Browse regulations

This Order abolishes existing wards of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and replaces them with 20 new wards, specifying the number of councillors for each ward. It establishes how ward boundaries are interpreted (along centre lines of geographical features) and sets dates for when changes take effect (October 2013 for election proceedings, May 2014 for other purposes). The Order is administrative, giving effect to recommendations from the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

This is not a regulatory burden in the sense of EU-derived gold-plating or business restrictions. It is a basic administrative order reorganising electoral boundaries to improve local democracy. Deleting it would leave the 2014 local elections in Tower Hamlets without legal ward definitions, creating confusion for voters and candidates. Electoral administration is a necessary government function with no market alternative, and the changes appear to streamline representation by reducing from the previous configuration to 20 more coherent wards. The Commission's work, which this Order implements, involved local consultation and is designed to improve democratic accountability, not burden it.

The Wireless Telegraphy (Limitation of Number of Licences) Order 2013 restricts OFCOM to granting only a limited (unspecified) number of wireless telegraphy licences for digital terrestrial television multiplexes in the 550-606 MHz band. It directs OFCOM to select licence recipients based on vague criteria including 'optimal use of the electromagnetic spectrum' and 'availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of services', without defining these terms or specifying the actual number of licences to be granted.

This Order imposes a quantity restriction on market entry without specifying the number, creating artificial scarcity and transferring economic rents to incumbent licence holders. The vague selection criteria ('optimal use,' 'wide range of services') provide no clear guidance and grant OFCOM unbounded discretion susceptible to regulatory capture. Electromagnetic spectrum is indeed scarce, but quantity limits are a crude mechanism — spectrum auctions or technical standards would allocate this resource more efficiently and transparently. This Order suppresses competition in digital terrestrial television, potentially raising costs for consumers and stifling innovation by preventing new entrants from accessing the market.

The Proscribed Organisations (Name Changes) Order 2013 designates al-Nusrah Front and Jabhat al-Nusrah li-ahl al Sham as alternative names for Al-Qa'ida, a terrorist organisation already listed in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. It comes into force on 19th July 2013.

Terrorist organisations operate under multiple names to evade law enforcement. Al-Qa'ida was already proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, but without this Order, individuals and entities could exploit the naming distinction to claim they are associated with a different organisation, thereby circumventing the ban on membership, fundraising, and support activities. This closure of a potential legal loophole is necessary for the proscription regime to function effectively — Britons would be materially less safe from terrorism financing and recruitment if this measure were deleted.

Designates bodies listed in the Schedule for the financial year ending 31st March 2013 for purposes of section 10 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, enabling Whole of Government Accounts consolidation. This is an administrative designation order determining which public sector bodies are included in the consolidated government accounts framework.

Whole of Government Accounts provide essential transparency on public sector finances, enabling Parliament and taxpayers to assess government resource allocation. Without this designation, the scope of consolidated accounts would be unclear, creating ambiguity rather than reducing burden. While this is an administrative measure rather than a regulatory burden on private enterprise, deleting it would impair financial accountability without achieving any discernible free-market benefit.

The Alternative Investment Fund Managers (Amendment) Regulations 2013 amend the AIFM Regulations 2013, which implemented EU Directive 2011/61/EU on Alternative Investment Fund Managers. The regulations modify consultation procedures for FCA and PRA rules under FSMA 2000 sections 138I-138L, address EEA passport rights for AIFMs establishing branches, and make technical amendments to the Regulated Activities Order. They allow expedited rule-making without standard consultation procedures for provisions amended by Schedule 1.

EU-derived regulation implementing Directive 2011/61/EU that imposed significant compliance costs on alternative investment fund managers without proportionate benefit. The AIFMD gold-plated by the UK added regulatory burden that drives fund management activity to less regulated jurisdictions (New York, Singapore, Cayman Islands). While some investor protection framework has merit, this amendment primarily adjusts procedural consultation requirements for rules implementing an inherently burdensome EU directive. Post-Brexit regulatory independence should allow the UK to design a more proportionate, competitive regime for alternative investment fund managers rather than preserving EU-derived compliance costs.

These Regulations implement requirements under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for the maintenance and publication of conclusive maps (showing land where the public has rights of access) and reduced scale maps. They mandate that Natural England retain conclusive maps electronically, publish specific information online, make maps available for inspection, and supply reduced scale maps for a reasonable fee. Local authorities must also retain reduced scale maps for public inspection. The Regulations revoke five earlier instruments.

These are purely administrative procedures for map distribution that impose compliance costs on Natural England and local authorities without clear justification for why market mechanisms or voluntary action could not achieve the same outcomes. The mandatory fee-setting by Natural England for reduced scale maps creates an unnecessary barrier to public access to information about rights of way. While rights of way themselves require a legal framework, the specific bureaucratic requirements for map retention, format specifications, and mandatory publication procedures add cost without corresponding benefit - these functions could be handled more efficiently through administrative discretion or private sector alternatives. The revocation of five prior instruments suggests a pattern of regulatory accumulation rather than streamlining.

The Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013 establishes a framework for recognizing adoptions effected under foreign law. It defines 'overseas adoption' as adoptions from listed countries/territories that are not Convention adoptions, specifies acceptable evidentiary documents (certified register entries or certificates), allows the Registrar General to require English translations, and preserves proof via other statutes. It revokes the 1973 and 1993 Orders while grandfathering adoptions previously designated under those orders.

While this regulation does impose documentary requirements, deleting it would leave a legal vacuum. The 1973 and 1993 Orders it revokes would also be gone, meaning no clear mechanism would exist for recognizing overseas adoptions. Without this framework, families face case-by-case litigation with no statutory guidance on what constitutes valid proof. Far from restricting adoption, this Order actually facilitates recognition by providing multiple acceptable forms of evidence and preserving alternative proof methods. The cost of the regulatory framework is lower than the chaos of having no framework at all.

This Order specifies the Green Deal Framework (Disclosure, Acknowledgment, Redress etc.) Regulations 2012 for the purposes of section 241(3)(c) of the Enterprise Act 2002, enabling information sharing under that scheme within the Part 9 restrictions on disclosure of information.

The Green Deal scheme was abolished in 2015 after failing to meet its targets. This Order merely provided a technical specification enabling information disclosure for a defunct government programme. It now serves no practical purpose while adding unnecessary complexity to the statute book. Such retroactive specifications for abandoned schemes should be removed as part of clearing the accumulated regulatory deadwood from Britain's books.

These regulations, effective August 2013, amend the Pensions Schemes (Taxable Property Provisions) Regulations 2006 and Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009 to address temporary non-residence. They ensure that individuals deemed 'temporarily non-resident' under the statutory residence test remain subject to income tax on offshore income gains when they return to the UK. Key provisions include: (1) liability for property enjoyment scheme sanction charges for temporarily non-resident pension scheme members upon return, and (2) attribution of offshore income gains arising during non-residence periods as if they arose during the period of return, subject to various exclusions and anti-avoidance mechanics.

These regulations exemplify the government's pattern of enacting complex anti-avoidance legislation that creates significant compliance burdens and restricts individual liberty. The rules targeting 'temporary non-residence' effectively penalize individuals for exercising their freedom to relocate, even temporarily. The regulations add substantial complexity to an already labyrinthine tax code, creating uncertainty and compliance costs that disproportionately harm ordinary individuals seeking international mobility. While intended to prevent abusive avoidance, they impose costs on legitimate behaviour and risk driving talent and capital away from the UK. The underlying policy goal can be achieved through simpler, more targeted provisions rather than this web of interconnected definitions and cross-references.

The Data-gathering Powers (Relevant Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 amends the 2012 Regulations to expand HMRC's data collection powers. It omits regulation 6(c), modifies regulation 6(e), and inserts new regulation 11A requiring merchant acquirers and payment processors to provide HMRC with comprehensive data about retailers including payment card transaction details, merchant account identifiers, retailer business classifications, and retailer contact/VAT information.

This regulation imposes significant compliance costs on merchant acquirers and payment processors who must build systems to capture, retain, and transmit extensive data on every retail transaction. The dragnet approach treats all retailers as potential tax evaders rather than targeting specific fraud. Such comprehensive surveillance of legitimate commerce creates barriers to entry for smaller payment processors, raises data protection concerns, and represents regulatory overreach that distorts normal business operations. The costs of this compliance apparatus—including hardware, software, staffing, and ongoing administrative burdens—ultimately passed to consumers—exceed the demonstrated benefits of this data collection in improving tax compliance.

Transitional Order extending the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012's biometric data provisions (DNA profiles, fingerprints) to material taken before 31 October 2013, with modified application dates for Northern Ireland (2024) and various savings for pre-existing material. Contains 63-day check period provisions and links to PACE 1984, Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, and Terrorism Act 2000 regimes.

This is a transitional order that has served its purpose and is now obsolete. All key dates have passed (31 October 2013, 31 January 2014, 30 September 2014, 31 October 2016, and for Northern Ireland 31 October 2024). The order creates two-tier regulatory complexity by applying different retention and destruction rules to pre-October 2013 biometric material versus post-October 2013 material, imposing ongoing compliance burdens on law enforcement without justification. The 63-day check period provision and other transitional mechanisms have long since expired. A principles-based approach to biometric data retention that treats all material equally under a single framework would serve Britons better than this patchwork of temporal exceptions and saved provisions.

This is a commencement order (SI 2013/1902) bringing into force provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on 31st October 2013 and 31st January 2014. The provisions concern the retention and destruction of fingerprints, DNA samples, and related police powers under PACE and the Terrorism Act 2000. The Act established time limits on biometric data retention and early deletion rights — representing a reduction in state power over individuals.

This order does not impose regulatory burden — it activates liberalising provisions that PROTECT freedoms by establishing time limits on DNA/fingerprint retention and creating rights to early deletion. Deleting this order would leave these protections inactive, prolonging indefinite retention of citizens' biometric data. The Protection of Freedoms Act was itself a repeal of disproportionate PACE powers; this commencement order simply enacts Parliament's will to constrain state overreach.

This Order appoints 1st September 2013 as the day on which section 66 of the Finance Act 2013 comes into force, with effect for disposals on or after that date. Section 66 amended the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 regarding the timing of crystallisation of certain gains and losses on shares and securities.

This is a procedural Appointed Day Order that merely brings an already-enacted provision into force. Section 66 of the Finance Act 2013, having passed through Parliament as primary legislation, established important rules regarding the timing of tax crystallisation on share disposals. Without this Order, the provision would lack a defined commencement date, creating uncertainty for businesses and investors. While tax complexity is generally undesirable, this Order itself imposes no new regulatory burden—it simply activates existing statute law that Parliament has already approved.

This Order amends the Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order 2011 to require Police and Crime Commissioners to publish detailed information about expenditures on travel, accommodation, and subsistence for relevant office holders, including recipient details, purpose, and justification of value for money.

While additional administrative burden should generally be avoided, this regulation imposes only a disclosure requirement on already-tracked expenditure. Police and Crime Commissioners handle significant public funds and democratic accountability for such spending is essential. The information burden is minimal relative to the transparency benefit, and removing this would leave the public without adequate information about how elected officials spend public money on travel and hospitality.

This Order brings into force provisions of the Finance Act 2013 establishing tax relief for television production. It sets 19th July 2013 as the appointed day for Schedule 16 amendments and Schedule 18 provisions relating to television tax relief to take effect.

Television tax relief is a government subsidy that distorts market signals, picks winners in the creative industry, and benefits well-connected production companies at the expense of taxpayers. Tax reliefs of this nature create rent-seeking incentives, add complexity to the tax code, and redirect capital from its highest-value uses. Parliament should not be in the business of subsidizing specific commercial sectors through preferential tax treatment.