Browse regulations

This is a commencement order (SI 2014/2598) bringing into force various provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 on 22nd November 2014. It activates: (1) section 55 amendments relating to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; (2) provisions in Schedule 21 (Part 1) covering paragraphs 14-29; and (3) rules of court provisions in section 49, Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraphs 24, 26, and 28 relating to insertions of sections 375A and 408A into POCA 2002.

This commencement order is purely administrative machinery that activates provisions already enacted by Parliament. The substantive policy — amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 — remains in the primary legislation regardless. Deleting this instrument merely delays commencement; the underlying statute will still require separate commencement orders or provisions. More fundamentally, POCA 2002 represents exactly the kind of heavy-handed asset forfeiture regime that creates perverse incentives, burdens legitimate business, and pushes financial activity offshore — but this instrument itself does not address that policy flaw. It is simply procedural timing documentation.

These Regulations allow certain bodies providing NHS services for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and young children to charge for Healthy Start vitamins to persons not entitled to free vitamins under the 2005 Regulations. They set charging rules: the charge must equal cost price plus up to 50% handling fee, rounded to nearest 5p. The Regulations also repeal the Sale of Goods for Mothers and Children (Designation and Charging) Regulations 1976 in England.

The 50% cap on handling charges is an arbitrary price control that distorts market pricing for what should be a straightforward commercial transaction. The rounding requirement adds unnecessary administrative burden. While the regulation enables those outside the welfare scheme to purchase vitamins (which is positive), the pricing restrictions represent government interference in voluntary exchange. The underlying policy objective can be achieved through simpler mechanisms or market provision without prescribing maximum handling charges.

A commencement order bringing into force various provisions of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 on 22nd November 2014. The Order activates amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, including civil recovery powers, cash search and seizure provisions, code of practice requirements, and powers for the Lord Advocate to issue guidance. It enables subordinate legislation, rules of court, and codes of practice under POCA 2002.

These provisions address serious organised crime and terrorist financing through asset recovery. While regulatory in nature, they represent core law enforcement functions with parliamentary oversight rather than EU-derived bureaucratic burden. The Proceeds of Crime Act regime, despite some controversies over civil forfeiture, provides legitimate mechanisms for recovering criminal assets that would otherwise burden the criminal justice system. Unlike gold-plated EU directives or planning restrictions, these are domestically-developed powers targeting genuine criminal harm, and deleting them would impede law enforcement's ability to disrupt serious crime and recover proceeds of criminal activity.

The London Underground (Northern Line Extension) Order 2014 is a Transport and Works Act Order authorizing London Underground Limited to construct and operate a railway extension from Kennington to Battersea Power Station in south London. The Order grants compulsory acquisition powers, rights to temporarily stop up streets, alter watercourses and drainage, carry out protective works to buildings, and exempts LUL from various procedural requirements under the Highways Act 1980, New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and Water Resources Act 1991. It came into force on 15th December 2014.

While this Order concentrates significant coercive powers in a single entity—including compulsory acquisition of land and exemptions from numerous environmental and procedural safeguards—major rail infrastructure projects of this nature cannot be efficiently delivered through uncoordinated private negotiation. The Northern Line Extension subsequently proved economically successful, enabling substantial development at Battersea Power Station and reducing transport congestion in south London. The compulsory purchase and regulatory streamlining, while imperfect, represent the minimum intervention necessary for nationally significant infrastructure that would not otherwise be built absent coordinated public action. Without such orders, the realistic alternative is not free-market infrastructure delivery but ad hoc parliamentary bills with equivalent or greater interventionism.

This Order brings into force a Code of Practice for covert surveillance under RIPA 2000 and property/wireless interference under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and Police Act 1997. It provides operational guidance to law enforcement and intelligence agencies on conducting surveillance and property interference while respecting individual rights.

This Order does not itself impose regulatory burdens on citizens or businesses—it merely operationalises an existing statutory framework (RIPA) through guidance. Deleting it would leave intelligence services and police without a code of practice, creating ambiguity that could lead to greater abuse of surveillance powers or successful legal challenges that undermine legitimate law enforcement. The Code of Practice actually constrains state power by providing procedural safeguards. As a procedural/administrative instrument governing how state agencies exercise existing statutory powers, its removal would harm Britons by creating a vacuum of guidance where abuses could more readily occur.

Amends the Fish Labelling Regulations 2013 by updating definitions to reference three EU regulations (1224/2009, 404/2011, 1379/2013), designating the Secretary of State as the relevant member State for certain purposes, omitting regulation 4, and modifying labelling requirement exemptions and references. Extends to England and Wales but applies in England only.

This regulation is entirely derived from EU regulations it merely transposes into domestic law without modification. Post-Brexit, this represents the exact type of unexamined retained EU law that should be removed. It imposes compliance costs on the British fishing industry without any corresponding democratic scrutiny or British-specific tailoring. Consumer information needs could be met through simplified, British-designed rules that actually reflect our market conditions rather than inheriting EU bureaucracy wholesale.

This Order establishes the Wokingham Borough Council Permit Scheme under the South East Permit Scheme (SEPS) framework, effective 19th January 2015. It requires permits for road works on specified streets and applies Part 8 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 to these streets.

Permit schemes for road works impose bureaucratic costs and delays on infrastructure projects, with no compelling evidence that they achieve better coordination than market mechanisms or simpler notification systems. The regulation adds an extra layer of compliance burden—permit fees, application delays, and administrative overhead—passed on to taxpayers and consumers. Road works can be coordinated through notification requirements alone, which achieve the same informational purpose without the restrictive permit barrier that limits supply of road work services and raises costs for utility companies, construction firms, and local authorities alike.

This Order implements the Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council Permit Scheme, effective 2nd February 2015. It applies Part 8 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 to specified streets within the council's jurisdiction, establishing a mandatory permit system for road works and street activities.

Permit schemes for road works impose unnecessary bureaucratic overhead on utilities, contractors, and infrastructure developers without clear evidence of net benefit. The coordination rationale—reducing disruption through centralized control—could be achieved through voluntary industry coordination or market mechanisms. Such schemes add compliance costs, create administrative bottlenecks, and transfer discretion to local authorities over what should be private construction activities. These costs are ultimately passed to consumers and taxpayers while potentially deterring infrastructure investment and competition in the road works sector.

This Order establishes the Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Permit Scheme, effective 2nd February 2015, requiring permits for works on specified streets within the borough. It applies Part 8 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 to Sefton's specified streets, creating a mandatory permit regime for road works coordinated by the local authority.

Permit schemes add bureaucratic friction to infrastructure investment and utility work, raising costs for businesses and consumers. They often protect incumbent utilities from competition by creating barriers to accessing public highways. Coordination of road works can be achieved through voluntary agreements between utilities or market mechanisms rather than mandatory permitting that delays projects and adds compliance costs. The scheme represents regulatory control over private economic activity that should be a matter of commercial coordination, not government authorization.

This Order approves and brings into force the Warrington Borough Council Permit Scheme, requiring parties to obtain permits before carrying out road works on specified streets within the council's jurisdiction. It applies Part 8 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 to these streets, establishing a permit regime for road works coordination.

This permit scheme adds an unnecessary bureaucratic layer to road works that increases costs for utilities, construction firms, and ultimately consumers. While coordination of road works is desirable, a permit regime creates administrative burden, potential for arbitrary delays, and barriers to entry for smaller contractors. A notification-based system with voluntary coordination would achieve the same ends without the regulatory overhead. This exemplifies the kind of gold-plated bureaucratic burden inherited from EU-era regulations that should be eliminated to restore Britain's position as a dynamic, free-trading economy.

This Order brings into effect the North Tyneside Council Permit Scheme, effective 9th February 2015. It applies Part 8 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 to specified streets within North Tyneside, requiring permits for roadworks and street excavations to coordinate utility works and minimize traffic disruption.

Permit schemes for street works impose unnecessary bureaucratic costs on utility companies and contractors, which are passed on to consumers. Coordination of roadworks can be achieved through less restrictive means such as notification requirements and voluntary cooperation between utilities. These permits create barriers for smaller contractors, delay works, and add compliance costs with no proven benefit beyond what less restrictive mechanisms could achieve. The burden should be on demonstrating that permit requirements produce outcomes superior to alternative coordination methods, not on businesses to prove their necessity.

This Order establishes the West Berkshire Council Permit Scheme under which permits are required to carry out road works and excavations on specified streets within West Berkshire. The scheme, operational from 1st March 2015, is part of the South East Permit Scheme (SEPS) and applies Part 8 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 to regulated streets, requiring advance applications for works that affect the highway.

This permit scheme imposes mandatory bureaucratic approval requirements on utility companies and contractors seeking to perform road excavations, creating delays and compliance costs that are passed to consumers. While claiming to coordinate works and reduce disruption, such coordination can be achieved through voluntary arrangements between utilities or private contracts. The permit regime raises barriers to entry for smaller operators, reduces supply of infrastructure services, and adds administrative overhead with no clear evidence of net benefit compared to a market or liability-based approach. This is a classic example of regulation that creates costs without proportionate benefit.

This Order brings into force the Slough Borough Council Permit Scheme (part of the South East Permit Scheme), effective March 4th 2015. It applies Part 8 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 to specified streets within Slough, requiring permits for road works on those streets.

Permit schemes for road works impose significant bureaucratic costs on utility companies and contractors through permit fees, application processes, and compliance requirements. These costs are passed on to consumers and distort the market for infrastructure services. The coordination objectives could be achieved through less restrictive means such as notification requirements or voluntary industry coordination. Such schemes exemplify the type of unnecessary regulatory burden that increases costs without commensurate benefits, particularly affecting smaller contractors and utility companies operating in the area.

These regulations established the 18-21 Work Skills Pilot Scheme, a time-limited employment support program for young jobseekers aged 18-21 in specific pilot areas (Black Country, Devon Somerset and Cornwall, Kent, and Mercia). The scheme consisted of Phase One (skills training in English/Maths up to 16 hours/week for up to 6 months) and Phase Two (work-related activity or skills training up to 30 hours/week for up to 6 months). The regulations also made corresponding amendments to Housing Benefit, Housing Renewal Grants, and Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations regarding notional income, capital, and expense disregards for participants.

The regulation was a temporary pilot scheme explicitly designed to cease having effect after 24 months from its 2014 commencement. By its own terms, the scheme was always time-limited and has long since expired. Keeping expired, superseded pilot legislation on the statute books serves no purpose and creates confusion. There is no evidence this temporary scheme was made permanent or renewed.

This Order (2014) brings into force a Code of Practice governing the conduct and use of covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) under Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It establishes procedural safeguards for undercover officers, informants, and agents operating in the UK.

This instrument provides essential procedural safeguards for civil liberties in covert policing operations. Without this Code of Practice, there would be reduced oversight of how public authorities deploy and manage covert human intelligence sources, increasing risks of abuse. The alternative of removing RIPA's regulatory framework entirely would create a dangerous vacuum in accountability for surveillance activities.