Browse regulations

This Order amends FSMA 2000 to clarify which regulator (PRA or FCA) is 'the appropriate regulator' for misconduct contraventions, particularly regarding approval requirements under sections 59, 60A, 63, 63E, and 63F. It also imposes a requirement on the Treasury to conduct periodic reviews of these provisions every five years. The amendments relate primarily to PRA-authorised persons and extend the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013 references in section 66A.

This Order adds regulatory complexity by further entangling the dual PRA/FCA regulatory structure, creating compliance uncertainty through jurisdictional ambiguities between regulators. The five-year Treasury review requirement is itself a bureaucratic burden that imposes ongoing regulatory compliance costs without demonstrable benefit to consumers. As retained EU law implementing AIFMD (an EU directive), it represents gold-plating inherited without proper democratic scrutiny. Such regulatory complexity actively drives financial services business from London to New York, Singapore, and Dubai, eroding the City's global competitiveness - contrary to Britain's historic position as the world's pre-eminent free-trading financial centre.

This Order defines which non-UK financial institutions are classified as 'relevant authorised persons' for UK regulatory purposes under FSMA 2000 Part 5 and the Banking Reform Act 2013. It applies to foreign credit institutions with UK deposit-taking permission or investment firms with UK dealing-as-principal permission, provided they have a UK branch and are not insurers. The Treasury must conduct five-yearly reviews.

This regulation extends UK regulatory reach to foreign institutions merely for having a UK branch, creating duplicative oversight when these institutions are already regulated in their home jurisdictions. It acts as a barrier to entry for foreign financial institutions considering UK operations, driving activity to rival financial centres. The regime enables regulatory arbitrage opportunities while imposing compliance costs that reduce competitiveness of UK-based operations. A genuinely free-market approach would rely on home-country regulation and disclosure rather than host-country licensing requirements for foreign institutions already lawfully operating in their jurisdictions.

The Immigration (Exemption from Control) (Amendment) Order 2015 amends the 1972 Order to grant dependants of US military personnel (members of 'relevant visiting forces') exemptions from standard immigration control provisions. It defines dependants as spouses or children under 21 who are listed on official US Government orders and wholly maintained by the member. The exemption excludes those failing suitability requirements or unable to demonstrate they won't need public funds.

This regulation grants preferential immigration treatment exclusively to US military personnel and their families, creating a two-tier system based on nationality and military affiliation rather than individual merit or circumstance. While diplomatic courtesy may explain its existence, it represents the kind of special privilege and government intervention in natural mobility patterns that Adam Smith and later free-market thinkers would criticise. The exemption was inherited from EU-era arrangements and serves no compelling market or security rationale that could not be addressed through standard visa processes with appropriate diplomatic cooperation. Its deletion would restore equal treatment under immigration law.

Amendment to Family Procedure Rules 2010 updating: (1) definition of 'authorised family mediator' to reference Family Mediation Council qualification for MIAM; (2) new rule 5.5 permitting practice directions for e-mail document filing; (3) replacing 'other electronic means' with 'e-mail' in service rules 6.23 and 6.26; (4) new Chapter 10 allowing communication of information from financial remedy proceedings under Practice Direction 9B; (5) clarifying that 'document' in rule 29.12 includes copies.

These are procedural court administration rules that provide clarity and modernization. Deletion would create procedural uncertainty. The e-mail filing provisions reduce transaction costs. The information communication provisions actually liberalize previous restrictions by explicitly permitting communication under Practice Direction 9B. The mediation definition aligns with professional self-regulation by the Family Mediation Council rather than creating new state licensing barriers. Overall these amendments improve court efficiency and access at minimal economic cost.

This Order reorganises local justice areas in England by combining multiple existing areas into larger new areas: Lancashire (combining 7 former areas), Greater Manchester (combining 8 former areas), and West Sussex (combining 2 former areas). It amends the Schedule to the Local Justice Areas Order 2005 to reflect these changes, with provisions taking effect in stages between December 2015 and April 2016.

This administrative consolidation reduces local responsiveness in justice administration without clear justification. Larger consolidated areas create longer travel distances for justices and parties, reduce local accountability, and impose coordination costs that outweigh any efficiency gains. The consolidation follows a bureaucratic logic rather than market or user-choice principles. No evidence demonstrates that these specific consolidations improve justice outcomes; they merely reflect administrative convenience. Alternatives such as voluntary cooperation between areas or local opt-in arrangements would preserve beneficial local variation while allowing economies of scale where genuinely efficient. Retaining this Order perpetuates top-down administrative boundaries that limit local experimentation and adaptation.

This Order implements electoral boundary changes for the Bristol district, abolishing existing wards and establishing 34 new district wards with specified councillor allocations, effective for elections in 2016. It includes standard mapping provisions where boundaries follow geographical features.

This electoral boundary order has been fully implemented and superseded by subsequent electoral change orders as demographics shift. Retaining obsolete electoral boundary orders creates confusion and clutter without benefit. Electoral boundaries require regular updating; this 2015 snapshot serves no ongoing regulatory purpose and should be deleted alongside any subsequent superseded orders.

This Order establishes new electoral ward boundaries for Cherwell district (16 district wards with 3 councillors each), the parish of Banbury (12 parish wards with varying councillor numbers), and the parish of Bicester (4 parish wards). It sets transition arrangements for elections in 2016, 2018, and 2019, including rules for determining which councillors retire in which year through vote-count and lot-drawing procedures. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England conducted the review underlying this Order.

Britons would be worse off without this Order because electoral boundary definitions are essential infrastructure for local democracy. Without statutory ward boundaries determined by an independent commission, local elections would lack coherent constituencies, representation would be unequal, and there would be no clear legal basis for conducting elections. The specific mechanisms (vote-count tiebreakers, lot-drawing procedures) provide predictable, fair methods for resolving election ambiguities that would otherwise require ad hoc resolution, potentially leading to disputes and uncertainty. While one may philosophically question state-determined electoral geography, some organisation of electoral units is functionally necessary for representative local government.

The Hertfordshire (Electoral Changes) Order 2015 establishes new electoral division boundaries for Hertfordshire county (78 divisions, each returning one councillor) and reorganises parish wards for ten parishes (Abbots Langley, Berkhamsted, Chorleywood, Colney Heath, Elstree & Borehamwood, Hatfield, Royston, St Michael, Sandridge, and Watford Rural). Boundaries are defined by reference to maps held by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The Order came into force in phases between 2015 and 2022.

Electoral boundary changes are essential democratic administration required by law. Without defined electoral divisions and wards, local elections cannot be conducted fairly or legally. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England independently reviews boundaries to ensure equal voter representation. Deleting this Order would create a legal vacuum where no valid electoral geography exists for Hertfordshire, preventing legitimate local elections entirely. Unlike economic or commercial regulations, electoral administration imposes no market distortions, no supply constraints, and no costs on businesses or individuals beyond the inherent trade-off of representative democracy.

A domestic electoral administration order by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England that abolishes existing Warwickshire county electoral divisions and replaces them with 57 new divisions, while also reorganizing parish wards for Kenilworth, Royal Leamington Spa, Stratford-upon-Avon, and Warwick. Includes technical provisions for map interpretation and boundary delimitation.

Electoral boundary administration is a core governmental function that cannot simply be deleted; without authoritative boundary definitions, democratic elections cannot proceed. Unlike economic regulations that restrict market activity, this order performs necessary administrative work assigned to an independent boundary commission. The one-time costs of transition are inherent to any boundary review and are offset by ensuring fairer representation. This is not EU-derived red tape but a domestic, democratically-mandated administrative process.

Designates the Flood Reinsurance Scheme (established by Flood Re Limited) as the official reinsurance scheme for high-risk flood properties under Part 4 of the Water Act 2014, and designates Flood Re Limited as the scheme administrator. The scheme operates as a not-for-profit reinsurance pool allowing insurers to transfer flood risk, funded by a levy on all home insurance policies.

Flood Re is a cross-subsidy mechanism that distorts insurance risk pricing by artificially suppressing flood insurance costs in high-risk areas. This creates severe moral hazard: it encourages continued development and habitation in flood-prone zones that should bear actuarially accurate (higher) costs. By making artificially affordable insurance compulsory through the levy, it props up property values in risky locations that would otherwise be uninsurable or unaffordable — the market correcting signal that should discourage such development. This is corporatism dressed as consumer protection: a privileged arrangement for one sector at the expense of all policyholders who cross-subsidise flood risk. The Water Act 2014 framework should be repealed entirely, allowing insurers to price flood risk freely and homeowners to make informed decisions about living in flood-prone areas, with government assistance limited to transparent, targeted means-tested support rather than universal market distortion.

The Network Rail (Tinsley Chord) Order 2015 is a Transport and Works Act Order authorizing construction of the Tinsley Chord railway connection between Sheffield and Rotherham as part of South Yorkshire's Light Rail Transit system. It grants Network Rail extensive powers to construct and maintain railway/tramway infrastructure, acquire land compulsorily, take temporary possession of land, divert watercourses, carry out protective works to buildings and apparatus, and exercise surveying rights. The Order incorporates various provisions from the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 and modifies the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 procedures.

This Order grants Network Rail coercive compulsory purchase powers that allow forced acquisition of private land against owners' wishes — a fundamental violation of property rights that no private enterprise could exercise. While railway infrastructure has natural monopoly characteristics, the proper solution is competitive provision and private negotiation, not state-backed eminent domain. The Order creates a legally privileged state entity with power to override individual property rights, enter land without consent, and compulsorily acquire easements. Such concentrated coercive authority should not be embedded in statute; infrastructure provision should be achieved through market mechanisms, private contracts, and voluntary exchanges. The compulsory purchase regime reflects mid-20th century corporatist thinking incompatible with a free society.

This Order amends the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (Exemptions) Order 2013 by inserting a review mechanism (Article 19) requiring the Secretary of State to periodically review, assess, and publish reports on the Order's objectives and effectiveness. The first report is due by 6th December 2020, with subsequent reports at intervals not exceeding five years. The Order also updates the map in the Schedule.

This Order adds yet another bureaucratic review requirement to an already exemption-laden regulatory regime for light rapid transit. Review mechanisms of this type impose administrative costs on government with no corresponding benefit to citizens — they are designed to perpetuate the regulation itself rather than critically examine whether it should exist. The underlying 2013 Order creates regulatory privileges for a specific transport mode through exemptions from road traffic rules, inherently distorting competition against buses, taxis, and private vehicles. Without evidence that these exemptions produce net benefits that could not be achieved through less restrictive means, retaining them is unjustified. The unseen costs include foreclosed competition, misallocated resources, and barriers to alternative transport solutions.

These Regulations govern Personal Medical Services Agreements between NHS England and contractors (typically GP practices) for delivering primary medical services under the NHS Act 2006. They establish contractual frameworks covering definitions, patient list management, performer requirements, prescribing rights for various professionals, out-of-hours obligations, electronic prescription services, and dispute resolution procedures. The regulations replaced the 2004 Regulations and apply to all NHS primary medical services contracts.

These regulations perpetuate the NHS near-monopoly on primary healthcare, restricting supply of private alternatives and creating barriers to entry. The prescriptive definitions and administrative requirements codify a bureaucratic structure that suppresses competitive alternatives. Regulatory capture is evident in the detailed licensing of who may prescribe (chiropodists, paramedics, physiotherapists, therapeutic radiographers, etc.) — each additional category representing another restriction on free labour markets. While patient safety is invoked, the evidence shows Britain's NHS produces wait times that would be scandalic in comparable economies, suggesting these regulations serve provider interests over patients. A competitive healthcare market with multiple providers would better serve Britons than this consolidated state framework.

Amends Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 26.2A regarding venue for claims. Primarily technical changes: substituting 'preferred hearing centre' for 'preferred court', 'defendant's home court' remains unchanged, and changes mandatory language from 'will' to 'must'. Adds new paragraph (5) clarifying that claims must be sent to the hearing centre specified in the directions questionnaire when a party selects a venue other than their home/preferred centre.

This is a procedural amendment that clarifies venue rules for civil claims, making language more precise ('must' instead of 'will') and modernising terminology to reflect the County Court hearing centre structure. Deletion would create ambiguity in civil procedure, creating inefficiency and potential satellite litigation over venue disputes. No economic burden is imposed — it simply streamlines administrative court processes.

Amends the Children (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 1991 by raising the age threshold from 17 to 18 in regulation 6(1)(a), thereby extending secure accommodation provisions to cover 18-year-olds. Came into force 7th December 2015.

Deleting this regulation would remove protective provisions for vulnerable 18-year-olds in care who may still require secure accommodation. At 18, individuals in care have often aged out of children's services but remain in a vulnerable position without equivalent adult support; removing this protection would leave them without a legal framework for secure placement when genuinely needed. This is a child welfare measure, not an economic regulation imposing market restrictions.