Browse regulations

Amends the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001 to exempt specified tobacco products that do not contain any tobacco from the requirement to carry a fiscal mark. Inserted as regulation 2B in regulation 23 (exceptions to fiscal mark requirements).

This regulation is itself a deregulatory measure that reduces burden by exempting tobacco-free products from fiscal mark requirements. Deleting it would harm Britons by reimposing unnecessary compliance costs on non-tobacco products that have no fiscal reason to bear tobacco fiscal marks. It correctly distinguishes between tobacco-containing and tobacco-free products, avoiding the perverse outcome of requiring fiscal marks on products that contain no tobacco.

Amends the Tobacco Products (Descriptions of Products) Order 2003 by removing exemptions that allowed herbal smoking products to be excluded from cigarette and smoking tobacco description requirements. Effectively extends tobacco product description regulations to cover herbal smoking products.

This amendment expands regulatory burden onto a product category — herbal smoking products — that was deliberately exempted because such products contain no tobacco. Extending tobacco description rules to non-tobacco herbal products imposes compliance costs and restricts how these legal products may be described, with no corresponding public health rationale since they contain no nicotine or tobacco. The original exemption recognised a meaningful distinction; this amendment erases it, adding regulatory friction without demonstrated benefit.

These Regulations amend the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 to add a definition of 'domestic violence' in regulation 14A(10), replacing previous definitions. The amendment provides detailed definitions of 'coercive behaviour' (assault, humiliation, intimidation or other abuse used to harm, punish or frighten), 'controlling behaviour' (acts designed to subordinate or isolate V), and 'domestic violence' as any incident or pattern of such incidents including psychological, physical, sexual, financial, and emotional abuse, regardless of gender or sexuality. The regulations came into force on 29th October 2013.

Removing this definition would harm domestic violence victims who rely on these provisions to access Jobseeker's Allowance without punitive compliance requirements during periods when they are escaping abusive situations. The definitions provide clarity and consistency in identifying genuine victims. While I question whether welfare provisions should be this detailed, deleting this specific definitional amendment would not eliminate the underlying policy concern—victims of domestic violence face documented barriers to employment that special provisions aim to address. The targeted nature of this provision, limited to definitional clarity for an existing regulatory framework, does not represent the broad regulatory overreach characteristic of EU-derived laws that should be prioritized for deletion.

Amends the Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) Regulations 2013 to allow the relevant authority to request vehicle registration information (including registered keeper details and particulars from the DVLA register) when assessing legal aid eligibility. Also adds armed forces independence payment to the schedule of excluded resources.

This regulation imposes no regulatory burden on businesses or markets—it merely enables government agencies to share existing data for means-testing legal aid. Without it, resources would be distributed less efficiently, with legal aid potentially going to individuals who own vehicles (a significant asset) but whose resources are not apparent from other sources. The amendment is targeted and prevents welfare fraud at minimal cost. Deletion would result in poorer targeting of limited legal aid funds to those genuinely without means.

The Port Security Designation (Amendment) Order 2013 amends multiple Port Security Designation Orders (for Dover, Aberdeen, Grangemouth, Portland, Tees and Hartlepool, and Workington) to extend statutory review dates from January 2014 to 2017. For Grangemouth specifically, it formally designates Port of Grangemouth Security Authority Limited (a company limited by guarantee) as the port security authority, clarifies it has no Crown status, and removes Schedule 2 provisions.

Port security designation serves legitimate national security functions for critical infrastructure. The amendments are primarily technical: extending review deadlines poses no regulatory burden, and the Grangemouth changes simply formalize an existing private security authority's status while clarifying it is not a Crown entity. Deletion would create legal uncertainty about port security arrangements at these major ports without countervailing economic benefit.

This Order transfers certain functions under the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 from the Secretary of State to HMRC Commissioners for matters relating to HMRC (revenue, customs, and tax). It allows HMRC officers to handle international requests for evidence, nominate courts to receive evidence, forward seized evidence, and exercise search warrant powers in cases involving 'relevant offences' (conduct outside the UK that would be an HMRC offence if it occurred domestically). The Order revokes and replaces the 2005 version of the same instrument.

This Order does not create new regulatory burden—it merely transfers administrative functions between government bodies (Secretary of State to HMRC Commissioners) for handling international criminal evidence requests. Removing it would not reduce regulation but would create dysfunction: all international evidence-sharing in HMRC matters would revert to the Secretary of State, adding bureaucratic layers without any corresponding benefit. The underlying Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 remains in force regardless, so this Order simply ensures efficient execution of existing statutory functions. International criminal cooperation in revenue and customs matters requires a clear chain of command; without this Order, cross-border evidence gathering in tax evasion and customs fraud cases would be impaired.

The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/2734) implement extensive mandatory disclosure requirements for occupational and personal pension schemes. They specify what information trustees/managers must provide to members, beneficiaries, and trade unions, including basic scheme information, annual benefit statements, funding statements, and specific disclosures at retirement or when transferring flexible benefits. The regulations set precise timelines, formats (including a requirement that certain automatic enrolment information fit on one double-sided A4 sheet), and address collective money purchase schemes under the 2021 Act.

These regulations impose prescriptive, one-size-fits-all disclosure requirements that add significant administrative burden disproportionately to smaller pension schemes, raising compliance costs that ultimately reduce retirement outcomes for members. The mandatory format requirements (e.g., single A4 sheet) and exhaustive information schedules create barriers to entry for new pension providers and stifle innovation in how benefits information could be communicated digitally. While disclosure serves a legitimate purpose in addressing information asymmetry, much of this regulation duplicates what competitive market forces and technology already enable—modern digital communication can deliver tailored, real-time pension information more effectively than rigid annual cycles. The UK's history of gold-plating EU directives (which this partially implements) means these requirements likely exceed what is necessary to achieve meaningful transparency. A principles-based approach specifying the information that must be available, rather than dictating exact formats and timing, would preserve consumer protection while enabling competition and innovation among pension providers.

This Order amends the list of proscribed terrorist organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, specifying that 'Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat' shall be treated as an alias name for two already-proscribed organisations: Lashkar-e Jhangvi and Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan. It came into force on 29th October 2013.

Britons would be worse off if this were deleted because it closes an essential loophole: without this Order, already-proscribed terrorist organisations (Lashkar-e Jhangvi and Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan) could simply rebrand under the name 'Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat' to evade the Terrorism Act 2000's restrictions. The mechanism is targeted and efficient—it does not create new proscriptions but ensures existing designations cannot be circumvented through name changes. Removing this would create an obvious gap that bad actors would immediately exploit.

A transitional amendment Order that extends the retention and use provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012's biometric data regime. It allows DNA/fingerprint material taken before September 2014 in connection with one offence to be treated as also taken in connection with a subsequent different offence for retention purposes, effectively preserving police ability to keep biometric data that would otherwise require destruction.

This transitional provision artificially extends police powers to retain biometric data by creating a legal fiction that material taken for one offence was also taken for a subsequent different offence. Rather than providing clarity, it creates complex carve-outs that undermine the Protection of Freedoms Act's intent to restrict indefinite biometric retention. Such backdoor extensions of surveillance powers during transition periods set concerning precedents for regulatory scope creep, and the underlying PoFA regime itself reflects the typical regulatory pattern of achieving questionable public safety benefits while imposing substantial compliance costs and privacy intrusions that are difficult to quantify or contest.

This Order amends Section 65A(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to add numerous additional offences to the list of 'qualifying offences'. These include indecent exposure, various historic sexual and obscene exposure offences (Vagrancy Act 1824, Town Police Clauses Act 1847), Infanticide Act 1938, Sexual Offences Act 1956 offences, Indecency with Children Act 1960, Genocide Act 1969, Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, and others. Qualifying offences carry specific procedural rules for evidence and trial.

This regulation expands state control over criminal procedure without clear evidence of net benefit. Creating a special category of 'qualifying offences' with distinct procedural rules adds complexity to an already labyrinthine criminal justice system. There is no demonstrated market failure or public choice problem that requires this intervention — the offences themselves remain crimes regardless. The framework paternalistically assumes government classification of offences produces better outcomes than treating similar crimes uniformly, when evidence suggests such categorisations often reflect institutional inertia rather than rational policy design. Deletion would simplify the law without removing any conduct from criminal liability.

These Regulations implement EU Directive 2001/112/EC in England, establishing compositional and labeling standards for fruit juices, fruit nectars, and related products. They define various product categories (fruit juice, juice from concentrate, concentrated juice, water extracted juice, dehydrated/powdered juice, fruit nectar) with detailed Schedules specifying requirements. The Regulations mandate product naming conventions, require indication of fruit content, impose labeling requirements for concentrated products, and establish enforcement mechanisms through the Food Safety Act 1990. They revoke and replace the 2003 Regulations and include a review provision requiring periodic assessment of whether objectives could be achieved with less regulation.

These Regulations are retained EU law inherited wholesale without democratic scrutiny, imposing compliance costs through mandated naming conventions, compositional standards, and labeling requirements. The core function—preventing consumer deception about product content—can be achieved through general consumer protection and fraud law without the detailed bureaucratic apparatus of 15 Schedules and prescriptive product definitions. The regulation's own review requirement acknowledges that less restrictive alternatives should be considered, suggesting the current approach is not obviously optimal. As a product quality/marketing standard, it represents the kind of regulatory burden best addressed by market discipline and general law rather than industry-specific mandates.

Amends the Loan Relationships and Derivative Contracts (Disregard and Bringing into Account of Profits and Losses) Regulations 2004 to add definitions of 'Additional Tier 1 instrument' and 'deferred shares', and modify regulations 3(5) and 4(4A) to include these instruments when accounted for as equity under GAAP. Effective from 21st November 2013 for new loan relationships and derivative contracts.

This 2013 amendment introduces additional definitional complexity to the tax treatment of financial instruments, drawing definitions directly from EU Regulation 575/2013 (the Capital Requirements Regulation). Rather than simplifying the tax code, it creates new categories of equity-like instruments requiring separate tracking and compliance. The amendments represent continued regulatory integration with EU frameworks rather than leveraging post-Brexit flexibility to reduce burden. Such technical amendments to retained EU law on financial instrument taxation should be reconsidered as part of a broader review to streamline the tax treatment of loan relationships and derivative contracts.

The Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2013 permits the recording and broadcasting of certain Court of Appeal hearings under strict conditions. It overrides existing prohibitions in the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and Contempt of Court Act 1981. Recording is limited to specific appeal types and elements (legal representative submissions, court exchanges, and judgments). Broadcast requires court permission in certain criminal cases. The Order imposes restrictions on broadcast content including prohibitions on political broadcasts, advertising, light entertainment, and satire, along with fairness requirements.

This regulation enables transparency in the justice system, allowing public access to court proceedings via broadcast. The conditions are proportionate safeguards rather than restrictions on economic activity. The framework creates a controlled environment for broadcasting that serves the public interest in open justice without meaningfully impeding market competition or trade. The restrictions on broadcast content (fairness, no political broadcasts) are reasonable judicial integrity measures. Deletion would merely revert to a blanket prohibition on court broadcasting, reducing transparency without compensating benefits.

UK domestic regulations under the Armed Forces Act 2006 establishing alcohol concentration limits for personnel performing prescribed safety-critical duties in HM forces. Sets three tiers of limits (breath, blood, urine) for two categories of duties: higher limits for maritime navigation, diving, vehicle operation, and lower limits for aircraft operations, air traffic control, and firearms handling. Also prescribes breath alcohol thresholds for prosecution under various Armed Forces Act offences.

These regulations prevent demonstrable, serious harm to third parties: impaired personnel operating weapons systems, submarines, aircraft, and heavy machinery could cause mass casualties. Unlike many EU-derived regulations that restrict voluntary commerce, this targets genuine externality harms from on-duty impairment. The military context justifies distinct limits from civilian transport law. Deletion would remove a coherent safety framework with no viable alternative addressing the same harm without equivalent cost.

This Order (SI 2013/2788) defines 'relevant sources' as covert human intelligence sources within specific law enforcement and government agencies (police forces, NCA, HMRC, Home Office, military police). It establishes the framework for 'long term authorisations' - where combined authorisation periods exceed 12 months - including requirements for Judicial Commissioner notification within 7 days, Commissioner approval for long-term authorisations, and appeal rights to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. It also amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) Order 2010 to add Part 1A specifying offices, ranks and positions authorised to grant such authorisations.

This regulation governs internal law enforcement and national security operations, not private economic activity. It imposes no costs on businesses, trade, or market participants. Deleting it would create legal uncertainty for agencies using covert human intelligence sources and remove the existing oversight framework (Commissioner approval, notification requirements, appeal rights) that provides accountability for these sensitive powers. The 12-month threshold for enhanced oversight and the tiered authorisation system represent appropriate safeguards balancing operational needs with civil liberties protection. There is no meaningful economic or regulatory burden being imposed on the private sector that would justify deletion.