Browse regulations

The Capital Requirements Regulations 2013 implement the EU Capital Requirements Regulation (575/2013) and Capital Requirements Directive (2013/36/EU) into UK law, establishing the prudential regulatory framework for credit institutions and investment firms. It defines capital requirements, consolidates supervision arrangements, establishes the SREP (Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process), sets rules for internal model permissions, liquidity requirements, capital buffers, and supervisory measures. Post-Brexit amendments incorporated these EU regulations into UK 'assimilated law'. The regulations grant extensive powers to the PRA to impose additional capital requirements, restrict bank activities, and revoke internal model permissions.

This regulation represents thousands of pages of EU-derived banking rules that were inherited wholesale without democratic scrutiny. The complex permission regime for internal approaches creates significant barriers to entry, entrenching large incumbent banks while raising compliance costs ultimately borne by borrowers and consumers. The extensive SREP process grants regulators arbitrary discretion over capital levels, reducing market discipline. While capital adequacy matters, the specific calibration and bureaucratic apparatus of CRR was designed for EU single market harmonisation, not UK competitive advantage. Retained EU law on this scale undermines Parliament's sovereignty and the City's competitiveness against New York, Singapore, and Dubai. A simpler, principles-based framework focused on core capital adequacy would better serve Britain as a global financial centre.

This Order specifies which EU credit rating agency (CRA) and capital requirements (CRD4) provisions are 'qualifying provisions' for enforcement under FSMA, and designates which regulator (FCA or PRA) has enforcement authority over them. It is a technical instrument that maps EU regulations into UK regulatory enforcement architecture, updated post-Brexit to reference assimilated legislation.

This Order merely designates enforcement authority for already-existing EU-derived regulations—it adds no substantive requirements of its own. The actual regulatory burden comes from the CRA Regulation and CRD4 instruments themselves, not from this administrative mapping exercise. Creating a regulatory gap through deletion would force Parliament to clarify enforcement responsibility, potentially leading to legislative reform rather than perpetuating enforcement of EU-derived rules that were never subject to democratic scrutiny in their retained form. This Order represents the type of inherited EU bureaucracy that should be reviewed, not preserved through mechanical retention.

The Capital Requirements (Country-by-Country Reporting) Regulations 2013 require banks and investment firms to publish annual country-by-country reports disclosing turnover, employees, profits, tax paid, and subsidies received for each jurisdiction where they operate. It applies to institutions under the EU Capital Requirements Regulation and 'relevant' FCA investment firms (those with foreign branches/subsidiaries that are not small firms). Global systemically important institutions must also submit certain data to HMRC.

This is a retained EU regulation that was never properly scrutinized by Parliament. The compliance burden falls disproportionately on UK financial institutions, adding reporting costs with no corresponding benefit to markets or consumers. Country-by-country reporting can actually be gamed through transfer pricing and accounting allocations. Crucially, such disclosure requirements risk driving financial activity to less transparent jurisdictions (New York, Singapore, Dubai), harming the City's competitiveness. The regulation's paternalistic premise—that markets cannot price information without government-mandated disclosure—contradicts free market principles. Post-Brexit Britain should not impose disclosure regimes that our major international competitors do not.

Transitional Order from 2013 governing the transfer of consumer credit regulation from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Made payments to eligible licensees who paid charges to OFT, extended certain FCA information-gathering powers under FSMA 2000 until 1 April 2014, and addressed cessation of requirements on that date when the new FCA regime came into effect.

This transitional Order was explicitly designed to expire on 1 April 2014 when consumer credit regulation fully transferred to the FCA. Article 10 confirms that requirements cease to have effect on that date. The payment provisions, conditions for eligible licensees, and extended information-gathering powers were all time-limited by design. A transitional instrument that has exhausted its purpose should be removed from the statute book rather than remaining as vestigial law.

The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 implement EU-derived consumer protection rules governing on-premises, off-premises, and distance contracts. They require traders to provide pre-contract information, grant consumers 14-day cancellation rights, regulate additional charges, and establish enforcement mechanisms including criminal offences for non-compliance. They consolidated and replaced the Distance Selling Regulations 2000 and Home Contracts Regulations 2008.

This regulation was inherited wholesale from EU implementation with no democratic review. The compliance burden falls disproportionately on small businesses who lack legal departments to navigate complex information requirements and cancellation procedures. While consumer protection is a legitimate objective, the 14-day cancellation regime and extensive paperwork requirements distort market incentives, raise transaction costs, and can be exploited by 'serial cancellers.' The regulation's benefits could be achieved through clearer, simpler principles-based consumer protection that avoids the current tick-box compliance culture. Post-Brexit regulatory independence provides the opportunity to replace this EU-derived framework with streamlined rules designed specifically for British consumers and businesses.

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme and National Emissions Inventory (Amendment) Regulations 2013 amended the 2012 Regulations to: update references from EU Registries Regulation 2011 to 2013; add new regulation 87B providing transitional relief for unreported emissions pre-2013 (penalty of €20 per unreported allowance); expand civil penalty regimes including daily penalties up to £13,500 for non-compliance with information notices; remove powers of entry; and add mandatory five-year review requirements for the Secretary of State. The regulations implement the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and establish penalties for non-compliance with reporting and surrender obligations.

This regulation is EU-derived retained law that imposes significant compliance costs on UK businesses through the emissions trading scheme. The new penalty provisions (including £1,500 plus £150 daily penalties up to £13,500 for information notice failures, and £1,000 for false statements) add regulatory burden without proportionate benefit. Post-Brexit, Britain has the opportunity to design its own emissions reduction framework rather than maintaining the EU's market-based mechanism with its bureaucratic allowance trading system. The regulation's requirement to track and surrender carbon allowances creates a compliance cost structure that disadvantages energy-intensive industries and is fundamentally a market distortion mechanism. Since these are retained EU laws never democratically scrutinised by Parliament, deletion serves the goal of regulatory independence and allows Britain to design a more efficient, less burdensome approach to emissions reduction that does not rely on EU-derived carbon markets.

The Double Taxation Relief (China) Order 2013 implements a Protocol amending the 2011 bilateral tax treaty with China, declaring that double taxation relief arrangements for corporation tax and similar taxes between the UK and People's Republic of China have been made and should take effect.

Double taxation agreements are not regulatory burdens but rather instruments that facilitate international trade and investment by preventing the same income from being taxed twice. Deleting this would disadvantage UK corporations operating in China, discourage cross-border investment, and undermine Britain's ability to compete globally with nations that maintain such treaties. These arrangements reduce tax barriers, not create them.

The Double Taxation Relief (Netherlands) Order 2013 implements a Protocol amending the 2009 double taxation relief arrangements with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It declares that relief from double taxation has been agreed for capital gains tax, corporation tax, income tax, and similar Dutch taxes, and gives these arrangements legal effect in the UK.

Double taxation arrangements facilitate rather than restrict international trade and investment. Without such treaties, British businesses and individuals operating cross-border with the Netherlands would face overlapping tax liabilities, increasing effective tax burdens and discouraging beneficial economic activity. These reciprocal arrangements are difficult to replicate unilaterally and removing them would harm British competitiveness in the Dutch market.

A bilateral tax treaty Order between the UK and Kingdom of Norway that implements a Convention for: (1) relieving double taxation on capital gains tax, corporation tax, income tax; and (2) international tax enforcement cooperation including sharing tax information to combat evasion.

Double taxation treaties promote rather than restrict trade by removing fiscal barriers to cross-border investment and economic activity. Without such relief, UK businesses and individuals would face punitive double taxation when engaging with Norway, discouraging beneficial trade. The tax information exchange provisions target deliberate evasion rather than imposing compliance burdens on legitimate actors, and such reciprocal arrangements are standard among trading nations. Deletion would harm Britons engaged in UK-Norway trade and investment while providing no benefit.

The Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Albania) Order 2013 implements a bilateral tax treaty with Albania, providing relief from double taxation on capital gains tax, corporation tax, income tax, and similar taxes. It also establishes frameworks for international tax enforcement cooperation and information exchange between UK and Albanian tax authorities.

Double taxation treaties are pro-market instruments that facilitate international trade and investment by eliminating double taxation—a barrier to cross-border economic activity. Unlike EU directives that impose regulatory burdens, this is a negotiated bilateral agreement that reduces costs for UK businesses operating in Albania and vice versa. The international tax enforcement provisions help combat tax evasion, protecting the tax base without restricting legitimate commerce. Repealing this would reintroduce double taxation friction, discourage investment, and hand competitive advantage to rival jurisdictions.

The Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Brunei Darussalam) Order 2013 gives domestic legal effect to a bilateral tax treaty with Brunei Darussalam. It declares that arrangements have been made to afford relief from double taxation in relation to income tax, corporation tax and similar taxes, and for assisting international tax enforcement. The Agreement and Protocol amend arrangements originally set out in the 1950 Order.

Double taxation treaties are fundamental to facilitating international trade and investment — they remove a key barrier that would otherwise discourage UK businesses and individuals from engaging with Brunei markets. This is not EU-derived law but a sovereign bilateral agreement negotiated between willing parties. Deleting it would impose double taxation on UK-Brunei economic activity, harming British exporters, investors, and businesses while ceding commercial advantage to rival nations with such treaties in place. It directly serves the goal of making Britain a global free-trading hub.

The Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (India) Order 2013 gives effect to a Protocol amending the 1993 tax treaty with India. It implements arrangements to provide relief from double taxation on capital gains, corporation, income, and petroleum revenue taxes, and facilitates international tax enforcement cooperation between the UK and India.

Double taxation treaties are not bureaucratic burden but essential infrastructure for international trade. Without relief from double taxation, British businesses operating in India would face punitive tax burdens compared to competitors from countries with such treaties, harming UK exports and investment. The UK's treaty network is a competitive advantage for the City of London, providing certainty that attracts international investment. Tax enforcement cooperation also levels the playing field for compliant businesses.

The Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Isle of Man) Order 2013 declares that amended double taxation relief arrangements have been made with the Isle of Man, superseding the 1955 Order. It provides relief from double taxation on income tax, corporation tax, and similar Isle of Man taxes, and facilitates international tax enforcement cooperation between the UK and the Isle of Man.

Removing this would reimpose double taxation on income and corporation tax between the UK and Isle of Man, harming cross-border trade, investment, and capital flows. Unlike EU-derived regulations, this is a negotiated bilateral arrangement with a Crown dependency that actively promotes economic exchange rather than restricting it. International tax enforcement cooperation also helps combat evasion that distorts markets. Britons would be worse off without the certainty and relief this provides.

The Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Panama) Order 2013 implements a bilateral Convention and Protocol with Panama providing relief from double taxation on capital gains, corporation tax, and income tax, while establishing frameworks for international tax enforcement cooperation and information exchange.

Double taxation itself is a barrier to trade that Adam Smith and the classical free-traders would oppose. This Order reduces that barrier for British businesses investing in Panama. While Panama has transparency concerns, the treaty actually improves international tax enforcement through information exchange provisions. Deleting this would leave British firms subject to potential double taxation on cross-border activities, making them worse off. Bilateral tax treaties negotiated by the UK (not inherited EU law) represent legitimate arrangements that facilitate commerce.

Amends the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975 to update EEA definitions and insert excise exemption rules for vehicles engaged in cabotage operations in Great Britain, including seasonal restrictions (Feb 22-31 March, Aug 25-30 Sept), driver attestation requirements, and vehicle category limitations (M1 and N1), while defining 'Community licence' and 'driver attestation' by reference to EU regulations.

This regulation preserves EU-derived cabotage restrictions that protect domestic hauliers from foreign competition through seasonal operating bans and stringent licensing requirements. Post-Brexit, such protectionist measures are unjustifiable — they limit competition in Britain's haulage market, raise costs for British businesses and consumers, and represent exactly the type of EU-era restriction that should be swept away. The reference to EU regulations for key definitions also means this rule remains tethered to legislation we no longer participate in making.