Browse regulations

These Regulations amend the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations 2014 by introducing temporary site exclusions (regulation 14A), under which generators who fail to sign a CFD or fail to achieve delivery milestones are barred from reapplying for the same site for up to 13 months. The regulations establish a regime of exemption certificates (14B), requests for exemptions (14C), and a public register of excluded sites (14D), along with related procedural requirements for allocation rounds.

Without these rules, generators could obtain CFDs without genuine intention to build, exploiting the scheme to block genuine developers and artificially inflate the value of sites. The 13-month exclusion period addresses this specific gaming behaviour, and while the exemption process adds bureaucratic layers, it provides necessary carve-outs for legitimate cases (partial sites, prior property interests, legal proceedings). Removing this would cause systemic abuse of the CFD allocation mechanism, harming both competition and the scheme's credibility as a support mechanism for low-carbon generation.

This Order establishes safeguards for valuation officers exercising powers of entry to survey and value properties (hereditaments for non-domestic rating, dwellings for council tax) in England. It requires prior approval from the First-tier Tribunal, at least 3 days' written notice (excluding weekends and bank holidays), production of authorization on request, and creates a summary offense for willful obstruction punishable by a level 1 fine. The tribunal may specify entry arrangements.

While this regulation restricts property rights through powers of entry, deletion would be counterproductive. Valuation officers require property access to conduct accurate assessments for council tax and business rates—a essential revenue function for local government. The safeguards (tribunal approval, notice periods, authorization requirements) actually protect citizens from arbitrary entry rather than expanding state power. The obstruction penalty is minimal (level 1 fine). Without a mechanism for property access, valuation accuracy suffers, creating worse outcomes for both tax fairness and public revenues. This is domestic UK law governing a core fiscal function, not EU-derived regulation or gold-plating.

This is a commencement order bringing into force various provisions of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 related to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, including sections on seizure, restraint orders, forfeiture notices, and detained cash investigations. It contains transitional savings provisions to protect ongoing proceedings and applies with territorial limitations for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

This is a technical commencement order that merely brings previously enacted primary legislation into force on a specified date. The transitional savings are necessary to protect ongoing legal proceedings from retroactive disruption. Deleting it would create legal uncertainty and chaos, leaving important law enforcement powers in limbo. While civil asset forfeiture regimes raise legitimate property rights concerns in principle, those objections attach to the primary legislation (the 2009 Act itself), not to this administrative machinery for bringing that legislation into force. The savings provisions specifically protect property rights by ensuring existing court orders continue to be respected.

This is a commencement order (SI 2015/373) bringing into force various provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 on 15 April 2015. It covers section 160 (appeals), section 181(1), and specified paragraphs of Schedule 11 (minor and consequential amendments). Includes England/Wales/Northern Ireland-only provisions, transitional provisions regarding extradition appeals under the Extradition Act 2003, and a Scotland-specific provision.

This is a purely procedural commencement order that merely determines when already-enacted statutory provisions take effect. It imposes no regulatory burden, imposes no costs on businesses or individuals, restricts no trade, and creates no bureaucratic requirements. Deleting it would leave important statutory provisions in limbo and create legal uncertainty. The substantive policy questions lie with the parent Act and the provisions being commenced, not with this administrative timing mechanism.

These regulations specify which care providers (NHS trusts, NHS foundation trusts, and certain private providers delivering health services under public arrangements) and what information (commissioning data sets and Schedule-listed information) fall under section 92(1) of the Care Act 2014 offence of supplying false or misleading information. They also impose a 5-year review obligation on the Secretary of State.

While these regulations impose some reporting and compliance costs on healthcare providers, the underlying offence of supplying false information to public bodies serves legitimate purposes: preventing misallocation of scarce NHS resources and protecting patient safety. The regulation is narrowly definitional in nature—it specifies scope rather than creating extensive new obligations. Any substantive burden stems from the Care Act 2014 itself, not these specification regulations. The mandatory 5-year review mechanism demonstrates regulatory discipline and provides a formal mechanism to assess whether the regulation remains appropriate.

The Insolvency (Protection of Essential Supplies) Order 2015 amends the Insolvency Act 1986 to prevent suppliers of essential goods and services (gas, electricity, water, communications, and IT services including point-of-sale terminals, computer hardware/software, data storage/processing, and website hosting) from terminating contracts or supplies merely because a company enters administration or an individual has a voluntary arrangement approved. It overrides contractual 'insolvency-related terms' that would otherwise allow termination, while preserving supplier termination rights if charges go unpaid for 28 days or if the insolvency office-holder fails to provide a personal guarantee within 14 days of notice.

While this regulation overrides contractual freedom, essential utilities (gas, electricity, water, communications) are often natural monopolies where customers cannot practically switch suppliers or choose alternatives. Unlike competitive markets where price signals efficiently allocate resources, these sectors exhibit characteristics where sudden termination would cause severe harm to employees, customers, and third parties without proportionate benefit to suppliers. The 28-day payment default and 14-day guarantee provisions preserve supplier interests while preventing unnecessary cascading harm. Deleting this would leave British workers and businesses vulnerable to abrupt utility terminations during insolvency—a harm that cannot be adequately addressed through private contracting alone given the monopolistic nature of essential supply markets.

Designates University College London as a 'medical authority' under the Dentists Act 1984, enabling UCL to hold examinations and grant licences in dentistry in accordance with the Health Care and Associated Professions (Miscellaneous Amendments and Practitioner Psychologists) Order 2009.

This Order perpetuates a restrictive licensing regime that concentrates examination and certification power in a small number of designated institutions, limiting competition in dental education and restricting supply of qualified dental professionals. Such designation regimes create unnecessary barriers to entry for new educational institutions, inflate costs, and suppress innovation in professional training — costs ultimately borne by patients through higher prices and longer wait times.

The Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations and Appeals) Order 2015 amends the Extradition Act 2003 in two main ways: (1) it adds numerous British Overseas Territories and other territories (Anguilla, Aruba, Bermuda, Bonaire, etc.) to the designation lists for Part 1 and Part 2 extradition; and (2) it clarifies procedural matters around appeals, including defining when High Court decisions refusing leave to appeal become 'final' and adjusting timing requirements for various extradition appeal processes.

Britons would be worse off if deleted because: (1) the Order expands extradition arrangements with numerous territories, enabling UK authorities to efficiently pursue and return fugitives who would otherwise evade justice by hiding in these jurisdictions — without these designations, extradition to these territories would be severely hampered or impossible; (2) the procedural clarifications regarding when appeals become 'final' and associated time limits represent improvements that reduce delays and legal uncertainty in the extradition process; (3) deletion would create lacunae in the statutory framework, potentially benefiting criminal fugitives while harming victims of crime who seek justice; (4) the territories added are overwhelmingly British Overseas Territories or friendly nations where extradition is appropriate, and the amendments correct omissions from the original designation orders rather than expanding government power arbitrarily.

This is a Commencement Order (SI 2015/393) bringing into force provisions of the Care Act 2014 on 1st April 2015 and 6th April 2015. It activates sections covering: well-being principles, eligibility criteria, financial assessments, care and support plans, personal budgets, safeguarding adults, provider failure, cross-border placements, after-care under the Mental Health Act 1983, and hospital discharge arrangements. The order also contains transitional provisions referencing the (then) forthcoming Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.

A commencement order merely activates provisions already enacted by Parliament. Deleting it would not remove the Care Act 2014 from the statute book—it would simply prevent or delay implementation of reforms that Parliament has already authorized. While the Care Act 2014 contains substantive regulatory provisions that may warrant separate review, this procedural instrument is not the appropriate target. The order causes no independent regulatory burden; it is simply the administrative mechanism for bringing democratically-enacted legislation into effect.

A commencement order bringing into force various provisions of the Deregulation Act 2015 on specified dates between April and October 2015. The provisions cover diverse deregulatory measures including: removal of rail service restrictions, relaxation of London short-term let restrictions, increases to temporary event notice limits, apprenticeship simplification, decriminalisation of household waste, exemptions from safety helmet requirements for Sikhs, and various other measures reducing regulatory burdens on businesses and individuals.

This is a commencement order that activates deregulatory provisions of the Deregulation Act 2015, not a regulation that imposes new burdens. Deleting it would leave beneficial deregulation measures in limbo. The substantive provisions commenced—including rail liberalisation, planning flexibility for London accommodation, simplified apprenticeships, and reduced licensing requirements—directly advance the mission to restore Britain's free-trading dynamism. The measures represent exactly the kind of burden-reduction that this review body supports.

This Order provides transitional provisions for the implementation of Part 1 of the Care Act 2014, which reformed care and support law. It establishes: (1) a 'relevant date' mechanism for when the new Act applies to individuals, (2) that existing service users continue under old law until review by April 2016, (3) treated eligibility for those awaiting review, (4) continuation of charge recovery under new sections, (5) application of deferred payment provisions with modifications, (6) ordinary residence dispute resolution, and (7) mapping of blind/sight-impaired registration from old to new categories.

This is a purely transitional instrument managing the shift from the National Assistance Act 1948 and other older Acts to the Care Act 2014 framework. Without it, approximately 1+ million existing care recipients would face immediate legal uncertainty regarding their entitlements, charge recovery would lack clear legal basis, and deferred payment agreements would be in limbo. The regulations it modifies (deferred payments, ordinary residence) remain intact; this Order merely preserves continuity during transition. Deletion would harm vulnerable adults by disrupting ongoing care arrangements without any corresponding regulatory relief.

The Legislative Reform (Community Governance Reviews) Order 2015 amends the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to: (1) lower petition thresholds for community governance reviews from 50%/10% to 37.5%/7.5%, and (2) introduce a new 'community governance application' pathway allowing designated neighbourhood forums to apply for reviews, subject to requirements relating to neighbourhood development plans and specified recommendations.

Although this Order lowers petition thresholds (from 50%/10% to 37.5%/7.5%), it simultaneously introduces a new regulatory application process with additional procedural requirements (neighbourhood forum designation, neighbourhood development plan alignment, detailed area definitions, and specific recommendation specifications). This adds regulatory complexity rather than removing it. The community governance review regime itself—a government-administered process for reorganising parish boundaries and creating parish councils—imposes costs on communities by restricting how they can self-organise. Deleting this Order would restore the pre-2015 position, allowing Parliament to reconsider whether any community governance review framework is justified, rather than accepting a system that merely adjusts thresholds within an inherently restrictive structure.

Amends the Wireless Telegraphy (Limitation of Number of Licences) Order 2014 by: (1) replacing 'will' with 'shall' in article 6 for mandatory language; (2) expanding T-DAB broadcasting frequencies from 217.5-230.0 MHz to 210.792-230.0 MHz; and (3) adding Fixed Wireless Access frequencies 5725-5850 MHz to fixed links use frequencies in Schedule 3. Technical amendments to radio spectrum licence limitations.

While the expanded FWA frequencies and T-DAB range are modest improvements, the fundamental framework of limiting wireless telegraphy licences by government decree is itself anti-competitive. Spectrum is a natural resource that, when artificially restricted through licence caps, creates artificial scarcity, raises barriers to entry, protects incumbent operators, and drives up costs for consumers. Market-based spectrum allocation (through auctions or tradable rights) would better serve Britons than administrative rationing of licences. The retention of this Order perpetuates a system where government decides who may innovate in wireless communications rather than allowing competitive forces to determine optimal spectrum use.

The Community Radio (Amendment) Order 2015 amends the Community Radio Order 2004 to: (1) add local digital television programme services to disqualified persons; (2) insert new section references for licence renewal procedures; (3) modify advertising and sponsorship income limits for community radio services, including a £15,000 fixed revenue allowance with a 50% cap on excess income; (4) change paragraph references; and (5) allow two licence extensions instead of one with modified expiry provisions.

The £15,000 advertising/sponsorship cap and complex income percentage restrictions unnecessarily constrain community radio stations' ability to generate revenue, reducing their economic viability. Limiting licence extensions to two rather than allowing flexibility harms radio operators. While intended to protect other local media from competition, these price controls and restrictions distort market incentives and can be removed without loss of essential public interest protection—market competition and consumer choice should determine viable business models rather than regulatory mandates that raise costs and reduce supply of community broadcasting options.

Amends the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 to distinguish between on-road and off-road parking contraventions, prescribing how penalty charge notices may be served in each case. For off-road contraventions, notices may be fixed to vehicle or given to person in charge. For on-road contraventions, notices must generally be fixed to vehicle except in specific circumstances (bus lanes, bus stop clearways, school entrances, red routes). Also updates numerous cross-references throughout the 2007 Regulations and the related Representations and Appeals Regulations.

This amendment merely prescribes procedural mechanics for how civil enforcement officers serve parking notices — whether by affixing to vehicle or handing to a person. The underlying prohibitions on illegal parking are established elsewhere; this regulation only dictates administrative processes. Such procedural complexity imposes compliance costs on enforcement authorities, creates unnecessary complexity with the on-road/off-road distinction and multiple exceptions, and represents the kind of bureaucratic process regulation that adds overhead without addressing genuine market failures. Parking enforcement on private land (off-road) particularly should not require government-mandated service procedures.