landlord operations in areas already suffering from housing shortages. The Order's rationale—that targeting private rental markets in deprived or high-migration areas will improve conditions—is flawed: it treats the private sector as the problem rather than part of the solution. Restricting private landlord activity in these areas reduces investment, lowers supply, and harms the very tenants it claims to protect. Evidence shows selective licensing can drive away responsible landlords while failing to address underlying issues like planning restrictions that actually cause housing scarcity. A market with fewer barriers would attract more landlords, increase supply, and put downward pressure on prices.

This Order abolishes the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides for Northern Ireland, both established under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. It also contains related repeals in the Schedule.

Britons would be worse off if this regulation were deleted because advisory committees on pesticides provide essential independent scientific scrutiny without imposing binding regulatory costs. While the committees are being abolished, this reflects a sensible rationalisation of advisory bodies - their functions can be absorbed by existing regulatory bodies (like the Health and Safety Executive) under the Food and Environment Protection Act framework. The repeal of redundant advisory bodies reduces bureaucratic overhead while core pesticide safety regulation remains intact through primary legislation. The externalities of pesticide use - potential environmental and health harms - are addressed through the remaining regulatory structure, not through these advisory committees.

The Electricity and Gas (Market Integrity and Transparency) (Criminal Sanctions) Regulations 2015 implement criminal penalties for insider trading and market manipulation in wholesale energy markets under REMIT (EU Regulation 1227/2011). The regulations create offences for using, disclosing, or recommending based on inside information, as well as transactions that give false/misleading signals or secure artificial prices. They establish jurisdictional conditions, defences (reasonable market participant, journalism), prosecution procedures, and penalties up to 2 years imprisonment. Regulators must publish enforcement guidance and conduct periodic reviews.

These regulations address genuine market failures: insider trading and market manipulation distort price discovery and harm market efficiency, ultimately increasing costs for consumers. While originating from EU law, they reflect internationally-recognised standards (mirroring similar laws in the US, Singapore, and other major jurisdictions) and are necessary for maintaining trust in wholesale energy markets. The regulations include reasonable defences for legitimate market activity and journalism, and do not appear to gold-plate beyond what market integrity requires. Removing these prohibitions would create a regulatory vacuum vulnerable to abuse, harming the very market functioning Britain needs to attract investment and compete as a global energy hub.

The Companies, Partnerships and Groups (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2015 amend the Companies Act 2006 to update accounting and reporting requirements, primarily by raising thresholds for small and medium-sized company qualification (small company turnover from £6.5m to £10.2m, medium-sized from £25.9m to £36m), implementing EU Directive 2013/34/EU requirements, introducing micro-entity provisions, and modifying various disclosure and filing obligations for UK companies and limited liability partnerships.

These regulations materially reduce regulatory burden on small businesses by raising the thresholds at which companies qualify for lighter reporting requirements and exemptions from audit. Deleting them would revert to stricter, more costly requirements for thousands of UK businesses. While rooted in EU Directive implementation, the practical effect is regulatory relief for smaller companies, including micro-entity exemptions and simplified filing procedures. Britons would be worse off without these threshold increases as more companies would be dragged into costly compliance regimes that serve no purpose for genuinely small businesses.