Browse regulations

This Order grants immunities, privileges, and tax exemptions to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and its personnel. It provides the Bank with immunity from suit and legal process, inviolability of premises and archives, exemptions from taxation (including income, operations, customs duties, VAT, car tax, insurance premium tax), and relief from non-domestic rates. It also grants similar privileges to connected persons (Governors, Directors, officers, employees). The Order applies UK-wide with Scotland-specific provisions for devolved matters.

This Order grants diplomatic-level immunities and comprehensive tax exemptions to an organization engaged in commercial activities (raising funds, borrowing, issuing securities). These privileges distort competition by shielding the AIIB from market accountability while imposing fiscal costs on UK taxpayers. The Bank's commercial operations cited in Article 6 do not warrant sovereign-style immunity. As a voluntary member, the UK imposed these costs upon itself, creating an unlevel playing field for domestic financial institutions competing with the AIIB.

A short Order amending the Courts and Legal Services Act 1981 to increase the maximum number of judges permitted in the Court of Appeal from 38 to 39.

This is not EU-derived regulation but a minor domestic administrative adjustment to judicial capacity. Deleting it would leave the Court of Appeal artificially capped at 38 judges, potentially constraining its ability to handle caseload volumes and increasing wait times for litigants. It imposes no regulatory burden on businesses or citizens—merely authorizes an additional judicial post. The justice system's operational needs require this capacity.

Amends the Films Co-Production Agreements Order 1985 by substituting an updated schedule of countries with which the UK has bilateral film co-production agreements (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, India, Israel, Jamaica, Morocco, New Zealand, Palestinian Authority, South Africa). Revokes the 2014 version.

Bilateral film co-production agreements are a form of managed trade and industry protectionism that distorts the film market by granting preferential treatment to productions from listed countries. These agreements pick winners and losers, allowing politically-connected production companies to access foreign subsidies while disadvantaging filmmakers from non-listed nations. Post-Brexit Britain should not perpetuate this legacy EU-era managed cultural trade; the film industry will be more dynamic competing on merit rather than through government-negotiated bilateral deals that amount to corporate welfare for select production companies.

International Tax Enforcement (Brazil) Order 2015 declares that a tax information exchange agreement with Brazil has been made, facilitating the exchange of information relevant to the administration, enforcement or recovery of taxes and related debts covered by the agreement.

Tax information exchange agreements reduce friction in international commerce by providing legal certainty, preventing double taxation, and enabling businesses to operate with confidence in foreign markets. Deleting this Order would create regulatory uncertainty for UK businesses trading with or investing in Brazil, potentially deterring trade relationships and increasing compliance costs. Unlike directives that impose restrictions, this Order establishes a cooperative framework that facilitates rather than impedes economic activity.

The Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Algeria) Order 2015 implements a bilateral tax treaty between the UK and Algeria, providing relief from double taxation on capital gains, corporation tax, and income tax, while facilitating international tax enforcement cooperation between the two jurisdictions.

Double taxation is a genuine market distortion that punishes cross-border investment and trade. Without such treaties, UK businesses and individuals operating in Algeria would face being taxed twice on the same income, creating a barrier to international commerce. The treaty promotes allocative efficiency by allowing capital and labour to flow to their highest-value uses without punitive tax penalties. While any treaty involves some cooperation on tax enforcement, the core purpose—avoiding double taxation—aligns with free-market principles of not penalising legitimate cross-border economic activity.

UK statutory instrument implementing a bilateral double taxation relief agreement with Croatia, covering capital gains tax, corporation tax, and income tax, with provisions for international tax enforcement cooperation.

Double taxation treaties are fundamentally pro-free trade instruments that remove distortions to cross-border investment and economic activity. Without such arrangements, UK businesses and individuals face penal double taxation on international income, discouraging trade and investment with Croatia. The international tax enforcement component helps combat evasion that undermines tax base integrity. These arrangements reduce transaction costs and market friction, consistent with Adam Smith's principle of free trade. Deleting this would make Britons worse off by reintroducing a distortion that the treaty specifically addresses.

The Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Bulgaria) Order 2015 implements a bilateral tax convention between the UK and Bulgaria. It declares that arrangements have been made to provide relief from double taxation on capital gains tax, corporation tax, and income tax, and to assist international tax enforcement cooperation between the two jurisdictions.

Without this treaty, UK businesses investing in Bulgaria (and vice versa) would face genuine double taxation—where the same income is taxed by both countries—creating substantial compliance costs, uncertainty, and distortion to cross-border capital flows. The international tax enforcement cooperation also helps combat evasion, ensuring compliant taxpayers are not disadvantaged relative to evaders. While Britain should ultimately aim for lower tax rates and simpler tax systems, given that taxation exists, relief from double taxation reduces economic distortion and benefits Britons engaged in legitimate cross-border trade and investment.

The Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Sweden) Order 2015 implements a bilateral tax treaty with Sweden, declaring that arrangements have been made to provide relief from double taxation for capital gains tax, corporation tax, and income tax, and to assist international tax enforcement through information sharing between the UK and Swedish tax authorities.

Double taxation creates a significant barrier to international trade and investment, adding costs and uncertainty for UK businesses operating across borders. This treaty removes that barrier by allocating taxing rights and providing credit mechanisms between the UK and Sweden. Deleting it would leave UK businesses and individuals vulnerable to economic double taxation — the same income taxed twice — which would harm Britons by raising the effective cost of cross-border investment and trade. Unlike regulatory burdens that restrict supply or distort incentives, double taxation relief facilitates rather than impedes market activity.

A bilateral tax treaty between the UK and Senegal that establishes double taxation relief for capital gains tax, corporation tax, and income tax. It also provides a framework for international tax enforcement cooperation, including automatic exchange of tax information between the two jurisdictions.

Double taxation treaties reduce government-created barriers to international trade and investment. Without this treaty, UK businesses and individuals investing in Senegal would face the economic harm of double taxation on the same income—a classic distortion that inhibits cross-border commerce. While the information-sharing provisions warrant scrutiny, the core mechanism (relief from double taxation) facilitates rather than impedes market activity. Deleting this would make Britons worse off by reducing investment opportunities in Senegal and undermining a framework that, despite being a product of international bureaucracy, actually corrects a market distortion caused by overlapping tax jurisdictions.

A short Order that revokes the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) (Jersey) Order 1997, removing the previous oil pollution framework for merchant shipping in Jersey. It comes into force the day after registration by the Royal Court of Jersey.

This Order reduces regulatory burden by removing the 1997 Jersey oil pollution regime. The revocation eliminates compliance costs on shipping operators without removing the underlying international MARPOL conventions that actually govern oil pollution prevention. Since the 1997 Order was likely gold-platted EU-derived regulation specific to Jersey, its removal simplifies the regulatory landscape while environmental objectives remain protected by international conventions. Britons are better off with this Regulation deleted (i.e., the revocation kept), as it removes an unnecessary layer of compliance cost.

This Order appoints named individuals as Her Majesty's Inspectors of Education, Children's Services and Skills, effective 12th November 2015. It is a procedural appointment instrument that brings the listed persons into post as statutory inspectors.

This Order merely appoints named individuals to existing statutory positions. Deleting it would create a legal vacuum—no properly appointed inspectors would exist to oversee education, children's services, and skills providers. Unlike regulatory instruments that impose compliance burdens or restrict market activity, this is an administrative appointment that merely fills roles in an already-established framework. The inspection regime itself (a separate question) is not the target here; removing this specific Order would cause governance disruption without achieving any free-market objective.

These Regulations implement EU Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1853 providing temporary exceptional aid to milk producers, distributing emergency payments to farmers who produced and marketed milk during the 2014-2015 milk quota year. They establish formulas for calculating emergency payments and Northern Ireland additional payments, provisions for recovering overpayments with interest, enforcement powers including entry and inspection rights, and offences for obstruction or false statements. The regulations also require periodic reviews of their operation.

These regulations implemented emergency temporary EU aid for milk producers during a specific crisis period (2014-2015 milk quota year) under long-expired EU Commission Delegated Regulations. Post-Brexit, the EU legal framework these regulations implement no longer applies to the UK, rendering them obsolete. The underlying EU regulations (2015/1853 and 2016/1612) were exceptional, time-limited crisis measures that have long since concluded. Keeping these regulations serves no current purpose while maintaining unnecessary bureaucratic machinery for distributing aid under an EU scheme that has ended and can never recur in the same form.

The Transfer of Functions (Information and Public Records) Order 2015 is an administrative reorganization that transfers functions related to Freedom of Information Act 2000, Public Records Act 1958, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, Government of Wales Act 2006, and Data Protection Act 1998 between various ministers (Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice, and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport). It reallocates responsibility for these information and public records functions between government departments.

This Order does not itself impose any regulatory burden on citizens or businesses—it merely allocates which minister is responsible for already-existing statutory functions. Deleting it would create administrative confusion about which department handles Freedom of Information, public records, and data protection matters. The underlying statutory functions (FOI rights, public record management, data protection) would remain regardless; this Order simply determines accountability lines. The costs of confusion and fragmented responsibility would exceed any minimal governance overhead.

A 2015 variation scheme that modifies the 1989 M32 Motorway scheme by reclassifying a 3.2 metre wide strip of the M32 southbound entry slip road (starting 19 metres south of the A4174 Hambrook Interchange roundabout) from 'special road' to 'trunk road' status.

This is a minor technical road classification variation with no regulatory burden, no restrictions on trade or competition, and no gold-plating concerns. It merely reclassifies a small strip of road from special road to trunk road status. Deleting it would leave the underlying 1989 Scheme unchanged but remove the beneficial 2015 clarification, creating ambiguity about the correct legal status of that road section. No costs or restrictions are imposed on any party.

These Regulations establish the funding and administration framework for Flood Reinsurance (Flood Re), a scheme created under the Water Act 2014 to make flood insurance more affordable. They define relevant insurers subject to levies (totaling £160m), set caps on reinsurance premiums based on property valuation bands, establish oversight mechanisms including NAO audits, require transition planning toward risk-reflective pricing, and create reporting requirements. The scheme effectively subsidizes flood insurance for high-risk properties by pooling costs across all insurers.

This regulation distorts the insurance market by capping flood reinsurance premiums, preventing proper risk-reflective pricing that would otherwise signal to individuals and developers the true cost of living in flood-prone areas. It creates a moral hazard by making flood insurance artificially affordable, discouraging market-driven solutions and perpetuating development in high-flood-risk areas. The mandatory levy on all relevant insurers is a forced cross-subsidy that crowds out private innovation. The regulation does nothing to address the root cause of flood risk—restrictive planning rules that prevent development elsewhere—while its bureaucratic oversight apparatus generates compliance costs. Post-Brexit regulatory independence provides the opportunity to eliminate this inherited EU-era intervention and allow markets to price flood risk accurately, driving both individual mitigation behavior and pressure for planning reform.