View source for British enterprise law

{{Short description|Law of public services and big business regulation in the UK.}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2021}}
[[File:Greenwich and Canary Wharf, cropped.jpg|thumb|right|500px|UK enterprises in the regulated or public sector, such as [[Greenwich University]] or banks in the [[City of London]], compose 39% of UK GDP and 31% of the workforce, while private enterprises, usually incorporated under the [[Companies Act 2006]] are most of the rest.<ref name="auto2">[[Office for National Statistics]], ''Second estimate of GDP: January to March 2018'' ([https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/secondestimateofgdp/januarytomarch2018/pdf 22 February 2018])</ref>]]
'''British enterprise law''' concerns the [[ownership]] and regulation of organisations producing goods and services in the UK, [[Law of the European Union|European]] and [[International law|international]] economy. Private enterprises are usually incorporated under the [[Companies Act 2006]], regulated by [[United Kingdom company law|company law]], [[European Union competition law|competition law]], and [[United Kingdom insolvency law|insolvency law]], while almost one third of the workforce and half of the UK economy is in enterprises subject to special regulation.<ref name="auto2"/> Enterprise law mediates the rights and duties of investors, workers, consumers and the public to ensure efficient production, and deliver services that UK and international law sees as universal human rights.<ref>See the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948]] [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Article_21 arts 21–27] on the right to participate in governance, social security, fair pay and work, health, culture, technology and communication. See further the [[International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966]] arts 11–14.</ref> [[United Kingdom labour law|Labour]], [[United Kingdom company law|company]], competition and [[United Kingdom insolvency law|insolvency law]] create general rights for stakeholders, and set a basic framework for enterprise governance, but rules of governance, competition and insolvency are altered in specific enterprises to uphold the public interest, as well as civil and social rights. Universities and schools have traditionally been publicly established, and socially regulated, to ensure universal education. The [[National Health Service]] was set up in 1946 to provide everyone with free health care, regardless of class or income, paid for by [[Progressive tax|progressive taxation]]. The UK government controls [[monetary policy]] and regulates private banking through the publicly owned [[Bank of England]], to complement its [[fiscal policy]]. [[Taxation in the United Kingdom|Taxation]] and spending composes nearly half of total economic activity, but this has diminished since 1979.

Since 1980, a large segment of UK enterprise was privatised, reducing public and citizen voice in their services, particularly among utilities. Since the [[Climate Change Act 2008]], the modern UK economy has increasingly been powered by [[renewable energy]], but still depends disproportionately on oil, gas and coal. Energy governance is framed by statutes including the [[Petroleum Act 1998]] and the [[Electricity Act 1989]], which enable government to use its licensing powers to shift to a [[zero-carbon economy]], and phase out fossil fuels. Energy ratepayers typically have rights to adequate standards of supply, and increasingly the right to participate in how their services are provided, overseen by the [[Oil and Gas Authority]] and [[Ofgem]]. The [[Water Industry Act 1991]] regulates drinking and sewerage infrastructure, overseen by [[Ofwat]]. The [[Railways Act 1993]], the [[Transport Act 1985]] or the [[Road Traffic Act 1988]], under the [[Office of Rail and Road]], govern the majority of land transport. Rail and bus passengers are entitled to adequate services, and have limited rights to voice in management. A growing number of bus, energy and water enterprises have been put back into public hands, while in London and Scotland, railways may be wholly publicly run. While, post, telephones and television were the major channels for communication and media in the 20th century, 21st century communications networks have increasingly converged on the Internet. Particularly in social media networks, this has presented problems in ensuring standards of safety, accuracy and fairness in online information and discourse. Like securities and other marketplaces, online networks dominated by multinational corporations, have received increased attention from regulators and legislators as they have become associated with political crisis.

==History==
{{further|Nationalization|Privatization}}
*[[Aristotle]], [[Plato]], Roman law and the societas
*[[Otto von Gierke]]
*[[Magna Carta]] and [[Lex Mercatoria]]
*[[Sidney Webb]]
*[[House of Medici]], [[Medici Bank]], [[Pope Leo X]] (1513–1521), [[Pope Clement VII]] (1523–1534), [[Pope Leo XI]] (1605)
*[[Sir Thomas More]], ''[[Utopia (More book)|Utopia]]'' (1535) and [[John Locke]] (1689)
*[[Bank of England]]
*[[South Sea Company]]
*[[Port of London Act 1908]]
*[[National Insurance Act 1911]]
*[[Railways Act 1921]]
*WA Robson, ‘The Public Corporation in Britain Today’ (1950) 63(8) Harvard Law Review 1321
*[[Bank of England Act 1946]]
*[[National Health Service Act 1946]]
*[[Transport Act 1947]]
*[[Electricity Act 1947]]
*[[Gas Act 1986]]

==General enterprise law==
{{see also|United Kingdom commercial law|English contract law|English tort law|English trust law|English land law}}
While the 20th century had seen swings from nationalisation and re-privatisation, a general law of enterprise developed where private ownership and markets were generally thought to work by themselves. On top of ordinary principles of [[UK commercial law|commercial law]], based on [[English contract law|contract]], [[English land law|property]], [[English tort law|tort]], and [[English trust law|trusts]], four main fields of law settled the rights and duties of enterprise stakeholders. First, [[UK company law]] determines the constitution, governance and finance of major corporations. Much of the [[Companies Act 2006]] concerns the duties of company directors, and the rights of members, who are usually registered as holding share capital. Equity investment mostly derives from people saving for retirement in mutual funds, life insurance and [[UK pension law|pensions]]. Second, [[United Kingdom labour law|UK labour law]] structures the rights of employees and their representative unions against the management of an enterprise. Employees are entitled to a minimum floor of rights, and to rights of voice through [[collective bargaining]] or occasionally [[Worker representation on corporate boards of directors|votes at work]] in their enterprise. Third, [[European Union competition law|competition law]], which is closely coordinated with [[Law of the European Union|EU law]] aims to protect consumers' and the public interest in choice in markets, particularly where enterprise is privately owned. Fourth, [[UK insolvency law]] determines the relative rights of creditors when an enterprise can no longer pay its debts when they fall due. All enterprises are subject to general duties under [[UK environmental law]] and [[English criminal law|criminal law]].

===Corporate governance===
{{main|UK company law|European company law|US corporate law}}

*[[Companies Act 2006]] ss 21, 112, 168 and 284, company constitutions, amendment, voting rights and removal of directors
*Model Articles, Sch 3, paras 3 and 34, model articles for public companies
*[[Companies Act 2006]] ss 170–177, 260–263 and 419 (directors’ duties, derivative claims, report)
*[[Pensions Act 2004]] ss 241–243, right of pension beneficiaries to nominate pension trustees
*[[Charities Act 2006]]

===Labour rights===
{{main|UK labour law|European labour law|US labor law}}

*''[[Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher]]'' [2011] UKSC 41, minimum wage and working time claims
*[[Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992]] ss 179, 219, 224, 244 (collective agreements not legally binding, immunity from damages for collective action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, no secondary action, meaning of a trade dispute)
*[[ECHR article 11]]
*''[[RMT v United Kingdom]]'' [2014] ECHR 366, secondary action
*[[Health and Safety Executive]]

===Competition and consumers===
{{main|UK competition law|EU competition law|US antitrust law}}

*[[TFEU]] arts 101 and 102
*[[Competition Act 1998]] ss 2–3, 18–19 and Sch 3, prohibition of abuse of a dominant position and collusion
*[[TFEU]] arts 106(2) and 345, state aid and neutrality to public ownership
*''[[Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie]]'' (1999) C-67/96
*[[Public procurement]]
*[[State aid]]
*[[Consumer Rights Act 2015]]
*[[Sale of Goods Act 1979]]
*[[Consumer cooperative]]
*[[Consumer Protection Act 1987]]
*[[Environmental Protection Act 1990]]

===Insolvency===
{{main|UK insolvency law|Cross-border insolvency|US bankruptcy law}}

*[[Insolvency Act 1986]] ss 175-176A and Sch 6, preferential rights in insolvency for employees and pensions
*''[[Re Spectrum Plus Ltd]]'' [2005] UKHL 41, interpretation of a ‘floating charge’
*[[Insolvency Act 1986]] Sch B1, paras 3, 14, 22 and 36, governance in administering insolvent companies

==Specific enterprises==
{{see also|UK constitutional law}}
While many sectors of the economy function under general rules of enterprises alone, specific enterprise laws developed where "free markets" were seen as inadequate to protect consumer or public interests. In enterprises that concerned central social and economic rights, were "network" or "[[natural monopolies]]", for "[[public goods]]", or where significant capital investment was necessary, the UK law developed specific rules. Usually, a combination of [[public ownership]], positive rights of voice for users or citizens, or sector-specific regulators emerged. These regulate the rights of exit, basic standards, and voice of stakeholders, beyond investors of capital or labour.

===Education===
{{see also|Universities in the UK|Education in the UK|Education in England}}
{{Clist universities}}
The [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights|Universal Declaration]], the [[International Bill of Human Rights]] and the [[European Social Charter]] say that "everyone" has the right to education, and that primary, secondary and higher education should be made "free",<ref>[[ICESCR 1966]] [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights#Article_6 art 13(2)(c)], "Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education". [[UDHR 1948]] [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Article_26 art 26] "free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages" and "higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit."</ref> in particular "by reducing or abolishing any fees or charges" and "granting financial assistance".<ref>[[European Social Charter 1961]] [https://rm.coe.int/168007cf93 arts 7, 10 and 17]. cf [[ECHR 1950]] Protocol 1, article 2 and the ''[[Belgian Linguistic case (No 2)]]'' (1968) 1 EHRR 252. [[CFREU 2000]] [[wikisource:Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#Article_14_.E2.80.93_Right_to_education|art 14]].</ref> Historically, the UK guaranteed free childhood, higher and adult education, and gave grants until the late 20th century. However, it maintained a private fee-paying school system, dependent on parents paying money (also called "[[Private schools in the United Kingdom|private]]" or "[[Public school (United Kingdom)|public]]" schools, after the [[Public Schools Act 1868]]). Following this model, the [[Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998]] re-instated tuition fees for university. Although the evidence suggests that fees deter and disadvantage poorer people,<ref>M Hübner, ‘Do tuition fees affect enrollment behavior? Evidence from a ‘natural experiment’ in Germany’ (2012) 31(6) Economics of Education Review 949. C Callender and J Jackson, ‘Does the Fear of Debt Deter Students from Higher Education?’ (2005) 34(4) Journal of Social Policy 509. L Dearden, E Fitzsimons and G Wyness, 'The Impact of Tuition Fees and Support on University Participation in the UK' (2011) [https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/91545 IFS Working Papers W11/17]</ref> university fees were [[Timeline of tuition fees in the United Kingdom|raised to £9250]] a year from 2017 in England and Wales. Scotland remained tuition free. University and school finance and governance remains a patchwork system across the UK, without any coherent approach.

[[File:StJohnsCambridge BridgeOfSighs.jpg|thumb|left|Universities are funded by [[List of UK universities by endowment|endowments]], [[Higher Education Funding Council for England|funding councils]] paid for by [[UK tax law|taxation]], and [[tuition fees]] levied on students. [[University of Cambridge|Cambridge]]'s endowment, at £6.25&nbsp;billion is the largest, while [[Tuition fees in the UK|tuition fees]] have been abolished in Scotland and remain highly controversial elsewhere.]]
Universities have three main sources of finance. First, universities may generate income through [[List of UK universities by endowment|endowment trust funds]], accumulated over generations of donations and investment.<ref>In 2016, the [[University of Cambridge]] had combined endowments of £6.25&nbsp;billion, the [[University of Oxford]] £5&nbsp;billion, the [[University of Edinburgh]] £342&nbsp;million, the [[University of Manchester]] £196&nbsp;million and [[King's College, London]] £194&nbsp;million. By contrast, the two largest US endowment funds are [[Harvard]] $34&nbsp;billion and [[Yale]] $25&nbsp;billion.</ref> Second, under the [[Further and Higher Education Act 1992]] there are [[Research Funding in the UK|funding councils]] paid for through [[general taxation]] for [[Higher Education Funding Council for England|England]], [[Higher Education Funding Council for Wales|Wales]], [[Scottish Funding Council|Scotland]] and [[Department for Employment and Learning|Northern Ireland]]. For England and Wales, the Secretary of State appoints twelve to fifteen members and the chair, of which six to nine should be academics and the remainder with "industrial, commercial or financial" backgrounds. Funds are administered at the funding councils' discretion but must consult with "bodies representing the interests of higher education institutions" such as the [[University and College Union]] and [[Universities UK]].<ref>[[Further and Higher Education Act 1992]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/13/part/II ss 62–69]. {{cite legislation UK |type=act |year=2017 |chapter=29 |act=Higher Education and Research Act 2017 |section=1 |date=27 April 2017}}, establishing the Office for Students</ref> Further, there are seven [[research council (United Kingdom)|research council]]s ([[Arts and Humanities Research Council|AHRC]], [[ESRC]], [[Medical Research Council (United Kingdom)|MRC]], etc.) which distribute funds after [[Haldane principle|peer review]] of applications by academics conducting research.<ref>The [[Higher Education and Research Act 2017]] renamed the umbrella body "[[UK Research and Innovate]]" and added "Innovate UK" and "Research England". {{cite legislation UK|type=act|year=2017|chapter=29|act=Higher Education and Research Act 2017|section=92|date=27 April 2017}}</ref> Third, and most controversially, most funding comes from charging students fees. After the [[Second World War]], [[tuition fees in the UK]] were effectively abolished and [[Local government in England|local authorities]] paid [[maintenance grants]]. The [[Education Act 1962]] formally required this position for all UK residents,<ref>{{cite legislation UK |type=act |year=1962 |chapter=12 |act=Education Act 1962 |section=1 |date=29 March 1962}}</ref> and this continued through the expansion of university places recommended by the [[Robbins Report]] of 1963.<ref>{{cite book |publisher=Committee on Higher Education |title=Higher education: report of the Committee appointed by the Prime Minister under the Chairmanship of Lord Robbins 1961–63 |date=23 September 1963 |url=http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131030011903/http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=30 October 2013 |id=Cmnd 2154}}</ref> However, over the 1980s and 1990s, grants were diminished, requiring students to become ever more reliant on their parents' wealth. Further, appointed in 1996, the [[Dearing Report]] argued for the introduction of [[tuition fees]] because it said graduates had "improved employment prospects and pay."<ref>{{cite book |publisher=The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education |title=Higher Education in the learning society: Main Report |date=1997 |chapter-url=http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997.html#18 |url=http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150211022652/http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=11 February 2015 |chapter=18: Who should pay for higher education? |page=24}}</ref> Instead of funding university through [[progressive tax]], the [[Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998]] permitted £1,000 fees for home students. In England, this rose to £3,000 in the [[Higher Education Act 2004]], and £9,000 after the [[Browne Review]] in 2010 led by the former CEO of oil corporation [[BP]].<ref>{{cite book |publisher=[[Browne Review]] |title=Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance |date=2010}}</ref> In 2017, the limit on fees was £9,250 for students in England,<ref>{{cite web |title=Higher Education (Higher Amount) (England) Regulations 2016: Regulation 6 |website=[[legislation.gov.uk]] |publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] |date=13 December 2016 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1206/regulation/6/made |id=SI 2016/1206 (reg. 6)}}</ref> £9,000 in Wales,<ref>{{cite web |title=Higher Education (Amounts) (Wales) Regulations 2015: Regulation 3 |website=[[legislation.gov.uk]] |publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] |date=7 July 2015 |id=SI 2016/1496 (reg. 3) |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2015/1496/regulation/3/made |quote=the prescribed maximum amount [...] is £9,000.}}</ref> and £3,805 in Northern Ireland. Until "[[Brexit]]", the same rates applied for EU students, who could be discriminated against under [[EU law]],<ref>e.g. ''[[Commission v Austria]]'' (2005) C-147/03</ref> but after 2020 EU students were charged at international fee rates. By contrast, the Scottish government resolved not to introduce tuition fees for students under 25.<ref>[[Scotland Act 1998]] ss 28–29 and Sch 6 leaves higher education fees as a devolved matter. See also ''[[Brown v Secretary of State for Scotland]]'' (1988) {{CELEX|61986CJ0197|text=Case 197/86}}</ref> For English universities, the [[Higher Education Act 2004]] enables the Secretary of State to set fee limits, while universities are meant to ensure "fair access" by drafting a "plan" for "equality of opportunity".<ref>[[Higher Education Act 2004]] ss 23–24 (SS sets fees up to a 'higher amount') and 31–34 (Director of Fair Access requires fee-charging university plans).</ref> There is no limit on [[international students]] fees, which are often double or triple home student fee rates, and universities aim to boost international student numbers to get more fees. A system of [[Student loans in the United Kingdom|student loans]] is available for UK students through the government-owned [[Student Loans Company]]. [[Student loans in the United Kingdom|Means-tested grants]] were also available, but abolished for students who began university after August 2016. Students typically qualify for loans (or previously grants) if they have been resident for three years in the UK.<ref>''[[R (Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing]]'' (2005) C-209/03</ref> As the UK is in a minority of countries to still charge tuition fees, increasing demands have been made to abolish fees on the ground that they burden people without wealthy families in debt, deter disadvantaged students from education, and escalate [[income inequality]].

[[File:Maughan-library-1.jpg|thumb|right|Almost all universities by law require staff and student representation in the governing body.<ref>An exception is that section 15 of the [[King's College London Act 1997]], which requires thirteen elected members, but these were abolished in 2009. {{Cite web |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1997/3/section/15/enacted |title=King's College London Act 1997: Section 15 |website=[[legislation.gov.uk]] |publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] |date=31 July 1997 |id=1997 c. iii (s. 15)}}</ref>]]
[[Governance in higher education|Governance]] of universities is set by each university's constitution, typically deriving from an [[Act of Parliament]], a [[royal charter]] or an [[Order in Council]] issued by the [[Privy Council of the United Kingdom|Privy Council]]. The most progressive models support a high degree of voice for staff and students. Reforms were first put into law after the Oxford University Commission of 1852 stated it must reverse "successive interventions by which the government of the University was reduced to a narrow oligarchy."<ref>{{cite book |publisher=Oxford University Commission |title=Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into State, Discipline, Studies and Revenues of University and Colleges of Oxford |date=1852 |page=8}}. [[Oxford University Act 1854]] ss 16 and 21, cf [http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/statutes/781-121.shtml Statute IV] and VI. Oxford University Council Regulations 13 of 2002, regs 4–10. {{cite journal |first=E. |last=McGaughey |title=Votes at Work in Britain: Shareholder Monopolisation and the 'Single Channel' |date=2017 |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=2432068 |journal=Industrial Law Journal|doi=10.2139/ssrn.2432068 |s2cid=203001380 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> For example, since the [[Cambridge University Act 1856]] set its rules in law,<ref>Cambridge University Act 1856 ss 5 and 12</ref> [[Cambridge University]]'s statutes require that its [[Regent House]] (mostly full-time university members) elects its governing body, the 23 member council. Four members are elected by heads of colleges, four by professors and readers, eight by other academic fellows, three by students, four by a "grace" (a vote) of the whole [[Regent House]].<ref>Cambridge University [http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/pdfs/statutea.pdf Statute A, chs I-IV] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201030724/http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/pdfs/statutea.pdf |date=1 December 2017 }}, and ch IV(2) on voting rights.</ref> Other universities have a broad variety of governance structures, although if there is not a special statute or constitution, the highly minimalist rules are set by the [[Education Reform Act 1988]]. This says that university governing bodies with constitutions issued by the [[Privy Council of the United Kingdom|Privy Council]] should have between 12 and 24 members, with up to thirteen lay members, up to two teachers, up to two students, and between one and nine members co-opted by the others.<ref>[[Education Reform Act 1988]] ss 124A, 128, Schs 7 and [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/schedule/7A 7A, para 3] (on constitutions by Privy Council)</ref> Universities are subject to both [[judicial review]] and students may enforce rights through [[English contract law|contract law]] since universities are seen as having both an equally "public" and "private" nature.<ref>For example, ''[[R (Evans) v University of Cambridge]]'' [1998] Ed CR 151, [1998] ELR 515, Sedley J allowing a claim for Dr Evans to challenge not being promoted to reader on grounds of a hostile faculty member taking part in a review. ''[[R (Persaud) v University of Cambridge]]'' [2001] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/534.html EWCA Civ 534], judicial review allowed for astronomy PhD candidate being failed after it was shown that the process was unfair.</ref> In a leading case of ''[[Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside]]'' a student claimed that she should not have received a third class degree after her computer crashed, she lost an assignment, and was forced to rush a new one.<ref>[2000] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/129.html EWCA Civ 129]</ref> The Court of Appeal held that her application for both breach of contract and judicial review should not be struck out because there could be a good case to hear, so long as it did seek to overturn "issues of academic or pastoral judgment" where "any judgment of the courts would be jejune and inappropriate". However, the shorter time limit of three months in judicial review was more appropriate than six years in contract.<ref>[2000] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/129.html EWCA Civ 129], [17] and [30]–[35]</ref> Cases which have sought to challenge academic judgment for failing students are typically bound to fail, as grading with a fair process is in the bounds of academic judgment.<ref>For example, ''[[Gajree v Open University]]'' [2006] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/831.html EWCA Civ 831] holding there was no reasonable prospect of success for a paper getting 38% and failing. ''[[Abramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice]]'' [2011] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/613.html EWHC 613 (QB)] claimed an LPC had no guidance on taking exams, or giving feedback. The High Court held the claimant was ‘ready to blame anyone but herself for her misfortunes’. ''[[Siddiqui v University of Oxford]]'' [2016] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/3150.html] EWHC 3150 (QB)  allowing a claim to go to trial.</ref> In ''[[Buckland v Bournemouth University]]'', where the university management interfered with the academic assessment of student grades, this founded a right for a professor to claim he was constructively and unfairly dismissed.<ref>''Buckland v Bournemouth University'' [2010] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/121.html EWCA Civ 121]</ref> All access to education must be free from unlawful discrimination under the [[Equality Act 2010]].<ref>[[Equality Act 2010]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/6/chapter/2 ss 90–94, 98–99, 116]. Historically, the [[Universities Tests Act 1871]] required universities to allow non-conformists (i.e. non-Anglican) entry.  The [[Higher Education Act 2004]] provides for a complaints procedure to be followed in universities. {{cite web |url=http://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/8/Part/2/enacted |title=Higher Education Act 2004: Part 2 |website=[[legislation.gov.uk]] |publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] |date=1 July 2004 |id=2004 c. 8 (ss. 11–21) }}{{Dead link|date=July 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

;Schools
There are at least five different kinds of school: [[Comprehensive school (England and Wales)|comprehensive schools]] that are publicly owned and run, [[grammar schools]] in some counties that have selective admissions, [[academy (English school)|academies]] that are mainly public but enable some private contributions and governance, and private [[Independent school (United Kingdom)|fee-paying schools]] that depend on charging parents money for tuition. Some schools also apply for "[[Specialist schools programme|specialist]]" status if they focus on particular curriculum topics.
*[[Labour of Children, etc., in Factories Act 1833]]
*[[Public Schools Act 1868]], following the [[Clarendon Commission]] removed charity schools from government or education department oversight, and now the main [[UK private schools]]
*[[Elementary Education Act 1870]], five to twelve-year-olds, school boards providing universal primary education
*[[Education Act 1902]], abolished 2,568 school boards and instituted 328 [[local education authority|local education authorities]] in their place, following the ''[[Cockerton judgment]]''
*[[Education (Provision of Meals) Act 1906]], introduced [[free school meals]]
*[[Education (Administrative Provisions) Act 1907]], medical services
*[[Education Act 1918]], school leaving age raised to fourteen years, maximum class size of thirty
*[[Education Act 1944]], attempted foundation of a tripartite secondary school system, every child got free school meals, until 1949 when it was 2.5 pence
*[[Education Reform Act 1988]], schools could remove themselves from LEA oversight and become "grant-maintained" by central government, headteachers getting financial control, academic tenure abolished, national curriculum with key stages, league tables
*[[Education Act 1996]], teacher training, and opt-out from students' unions
*[[School Standards and Framework Act 1998]], thirty infant pupil class size limit, replaced "grant-maintained schools" with "foundation status" meaning money is channelled from central government through the LEA, restrictions on selection
*[[Learning and Skills Act 2000]] and [[Education Act 2002]] and [[Academies Act 2010]], allowed for academies outside national curriculum and autonomy over teacher pay
*[[Education Act 2005]], Ofsted inspections
*[[Education and Inspections Act 2006]], trust schools
*[[General Teaching Council for England|General Teaching Councils]] and code

;Libraries
*[[Museums Act 1845]]
*[[Public Libraries Act 1850]]
*[[British Library Act 1972]]

===Health and care===
{{Clist health}}
{{main|UK health law|National Health Service|National Health Service (England)|Healthcare in the UK|Private medicine in the UK}}
Like education, there is a [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights|universal right]] to "health and well-being" including "medical care and necessary social services".<ref>[[UDHR 1948]] [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Article_25 art 25]. See also [[European Social Charter 1961]] Part I, art 11, states "Everyone has the right to benefit from any measures enabling him to enjoy the highest possible standard of health attainable." [[ICESCR 1966]] [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx art 12(1)] acknowledges "the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health." [[CFREU 2000]] [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#Article_35_.E2.80.93_Health_care art 35] requires a "right to benefit from medical treatment" under national law and a "high level of human health protection". [[ECHR 1950]] [https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680063765 arts 2, 3 and 8] (right to life, no torture, private and family life) set only the most minimum standards, although exceptions to most rights refer to protection of health.</ref> The [[National Health Service]], founded in 1946, has consistently been seen as one of the most important aspects of the [[United Kingdom constitutional law|UK's constitution]],<ref>See S Fredman, 'New horizons: incorporating socio-economic rights in a British Bill of Rights' [2010] [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1631774 Public Law 297], 299, citing [[Ministry of Justice]], ''Rights and Responsibilities: Developing our Constitutional Framework'' (2009) [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228938/7577.pdf Cm 7577], para 1.11 (ranking the NHS as a landmark next to the [[Magna Carta]]) and Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust, ''State of the Nation 2006'' (2006) finding an ICM poll 88% of people said the right to NHS hospital treatment in a reasonable time should be in any future [[Bill of rights]], compared to 89% who wanted to include the right to a fair trial before a jury.</ref> and goes considerably beyond international human rights standards. Its founding principle, that everyone should receive health care free, as a right, is usually seen as politically "untouchable", and is consistently rated as the UK's most popular institution.<ref>e.g. P Armstrong, 'Socialized healthcare: The 'untouchable' of UK politics' (5 May 2010) [http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/23/britain.nhs/index.html CNN]. British Future, ''State of the Nation'' (2013) [http://www.britishfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/State-of-the-Nation-2013.pdf 16–18 and 26] polling 2,515 people in 2012. See further, 'Public satisfaction with the NHS' (2016) [https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/public-satisfaction-nhs#_016-survey www.kingsfund.org.uk]</ref> However, the details of funding and governing health have been volatile and contested. The UK has among the world's highest life expectancy (82.8 years in 2015), but spends a relatively low amount of money on its service (9.7 per cent of GDP in 2016).<ref>See OECD, ''Health Expenditure and Financing'' (2017) at [http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_STAT stats.oecd.org]</ref> Since the [[Health and Social Care Act 2012]] changed its governance, health care expenditure rose dramatically without visible health gains.<ref name="auto3">Between 2012 and 2013, from 8.5% to 9.9% of GDP, or US$3069.7 per capita to US$3613.1, calculated by the [[OECD]] at 2010 prices: [http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_STAT stats.oecd.org]</ref> The [[National Health Service]] is funded directly by the [[UK Treasury]] from [[UK tax law|general taxation]], which requires no citizen to buy insurance, or pay upfront costs (except for capped, and means tested [[prescription charge]]s for medicines, dental and optical service in England.<ref>n.b. The first [[Minister for Health]], [[Aneurin Bevan]] from the Labour Party leadership over introduction of charges for dental and optical services.</ref> [[NHS Scotland|Scotland]], [[NHS Wales|Wales]] or [[Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland|Northern Ireland]] scrapped prescription charges).<ref>See '[https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nhs-prescription-charges-from-april-2017 NHS prescription charges from April 2017]' (16 March 2017). See also, 'NHS Prescription Charges' (2012) [http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/nhs-prescription-charges politics.co.uk]</ref> According to the [[NHS Constitution for England]] art 1(2), "Access to NHS services is based on clinical need, not an individual's ability to pay".<ref>[[Department of Health]], ''NHS Constitution for England'' (27 July 2015) [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480482/NHS_Constitution_WEB.pdf art 1(2)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170602185654/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480482/NHS_Constitution_WEB.pdf |date=2 June 2017 }}</ref> Health care is a [[Devolution in the United Kingdom|devolved matter]], but each [[Countries of the United Kingdom|country of the UK]] organised its health system following the model in the proposals of the landmark ''[[Beveridge Report]]'' of 1942.<ref>''Social Insurance and Allied Services'' (1942) [https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.275849/2015.275849.The-Beveridge#page/n0/mode/2up Cmd 6404], [https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.275849/2015.275849.The-Beveridge#page/n11/mode/2up/search/free ch 1, 11], "Medical treatment covering all requirements will be provided for all citizens by a national health service organised under the health departments..."</ref> The Beveridge model of health provision, common to countries like [[Healthcare in Denmark|Denmark]], [[Healthcare in Sweden|Sweden]] or [[Healthcare in Greece|Greece]], removed the requirement of contributions by workers under the [[National Insurance Act 1911]].<ref>BB Gilbert, 'The British National Insurance Act of 1911 and the Commercial Insurance Lobby' (1965) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/175149 4(2) Journal of British Studies 127]</ref> [[National health insurance|Insurance systems]] continue in countries like [[Health care in France|France]], [[Healthcare in Germany|Germany]],<ref>Established by the Gesetz betreffend die Krankenversicherung der Arbeiter vom 15. Juni 1883, and now regulated by the ''[[Sozialgesetzbuch]]''</ref> or the [[Healthcare in the United States|United States]].<ref>Regulated by the [[Public Health Service Act of 1944]], [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010]], held constitutional in ''[[National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius]]'' [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf 567 US 519] (2012)</ref> As the UK government bears the cost of health care, and the potential to profit from people being ill is eliminated, the government has a strong incentive to improve [[public health]] with measures like the [[Public Health Act 1961]], the [[Health and Safety at Work Act 1974]], or the [[Environmental Protection Act 1990]].

[[File:Anenurin Bevan, Minister of Health, on the first day of the National Health Service, 5 July 1948 at Park Hospital, Davyhulme, near Manchester (14465908720).jpg|thumb|left|[[Aneurin Bevan]] at a Manchester hospital on the NHS's [[History of the National Health Service|first day]] in 1948. He later said that to get the hospital consultants to join the NHS "Ultimately I had to stuff their mouths with gold".<ref>{{cite book|last=Bevan|first=Aneurin|author-link=Aneurin Bevan|editor=Charles Webster|editor-link= Charles Webster (historian of medicine)|title=Aneurin Bevan on the National Health Service|year=1991|publisher=University of Oxford Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine|location=Oxford|isbn=0906844096|pages=219–220|contributor=Charles Webster|contribution=Note on "Stuffing their Mouth with Gold"}}</ref> Today, the NHS has universal support and has among the world's best health outcomes for money spent.<ref>See OECD, [https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm Health Spending] and [Health Statistics].</ref>]]
National Health Service governance has seen three phases of change. While the [[NHS Constitution]] states patients and staff should be "involved" and "engaged", the actual right of stakeholders to [[vote]] has been slow.<ref>[[NHS Constitution for England]] (2015) [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480482/NHS_Constitution_WEB.pdf arts 3a (on patient rights and involvement) and 4a (on staff rights and engagement)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170602185654/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480482/NHS_Constitution_WEB.pdf |date=2 June 2017 }}</ref> First, and originally, the [[NHS Act 1946]] created a system of 14 [[regional hospital board]]s that would pay for staff, buildings and equipment at hospitals, and gave grants to local health authorities in each [[Subdivisions of England|council]] which ran health centres overseen by "executive councils".<ref>[[National Health Service Act 1946]] ss 11–14 and Sch 3 ([[regional hospital board]]s), ss 19–52 and Schs 4–5 (local health authorities and executive councils).</ref> The [[Minister of Health]] (with [[Whitehall]] civil servants) appointed the regional boards, while executive councils and local health authorities were medical professional representatives (though not necessarily elected), local government and Minister appointees.<ref>[[NHS Act 1946]] s 19 and Sch 5</ref> In [[National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973|1973]], regional hospital boards were renamed [[regional health authority (UK)|regional health authorities]], and 90 [[area health authority|area health authorities]] plus 205 [[List of district health authorities in England and Wales|district health authorities]] took over from the more numerous local health authorities, while the government aimed to give stakeholders more direct voting rights in all.<ref>e.g. ''Democracy in the National Health Service'' (21 May 1974) [http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-129-176-c-49.pdf C(74)49] remarking how despite some advantages in "the separation of functions" between management, staff and oversight by patients, "total separation is to challenge in a fundamental way the essence of democratic control". It sought "real devolution to those operating the service".</ref> Second, from the [[NHS and Community Care Act 1990]] health authorities had to predict and account for their spending, and contract for their purchases of medical services from [[NHS trust]]s, which would compete among one another to sell health services. This did not yet mean that private companies could also compete, although the [[NHS (Private Finance) Act 1997]] enabled the Secretary of State to approve "[[private finance initiative]]" schemes to borrow money for, or lease, the building and running of health facilities from private contractors (e.g. [[Telereal Trillium Ltd]], [[Innisfree Ltd]] or [[HSBC Infrastructure Co Ltd]]). From 1995 to 2006 a new [[NHS Executive]] was created to manage the NHS in England, but was reabsorbed into the [[Department of Health]]. The executive or department oversaw [[strategic health authority|strategic health authorities]] (28 reduced to 10), and [[primary care trust]]s (303 reduced to 101) which provided health services, and bought or "commissioned" "[[secondary care]]" health services (e.g. from a specialist doctor). From [[Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003|2003]], [[NHS foundation trust]]s were created, which could borrow money without [[Department of Health]] approval.<ref>[[National Health Service Act 2006|NHSA 2006]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/41/part/2/chapter/5/crossheading/financial-matters ss 40–42]</ref> Under the [[National Health Service Act 2006]] Schedule 7, its "council of governors" must have a constitution where at least three governors (but under half) must be elected by the foundation trust's employees, at least one by nearby local authorities, one by a university (if any) in the area.<ref name="auto4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/41/schedule/7/data.htm|title=National Health Service Act 2006|website=www.legislation.gov.uk}}</ref> A trust's constitution is free to enable residents, employees or patients to vote, although the law does not fix rules.<ref name="auto4"/> Third, instead of enabling NHS Foundation Trusts to take purchasing in-house, the [[Health and Social Care Act 2012]] set up around 200 [[clinical commissioning group]]s (CCGs) to replace [[primary care trust]]s.<ref>[[HSCA 2012]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/part/1 ss 9–10] and [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/part/1/crossheading/abolition-of-strategic-health-authorities-and-primary-care-trusts ss 33–34]</ref> CCGs are funded and mediated by [[NHS England]].<ref>[[NHSA 2006]] s 1H referring to the "NHS Commissioning Board", which is branded as NHS England, inserted by [[Health and Social Care Act 2012|HSCA 2012]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/section/9 s 9].</ref> According to the [[Health and Social Care Act 2012|HSCA 2012]], a clinical commissioning group is a "body corporate" that should buy services, with members who can set pay for themselves.<ref>[[National Health Service Act 2006|NHSA 2006]] s 1I and Sch 1A paras 10 and 13(1) "A clinical commissioning group may pay members of its governing body such remuneration and travelling or other allowances as it considers appropriate." Inserted by [[HSCA 2012]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/section/10 s 10] and [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/schedule/2 Sch 2, para 1].</ref> A CCG must include at least six members (many came from abolished [[primary care trust]]s, [[general practitioner]]s or private business), with one person qualified in accounting or finance, a nurse, a secondary care specialist, and two lay people who understand finance and the local area.<ref>[[National Health Service (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Regulations 2012]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1631/regulation/11/made regs 11–12]</ref> Two central features of the [[Health and Social Care Act 2012]] were that section 75 required commissioning was subjected to [[competition law]] (i.e. CCGs are potentially unable to cooperate to [[Inequality of bargaining power|bargain down]] drug company prices, etc.),<ref>[[HSCA 2012]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/section/75 s 75]</ref> and section 165 enabled [[NHS foundation trust]]s to derive up to 49% of their income from private work.<ref>See [[NHSA 2006]] s 44(6), after amendments by [[HSCA 2012]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/section/165 s 165]. E Jackson (2016) 44, quoting King's Fund, says the HSCA 2012 has not privatised the NHS but fragmenting structures will "have been profoundly damaging". It "seems likely that the massive organisational changes... contributed to widespread financial distress and failure to hit key targets for patient care..."</ref> In theory, [[clinical commissioning group]]s are meant not to discriminate, seek the best "value for money" and avoid [[conflicts of interest]] when buying services.<ref>NHS (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No 2) Regulations 2013 [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/500/part/2/made regs 3–6]</ref> However, the enforcement of the prohibition on conflicts of interest requires costly [[judicial review]], while derivative claims by patients or staff are excluded without membership. Although CCGs are under a duty to "involve" patients and the public in decision-making,<ref>[[NHSA 2006]] ss 14U and 14Z2 inserted by [[HSCA 2012]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/section/26 s 26]</ref> those stakeholders can be ignored because unlike in [[NHS foundation trust]]s they have no right to [[vote]]. The [[Care Quality Commission]] and a subordinate [[Healthwatch England]] network is meant to inspect and maintain standards.

[[File:Save the NHS demonstration 70 (33286111475).jpg|right|thumb|The [[Health and Social Care Act 2012]] changes, and the [[private finance initiative]] have been opposed by protests and groups like "[[Keep Our NHS Public]]". Since 2012, with more private money, the cost of the NHS has risen without better outcomes.<ref name="auto3"/>]]
Although rights to vote are lacking, patients have some rights to bring claims in court over levels of service. First, the [[Secretary of State for Health]] is meant to improve the "physical and mental health of the people" and "have regard to the need to reduce inequalities" in health.<ref>[[NHSA 2006]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/part/1 ss 1A-C] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/41/part/1/crossheading/provision-of-particular-services and 3] (service provision)</ref> These duties, however, are difficult to enforce in practice because the courts give wide discretion to ministers in [[judicial review]]. Second, it is possible to sue in [[English tort law|tort]] for [[medical negligence]] if operations go wrong. This is controversial because (unlike New Zealand's [[Accident Compensation Corporation]]) claims require litigation, and substantial sums of money go to lawyers, instead of the person who is harmed and withdraws resources for other NHS patients. Third, challenges can be brought over the refusal to provide treatment, although they are unlikely to succeed. For instance, in ''[[R (B) v Cambridge Health Authority]]'' parents claimed their 11-year-old girl should receive a second [[bone marrow transplant]] for [[myeloid leukemia]], even though doctors said success was 20% likely and would cause "considerable suffering".<ref>[1995] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1995/43.html EWCA Civ 43]</ref> Although [[Laws J]] held that refusal was inadequate,<ref>Doctors had to ‘do more than toll the bell of tight resources. They must explain the priorities that have led them to decline to fund the treatment.’</ref> [[Sir Thomas Bingham MR]] held the health authority acted rationally and fairly.<ref>"Difficult and agonising judgments have to be made as to how a limited budget is best allocated to the maximum advantage of the maximum number of patients. That is not a judgment which the court can make. In my judgment, it is not something that a health authority such as this Authority can be fairly criticised for not advancing before the court."</ref> After the case, because of the [[tabloid journalism|tabloid]] campaign, a donor paid for £75,000 in private treatment, but the operation failed.<ref>{{cite news |first=P. |last=Toynbee |title=Jaymee and final choices: The story behind the story |date=22 May 1996 |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/jaymee-and-final-choices-the-story-behind-the-story-1348662.html |newspaper=The Independent}}</ref> By contrast in ''[[R (Coughlan) v North and East Devon HA]]'' Mrs Coughlan successfully claimed to remain at the "Mardon House" care home after an accident left her [[tetraplegic]] and she was promised it was a "home for life". [[Lord Woolf MR]] held in [[judicial review]] that the promise generated a "legitimate expectation" that was "equivalent to a breach of contract in private law", which could not be unilaterally withdrawn, even if the Secretary of State was concerned about cost.<ref>[1999] EWCA Civ 1871</ref> Further, in ''[[R (Ann Marie Rogers) v Swindon Primary Care Trust]]'' [[Sir Anthony Clarke MR]] held that a [[primary care trust]]'s reasons for refusing Rogers [[Herceptin]] treatment for breast cancer were inadequate. This drug was yet not approved by the [[National Institute for Health and Care Excellence]], but simply stating Rogers' case was not "exceptional" (as other people were refused the drug) was not a reason in itself, and its decision was therefore irrational.<ref>[2006] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/392.html EWCA Civ 392]</ref> Within the [[European Union]], British residents also have the right to move to other member states for treatment and be reimbursed if NHS waiting lists happen to be unreasonably long, assessed by objective criteria.<ref>[[NHSA 2006]] s 6BB, following from [[TFEU]] art 57 and the [[Patients' Rights Directive 2011]] (2011/24/EU). This is summarised in the Department of Health, NHS Constitution for England (27 July 2015) arts 3a(iv) ‘in certain circumstances, to go to other European Economic Area countries or Switzerland’ for services available on the NHS.</ref> For example, in ''[[R (Watts) v Bedford Primary Care Trust]]'', Mrs Watts paid £3900 for a [[hip replacement]] operation in France after the NHS waiting lists were 4 to 6 months, and successfully claimed that she should be reimbursed by the NHS.<ref>(2006) {{CELEX|62004CJ0372|text=C-372/04}}, {{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:2006:325}}. See also ''[[Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds; Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen]]'' (2001) {{CELEX|61999CJ0157|text=C-157/99}}, {{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:2001:404}}</ref> But these rights to move for health and be reimbursed by the NHS may be removed if the UK leaves the EU and the [[single market]]. No charges can be applied by the NHS to people who are "ordinarily resident" in the UK,<ref>[[National Health Service Act 2006]] ss 175</ref> although controversially the Conservative government introduced a "duty" on hospitals and health services to charge overseas visitors if they fall sick. Given the tiny number of cases, most health services refused to charge patients even when they could, because of disproportionate bureaucratic cost, and compassion.<ref>[[National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015]] regs 3–9 (charges cannot be made for emergency treatment).</ref> Another issue of migration, is that a deportation of an illegal migrant is very unlikely to be delayed by ill-health. In ''[[N v United Kingdom]]'', the [[European Court of Human Rights]] held that a citizen of [[Uganda]] had no right under [[ECHR article 3]] to delay deportation, even though health treatment for [[HIV/AIDS]] was highly unlikely there.<ref>[2008] ECHR 453. Contrast ''[[D v United Kingdom]]'' (1997) 24 EHRR 423, where deportation was delayed due to the patient's imminent death.</ref> The UK, however, has the option at any time to improve its service beyond the minimum standards of human rights.

;Social care
*[[Social care in the United Kingdom]], [[Social care in England]], [[Social care in Scotland]]
*[[Care Standards Act 2000]], the elderly and disabled
*[[National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990]]
*[[Children Act 1989]] and [[orphanages]]
*[[Health and Social Care Act 2008]]

===Banking===
{{Clist banking}}
{{main|UK banking law|Bank of England|UK insolvency law|UK company law}}
UK banking has two main parts.<ref name="modernbankinglawc1">{{cite book |first1=Eliahu Peter |last1=Ellinger |first2=Eva |last2=Lomnicka |first3=Christopher V. M. |last3=Hare |title=Ellinger's Modern Banking Law |date=2011 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-923209-3 |edition=fifth |chapter=1: The Structure of the British Banking World}}</ref><ref name="modernbankinglawc2">{{cite book |first1=Eliahu Peter |last1=Ellinger |first2=Eva |last2=Lomnicka |first3=Christopher V. M. |last3=Hare |title=Ellinger's Modern Banking Law |date=2011 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-923209-3 |edition=fifth |chapter=2: The Control of Banking Activities in the United Kingdom}}</ref><ref name="modernbankinglawc5">{{cite book |first1=Eliahu Peter |last1=Ellinger |first2=Eva |last2=Lomnicka |first3=Christopher V. M. |last3=Hare |title=Ellinger's Modern Banking Law |date=2011 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-923209-3 |edition=fifth |chapter=5: The Consumer Credit Act 1974}}</ref> First, the [[Bank of England]] administers [[monetary policy]], influencing [[interest rates]], inflation and employment, and it regulates the banking market with [[HM Treasury]], the [[Prudential Regulation Authority (United Kingdom)|Prudential Regulation Authority]] and [[Financial Conduct Authority]]. Second, there are private banks, and some non-shareholder banks (co-operatives, mutual or [[building societies]]), that provide [[credit (finance)|credit]] to consumer and business clients. Borrowing money on credit (and repaying the [[debt]]{{efn|[[Debt capital]] finance contrasts with [[equity capital]] finance, where an investor buys shares, invariably with voting rights, in a company. Debt finance usually keeps the borrower in control of their business, subject to any restrictive covenants and the need to repay the debt.}} later) is important for people to expand a business, invest in a new enterprise, or purchase valuable assets more quickly than by saving. Every day, banks estimate the prospects of a borrower succeeding or failing, and set interest rates for debt repayments according to their predictions of the risk (or average risk of ventures like it). If all banks together lend more money, this means enterprises will do more, potentially employ more people, and if business ventures are productive in the long run, society's prosperity will increase. If banks charge interest that people cannot afford, or if banks lend too much money to ventures that are unproductive, economic growth will slow, stagnate, and sometimes crash. Although UK banks, except the [[Bank of England]], are shareholder or mutually owned, many countries operate public retail banks (for consumers) and public investment banks (for business). The UK used to run [[Girobank]] for consumers, and there have been many proposals for a "[[British Investment Bank]]" (like the [[Nordic Investment Bank]] or [[KfW]] in Germany) since the [[2008 financial crisis]], but these proposals have not yet been accepted.

[[File:London MMB »2C0 Royal Exchange.jpg|left|thumb|The Bank of England acts as the UK's central bank, influencing interest rates paid by private banks, to achieve targets in inflation, growth and employment.]]
The Bank of England provides finance and support to, and may influence interest rates of the private banks through monetary policy. It was originally established as a corporation with private shareholders under the [[Bank of England Act 1694]],<ref>Bank of England Act 1694 5 & 6 Will & Mar c 20.</ref>{{efn|The [[Bank of England Act 1716]] widened its borrowing power. The [[Bank Restriction Act 1797]] removed a requirement to convert notes to gold on demand. The [[Bank Charter Act 1844]] gave the bank sole rights to issue notes and coins.}} to raise money for war with [[Louis XIV]], [[King of France]]. After the [[South Sea Company]] collapsed in a [[South Sea Bubble|speculative bubble]] in 1720, the Bank of England became the dominant financial institution, and acted as a banker to the UK government and other private banks.<ref name="modernbankinglawc2"/>{{rp|30}} This meant, simply by being the biggest financial institution, it could influence interest rates that other banks charged to businesses and consumers by altering its interest rate for the banks' bank accounts.{{efn|So, if the Bank of England raised its interest rate for [[Barings Bank]]'s account with it, Barings would probably try to raise its interest rates for customers with Barings Bank accounts (unless competition was very tight, in which case its profits would have to be reduced).}} It also acted as a lender through the 19th century in emergencies to finance banks facing collapse.<ref>{{cite book |first=Walter |last=Bagehot |author-link=Walter Bagehot |title=Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market |date=1873 |edition=third |publisher=[[Seymour King|Henry S. King & Co.]] |location=London}}, discussing [[Overend, Gurney and Co]]</ref> Because of its power, many believed the Bank of England should have more public duties and supervision. The [[Bank of England Act 1946]] nationalised it. Its current constitution, and guarantees of a degree of operational independence from government, is found in the [[Bank of England Act 1998]]. Under section 1, the bank's executive body, the court of directors is "appointed by Her Majesty", which in effect is the prime minister.{{efn|By contrast, the US [[Federal Reserve Act of 1913]], 12 USC §241, requires that on advice and consent of the Senate, appointments by the President ‘shall have due regard to a fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial and commercial interests, and geographical divisions of the country.’ Under §302, in the Federal Reserve system of constituent banks, three are chosen by and to represent stockholding banks, six others, represent the public and elected to represent stakeholders.}}{{efn|In the EU, article 283(2) of the [[Treaty of Rome]] states that the [[European Central Bank]]'s executive board (a president, vice president and four members) are appointed by the [[European Council]] by [[qualified majority]], after consulting the [[European Parliament]] and the governing council of the ECB. The governing council is itself the executive board plus governors of the national central banks using the [[euro]]. The term is eight years, non-renewable, and they can only be removed for gross misconduct after review by the [[Court of Justice of the European Union]].<ref>ECB Statute [https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/c_32620121026en_protocol_4.pdf arts 10–11].</ref>}} This includes the [[governor of the Bank of England]] (currently [[Mark Carney]]) and up to 14 directors in total (currently there are twelve, nine men and three women<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Bank of England |url=https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/court-of-directors |title=Court of Directors |website=bankofengland.co.uk}}</ref>).{{efn|Section 1A of the [[Bank of England Act 1998]] allows the Treasury to add directors, or reduce the number of directors, after consultation, with some limitations.}} The governor may serve for a maximum of eight years, deputy governors for a maximum of ten years,<ref>Bank of England Act 1998 Sch 1, paras 1–2</ref> but they may be removed only if they acquire a political position, begin to work for the bank, are absent for over three months, become bankrupt, or "is unable or unfit to discharge his functions as a member".<ref>Bank of England Act 1998 Sch 1, paras 7–8</ref> This makes removal hard, and potentially judicially reviewable. A sub-committee of directors sets pay for all directors,<ref>Bank of England Act 1998 Sch 1, paras 14</ref> rather than a non-conflicted body like Parliament. The Bank's most important function is administering [[monetary policy]]. Under the Bank of England Act 1998 section 11 its objectives are to (a) "maintain price stability, and (b) subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government, including its objectives for growth and [[Full employment|employment]]."{{efn|In the US, the [[Federal Reserve Act of 1913]], 12 USC §225 states ‘The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of [[maximum employment]], stable prices, and moderate long-term [[interest rates]].’}}{{efn|Under Article 9 of the [[Treaty of Rome]] the EU should aim at a "high level of employment". By contrast, article 3(3) of the [[Treaty on European Union]] ) says it should be "aiming at full employment".<ref>{{cite book |first=Markus |last=Roth |title=Employment as a Goal of Monetary Policy of the European Central Bank |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=2656646 |publisher=University of Marburg |date=5 September 2015 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.2656646 |website=ssrn.com|s2cid=155966795 }}</ref>}} Under section 12, HM Treasury issues its interpretation of "price stability" and "economic policy" each year, together with an inflation target. To change inflation, the [[Bank of England]] has three main policy options.<ref>{{cite book |first=R. |last=Cranston |title=Principles of Banking Law |date=2002 |pages=121–122}}</ref> First, it performs "[[open market operations]]", buying and selling banks' [[bond (finance)|bond]]s at differing rates (i.e. loaning money to banks at higher or lower interest, known "[[discounting]]"), buying back [[government bonds]] ("[[repos]]") or selling them, and giving credit to banks at differing rates.{{efn|In the European Union, article 123 of the [[Treaty of Rome]] contains a prohibition on the European Central Bank lending money to governments, but in ''[[Gauweiler and Others v Deutscher Bundestag]]'' the [[Court of Justice of the European Union]] approved the use of [[outright monetary transactions]] to buy Greek government debt on secondary markets (to support the euro) was lawful.<ref>''Gauweiler and Others v Deutscher Bundestag'', 16 June 2015, {{CELEX|62014CJ0062|text=C-62/14}},  {{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:2015:400}}</ref>}} This will affect the interest rate banks charge by influencing the quantity of money in the economy (more spending by the central bank means more money, and so lower interest) but also may not.<ref>{{cite book |first=R. |last=Cranston |title=Principles of Banking Law |date=2002 |pages=121 |quote=This will typically, in turn, produce a change in the base rates of the banks.}}</ref> Second, the Bank of England may direct banks to keep different higher or lower reserves proportionate to their lending.{{efn|This power comes from the [[Bank of England Act 1946]] s 4(3). No order has been issued, but banks generally comply with the Bank of England's suggested reserve ratios.<ref>{{cite book |first=R. |last=Cranston |title=Principles of Banking Law |date=2002 |pages=121 |quote=The size of the reserves clearly determines the volume of money in circulation and the extent to which a bank can itself extend credit to its customers.}}</ref>}} Third, the Bank of England could direct private banks adopt specific deposit-taking or lending policies, in specified volumes or interest rates.<ref>{{cite book |title=Monetary Control |date=1980 |id=Cmnd 7858}}</ref> The Treasury is, however, only meant to give orders to the Bank of England in "extreme economic circumstances".<ref>[[Bank of England Act 1998]] s 19</ref> This should ensure that changes to monetary policy are undertaken neutrally, and artificial booms are not manufactured before an election.

[[File:Cabot Square, Canary Wharf - June 2008.jpg|thumb|right|The largest UK banks are [[HSBC]], [[Barclays]], the [[Royal Bank of Scotland]] and [[Lloyd's of London|Lloyds]].]]
Outside the central bank, banks are mostly run as profit-making corporations, without meaningful representation for customers. This means, the standard rules in the [[Companies Act 2006]] apply. Directors are usually appointed by existing directors in the [[nomination committee]],<ref>[[Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008]], Sch 3, para 20</ref><ref>[[UK Corporate Governance Code 2016]] section B</ref> unless the members of a company (invariably shareholders) remove them by majority vote.<ref>[[Companies Act 2006]] ss 168-9</ref> Bank directors largely set their own pay, delegating the task to a [[remuneration]] committee of the board.<ref>[[Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008]], Sch 3, para 23 and [[UK Corporate Governance Code 2016]] section D</ref> Most shareholders are [[asset managers]], exercising votes with other people's money that comes through pensions, life insurance or mutual funds, who are meant to engage with boards,<ref>[[UK Corporate Governance Code 2016]], section E</ref> but have few explicit channels to represent the ultimate investors.<ref>{{cite journal |first=E. |last=McGaughey |title=Does corporate governance exclude the ultimate investor? |date=2016 |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=2666955 |journal=Journal of Corporate Law Studies|volume=16 |pages=221–240 |doi=10.1080/14735970.2016.1140411 |s2cid=155640809 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Asset managers rarely sue for breach of directors' duties (for negligence or conflicts of interest), through derivative claims.<ref>[[Companies Act 2006]] ss 170-77, 260-263</ref> However, there is some public oversight through the bank licensing system.{{efn|Before the [[Financial Services and Markets Act 2000]] ss 19–23 and 418-9, the [[Banking Act 1979]] introduced the formal authorisation requirements.}} Under the [[Financial Services and Markets Act 2000]] section 19 there is a "general prohibition" on performing a "regulated activity", including accepting deposits from the public, without authority.<ref>[[Credit Institutions Directive 2013]] ({{CELEX|32013L0036|text=2013/36/EU}}) arts 8–14</ref> The two main UK regulators are the [[Prudential Regulation Authority (United Kingdom)|Prudential Regulation Authority]] and the [[Financial Conduct Authority]]. Once a bank has received authorisation in the UK, or another member state, it may operate throughout the EU under the terms of the host state's rules: it has a "passport" giving it [[freedom of establishment]] in the internal market. Since the [[Credit Institutions Directive 2013]],<ref>[[Credit Institutions Directive 2013]] ({{CELEX|32013L0036|text=2013/36/EU}}) arts 88–96</ref> there are some added governance requirements beyond the general framework: for example, duties of directors must be clearly defined, and there should be a policy on board diversity to ensure gender and ethnic balance. If the UK had employee representation on boards, there would also be a requirement for at least one employee to sit on the remuneration committee,<ref>[[Credit Institutions Directive 2013]] ({{CELEX|32013L0036|text=2013/36/EU}}) art 95, "If employee representation... is provided for by national law, the remuneration committee shall include one or more employee representatives."</ref> but this step has not yet been taken.

[[File:Birmingham Northern Rock bank run 2007.jpg|thumb|left|Government ultimately guarantees the banking system. By 2009, the UK government [[2009 United Kingdom bank rescue package|had been forced to nationalise]] [[Northern Rock]], [[Bradford & Bingley]], the [[Royal Bank of Scotland]] and part of [[HBOS-Lloyds TSB]]. The [[Banking Act 2009]] contains a mechanism to prevent a systemic crisis occurring from banker insolvency.]]
While banks perform an essential economic function, supported by public institutions, the rights of bank customers have generally been limited to contract. In general terms and conditions, customers receive very limited protection. The [[Consumer Credit Act 1974]] sections 140A to 140D prohibit unfair credit relationships, including extortionate interest rates. The [[Consumer Rights Act 2015]] sections 62 to 65 prohibit terms that create contrary to good faith, create a significant imbalance, but the courts have not yet used these rules in a meaningful way for consumers.<ref>''[[Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc]]'' [2009] UKSC 6</ref><ref>''[[Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc]]'' [2001] UKHL 52</ref> Most importantly, since ''[[Foley v Hill]]'' the courts have held customers who deposit money in a bank account lose any rights of property by default: they apparently have only contractual claims in debt for the money to be repaid.<ref>''Foley v Hill'' (1848) 2 HLC 28</ref> If customers did have property rights in their deposits, they would be able to claim their money back upon a bank's insolvency, trace the money if it had been wrongly paid away, and (subject to agreement) claim profits made on the money. However, the courts have denied that bank customers have property rights.{{efn|''[[Vincent v Trustee Savings Banks Central Board]]'' [1986] 1 WLR 1077, denying that the [[Trustee Savings Bank]] customers were, despite the name of the bank, in any trustee-beneficiary relation, either at common law or under statute. The customers, apparently, only had contractual rights.}} The same position has generally spread in banking practice globally, and Parliament has not yet taken the opportunity to ensure banks offer accounts where customer money is protected as property.{{efn|For example, the [[Safety Deposit Current Accounts Bill 2008]] cls 1–2, proposed a proprietary saving account option.}} Because insolvent banks do not, governments have found it necessary to publicly guarantee depositors' savings. This follows the model, started in the [[Great Depression]],<ref>[[Banking Act of 1933]]</ref> the US set up the [[Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation]], to prevent [[bank run]]s. In 2017, the UK guaranteed deposits up to £85,000,<ref>[[Financial Services and Markets Act 2000]] ss 214–215</ref> mirroring an EU-wide minimum guarantee of €100,000.<ref>[[Deposit Guarantee Directive 2014]]/49/EU</ref> Moreover, because of the knock-on consequences of any bank failure, because bank debts are locked into a network of international finance, government has found it practically necessary to prevent banks going insolvent. Under the [[Banking Act 2009]] if a bank is going into insolvency, the government may (and usually will if "the stability of the financial systems" is at stake) pursue one of three "stabilisation options".<ref>[[Banking Act 2009]] ss 1, [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/1/part/1/crossheading/exercise-of-powers-general 7–13]</ref> The Bank of England will either try to ensure the failed bank is sold onto another private sector purchaser, set up a subsidiary company to run the failing bank's assets (a "bridge-bank"), or for the UK Treasury to directly take shares in "temporary public ownership". This will wipe out the shareholders, but will keep creditors' claims intact. One method to prevent bank insolvencies, following the "[[Basel III]]" programme of the international banker group, has been to require banks hold more money in reserve based on how risky their lending is. EU-wide rules in the [[Capital Requirements Regulation 2013]] achieve this in some detail, for instance requiring proportionally less in reserves if sound government debt is held, but more if mortgage-backed securities are held.<ref>(EU) No 575/2013, arts 114–134</ref>

===Gas, oil and coal===
{{further|Oil and gas industry in the UK|Coal mining in the UK|Mining in the UK|Mining in Cornwall and Devon|Shale gas in the UK|Fracking in the UK}}
{{Clist natural resources}}
Coal, oil and gas remain part of the UK's energy sources, despite the pollution and climate damage they cause. Before the [[Industrial Revolution]], timber was the main source of energy and heating. After [[James Watt]]'s [[steam engine]] was patented in 1775, and rail transport developed, coal became the UK's dominant energy source.<ref>See now the [[Coal Industry Act 1994]]. Previously the [[Coal Commission (United Kingdom)|Coal Commission]] from 1933, the [[National Coal Board]], and then [[British Coal]]. Also, [[Atomic Energy Act 1946]], Pt III provides an unused framework for uranium extraction. Uranium deposits are in Scotland.</ref> In the 20th century, with the internal combustion engine, oil and gas displaced coal. In the 21st century, because of critical threat of climate damage, wind, hydro, and solar power, and batteries, are replacing gas, oil and coal. In 2015, the UK's energy consumption was 47% petroleum, 29% natural gas, 18% electricity and 5% other.<ref name=DUKESc1/> The [[Climate Change Act 2008]] requires the UK government to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050.<ref>Originally 80% below Kyoto Protocol levels in 1990, this was changed to 100% by the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 (SI 2019/1056) [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1056/article/2/made art 2]</ref> A difficulty is that the Kyoto Protocol measures countries' production, rather than final consumption, and fails to account for the UK's consuming greenhouse gas intensive products that are imported from countries with lower standards, unless there is a [[border carbon tax]], as the EU has introduced.<ref>[[Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism Regulation 2023]] [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/956/oj 2023/956]</ref> 

[[File:Balcombe anti frack protest.jpg|thumb|left|An anti-fracking protest at a limestone oil well in [[Balcombe]].]]
Although both coal and oil production were publicly owned in the past,<Ref>The [[Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946]] brought coal under government ownership, 27 years after the recommendations (albeit divided) of the [[Coal Industry Commission Act 1919]]. See ''[[Scottish Insurance Corp Ltd v Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd]]'' [1949] AC 462. The [[Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975]] set up the [[British National Oil Corporation]] as a public competitor to the private sector, but was privatised by the following government.</ref> coal, oil and gas extraction is performed today by private corporations under government licence. The largest entities include [[BP]], [[Royal Dutch Shell|Shell]], but also now joined by entirely foreign firms such as [[Apache]], [[Talisman]], [[Canadian Natural Resources|CNR]], [[TAQA]] or [[Cuadrilla Resources|Cuadrilla]].<ref>{{cite book |editor1-first=Martha M. |editor1-last=Roggenkamp |editor2-first=Catherine  |editor2-last=Redgwell |editor3-first=Anita |editor3-last=Rønne |editor4-first=Inigo |editor4-last=del Guayo |title=Energy Law in Europe: National, EU and International Regulation |date=2016 |edition=third |chapter=14: Energy Law in the United Kingdom |first1=Greg |last1=Gordon |first2=Aileen |last2=McHarg |first3=John |last3=Paterson |page=1058 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-871289-3}}</ref> This means that ordinary [[UK company law]] (or [[US corporate law]]) sets the governance rights of oil and gas corporations, with board of directors invariably removable only by shareholders (typically large [[asset managers]]). Under the [[Petroleum Act 1998]] section 2, rights of land ownership do not equate to rights to oil and gas (or [[hydrocarbons]]) underneath. In ''[[Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd]]'', the Supreme Court did hold that a landowner may sue a company for trespass if it drills under its land without permission, but a majority held that damages will be nominal.<ref name=Bocardo>{{cite BAILII |litigants=Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd |link=Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd |court=UKSC |year=2010 |num=35 |parallelcite=[2011] 1 AC 380 |date=28 July 2010}}</ref> This meant that a landowner in Surrey was only able to recover £1,000 when a licensed oil company drilled a diagonal well 800 to 2,800 feet under its property, and not the £621,180 awarded by the High Court to reflect a share of the oil profits.<ref>Previously ''BP Petroleum Developments Ltd v Ryder'' [1987] 2 [[Estates Gazette Law Reports|EGLR]] 233 had held that statutory provisions did not enable compensation by reference to the value of oil deposits.</ref> Similarly, under the [[Continental Shelf Act 1964 (United Kingdom)|Continental Shelf Act 1964]] section 1 rights "outside territorial waters with respect to the sea bed and subsoil and their natural resources" are "vested in Her Majesty." Since 1919, the Crown has prohibited searching and boring for oil and gas without a licence.<ref>{{cite book |title=Petroleum (Production) Act 1918 |id=(8 & 9 Geo 5 c 52) |date=21 November 1918 |quote=No person other than a person acting on behalf of His Majesty, or holding a licence under this Act for the purpose, shall search and bore for petroleum within the United Kingdom}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 |id=(24 & 25 Geo 5 c 36) s 1 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1934/36/pdfs/ukpga_19340036_en.pdf |website=[[legislation.gov.uk]] |publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] |date=12 July 1934 |quote=The property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is vested in His Majesty, and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum}}</ref><ref>[[Petroleum Act 1998]] s 3</ref> Under the [[Energy Act 2016]], licensing is managed by the [[Oil and Gas Authority]] (OGA).<ref>The [[Energy Act 2016]] s 2 and Sch 1 transferred functions previously exercised by the relevant Secretary of State or minister, particularly the Petroleum Act 1998 s 3 power to license.</ref> Under section 8, the OGA should hand out licences so as to minimise future public expense, secure the energy supply, ensure storage of carbon dioxide, fully collaborate with the UK government, encourage innovation, and encourage stable regulation to promote investment. Overshadowing this is the duty in [[Petroleum Act 1998]] sections 9A-I on the Secretary of State for ‘maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum’, inserted in 2015. This contrasts with the goal of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions in section 1 of the [[Climate Change Act 2008]]. The Secretary of State may give directions to the OGA in the interests of national security, or the public in exceptional circumstances,<ref>[[Energy Act 2016]] s 9</ref> while the OGA is nominally capable of funding itself through fees on licence applicants and holders.<ref>[[Energy Act 2016]] ss 12–13</ref> In the process of licensing, the [[Hydrocarbons Licensing Directive Regulations 1995]] require objective, transparent and competitive criteria to be applied by the Oil and Gas Authority.<ref>The criteria are based on the [[Hydrocarbons Directive]] {{CELEX|31994L0022|text=94/22/EC}} arts 2–6</ref> Under regulation 3, the OGA should consider an applicant's technical and financial capability, price, previous conduct, and refuse all applications if none are satisfactory, while regulation 5 requires that all criteria to be applied are stated in the public notice for tenders. Under section 4 of the [[Petroleum Act 1998]], model licence clauses are prescribed by the Secretary of State, for instance in the [[Petroleum Licensing (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 2008]]. Schedule 1's model clauses give the OGA discretion over the licence term, the licensee's obligation to submit its work programme, revocation on breach of a licence, arbitration for disputes, or health and environmental safety.<ref>{{cite web |id=SI 2008/225 |title=The Petroleum Licensing (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 2008: Schedule 1 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/225/made |date=5 February 2008}}</ref> For onshore oil and gas extraction, and particularly [[hydraulic fracturing]] (or "[[fracking]]"), there are further requirements that must be fulfilled. For fracking, these include negotiating with landowners where a drill site is situated, getting the local [[mineral planning authority]]'s approval for exploratory wells, consent from the council under the [[Town and Country Planning Act 1990]] section 57, getting permission for disposing of hazardous waste and inordinate water use,<ref>[[Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010]]. [[Water Resources Act 1991]]</ref> and finally consent from the [[Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Albrecht |first1=E. |last2=Schneemann |first2=D. |date=2014 |title=Fracking in the United Kingdom: Regulatory Challenges between Resource Mobilisation and Environmental Protection |journal=Carbon & Climate Law Review |volume=8 |issue=4 |page=238}}. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consults with the [[Environment Agency]], [[Health and Safety Executive]] and the [[Health and Protection Agency]].</ref> In ''[[R (Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association) v West Sussex CC]]'' a residents association in [[Balcombe]] lost an action for [[judicial review]] of their council's planning permission for [[Cuadrilla Resources]] to explore the potential to frack for [[shale gas]]. Large protests had opposed any steps toward fracking. However, Gilbart J held that the council had not been wrong in refusing to consider public opposition, and took the view would have acted unlawfully if it had considered the opposition.<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=R (Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association) v West Sussex CC |link=R (Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association) v West Sussex CC |court=EWHC |division=Admin |year=2014 |num=4108 |date=5 December 2014 |para=128}} "In my judgment that very clear statement of principle is one which must apply in this case. While I have no doubt that County Councillor Mullins meant well, the reality of her objection was that she asked WSCC to refuse to permit that which it would otherwise have permitted, on a basis that its granting permission would excite opposition leading to protests designed and intended to disrupt a perfectly lawful activity. In my judgment, had it taken County Councillor Mullins' original argument into account, WSCC would have had regard to an immaterial consideration and would have acted unlawfully."</ref>

[[File:Shell - Esso Brent Spar under construction (1975).jpg|right|thumb|The [[Brent Spar]] oil storage buoy is one of 470 platforms and 5000 wells to be decommissioned, as resource companies promised in their licences. Companies have lobbied for tax cuts, meaning that taxpayers bear the costs.]]
The interests of third parties and the public are partially represented through provisions on access to infrastructure, tax, and decommissioning. Under the [[Petroleum Act 1998]] sections 17-17H there is a right of companies that are not owners of pipelines or gas interconnectors to use the infrastructure if there is spare capacity. This is not well used, and it usually left to commercial negotiation. Under the [[Energy Act 2011]] sections 82–83 the Secretary of State can require a pipeline owner gives access on its own motion, apparently to reduce the problem of companies being too timid to exercise legal rights for fear of commercial repercussions. Taxation on oil and gas outputs have increasingly been reduced. Initially, the [[Oil Taxation Act 1975]] section 1 required a special [[Petroleum Revenue Tax]], set as high as 75% of profits in 1983, but this ended for new licences after 1993, and then reduced from 50% in 2010, down to 0% in 2016.<ref>[[Finance Act 2016]] s 140(1)</ref> Under the [[Corporation Tax Act 2010]] sections 272-279A there is still a "ring-fenced corporation tax", on individual fields that are ring-fenced from other activities, set at 30%, but just 19% for smaller fields. An additional "supplementary charge" of 10% of profits was introduced in 2002 to ensure a ‘fair return’ to the state, because ‘oil companies [were] generating excess profits’.<ref>[[Corporation Tax Act 2010]] s 330. This did go up to 20% in 2006, but was since reduced.</ref> Finally, under the [[Petroleum Act 1998]] sections 29–45 require responsible decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure. Under section 29, the Secretary of State can require a written notice of a decommissioning plan, on which stakeholders (e.g. the local community) must be consulted. Under section 30, notice regarding abandonment can be served on anyone who owns or has an interest in an installation. There are fines and offences for failure to comply. Estimates for the cost of decommissioning the UK's offshore platforms have been £16.9bn in the next decade, and £75bn to £100bn in total. A series of objections have been raised against the government's policy of cutting taxes while subsidising BP, Shell and Exxon for these costs.<ref>{{cite news |title=Taxpayers may be liable for North Sea decommissioning bill, says study |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-38048562 |date=21 November 2016 |work=BBC News}}</ref>

===Electricity and energy===
{{see also|UK energy policy|UK solar power|UK wind power|UK nuclear power|UK renewable energy|Energy efficiency in British housing|UK energy|UK geothermal power}}
{{Clist energy}}
The need for clean energy, and to end climate damage, has driven [[UK energy policy]]. The [[Climate Change Act 2008]] section 1 requires a net 100% reduction on 1990 [[greenhouse gas]] [[carbon emissions|emissions]] by 2050, but this can always be made more stringent in line with science or international law.<ref>[[Climate Change Act 2008]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1 ss 1–2]. This is reflected in the [[Renewable Energy Directive 2009]] {{CELEX|32009L0028|text=2009/28/EC}} art 3 and Annex I]</ref> Eliminating [[carbon emissions]] and [[fossil fuels]] means using only electricity (no more petrol or gas) and only using zero carbon inputs. In 2015, total UK energy use was composed of 18% electricity, 29% natural gas, and 49% petroleum.<ref name=DUKESc1>{{cite book |publisher=[[Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy]] |title=Digest of UK Energy Statistics |date=2016 |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577712/DUKES_2016_FINAL.pdf |chapter=Chapter 1}}</ref> Electricity itself, by 2015, was generated 24% from "[[Renewable energy in the United Kingdom|renewable]]" sources, 30% gas, 22% [[List of active coal fired power stations in the United Kingdom|coal]],<ref>There are [[List of active coal fired power stations in the United Kingdom|nine plants left]], but all are converting to biomass or closing by 2025. However, [[open-pit coal mining in the United Kingdom]] continues.</ref> and 21% [[UK nuclear power|nuclear]].<ref>{{cite book |publisher=[[Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy]] |title=Digest of UK Energy Statistics |date=2016 |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577712/DUKES_2016_FINAL.pdf |chapter=Chapter 5}}</ref> "Renewable" sources were 48% [[UK wind power|wind]], 9% [[UK solar power|solar]] (doubling each year to 2016, but then stagnating), and 7.5% [[Hydroelectricity in the United Kingdom|hydroelectric]]. But 35% of "renewable" electricity was "[[bioenergy]]", that is mostly [[Forestry in the United Kingdom|timber]], emitting more carbon than coal as it is burnt by [[List of active coal fired power stations in the United Kingdom|converted coal stations]].<ref>{{cite book |publisher=[[Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy]] |title=Digest of UK Energy Statistics |date=2016 |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577712/DUKES_2016_FINAL.pdf |chapter=Chapter 6}} The UN rules and the [[Renewable Energy Directive 2009]] {{CELEX|32009L0028|text= 2009/28/EC}} art 17 and Annex V enable "biomass" and "biofuel" to count toward reducing greenhouse gases, even though burning wood produces carbon emissions, on the theory that plants (unlike coal or gas) absorb carbon while they grow supposedly neutralising emissions once they burn. This logic is criticised for not accounting for the environmental damage of deforestation, and the impact of short-term emissions, regardless of the "sustainability" criteria in art 17. {{cite journal |first=M. |last=Le Page |title=The Great Carbon Scam |date=21 September 2016 |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130922-600-revealed-the-renewable-energy-scam-making-global-warming-worse/ |issue=3092 |journal=New Scientist |volume=231 |pages=20–21|doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(16)31736-5 |bibcode=2016NewSc.231...20P |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Under the [[Energy Act 2013]] section 1, the Secretary of State can set legally binding [[decarbonisation]] [[Decarbonisation measures in proposed UK electricity market reform|targets in electricity]].<ref>[[Energy Act 2013]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/32/part/1 ss 1–4], stating targets must begin with a [[Emissions budget|carbon budget]] including the year 2030.</ref> Under section 131, the Secretary of State should give Parliament an annual "Strategy and Policy Statement" on its strategic energy priorities, and how they will be achieved.<ref>[[Energy Act 2013]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/32/part/5 ss 131–138]</ref>

[[File:Westmill Solar 2.jpg|thumb|left|The [[Westmill Solar Co-operative]] was established by residents in [[Oxfordshire]] to generate [[community solar farm|community solar]] power. Solar panel prices have decreased exponentially. Every home or business can access the [[feed-in tariff]]. In 2017, fourteen 280Watt solar panels, and a 10kW battery (enough to power a home, and have zero electricity bills indefinitely) cost around £7500.]]
Two main strategies have pushed a transition to renewable power. First, under the [[Electricity Act 1989]] sections 32-32M, the Secretary of State was able to place [[renewables obligation]]s on energy generating companies.<ref>Inserted by [[Employment Act 2008]] ss [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/32/part/2 ss 37–40], originally introduced by the [[Utilities Act 2000]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/27/part/IV/crossheading/electricity-from-renewable-sources ss 62–67]. Known as a "[[renewable portfolio standard]]" in the US.</ref> Large electricity generating companies (i.e. the big six, [[British Gas]], [[EDF Energy|EDF]], [[E.ON]], [[Npower (United Kingdom)|nPower]], [[Scottish Power]] and [[Scottish and Southern Energy|SSE]]) had to buy fixed percentages of "[[Renewable Obligation Certificates]]" from renewable generators if they did not meet set quotas in their own electricity generators. This encouraged significant investment in wind and solar farms, although the [[Energy Act 2013]] enabled the scheme to be closed to new installations over 5 [[Megawatt|MW]] capacity in 2015 and all in 2017.<ref>Renewables Obligation Closure Order 2014 and Renewables Obligation Closure (Amendment) Order 2015 [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/920/article/2/made art 2], made under [[Electricity Act 1989]] ss 32K-L</ref> In ''[[Solar Century Holdings Ltd v SS for Energy and Climate Change]]'' a group of solar companies challenged the closure decision by judicial review. Solar Century Ltd claimed they had a legitimate expectation from the government in its previous policy documents for "maintaining support levels".<ref>[2016] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/117.html EWCA Civ 117]</ref> The Court of Appeal rejected the claim, because no unconditional promise was given. As a replacement, under the [[Energy Act 2013]] sections 6–26 created a "[[contracts for difference]]" system to subsidise energy companies' investment in renewables. The government owned "Low Carbon Contracts Co." pays licensed energy generators money under contracts lasting, for example, 15 years, reflecting the difference between a predicted future price of electricity (a "reference price") and a predicted future price of electricity with more renewable investment (a "strike price"). The LCCC gets its money from a levy on the energy companies, which pass costs onto consumers. This system was apparently seen by the government as preferable to direct investment by taxing polluters' profits.<ref>''Planning our electric future: a White Paper for secure, affordable and low‑carbon electricity'' (2011) [http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121217150421/http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/policy-legislation/EMR/2210-emr-white-paper-full-version.pdf Cm 8099, 148–150]</ref> The second strategy to boost renewables was the [[Energy Act 2008]]'s "[[feed-in tariff]]".<ref>[[Employment Act 2008]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/32/part/2 ss 41–43] on the [[Feed-in tariffs in the United Kingdom|feed-in tariffs]].</ref> Electricity produced with renewables has to be paid a certain price by electricity companies: a "generation" rate (even if the producer uses the energy itself) and an "export" rate (when the producer sells to the grid).<ref>Reduction in the rates was successfully challenged in ''[[Breyer Group Plc v Department of Energy and Climate Change]]'' [2015] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/408.html EWCA Civ 408] and ''[[SS for Energy and Climate Change v Friends of the Earth]]'' [2012] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/28.html EWCA Civ 28]</ref> In ''[[PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG]]'' a large energy company (now part of [[E.ON]]) challenged a [[German Renewable Energy Sources Act|similar scheme in Germany]]. It argued that the feed-in tariff operated like a tax to subsidise renewable energy companies, since non-renewable energy companies passed the costs on, and so should be considered an unlawful [[state aid]], contrary to [[TFEU]] article 107.<ref>(2001) {{CELEX|61998CJ0379|text= C-379/98}}</ref> The Court of Justice rejected the argument, holding that the redistributive effects were inherent in the scheme, as indeed they are in any change to private law.<ref>Opinion of [[AG Jacobs]]: "If the argument of the Commission and PreussenElektra were to be accepted then all sums which one person owes another by virtue of a given law would have to be considered to be State resources. That seems an impossibly wide understanding of the notion."</ref> Since then, feed-in tariffs have been considerably successful at promoting small scale electricity production by homes and business, and solar and wind in general.

[[File:Gwynt y Môr wind farm 2016.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Gwynt y Môr]] [[Wind power in the United Kingdom|wind farm]], is owned 50% by [[RWE]], 30% [[Stadtwerke München]], 10% [[Siemens]], and 10% [[UK Green Investment Bank]]. It has 576 MW capacity.]]
The ownership and governance voice of stakeholders in UK energy companies has been mostly monopolised by private shareholders since the [[Electricity Act 1989]] started the privatisation of the [[Central Electricity Generating Board]]. However, in 2015 [[Robin Hood Energy]] run by [[Nottingham City Council]], and [[Bristol Energy]] run by [[Bristol City Council]] became the first new municipally owned energy companies, selling below profit-making company prices and committing to renewable sources.<ref>{{cite news |first=Adam |last=Vaughan |title=Publicly owned energy minnows take on big six in troubled UK market |date=27 October 2017 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/27/publicly-owned-energy-minnows-take-on-big-six-in-troubled-uk-market |work=TheGuardian}}</ref> This follows widespread publicly owned energy models around Europe, which the [[Court of Justice of the European Union]] held could not be challenged. Under the [[Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]] article 345 states the EU treaties "shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership."<ref>{{cite wikisource |title=Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Article 345 |wslink=Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union/Part Seven: General and Final Provisions#Article 345}}</ref> Nevertheless, in ''[[Netherlands v Essent NV]]'' a private Dutch energy company, [[Essent NV]], argued that a Dutch law requiring public ownership of all shares in electricity distribution companies violated [[free movement of capital]] in [[TFEU]] article 63,<ref>{{cite wikisource |title=Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Article 63 |wslink=Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union/Title IV: Free Movement of Persons, Services and Capital#CHAPTER 4: CAPITAL AND PAYMENTS}}</ref> as in other cases restrictions on [[golden shares]] had been struck down. But the [[CJEU]] held nothing precluded either nationalisation or privatisation. It is up to member states alone, and the Dutch government had shown "overriding reasons in the public interest" for public ownership. Given the international evidence that publicly owned energy companies are cheaper,<ref>M. Florio, ‘The Return of Public Enterprise’ (2014) [https://ssrn.com/abstract=2563560 Working Paper N. 01/2014]</ref> there has been an increase Europe-wide of "remunicipalisation" of services. Many [[Local government in England|local councils]] also require both employee and citizen representation in their energy companies. For example, the "Communal Ordinance of [[North Rhine-Westphalia]]" (which includes cities like [[Dortmund]]) §§107–114 gives councils capacity to create energy companies. If they do, one third of board members will ordinarily be employee representatives, and the constitution must be written to include council representatives,<ref>{{cite web |title=Gemeindeordnung Nordrhein-Westfalen 1994 |url=https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_bes_detail?sg=0&menu=1&bes_id=6784&anw_nr=2&aufgehoben=N&det_id=378679 |id=§§107-113 |language=DE |trans-title=North Rhine-Westphalia Municipal Code 1994}}</ref> although there are not yet provisions requiring direct voting rights for residents. The [[Office of Gas and Electricity Markets]], or [[Ofgem]],<ref>The technical name is the [[Gas and Electricity Markets Authority]] (GEMA), but the older name is preferred.</ref> carries out licensing for electricity generation. Its chair and at least two other board members must be appointed by the Secretary of State for 5 to 7 years, and while ostensibly "independent",<ref>[[Utilities Act 2000]] Sch 1, para 2A</ref> they must follow directions of the Minister.<ref>[[Utilities Act 2000]] ss 1, 5 and [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/27/schedule/1 Sch 1, paras 1–3]</ref> Under the [[Electricity Act 1989]] nobody can generate and supply electricity to others without a licence.<ref>[[Electricity Act 1989]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/part/I/crossheading/licensing-of-supply-etc s 4]</ref> 
[[Ofgem]] follows a Standard Electricity Supply Licence, which can be modified by the Secretary of State if circumstances change,<ref>[[Utilities Act 2000]] s 68</ref> for instance, to alter price controls.<ref>''[[R (Scottish Power) v Director General of Electricity Supply]]'' [1997] CLY 4949, quashing a decision of the DG that refused to modify licence conditions.</ref> There are exemptions from getting a licence, for instance, for small generators under 10 MW (or up to 50 MW if net capacity is under 100 MW), or certain offshore generators.<ref>[[Electricity Act 1989]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/part/I/crossheading/licensing-of-supply-etc s 5] and [[Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 2001]]</ref> Planning permission for non-exempt generators also require Secretary of State consent, and the granting of planning could be challenged.<ref>''[[Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes BC]]'' [2008] EWCA Civ 1067, on the three-month period to make a challenge.</ref> In ''[[Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers]]'' [[Donald Trump]], who had recently started his [[Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016|US Presidential campaign]] argued that the offshore [[Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm]] could not be built near his golf course.<ref>[2015] [http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/74.html UKSC 74]</ref> He argued the Secretary of State could only give permission to existing licensees or exempt generators, ostensibly, by necessary implication from another provision on natural beauty. The [[UK Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] unanimously held that Trump lost: there was to be no implied term. In ''[[R (Gerber) v Wiltshire Council]]'', Mr Gerber attempted to challenge the construction of a 22 hectare solar farm near his [[grade II listed]] home [[Gifford Hall]], because he thought it would have a "detrimental impact" on the "setting".<ref>[2016] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/84.html EWCA Civ 84]</ref> He had not noticed anything happening until some time after construction began, and then tried to argue that [[Wiltshire Council]]'s "Statement of Community Involvement" required that he would have been notified about the plans he missed. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected that any "legitimate expectation" in judicial review had been broken.

[[File:UK renewables generated.PNG|thumb|300px|Electricity generated ([[TWh]]) from renewable sources in the United Kingdom between 2009 and 2018.<ref name=2018renewablenergygov>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables|title=Energy Trends: UK renewables|website=GOV.UK|date=27 July 2023 }}</ref>]]
Unless citizens set up their own generation, or own energy companies through their council, they are guaranteed few other rights by law: the idea has been that [[Ofgem]] "protect the interests of consumers" by "promoting effective competition" is meant to automatically improve service.<ref>[[Utilities Act 2000]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/27/part/II ss 9 and 13] revising [[Electricity Act 1989]] s 3A and [[Gas Act 1986]] s 4AA</ref> In practice, further duties have been seen as necessary. The [[Electricity Act 1989]] section 44 [[Ofgem]] can direct the maximum prices at which electricity may be sold.<ref>[[EA 1989]] s 44, Ofgem can ‘direct that the maximum prices at which electricity supplied by authorised suppliers may be resold’.</ref> Originally, the idea was that the regulator would "wither away" as effective market competition replaced any need for a state, but in a transition period prices would be capped through a formula known as "[[Price-cap regulation|RPI – X]]". This was supposed to mean that energy companies could only raise their prices by the increase in the [[retail price index]] (RPI), minus a percentage calculated by [[Ofgem]] to reflect how much in efficiency savings (X) could be made, but also potentially allowing higher prices for investment.<ref>[[James Meek (author)|J Meek]], ‘How we happened to sell off our electricity’ (2012) [https://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n17/james-meek/how-we-happened-to-sell-off-our-electricity 34(17) London Review of Books 3]</ref> Further minimal consumer rights are inserted into the Standard Electricity Supply Licences given to electricity companies. For example, under condition 27, a consumer cannot be disconnected unless all reasonable steps have been taken to let them pay bills (including a pay as you go meter), and pensioners may not be disconnected at all in the winter.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=GEMA |title=Standard conditions of electricity supply licence |url=https://epr.ofgem.gov.uk/Content/Documents/Electricity%20Supply%20Standard%20Licence%20Conditions%20Consolidated%20-%20Current%20Version.pdf |date=2018}}</ref> This has not, however, come close to eliminating the extra deaths from cold weather (estimated to be around 9000 people in 2016) from [[fuel poverty]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Cold homes caused 9,000 deaths last winter, study suggests |date=21 March 2016 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35862763 |publisher=BBC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |publisher=[[Office for National Statistics]] |title=Excess winter mortality in England and Wales: 2016 to 2017 (provisional) and 2015 to 2016 (final) |url=https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2016to2017provisionaland2015to2016final |date=22 December 2017}}</ref> Analogous regulatory regimes for electricity apply to gas,<ref>[[Gas Act 1986]] ss 3, 4AA, 34 (regulatory objectives) and 5–11, 19 and 23-23G (gas licensing, consuemers, modification of conditions and appeal)</ref> and to nuclear power.<ref>[[Nuclear Installations Act 1965]] ss 1, 65–87 (nuclear licensing). There are just eight remaining [[Nuclear power in the United Kingdom|UK nuclear plants]], four due to close between 2023 and 2024, and four between 2028 and 2035, all run by the French state-owned [[EDF Energy]]. However [[Hinkley Point C nuclear power station]] is being built for £20.3bn by 2025, to be paid over a 35-year period: {{cite news |last=Watt |first=Holly |date=21 December 2017 |title=Hinkley Point: the 'dreadful deal' behind the world's most expensive power plant |url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant |work=The Guardian}}/ {{cite news |last=Harrabin |first=Roger |date=11 September 2017 |title=Offshore wind power cheaper than new nuclear |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948 |work=BBC News}}. Two firms promise to build wind turbines for £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022–23, while Hinkley's costs mean £92.50 per megawatt hour.</ref> In practice there has been no possibility to abolish government involvement, and in law there has been consistent recognition that whether owned by private shareholders or not, energy remains a public service that is the responsibility of the state.<ref>''[[Foster v British Gas plc]]'' (1990) {{CELEX|61989CJ0188|text= C-188/89}}, [1991] 2 AC 306 (on nature of a public service)</ref> When energy companies go into [[UK insolvency law|insolvency]], often indebted to the government (but not always), they can be put into administrative receivership allowing that creditor greater control over the insolvency process.<ref>[[Insolvency Act 1986]] ss 72C-D and Sch 2A, para 10</ref> Under the Standard Electricity Supply Licence, condition 8, [[Ofgem]] can impose a duty on energy companies to be a supplier of last resort.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Ofgem |title=Supplier of Last Resort: Revised Guidance |url=https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/59624/solrrevisedguidance-december2008.pdf |date=2008}}</ref> These rules were updated slightly in 2011 so that the government can give financial support and keep a company trading until refinancing or a new owner is found.<ref>[[Energy Act 2011]] ss 94–102</ref>

===Water===
{{Clist water}}
{{main|UK water supply and sanitation|UK water companies|EU water policy|Scottish Water|Thames Water|London water supply infrastructure}}
Water is a [[Right to water|universal human right]],<ref>[[UDHR 1948]] art 25(1) and [[ICESCR 1966]] art 11(1), which is ratified by the UK, both expressly protect the right to food, in which water is implicit. This was acknowledged by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2002) General Comment No 15.</ref> and basic to survival.<ref>E McGaughey, ''Principles of Enterprise Law: the Economic Constitution and Human Rights'' (Cambridge UP 2022) ch 13, 'Food, forests and water'</ref> While the UK has the fortune of substantial rainfall, [[climate damage]] means water resources are under pressure, and less predictable than before.<ref>S Hendry, ''Frameworks for Water Law Reform'' (2014) ch 5, 86 and C Harlow and R Rawlings, Law and Administration (3rd edn 2009) ch 7, 292–304</ref> Historically, water for drinking, general use, or sewerage was largely left to private arrangements.<ref>J Getzler, ''A History of Water Rights at Common Law'' (2004) 328–352</ref> The recurrence of water poisoning, and large public health crises were a part of people's ordinary existence until scientific advances of the 19th century. After the [[Broad Street cholera outbreak]] of 1854, [[John Snow (physician)|John Snow]] first identified the cause of [[cholera]] as drinking water being polluted by excrement. Following the [[Great Stink of 1858]], where the [[River Thames]] had become so bad smelling that it offended the Queen and forced Parliament to relocate, [[Joseph Bazalgette]] began to build the [[London sewerage system]]. Starting with the [[Public Health Act 1848]] ([[11 & 12 Vict.]] c. 63) and its creation of a [[local board of health]] in each council, and the [[Public Health Act 1866]], local government built drains, sewers, and began piping clean water to households. The Waterworks Clauses Act 1847 and 1863 provided model constitutions for the dozens of spreading private and local government water companies. The [[Public Health Act 1875]] required all new houses to have running water and internal drainage. By 1944, there were over 1000 water suppliers in England and Wales, though 26 supplied half, and 97 a further quarter of total volume.<ref>E Porter, ''Water Management in England and Wales'' (1978) 29</ref> The [[Water Act 1945]] organised a national water supply policy, before the [[Water Act 1973]] finally organised ten [[regional water authority|regional water authorities]] for England and Wales, and additional authorities in [[Scotland]] and [[Northern Ireland]].<ref>e.g. Water (Scotland) Act 1980 ([http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/45/part/II/enacted c 45])</ref> However, following other privatisations, the [[Water Act 1989]] changed the ten authorities into [[UK water companies|ten private water companies]], each with a local monopoly, subject to price caps of a new regulator known as [[Ofwat]].<ref>[[Water Act 1989]] ss 4, 83–85 were the initial privatisation provisions. See C Harlow and R Rawlings, ''Law and Administration'' (3rd edn 2009) ch 7, 293–295.</ref> [[Scottish Water]], after a public campaign remained publicly owned, and as a result has maintained significantly lower prices than in England and Wales.<ref>e.g. 'Water costs cheaper in Scotland' (19 February 2009) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7898857.stm BBC]</ref> Only around 10 per cent of water companies around the world are privatised,<ref>S Hendry, ''Frameworks for Water Law Reform'' (2014) ch 5, 78, quoting P Marin, ''Public private partnerships for urban water utilities: A review of experiences in developing countries'' (2009) finding 7% of companies were privatised, and suggesting even if this is too low, 15% would be a "generous estimate".</ref> tending to be less efficient and more expensive.<ref>D Hall, E Lobina and P Terhorst, 'Re-municipalisation in the early twenty-first century: water in France and energy in Germany' (2013) [https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2012.754844 27(2) International Review of Applied Economics 193] and J Meek, ‘Not a drop to drink’ in ''Private Island: Why Britain Belongs to Someone Else'' (2014) ch 3</ref>

[[File:Loch Faskally.jpg|thumb|left|[[Loch Faskally]] is one of many [[reservoirs]] used by publicly owned [[Scottish Water]]. Its prices are around 20% lower than privatised English and Welsh water companies.<ref>See 'Water costs cheaper in Scotland' (19 February 2009) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7898857.stm BBC]. D Hall, E Lobina and P Terhorst, 'Re-municipalisation in the early twenty-first century: water in France and energy in Germany' (2013) [https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2012.754844 27(2) International Review of Applied Economics 193] and J Meek, ‘Not a drop to drink’ in ''Private Island: Why Britain Belongs to Someone Else'' (2014) ch 3</ref>]]
The publicly owned Scottish Water is appointed by Scottish ministers,<ref>Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002, constitutes Scottish Water. [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2002/3/schedule/3 Sch 3] requires an 8–13 member board appointed by the Scottish Ministers as experts. The Water (Scotland) Act 1980, contains duties and functions. The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 deals with sewage.</ref> and overseen by the [[Water Industry Commission for Scotland]],<ref>Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2002/3/part/1 s 1]</ref> although it has no direct voting power for customers.<ref>There is, however, a "Customer Forum" without any binding rights, but which may have some useful input: see S Hendry, ''Frameworks for Water Law Reform'' (2014) ch 5, 95, fn 282</ref> By contrast, in England and Wales, each company board is typically accountable to shareholders, mostly [[asset managers]], under the [[Companies Act 2006]]. While both UK and EU law is clear that water companies, even if privatised, still are public bodies,<ref>See ''[[Griffin v South West Water Services]]'' [1995] IRLR 15 and ''[[Fish Legal v Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water]]'' (2014) {{CELEX|62012CA0279|text=C-279/12}}</ref> these companies pursue shareholder profit, only restricted by regulation. [[Ofwat]] (technically called the [[Water Services Regulation Authority]]) has at least three members appointed the Secretary of State,<ref>[[Water Industry Act 1991]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/section/1A s 1A] and [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/schedule/1A Sch 1A], para 1. This was amended by the [[Water Act 2003]]</ref> and is meant to "protect the interests of consumers, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition" and yet ensure companies have a "reasonable returns on their capital",<ref>[[Water Industry Act 1991]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/section/2 s 2]</ref> rather than simply act in the public interest.<ref>cf Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2002/3/part/1 s 1], requiring "promoting the interests of customers".</ref> [[Ofwat]] licences companies (known as water "undertakers") to operate water and sewer services with "instruments of appointment", and can impose various conditions.<ref>[[WIA 1991]] s 11. The Water Act 2003 s 52 gives Ofwat a duty to cooperate with the Secretary of State, the [[National Assembly for Wales]], the [[Environment Agency]], and the Natural Resources Body for Wales.</ref> Licences usually last 25 years but can be terminated on 10 years notice by government. Because of public outcry over rising prices,<ref>e.g. R Graham, 'Water in the UK – public versus private' (19 December 2014) [https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rachel-graham/water-in-uk-public-versus-private openDemocracy]</ref> the government tried to construct more competition, with the Water Act 2014 requiring suppliers can access or pump water through other providers' pipes, for a reasonable cost, so that consumers might choose their company.<ref>[[WIA 1991]] ss 66A-L. Slightly different, WIA 1991 ss 105A-C enables transfer of lateral drains and private sewers to water companies where they were draining to a public mains sewer and treatment works, to avoid deterioration. Water Industry (Schemes for Adoption of Private Sewers) Regulations SI 2011/1566.</ref> In Scotland, it was thought this kind of competition could pose a public health risk.<ref>S Hendry, ''Frameworks for Water Law Reform'' (2014) ch 5, 81</ref>

[[File:River Wandle in Morden Hall Park.jpg|thumb|right|Under [[EU water law]] drinking water, bathing waters, and the general environment, like at the [[River Wandle]], must be kept clean and improved.]]
As real competition in [[natural monopolies]] always appeared unlikely, [[Ofwat]] has always set upper limits to prices, historically for 5-year periods.<ref>[[WIA 1991]] ss 11–12, price determinations and conditions set in Instruments of Appointment, Condition B, each 5 years.</ref> This has followed the formula of [[Price-cap regulation|RPI – X + K]], where prices should rise no more than the [[retail price index]] of inflation, reduced by efficiency savings (X), but allowing for capital investment (K). This means prices could be fixed down or go up. Companies must publicise an annual charging scheme approved by Ofwat,<ref>[[WIA 1991]] ss 142–150</ref> while Ofwat must openly report its work programme, report to the Secretary of State, keep a register of appointments and make information on costs available.<ref>[[WIA 1991]] ss 192A-B, 201–202</ref> Companies can appeal to the [[Competition and Markets Authority]] for disputes over access and price caps, while [[Ofwat]] can refer companies to the [[Competition and Markets Authority|CMA]] for breaches of conditions.<ref>Ofwat and the CMA also have jurisdiction for mergers for companies with a size over £10m p/a: [[WIA 1991]] ss 31–35.</ref> After unacceptable experience of people being disconnected by private companies for non-payment,<ref>See ''[[R (Oldham MBC) v Director General of Water Services]]'' (1998) 31 HLR 224 finding automatic disconnection from water through a prepayment meter did not comply with the law. ''[[R (Lancashire CC) v Director of Water Services]]'' [1999] EnvLR 114, stopped disconnections or limiting devices. The Water Industry Act 1999 stopped arbitrary disconnections.</ref> new regulations introduced exemptions for vulnerable customers, particularly people who are unable to pay, have large families or have medical conditions.<ref>ater Industry (Charges) (Vulnerable Groups) Regulations SI 1999/3441 and [[Floods and Water Act 2010]] s 44. This does not mean that company profits' are reduced by vulnerable customers, as companies can raise prices for other customers to ensure their profits are not reduced.</ref> Everyone has the right to be connect to a water supply and to sewers, but the cost of new connections is borne by the customer.<ref>[[WIA 1991]] ss 37, 45 (water) and 94–99 (sewers).</ref> UK water quality is generally high, since large new investments were made following the [[EU law|EU]] [[Drinking Water Quality Directive 1998]], requiring water is "wholesome and clean".<ref>[[Drinking Water Quality Directive]] {{CELEX|31998L0083|text=98/83/EC}} art 4, meaning water is free from any micro-organisms and parasites dangerous to health, and complies with chemical and biological standards listed in Annex I. This is implemented by the [[Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1147/contents/made SI 1989/1147]. In ''McColl v Strathclyde RC'' 1983 SC 225 water fluoridation was successfully challenged.</ref> Ofwat is required to issue enforcement orders under the [[Water Industry Act 1991]] section 18 to uphold drinking quality standards, rather than being content with "undertakings" from water companies.<ref>''[[Commission v United Kingdom (1992)|Commission v United Kingdom]]'' (1992) {{CELEX|61989CJ0337|text=C-337/89}}, on the failure to transpose the Directive. The UK system under [[WIA 1991]] s 19 of accepting undertakings from water companies (instead of s 18 enforcement orders) was not an adequate legal framework to comply with EU law. Contrast ''[[Commission v Spain]]'' (2003) {{CELEX|62001CJ0278|text=C-278/01}}, {{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:2003:635}} on bathing water quality, where the CJEU confirmed fines of a €624,150 per year and per 1% of bathing areas in Spanish inshore waters which were found not to conform to the [[Bathing Waters Directive]] {{CELEX|32006L0007|text=2006/7/EC}}.</ref> The [[Drinking Water Inspectorate]] has powers of investigation.<ref>WIA 1991 s 86</ref> There are further standards for water companies to keep up water pressure in pipes, respond quickly to letters, phone calls and keep appointments, restore supply and provide water in emergencies, and stop sewer flooding or compensate up to £1000.<ref>Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 2008 ([http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/594/contents SI 2008/594]) regs 6–12</ref> Finally, the [[Consumer Council for Water]] is meant to hear complaints and publicise issues with Ofwat and [[UK water companies|water companies]], but its members are not elected by water customers and it has no legal power to bind Ofwat or the companies.<ref>cf [[WIA 1991]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/part/II/chapter/III/crossheading/the-consumer-council-for-water ss 27A]-[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/part/II/chapter/III/crossheading/general-functions-of-the-council 27K]</ref>

[[File:Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water. Wellcome V0011218.jpg|thumb|left|An 1828 cartoon of a woman dropping her [[teacup]] when she sees [[Thames Water]] magnified.<ref>By [[William Heath]] at the time of the Commission on the London Water Supply report, 1828</ref> After the [[Great Stink]] of 1858, the [[London sewerage system]] was built under [[Joseph Bazalgette]].]]
Water companies have a chequered history of responsibility for damage they cause, but also the law has failed to ensure businesses are fully responsible for water pollution. In principle, a water authority used to be strictly liable for damage it caused.<ref>''[[Department of Transport v North West Water Authority]]'' [1984] AC 336</ref> However, more recently water company liability particularly for sewerage leaks has not appeared to as a sufficient deterrent. In ''[[R v Anglian Water Services Ltd]]'' the Court of Appeal held that fines for pollution should always be set to ensure sufficient deterrence, but on the facts reduced a fine from £200,000 to £60,000.<ref>[2003] EWCA Crim 2243</ref> In ''[[Marcic v Thames Water plc]]'' the House of Lords held that [[Thames Water plc]] was not liable in nuisance, or for breach of a homeowner's right to property, as sewerage repeatedly overflowed residents' gardens.<ref>[2003] UKHL 66</ref> According to [[Lord Hoffmann]], the owners had to use statutory mechanisms to secure accountability rather than suing in [[English tort law|tort]]. More recently in ''[[Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Plc]]'' the Supreme Court held that [[United Utilities]] was responsible for trespass and pollution of canalways, but only before 1991 when statutory reform provided immunity.<ref>[2014] UKSC 40</ref> By contrast, in ''[[Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc]]'', the House of Lords held that a [[tanner (occupation)|tanner]] business was not liable for polluting the [[Cambridge Water]] supply with toxic chemicals, because it said the loss was not "reasonably foreseeable" and therefore too remote.<ref>[1994] 2 AC 264</ref> These cases sit uneasily with the principle that [[Polluter pays principle|polluters should pay]], and the scheme of the [[Water Framework Directive 2000]] to ensure proper enforcement of clean water standards.<ref>Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC recital 53, and see E Fisher, B Lange and E Scotford, ''Environmental Law Text, Cases, and Materials'' (2013) ch 14</ref>

===Agriculture and forestry===
{{main|Agriculture in the UK|Forestry in the UK|Conservation in the UK|EU law}}
[[File:Haymaking near Greenham - geograph.org.uk - 29269.jpg|thumb|right|Agriculture covers 69% of UK land, accounted for 0.6% of UK GDP in 2010, employed 1.52% of the workforce, and generated £4.38 billion per year. There are 18.3 million hectares, or 45.2 million acres.]]
The UK is made up of around 72% farmland, and 13% woodland,<ref>H Trenbirth, [https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/woodlandnaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2022 Woodland natural capital accounts: 2022] (2022) Office for National Statistics</ref> and while agriculture and forestry compose a small percentage of the UK economy and workforce, its regulation has a large impact on the environment. The [[Common Agricultural Policy]] in [[European Union law]] regulated farming subsidies and development, and remains an influential part of the scheme in the [[Agriculture Act 2020]]. This enables the Secretary of State, and the [[Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs]] to give out financial assistance, make regulations on conditions attached to subsidies, and monitor actions for subsidies.<ref>[[Agriculture Act 2020]] ss 1-6</ref> From 2024, this may depart from the standard practice under the EU subsidy scheme of making (1) basic payments to famers based on the number of hectares actively farmed, (2) market measures to buy up and dispose of any excess produce, and (3) rural development payments for a range of spending, such as on clean energy or faster internet infrastructure. Around £3.5 billion was spent in 2018 under the CAP, although the UK government stated that this sums of money would change under the new system, based on a concept of "public money for public goods", but without much clarity.

Around 10% of UK land is held in the [[public sector]], and the largest body among these is the [[Forestry Commission]]. The [[Forestry Act 1967]] (c. 10) requires that the Forestry Commission has 11 members appointed by the government, and it has a general duty of "promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation and the production and supply of timber and other forest products" including "adequate reserves of growing trees". [[National parks of the United Kingdom|National parks]] were created by the [[National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949]] for the first time, and today are overseen by [[Natural England]] or different park authorities under the [[National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000]]. Unlike other countries, UK national parks have substantial private ownership, but there are more restrictive planning laws to safeguard natural beauty, and guarantee public rights of way. General protection of the UK's environment is found in the [[Environmental Protection Act 1990]] and [[Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981]].<ref>See also the [[Weeds Act 1959]], [[Badgers Act 1991]], [[Protection of Badgers Act 1992]] and regulations implementing the [[Birds Directive]] and [[Habitats Directive]]</ref>

===Housing and building===
{{see also|Right to housing|Landlord–tenant law|Council house|Rent regulation|Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom|Affordable housing}}
[[File:Tom Collins House, Byker Wall - geograph.org.uk - 1775471.jpg|thumb|right|Tom Collins House [[Newcastle Upon Tyne|Newcastle]] reflects modern design in [[council housing]], and cost £42 a week in 2012.]]
Although homeowners together own just 5% of the land area in England and Wales, housing and other buildings account for a large share of capital wealth, and constitute the basis of the universal human "right to housing" and to a private life and home.<ref>Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 art 25. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 art 11. European Convention on Human Rights art 8 and Prot 1, art 1.</ref> Increasingly homes and real estate have become investment objects, with tax breaks for "[[Real Estate Investment Trusts]]",<ref>[[Corporation Tax Act 2010]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/4/section/529 s 529(4)(b)]</ref> meaning reduced public and individual home ownership. A growing proportion of people cannot afford to buy homes, and so must rent, while rents take a growing share of people's income. Although [[housing benefit]] is available for people on low incomes,<ref>Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 ss 130-130A</ref> this is entirely taken by private landlords whose escalating rents are an increasing cost to taxpayers. Since the [[Housing Act 1985]] there has been a right to buy property for secure tenants from local councils that had aimed to keep rents affordable.<ref>[[Housing Act 1985]] ss 119, 126, 139, 155-9 governs the right to buy.</ref> Despite increased supply and the building of houses at a consistently faster rate than population growth,<ref>E McGaughey, ''Principles of Enterprise Law'' (2022) ch 14, 489</ref> the greater number of multiple houses owned by landlords and corporations, and units left empty, means that the [[unequal bargaining power]] of landlords can be used to charge ever higher rents. The [[Building Act 1984]] and [[Building Regulations 2010]] require reduced carbon in buildings,<ref>Building Act 1984 s 1 and Building Regulations 2010 regs 21-35, also Energy Act 2011 ss 43 and 46 for tenant energy efficiency.</ref> however there is not yet a requirement for all homes to have solar panels, battery storage, and heat pumps to ensure clean air. 

Reflecting its poor housing quality, the UK has among the most minimal tenant rights in the world. [[Fair rent regulation]] exists in many countries to prevent unaffordable housing, such as in Canada,<ref>e.g. [[Residential Tenancies Act 2006]] in Ontario, with a 2.5% price rise each year, or lower if fixed by a Minister.</ref> or Germany,<ref>Civil Code, [[Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch]] §§535-580a, on the "rent mirror" (''Mietspiegel'') to prevent rents rising by more than customary in the locality.</ref> but was abolished in the UK by the [[Housing Act 1985]] section 24. The [[Landlord and Tenant Act 1985]] contains the right to know who the landlord it, that it is habitable, and that the landlord carries out basic repairs to the building and facility structure.<ref>[[Landlord and Tenant Act 1985]] ss 1, 9A-11, 19</ref> However there is no housing regulator or watchdog to which tenants may apply, and so their rights have to be enforced through costly court processes. The [[Housing Act 1988]] section 20 abolished security for tenants against eviction without good reasons (unless there is something in the contract), and so upon a contractual notice period tenants may be removed. The only statutory protection is a minimum of 4 weeks notice before eviction in the [[Protection from Eviction Act 1977]] section 5(1), and the landlord may issue a [[section 21 notice]] under the [[Housing Act 1988]] section 21 to being a court process of eviction.<ref>[[Housing Act 1988]] [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/21 s 21]</ref> The Tenant Fees Act 2019 sections 1-5 contain minimal regulation of real estate agent fees, requiring that they are only charged to landlords, not tenants. The [[Housing Act 2004]] sections 213-214 create a right for a rental deposit to be protected under a trust of a third party, however these parties are often appointed and paid by the landlord, meaning that in disputes that are arbitrated the landlord usually wins. 
<ref>But see ''[[Charalambous v Ng]]'' [2014] EWCA Civ 1604</ref> By contrast, business tenancies have much more regulation,<ref>Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 ss 25-26</ref> recognising the inherently [[unequal bargaining power]] that tenants have, and the failure of the market.<ref>H Lind, ‘Rent Regulation: A Conceptual and Comparative Analysis’ (2001) [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616710110036436#.U2HwS8coYXw 1(1) International Journal of Housing Policy 41]</ref> On top of rents, and mortgage repayments for landowners, people must pay [[council tax]] and [[business rates]] to contribute to the locality for their property. [[Stamp duty|Stamp duty in the United Kingdom]] is a tax that has to be paid upon the sale of property, and [[inheritance tax|Inheritance Tax (United Kingdom)]] of 40% must be paid upon the passing to children or grandchildren of property worth over £500,000 in 2023, or £325,000 to other parties, but no tax for leaving a property to a spouse, civil partner or charity.

===Transport===
{{Clist rail}}
{{see also|Transport in the UK|Rail transport in Great Britain|Roads in the UK|History of road transport}}
As the home of the [[industrial revolution]], and a densely populated country, the UK's transport networks are among the world's oldest and most used. [[Roman roads in Britain]] are still major thoroughfares. From medieval times, highways were maintained through [[turnpike trust]]s, a system of parish and toll funded roads.<ref>[[S Webb]] and [[B Webb]], ''English Local Government Vol 5, The story of the king's highway'' ([https://archive.org/stream/englishlocalgove05webb#page/4/mode/2up 1913])</ref> While the [[British Empire]] developed as a maritime power abroad, [[History of the British canal system|canals]] were built in the early industrial revolution to transport large volumes of goods. With [[steam engine]] technology, railway construction spread, and then [[Railway Mania|boomed from 1840]]. Private investors built railways with huge subsidies from Parliament, granting planning and compulsory purchase rights, and were only haphazardly held responsible in [[English tort law|tort law]] for worker deaths, and damage to the environment. Under the [[Transport Act 1947]], the government nationalised [[British Rail]].{{efn|Nationalised entities were still bound by ordinary rules of law: ''[[Tamlin v Hannaford]]'' held that the [[British Transport Commission]] could not rely on [[Crown immunity]] when ejecting a tenant, and was bound to normal obligations.<ref>''Tamlin v Hannaford'' [1950] 1 KB 18</ref>}} Yet in the post-war period, more people were encouraged to buy [[cars]], and more goods transportation shifted into trucking. [[Commercial aviation]] also developed rapidly. [[Privatisation of British Rail|British Rail was privatised]] once more after the [[Railways Act 1993]] was put into effect in 1996, as again more people switched away from over-crowded roads to trains. The need to eliminate fossil fuels in accordance with the [[Climate Change Act 2008]] means more trains have been electrified, and electric motor vehicles are slowly being introduced.

[[File:St Pancras Station - geograph.org.uk - 480535.jpg|thumb|left|While train fares have increased beyond inflation since privatisation,<ref>T de Castella, 'Have train fares gone up or down since British Rail?' (22 January 2013) [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21056703 BBC]</ref> [[London Underground]] fares under public control have not increased under [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] mayors, but increased under [[Boris Johnson|a Conservative mayor]].<ref name="auto">See R Holdsworth, 'London Transport Fares 2000–2016' (2016) [https://londonist.com/2011/11/london-transport-fares-2000-2012 Londonist], showing a 56% increase in zone 1 to 4 tube fares (with [[Oyster cards]] from 2004) under [[Boris Johnson]], while fares were held constant under [[Ken Livingstone]] and [[Sadiq Khan]].</ref>]]
Since 2015, the [[Office of Rail and Road]] has been a combined regulator for railways and highways.<ref>[[Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/20/part/2 ss 15–16]. This renamed [[Office of Rail & Road]] which had existed since 2003, that in turn replaced the [[Rail Regulator]].</ref> The chair and four other members is appointed by the Secretary of State for up to five-year terms, and can be dismissed for a good reason.<ref>[[Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/20/schedule/1 Sch 1, para 2], dismissal possible for absence from meetings for 3 months, financial or personal interest, ‘has misbehaved’ or ‘is unable, unfit or unwilling to perform his functions as a member.’</ref> Although it exercises no direct control, under the [[Railways Act 1993]] section 4 the ORR has a long list of duties, including to improve railway service performance in the interest of passengers, promote usage, "competition", interconnection, safety, but also to enable railways companies "to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance."<ref>[[Railways Act 1993]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/section/4 s 4]</ref>

The [[Single European Railway Directive 2012]] requires that infrastructure managers and "railway undertakings" are structurally separate, so that railway companies (whether public or privately owned) have less of an incentive to exclude other operators.<ref>[[Single European Railway Directive]] {{CELEX|32012L0034|text=2012/34/EU}} arts 4 and 7. This followed the [[EU Directive 91/440|First Railway Directive]] 91/440/EC.</ref> Each must have separate accounts and member states are obliged to run railways "at the lowest possible cost for the quality of service required",<ref>Single European Railway Directive {{CELEX|32012L0034|text= 2012/34/EU}} art 5–6</ref> although in practice this enables huge variety and ownership structures around different countries. In the UK, infrastructure is managed by [[Network Rail]]. It was originally privatised and called [[Railtrack]], and was meant to run as a regulated monopoly, in private hands, and be in charge of railway tracks, signalling, tunnels, bridges, level crossings. However, after the [[Hatfield train crash]] in 2000 which killed 4 people and injured 70, and the [[Potters Bar crash]] in 2001 which killed 7 and injured 76, it was forced into insolvent administration and the government took rail infrastructure back into public ownership.<ref>{{cite journal |first=P. |last=Ireland |title=Limited liability, shareholder rights and the problem of corporate irresponsibility |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227464506 |volume=34 |journal=Cambridge Journal of Economics |pages=837, 845–846 |doi=10.1093/cje/ben040 |issue=5 |date=September 2010 |quote=Just one week before the court handed down its decision, Network Rail (the company that replaced Railtrack) and the engineering firm Balfour Beatty had been fined £13.5 million for their part in the Hatfield rail disaster of 2000, where four people died, seventy injured. Hatfield was one of a long series of fatal rail accidents in which Railtrack's working practices and safety record was implicated (Wolmar, 2001). On this issue the shareholders were silent. At no point had they spoken up, let alone campaigned, about the company's safety record. They did not, apparently, feel in any way responsible for the behaviour of the company from which they had been drawing dividends and whose management was legally bound to act in their interests. The cases are illustrative of the tendency of shareholders to schizophrenically identify themselves very closely with the companies in which they hold shares for some purposes, while seeing themselves as completely separate from them for others.|doi-access=free }}</ref> In ''[[Weir v Secretary of State for Transport]]'' a group of 48,000 shareholders challenged the Minister's decision to force an insolvency procedure, arguing their property was being illegally taken and the Minister was guilty of "misfeasance" in public office, but these were completely rejected.<ref>[2005] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/2192.html EWHC 2192 (Ch)] per Lindsay J.</ref> Network Rail, from 2003, became a not-for-profit company, re-investing in safety, and is accountable to the Office of Rail and Road.<ref>L Whitehouse, ‘Railtrack is dead – long live Network Rail?’ Nationalisation under the Third Way’ (2003) [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6478.00254/full 30 JLS 217]. ''The Future of Rail: White Paper'' (July 2004) [http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20050301215224/http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/page/dft_railways_031105.hcsp Cm 6233]. cf R Jupe, ‘Public (interest) or private (gain)? The curious case of Network Rail's status’ (2007) [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2007.00390.x/full 34 JLS 24], 252, noting that the former Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] disparaged, ‘the sterile debate between wholesale privatisation and old-style state control.’ See further TUC, Rebuilding Rail ([http://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/120630_Rebuilding_Rail_Final_Report_print_version.pdf 2012]) pointing out high CEO pay at Network Rail, and that it was not formally classified by as a public body until 2013.</ref>

New infrastructure projects will require planning permission, and environmental impact consultation. In ''[[R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v SS for Transport]]'' a group of people opposed to the [[High Speed Rail 2]] project argued it failed the consultation standards in the [[Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 2011]], because there was a party whipped vote in Parliament for its approval. The Supreme Court rejected the claim, because political organisation did not stop proper consultation and debate.<ref>[2014] UKSC 3.</ref>

To run a train company itself, the [[Railways Act 1993]] section 8 requires companies apply to the Office of Rail and Road for a licence, and pay Network Rail an access charge. Access to track under EU law must be "equitable, non-discriminatory and transparent",<ref>[[Single European Railway Directive]] {{CELEX|32012L0034|text=2012/34/EU}} art 10, Conditions of access to railway infrastructure (1) ‘Railway undertakings shall be granted, under equitable, non-discriminatory and transparent conditions, the right to access to the railway infrastructure in all Member States for the purpose of operating all types of rail freight services.’</ref> but this does not mean charging practices cannot be updated. In ''[[Great North Eastern Railway Ltd v Office of Rail Regulation]]'', [[Great North Eastern Railway|GNER]] sued the [[Office of Rail Regulation]] as other operators were not given a fixed charge for track access, but a charge varying with the number of passengers. It argued this was unlawful discrimination and state aid, but Sullivan J held the ORR had a broad discretion to set prices in the passengers' interest, and should be slow to challenge the expert regulator's decisions on technical pricing issues.<ref>[2006] EWHC 1942 (Admin)</ref> GNER subsequently handed the [[InterCity East Coast]] franchise back to the [[Department for Transport]]. Most controversially, the [[Railways Act 1993]] section 25 prohibits any government body or government-appointed corporation from becoming a rail franchise in England and Wales.<ref>Railways Act 1993 [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/section/25 s 25]</ref> The government-owned rail operators of [[Govia|France]], the [[Abellio Greater Anglia|Netherlands]], or [[Arriva|Germany]] all run trains in the UK. But the UK government is the only one in the world that is prohibited from running UK trains. In 2016, Scotland was empowered to make Scottish trains public again,<ref>Scotland Act 2016 s 57, amending RA 1993 s 25</ref> and {{asof|2017|lc=yes}} the same policy was supported by a large majority of the UK public.<ref>{{cite news |title=Jeremy Corbyn's nationalisation plans are music to ears of public |date=1 October 2017 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/01/jeremy-corbyn-nationalisation-plans-voters-tired-free-markets |work=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=76% support rail nationalisation |publisher=Yougov |url=https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/06/support-radical-left-and-right/ |date=6 August 2015}}</ref>

Different rules apply to [[Transport for London]], where the most controversial policies have surrounded the cost of [[Public Private Partnerships]].{{efn|Woolmar noted that PPP contracts were 28,000 pages long or 2 million words.<ref>{{cite book |first=C. |last=Wolmar |title=Down the Tube: The battle for London's underground |date=2002}}</ref>}} The [[Greater London Authority Act 1999]], while transferring responsibility for [[Transport for London]] back to an elected [[Ken Livingstone|Mayor]],{{efn|The [[London Regional Transport Act 1984]] had abolished the [[Greater London Council]] and established London Underground Ltd, controlled by central government.}} required that the mayor follow [[public-private partnership]] agreements in rebuilding the [[London Underground]] and train network.<ref>Greater London Authority Act 1999 ss 41 and 141 (Mayor duties for transport) and ss 210–230 (PPP agreements).</ref> While the Mayor [[Ken Livingstone]] argued he was not bound and in an "impossible position", after being elected on a platform opposing privatisation, the High Court ruled that statute required he would be bound.<ref>''[[R (Transport for London) v London Regional Transport]]'' [2001] EWHC Admin 637, per Sullivan J, "‘Entering into agreements may be wise, as asserted by the Government, LUL and LRT, or it may be foolish, as claimed by the Mayor and... TfL... judgments about the merits, as opposed to the legality of entering into the proposed PPP agreements, must be made by elected politicians and not by judges."</ref> In 2008, one of the two main companies responsible for tube upgrades, [[Metronet (British infrastructure company)|Metronet]] went into administration with an estimated cost of £410m.<ref>C Millett, 'Metronet failure cost taxpayer upto £410m' (5 June 2009) [https://web.archive.org/web/20090615204123/http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2009/06/05/68403/metronet-failure-cost-taxpayer-upto-410m.html Contract Journal]. See also House of Commons, Transport Committee (January 2008) "The return anticipated by Metronet's shareholders appears to have been out of all proportion to the level of risk associated with the contract..." “In terms of borrowing, the Metronet contract did nothing more than secure loans, 95% of which were in any case underwritten by the public purse, at an inflated cost..." “Metronet's inability to operate efficiently or economically proves that the private sector can fail to deliver on a spectacular scale.." See also ''[[Re Metronet Rail BCV Ltd]]'' [2007] EWHC 2697 (Ch)</ref>

[[File:Yatton MMB 20 Bristol to Exeter Line 60163 "Tornado".jpg|thumb|right|Coal powered trains became the dominant form of transport in the 19th century, while oil powered [[motor vehicles]] dominated the 20th century.]]
Passengers have a number of rights codified in law, but little direct voice in the running of their services. The Office of Rail and Road can set any conditions in licences, including "the fares to be charged for travel".<ref>[[Railways Act 1993]] s 28(1) ‘A franchise agreement may include provision with respect to the fares to be charged for travel by means of the franchised services.’ Also, s 29(5) ‘subject to any [statutory] requirements a franchise agreement may contain any such provisions as the Franchising Director thinks fit’.</ref> But although there can be regulatory price caps, UK train prices have risen consistently every year, usually beyond inflation.<ref>e.g. DataBlog, ‘Rail fares rise: All the available data on British rail revenues’ (17 August 2011) Guardian, fares rising 8% and ticket holders prices rising 13%</ref> By contrast, in London where the Mayor has control,<ref>[[Greater London Authority Act 1999]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/174 s 174]. However, courts have attempted to intervene in the past: ''[[Bromley LBC v Greater London Council]]'' [1981] [http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1981/7.html UKHL 7] (no deficit spending for fare reductions).</ref> fares have been consistently low when Labour mayors have been elected, although rising when a [[Boris Johnson|Conservative mayor]] was elected.<ref name="auto"/> The EU [[Passenger Rights Regulation 2007]] contains a host of other legal rights against train companies. Passengers have a right to take bicycles on trains if not too crowded, must have proper information on tickets, must be able to make reservations, and must receive minimum compensation for long delays.<ref>[[Passenger Rights Regulation 2007]] (EC) No 1371/2007 art 3 (bikes), 8–9 (information and tickets), 17 (delays: 25% of the ticket price for a 60–119 min delay, 50% for 120 min or more. Season tickets in accordance with company policy. Threshold claim is €4.)</ref> Service standards can be challenged in judicial review. So, in ''[[R (Save Our Railways) v Director of Passenger Rail Franchising]]'' a passenger group argued that the Regulator unlawfully allowed a reduction in services in rural areas in its franchises. The Court of Appeal accepted the group's right to review, but referred the question back to the Regulator for reconsideration.<ref>[1996] CLC 596</ref> Passengers are represented in a Passengers' Council, with a chair appointed by the Secretary of State, regional government representation and others who are seen to represent passenger groups,<ref>RA 2005 ss 19–21 and Schs 5–6</ref> but they have no binding rights against train companies, rather than rights to investigate issues and make representations.<ref>[[Railways Act 1993]] ss 76–78</ref> If train companies go insolvent, a special procedure deviating from the normal [[Insolvency Act 1986]] procedure is followed, to give the government, rather than banks and creditors control over administration.<ref>Railways Act 1993 ss 59–65 and Sch 6</ref> This does not affect the powers of the Office of Rail and Road and a Minister's powers to make directions against a company in administration.<ref>''[[Winsor v Special Railway Administrators of Railtrack Plc]]'' [2002] EWCA Civ 955</ref>

{{Clist roads}}
*[[Highways Act 1555]], [[Highways Act 1562]], [[Turnpike Act 1707]] and [[Turnpike trust]]
*[[Locomotive Acts]] 1861, 1865, 1878
*[[Local Government Act 1888]], establishing county and borough councils, gave them powers to maintain roads

[[File:London bus and telephone box on Haymarket.jpg|thumb|left|[[Electric vehicles]] have spread slowly, starting with [[Low emission buses in London]]. Fully electric [[delivery (commerce)|delivery vehicles]], [[buses]], taxis, would eliminate 56% of [[climate damaging]] exhausts, while [[Electric vehicle network|EV network]] infrastructure is needed to electrify private cars.<ref>See [[Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs|Defra]] and [[Department for Transport]], ''UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations'' ([https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/633270/air-quality-plan-detail.pdf July 2017]) 7, Figure 3: UK national average NOx roadside concentration apportioned by source of NOx emissions, 2015, showing of [[Nitrous Oxide]] emissions, vans and [[HGVs]] are 40% of emissions, buses 16%, taxis 2%, cars 43%, and other vehicles 1%, across the UK.</ref>]]
*''[[Commission v Germany (2007)|Commission v Germany]]'' (2007) C-112/05 
*J Armour, ‘Volkswagen's Emissions Scandal: Lessons for Corporate Governance?’ (2016) OBLB pt 1, pt 2 
*[[Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC]] arts 1, 3(4), 21–23, Annex III (10% renewable target by 2020)
*[[Highways Act 1980]] ss 1, 24, 36, 41 (highways authority, creation, maintenance) 
*[[London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2013]] ss 16–19 (electric charging points)
*[[Road Traffic Act 1988]] ss 87–88, 110–112 (licences) 
*[[Driving Licenses Directive 2006/126/EC]] (mutual recognition) 
*[[Privatisation of London bus services]]
*[[Transport Act 1985]] ss 57–87 (bus licensing) 
*[[Transport Act 2000]] ss 108-123X (local transport plans and buses) 
*[[Bus Passenger Rights Regulation (EU) No 181/2011]] art 19 (50% compensation) 
*[[Transport Act 1985]] ss 10–17 (taxi licensing) 
*[[Transport for London Act 2008]] ss 9–26 (taxi cab licensing in London) 
*''[[Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL]]'' (2017) C-434/15 (what is a transport company?) 
*[[Transport for London Act 2008]] ss 4–8 (road user charge, zero emission capable vehicles exempt) 
*[[Transport Act 2000]] ss 163-177A (outside London)
*[[HGV Road User Levy Act 2013]] ss 1–4 and Sch 1 (heavy goods vehicle charge by SS) 
*[[Road Transport Regulation (EC) no 561/2006]] arts 6 and 10 (working time, liability) 
*''[[Schmidberger v Austria]]'' (2003) C-112/00 (protests on against delivery trucks) 
*[[Carbon tax]], [[Fuel price escalator]] and [[Climate Change Levy]]

;Air traffic
*[[Airport Authority Act 1966]], established the [[British Airports Authority]], privatised in [[Airports Act 1986]], and then wholly bought by a Spanish group, now [[BAA Limited]]
*[[British Overseas Airways Corporation]] or [[British Airways]], combining the private British Airways Ltd. and the state owned Imperial Airways in 1939

===Communications===
{{Clist communications}}
{{see also|Internet in the UK|Telecommunications in the UK|Public service broadcasting in the UK|Postal Services in the UK|IT law}}
Communication between people is fundamental to democracy and human society. The rights to freedom of thought, expression, and freedom of the media are universal human rights,<ref>[[UDHR 1948]], arts 18 (thought) and 19, ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’</ref><ref>[[ECHR 1950]], art 9 (thought) and 10(1) ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.’ This is subject to limits in art 10(2).</ref><ref>[[CFREU 2000]] art 10 (thought) and art 11(1) ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. (2) The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.’</ref> and everyone has a right against "arbitrary interference" with their "privacy", and to protection of one's "home or correspondence".<ref>[[UDHR 1948]] art 12.</ref><ref>[[CFREU 2000]] art 7 ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.’</ref><ref>[[ECHR 1950]] art 8(1) ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.’</ref><ref>''[[Entick v Carrington]]'' [1765] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1765/J98.html EWHC KB J98]</ref> Communication has been revolutionised by the internet, as every traditional form of communication may also take place online: posting letters is replaceable by emails, telephone calls by [[video chat]], print media by digital content, and television by web-[[Streaming media|streaming]]. Historically, the regulation of communication systems was closely connected to state ownership and international treaties, from the [[Royal Mail]], to the [[International Telecommunication Union]] established in 1865, to the [[Telegraph Act 1868]] enabling the government make telegraph and telephone companies public.{{efn|Section 4 of the [[Telegraph Act 1869]] gave the Postmaster General exclusive privilege of sending messages, with certain exceptions, and a monopoly on all telegraph business. In ''[[AG v Edison Telephone Company of London]]'' (1880) 6 QBD 244, 255, the Telegraph Act 1869 was applied to telephones because ‘absurd consequences would follow if the nature and extent of those powers and duties [under the Act] were made dependent upon the means employed for the purpose of giving the information’.}} However, a process of liberalisation,{{efn|The [[British Telecommunications Act 1981]] separated BT from the Post Office, and enabled licensing of private companies: the first was [[Cable & Wireless plc|Cable & Wireless]] in 1981.}} and then privatisation,{{efn|[[Telecommunications Act 1984]], selling BT shares, and establishing the Director General of Telecommunications to regulate the privatised company, including price-fixing.<ref>{{cite book |first=S. |last=Littlechild |title=Regulation of British Telecommunications Profitability: Report to the Secretary of State |date=1983}}</ref>}} took place between 1981 and 1984. Today, the [[Communications Act 2003]] governs the infrastructure of the internet and other telecommunications, underpinned by four main Directives in [[EU law]].<ref>[[Electronic Communications Framework Directive 2002]] {{CELEX|32002L0021|text=2002/21/EC}} arts 8–9 (on regulator tasks)</ref><ref>[[Authorisation Directive 2002]] {{CELEX|32002L0020|text=2002/20/EC}} arts 3–7</ref><ref>[[Access Directive 2002]] {{CELEX|32002L0019|text=2002/19/EC}} arts 3–5</ref><ref>The Universal Service Directive 2002 {{CELEX|32002L0022|text=2002/22/EC}} arts 3–4 and 9–13 (telephone connection, affordability)</ref>

[[File:Carnabotnet geovideo lowres.gif|thumb|left|The [[internet backbone]] is old copper and new [[optical fibre]] networks that span the globe. In the UK, networks such as the publicly funded [[JANET]], or the privately owned [[Liberty Global]] ([[Virgin Media]]) connect each computer's [[Internet Protocol]] [[IP address|address]].]]
Under the [[Communications Act 2003]] section 3, the [[Office of Communications]], or [[Ofcom]], has duties to further citizens' interests in communications, and consumers' interests "by promoting competition", and secure "optimal use for wireless telegraphy of the [[electro-magnetic spectrum]]", make electronic communications, TV, radio, and plurality of media widely available.<ref>Communications Act 2003 [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/3 s 3], also mentioning the need to prevent offensive, harmful or unfair material in TV and radio (but not Internet). Under [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/4 s 4], it must comply with EU law.</ref> It is also subject to directions by the Secretary of State.<ref>[[CA 2003]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/5 s 5]</ref> Under the [[Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006]] section 2 another one of [[Ofcom]]'s main duties is to publish a "UK Plan for Frequency Authorisation", for how [[wireless telegraphy]] frequencies are allocated,{{efn|Under section 2(3) of the [[Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006]] this must be objectively justifiable, non-discriminatory, proportionate and transparent. Under section 5, the Secretary of State should also consider desirability of technological and infrastructure service neutrality.}} and should reflect current and future demand, promote efficient use, innovation and competition. While there is no longer a licence required for merely setting up a telecommunications company,<ref>[[CA 2003]] s 147</ref> and local authorities may set up public electronic communications networks (such as free public wifi),<ref>Communications Act 2003 [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/148 s 148]</ref> establishing wireless telegraphy apparatus (except for TV receivers, and other groups exempt) without a licence from Ofcom is prohibited, which can be subject to any terms Ofcom thinks fit.<ref>Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 ss 8–9</ref> Practically, the prices that telecommunications companies charge are one of the most important factors on which Ofcom can set conditions. First, considerable revenue is raised by setting licence prices. In ''[[EE Ltd v Office of Communications]]'' the Secretary of State issued a direction to [[Ofcom]] to charge full market value for its annual licence fee in the 900[[MHz]] and 1800[[MHz]] frequencies and conduct an auction. However, the company [[EE (telecommunications)|EE Ltd]] successfully claimed that in doing so, Ofcom failed to consider all its duties on promoting competition, being objective, transparent and proportionate before following the Secretary of State's direction, and would have to decide again.<ref>[2017] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/1873.html EWCA Civ 1873]</ref> Ofcom can also cap prices where a provider has "significant market power" so that competition is unlikely to work alone in the public interest.<ref>[[CA 2003]] ss 87–88</ref> In ''[[Telefonica O2 UK Ltd v British Telecommunications plc]]'' the Supreme Court held that Ofcom improperly exercised its discretion in rejecting price rises by [[BT Group|BT]] in its "Standard Interconnect Agreement" for mobile operators to use its networks. [[Lord Sumption]] held Ofcom did not adequately show that price BT's rises damaged the consumer interest.<ref>''[[Telefonica O2 UK Ltd v British Telecommunications plc]]'' [2014] UKSC 42</ref>

[[File:Southwark Bridge - night.jpg|thumb|right|[[Ofcom]], with headquarters at [[Southwark Bridge]], licenses the [[electromagnetic spectrum]], and the operation of most communication firms. [[EE (telecommunications)|EE]], [[O2 (UK)|O2]], [[Vodafone]], and [[Hutchison 3G|3]] dominate [[mobile phones]], and [[BT Group|BT]], [[Sky UK|Sky]], [[Virgin Media|Virgin]] and [[TalkTalk Group|TalkTalk]] dominate broadband.<ref>[[Ofcom]], ''The Communications Market 2016'' [https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/26648/uk_telecoms.pdf 154, Figure 4.2.1] and [[Ofcom]], ''Communications Market Report'' (2017) [https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/105074/cmr-2017-uk.pdf 147, Figure 4.15]</ref>]]
Though Ofcom can control prices, it also has a duty to make companies compete. The [[Enterprise Act 2002]] section 131 enables [[Ofcom]] to make references to the [[Competition Commission]] if it suspects "features of a market... distorts competition in connection with the supply or acquisition" of communication products". This mirrors standards in EU law, particularly from [[TFEU article 102]] on dominant undertakings abusing their position. Ultimately the Competition Commission has power to break up companies, subject to appeal to the [[Competition Appeal Tribunal]] and the courts. With this in mind, under section 154 Ofcom can also accept undertakings from firms to change their business. This occurred in 2005, when [[BT Group|BT]] gave an undertaking to separate its network, now called [[Openreach]], from its wholesale and retail services, and provide other companies equal access to its own.<ref>{{cite book |first=I. |last=Walden |title=Telecommunications Law and Regulation |date=2012 |pages=120–123}}</ref> Equal treatment can also be enforced by the [[European Commission]]. In ''[[France Telecom SA v Commission]]'' the Commission found that France Telecom's subsidiary "Wanadoo Interactive" was engaging in [[predatory pricing]] (setting prices deliberately low, sustained by France Telecom's other divisions) to drive out competitors. The [[European Court of Justice|Court of Justice]] rejected there was any need to show that France Telecom would later be able to make up or "recoup" its losses if it was shown that Wanadoo's prices were below average "variable costs".<ref>''[[France Telecom SA v Commission]]'' (2009) C-202/07</ref> In ''[[Deutsche Telekom AG v Commission]]'' the Commission also found [[Deutsche Telekom]] had abused its dominant position by charging competitors so much in wholesale prices for its "[[local loop]]" network (the circuits connecting fixed telephones to main distribution frames) that others could not credibly compete with Deutsche Telekom in its retail prices. The [[European Court of Justice|Court of Justice]] held that Deutsche Telekom has "squeezed the margins" (between wholesale and retail) of its competitors enough to be an abuse, and once those figures were proven, it was unnecessary to engage in some detailed economic analysis of competition's effects.<ref>''[[Deutsche Telekom AG v Commission]]'' (2010) C-280/08</ref> Similarly in ''[[Telefónica SA v Commission]]'' the [[European Court of Justice|Court of Justice]] upheld a €151m fine on Spain's [[Telefonica]] for abuse by imposing unfair prices on competitors to access its [[ADSL]] broadband fixed telephone network. This had squeezed competitors' margins, and so distorted competition. The test is whether a hypothetical competitor working as efficiently as the incumbent could compete.<ref>''[[Telefónica SA v Commission]]'' (2014) C-295/12</ref> In the UK, ''[[TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc v Ofcom]]'' held that Ofcom imposing charge controls on BT under the [[Communications Act 2003]] section 86 was legitimate, as BT had over 70 per cent of the local exchange market. The Court of Appeal held that, even though [[TalkTalk Group|TalkTalk]] was expanding its local exchange network as Ofcom made its finding that BT had "significant market power" so long as there was no material change that falsified Ofcom's original finding, the price controls could remain.<ref>''[[TalkTalk Telecom Group Plc v Ofcom]]'' [2013] EWCA Civ 1318</ref> However, in ''[[Vodafone Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc]]'', the Court of Appeal held that if price controls (capping and reducing Vodafone's charges for wholesale mobile calls for four years) were appealed, the [[Competition Appeal Tribunal]] had no power to instruct [[Ofcom]] about replacement prices: [[Ofcom]]'s decision if void, would have to be made again.<ref>''[[Vodafone Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc]]'' [2010] EWCA Civ 391</ref> As well as competition and price controls, consumers have basic rights under the [[Universal Service Directive 2002]],<ref>Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC arts 3–4 and 9–13 (telephone connection, affordable)</ref> and the [[Communications Act 2003]]. For example, Ofcom requires that people should be able to keep their telephone numbers even if they transfer between companies to enable people to switch competitors easily.<ref>Communications Act 2003 ss 58–59</ref> Practically important across the EU, the [[Roaming Regulation 2012]] required reduction and elimination of charges for phone calls and text messages when abroad by June 2017.<ref>Roaming Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 arts 7–8 (this is the successor to 717/2007)</ref> In ''[[R (Vodafone Ltd) v SS for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform]]'', [[Vodafone]] attempted to argue this was unlawful under (what is now) the [[TFEU]] because it was "disproportionate" and compromised "subsidiarity". The [[CJEU]] Grand Chamber rejected the claim, as it was based on objective criteria, and encouraged competition among networks for quality.<ref>(2010) C-58/08</ref>

;Post
*[[Postal Services Act 2000]]
*[[Postal Services Commission]]
*[[Postal Services Act 2011]]

===Media and social networks===
{{Clist web media}}
[[File:King's College London Bush House Building 3.jpg|thumb|left|The [[Aldwych]] in London was home to the first [[History of radio|radio broadcasts]], and to the [[BBC]]'s [[BBC World Service|World Service]] from 1941 to 2012.]]
Both telecommunications infrastructure, and the electro-magnetic spectrum, is used for broadcasting of radio, television, and all forms of web media. The [[British Broadcasting Corporation]] is the UK's largest and oldest broadcast media firm, and in substance competes with print media (through news.bbc.co.uk), radio, television and web streaming. Established with a [[royal charter]] in 1927,{{efn|This followed the Crawford Committee (1926). A predecessor, the British Broadcasting Company, was licensed in 1922, with a monopoly licence from the [[General Post Office]], and funded through a licence fee on signal receiving equipment (now including radios, TVs and computers). Both were led by [[Lord Reith]].}}<ref>''White Paper on Broadcasting Policy'' (1946) Cmd 6852.</ref> with an object to "inform, educate and entertain".{{efn|The BBC's royal charter still incorporates this.<ref>''Royal Charter of the BBC'' (2016) Cm 9365, art 5</ref>}} Today the BBC's royal charter requires that it is independent, acts "in the public interest", delivers "impartial" news, supports learning, creativity, high and distinctive quality, serving UK diversity, the creative economy and reflecting UK culture and values to the world.<ref>''Royal Charter of the BBC'' (2016) Cm 9365, arts 3–7</ref> In practice, the BBC's independence from government is achieved through its governance structure. The BBC's Board has a maximum of fourteen members, and while the chair and four nation representatives are appointed by an [[Order in Council]] (effectively by the prime minister), the other nine executive members, including the Director General are appointed by the existing board.<ref>''BBC Charter'' (2016) Cm 9365, arts 21–25</ref> The Secretary of State sets the terms of appointments (with a four-year maximum) and pay, while the terms of everyone else will be set by the board.<ref>''BBC Charter'' (2016) arts 27–32</ref> Article 35 does require "suitable arrangements" to "consult BBC staff on all matters affecting the interests of those staff". But there is, however, not yet direct representation of staff or licence-fee payers in BBC (or other media organisation) governance. [[Ofcom]] licenses all broadcasters in radio and TV (but not on the internet), including the BBC,<ref>[[CA 2003]] s 198</ref> and requires that all comply with the [[Broadcasting Code]].<ref>[[CA 2003]] ss 3, 42, 232–240, 319</ref> Local authorities are explicitly empowered to provide broadcasting. Ofcom can also review media ownership, and the law restricts licensing of broadcasters if they run a national newspaper with a market share over 20 per cent, over a 6-month period.<ref>[[CA 2003]] ss 357, 391 and Sch 14</ref> If licensees breach a duty of accuracy, [[Ofcom]] may require a broadcaster to make corrections or give a statement of findings, and can impose fines up to 5 per cent or advert and sponsorship revenue. Licences can also be revoked. Under the [[Communications Act 2003]] section 319, broadcast standards require protection of children, no material that could incite crime, due impartiality,{{efn|In ''[[Lynch v BBC]]'', Hutton J held BBC was formerly under no duty to act impartially in political matters, so this was changed duty not enforceable in courts. This meant that a candidate for the "Worker's Party" which was excluded from BBC programmes before elections had no claim.<ref>''[[Lynch v BBC]]'' [1983] NILR 193</ref>}} accuracy, no "offensive and harmful material", restriction on political advertising, any ads that are "misleading, harmful or offensive", and "no use of techniques" on viewers for "influencing their minds, without their being aware".<ref>[[CA 2003]] s 319, while s 320 further defines impartiality.</ref> There are further requirements to stop party political advertisements, except under fairly allocated time.<ref>[[CA 2003]] s 333 and the [[Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000]] ss 37 and 127.</ref> As an example of decency and offensiveness standards, in ''[[R (Gaunt) v Ofcom]]'' the Court of Appeal held that [[Ofcom]] was fully justified in finding that a right-wing commentator called [[Jon Gaunt]] on [[Talksport]] had breached the [[Broadcasting Code]]. Gaunt hectored a councillor, who was proposing restricting smokers from fostering children, as a "health Nazi", an "ignorant pig" and to "shut up". Talksport fired Gaunt summarily, before 53 complaints were made to Ofcom, which issued a censure. Gaunt argued the censure breached his ostensible right to freedom of expression under [[ECHR article 10]], but [[Lord Neuberger MR]] rejected the claim because the programme's purpose seemed to any reasonable viewer to be no more than "to insult, belittle and berate" the councillor.<ref>[2011] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/692.html EWCA Civ 692]. An appeal to ECHR was rejected.</ref> Similarly, in ''[[R (DM Digital Television Ltd) v Ofcom]]'' Stuart-Smith J held that [[Ofcom]] was justified in imposing £85,000 and £20,000 fines on a small station called DM Digital, after it broadcast programmes with an Islamic "scholar" inciting crime, and criticising a Pakistani political party and [[NATO]] without inviting their comments and a chance to respond. He rejected claims that Ofcom's process was "biased" or that the financial penalties were disproportionate, noting that Ofcom had not gone further and revoked the broadcaster's licence.<ref>[2014] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/961.html EWHC 961 (Admin)]</ref>

[[File:Ad-tech London 2010 (5).JPG|thumb|right|The most used web networks in the UK are Google and YouTube, Facebook, [[Reddit]], the [[BBC]], [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] and Wikipedia.<ref>[https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/GB Alexa Top Sites] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180304231557/https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/GB |date=4 March 2018 }} (2018)</ref> Only Wikipedia and the [[BBC]] give voice to users in their governance structure. Facebook had, but removed the right of users to vote over privacy and data policy in 2012.<ref>See '[https://epic.org/privacy/facebook/EPIC-CDD-Ltr-to-FB-Data-Use.pdf Letter from Mark Rotenburg to Facebook]' (27 November 2017)</ref>]] 
Despite the common social standards applicable to broadcast media, standards have not been enforced on internet corporations with dominant market power. According to Alex, the world's top five websites include Google, YouTube, Facebook and Wikipedia, while Twitter stands at number 13 but occupies an important role in public discourse. The [[Electronic Commerce Directive 2000]], implemented by the UK [[Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002]] (to some extent following analogues in the United States<ref>See [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]], 47 USC §230 and ''[[Carafano v. Metrosplash.com]]'', 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir 2003)</ref>) an "[[information society service]]" that hosts information is "not liable for information stored" if the provider "does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity.<ref>2000/31/EC) art 14</ref> Moreover there should be no "general obligation on providers... to monitor the information which they transmit or store".<ref>[[Electronic Commerce Directive 2000]], art 15</ref> In light of growing problems with hate speech, harassment, [[fake news]], [[Internet bot|bots]] and interference with democracy, the question is whether these exemptions apply to major news networks. In one of the first cases, ''[[CG v Facebook Ireland Ltd]]'' the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal held that Facebook breached a duty to promptly remove a page that was designed to persecute a former sex offender who had completed a prison sentence.<ref>[2016] NICA 54</ref>

*Wikimedia. Wikipedia, WP:Administration. WP:Sock puppetry. WP:No personal attacks. WP:Neutral. 
*Facebook, Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (2015) cf 2009–2012 ‘system of governance’. 10-K filing 
*YouTube, Terms of Service (9 Jun 2010). Alphabet Inc (i.e. Google), Bylaws and Certificate (2015). 10-K filing 
*Twitter, Terms of Service, Rules, and Privacy Policy (30 Sep 2016). 10-K filing

===Marketplaces===
{{see also|Market (place)|State aid}}
[[File:Crowds shopping at Borough market, south London - geograph.org.uk - 1522109.jpg|thumb|right|[[Borough Market]].]]
;Marketplaces
*[[Southwark Market Act 1755]]
*[[Covent Garden]] Act 1813
*[[Petticoat Lane Market]] Act 1936 
*[[Ipswich Market Act 2004]]
*Supermarkets
*[[Tesco]], [[Sainsbury's]], [[Asda]], [[Waitrose]], [[M&S]], [[Lidl]], [[Aldi]]
*[[London Stock Exchange]]

;Online market places
*[[Amazon Inc]], [[EBay]]
*[[Google Ads]]
*Facebook
*[[StudiVZ]]

===Military and security===
;Military
*[[Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)]]
*[[BAE Systems]]
*[[Reserve Forces Act 1996]] (c 14)
*[[Armed Forces Act 2006]] and [[Armed Forces Act 2016]]
*[[List of countries by level of military equipment]]
*[[National Enterprise Board]]'' 1975, a State holding company for full or partial ownership of industrial undertakings
*[[British Steel Corporation]] 1967
*[[British Leyland Motor Corporation]] 1976 became British Leyland upon nationalisation. Privatised in 1986 to British Aerospace.
*[[British Aerospace]] 1977, combining the major aircraft companies British Aircraft Corporation, Hawker Siddeley and others. British Shipbuilders – combining the major shipbuilding companies including Cammell Laird, Govan Shipbuilders, Swan Hunter, Yarrow Shipbuilders
*[[Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd]]

;Police
*[[Metropolitan Police Act 1829]]
*[[Metropolitan Police Act 1839]]
*[[County Police Acts]]
*[[Law enforcement in the United Kingdom]] and [[History of law enforcement in the United Kingdom]]
*[[Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984]] and [[Police Act 1996]]
*[[Independent Police Complaints Commission]] est 2004

;Prisons
*[[Panopticon]] 1775
*[[West Indian Prisons Act 1838]]
*[[Prison Act 1877]]
*[[Her Majesty's Prison Service]]
*[[Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution]]
*[[List of prisons in the United Kingdom]]

;Fire
*[[Great Fire of London]] 1666
*[[Fire service in the United Kingdom]]

==Fiscal policy==
{{Clist fiscal}}
{{main|UK tax law|UK government spending|UK budget|UK national debt|UK constitutional law}}
[[Fiscal policy]], the administration of taxation and public spending, is together with regulation the key determinant of which enterprises operate, and to what extent. Since the [[Bill of Rights 1689]] secured the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown, the "levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament... is Illegall."<ref>[[Bill of Rights 1689]] cl 4. This followed the [[Magna Carta 1215]] cl 12, the [[Petition of Right 1628]] ([[3 Cha. 1]]. c. 1), the ''[[Case of Ship Money]]'', ''[[R v Hampden]]'' (1637) Salmon's State Trials, vol 1, 698, the [[Ship Money Act 1640]] and the [[English Civil War]].</ref> There can be no tax without Parliament, and any subordinate legislation passed without an Act will be declared invalid in court.<ref>e.g. ''[[Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Cure and Deeley Ltd]]'' [1962] 1 QB 340, and ''[[Woolwich BS v IRC (No 2)]]'' [1993] AC 70, ultra vires money recoverable by taxpayer with interest.</ref> Moreover, since 1713, it is a [[Rules of order|standing order]] of the House of Commons that the House cannot consider any new charges on the public revenue except on the recommendation of the government, signified by a Minister.<ref>''Standing Order'' (1713) [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmstords/341/so_341_051119_web.pdf HC 314, SO 48]</ref> Since 1714, the government's finances were transferred from what was the [[Lord High Treasurer]] to a board of commissioners including the [[First Lord of the Treasury]] (i.e. the Prime Minister), the [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], and the junior Lords of the Treasury (i.e. assistant government whips in the Commons).{{efn|There are four further government ministers responsible for economic affairs (though these may change): the Finance Secretary, responsible for the tax system and tax credits; the Economic Secretary, responsible for growth, enterprise, productivity; the [[Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury|Exchequer Secretary]], excise duties, personal savings, pensions; and the Financial Services Secretary, financial services, banking support, foreign exchange reserves.}} As a department, the Treasury controls both tax and spending and guides economic policy.<ref>e.g. the document on ''Departmental Strategic Objectives'' (2007) aimed to ensure ‘high and sustainable levels of economic growth, well being and prosperity for all’, and to eradicate child poverty by 2020. This latter goal was removed by the succeeding government as the [[Child Poverty Act 2010]] was renamed the [[Life Chances Act 2010]].</ref> The Treasury controls [[Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs]], and its commissioners "shall comply with any directions" given by the Treasury.<ref>[[Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/11/crossheading/exercise-of-functions s 11] and the [[Taxes Management Act 1970]], on the administration of HMRC.</ref> The Treasury also has a duty to prepare a "Charter for Budget Responsibility" that is laid before Parliament and sets out the "formulation and implementation of fiscal policy and policy for the management of the National Debt".<ref>[[Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/4/part/1 s 1(1)]</ref> The Treasury has to prepare a financial statement and budget report for each financial year", and it appoints an [[Office of Budget Responsibility]] to "examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances."<ref>[[Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/4/part/1 ss 2–4]</ref> All money received from tax revenue goes to the [[Consolidated Fund]],<ref>[[Consolidated Fund Act 1816]] s 1 and [[Exchequer Audit Departments Act 1866]] s 10, ‘All public moneys payable to the Exchequer shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund...’</ref> while money from [[National Insurance Contributions]] goes to the [[National Insurance Fund]].<ref>[[Social Security Administration Act 1992]] s 162</ref> The government also has a [[National Loans Fund]] for borrowing, which the Consolidated Fund draws upon to maintain a daily balance of zero,<ref>[[National Loans Act 1968]] s 18, there is daily balancing between the NLF and CF.</ref> a [[Contingency Fund]] for emergency spending,<ref>[[Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1946]]</ref> and the Treasury maintains an [[Exchange Equalisation Account]] for trading foreign currency, gold, and [[special drawing rights]] with the [[International Monetary Fund]] to stabilise the [[pound sterling]].<ref>[[Exchange Equalisation Account Act 1979]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/30 s 1]</ref> The government can also establish trading funds for specific public bodies, such as the [[Royal Mint]] or the [[Land Registry]] where it is suitable to make funds separate from the budget's annual cycle.<ref>[[Government Trading Funds Act 1973]]</ref> Government departments may be required to do accounts each year by the Treasury.<ref>[[Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000]] s 7</ref>

[[File:UK budget charts 2019-2020.png|thumb|left|400px|[[Government spending in the United Kingdom]] and sources of revenue, for 2019–2020.]]
The main sources of revenue for the government are taxes on labour, capital, trade in goods and services, and land, although the balance of these has shifted considerably in recent decades. Taxes on income have been increased for lower and middle earners and reduced for higher earners, corporation tax has been cut, value added tax has been increased, and taxes on land and wealth have reduced. First, [[income tax]] and [[National Insurance Contributions]] come mainly from the incomes of employees and the self-employed at work, albeit different rates, but it is also charged on savings and investment income.<ref>[[Income Tax Act 2007]] s 3</ref> In 2020, there was no tax charged on the first £12,500 of income each year (the [[personal allowance]]), 20% income tax up to £50,000, 40% up to £150,000, and 45% over £150,000.<ref>[[Income Tax Act 2007]] ss 10–12, 35 and 57A. [[Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003]] defines earnings subject to tax and See Income Tax Rates at [https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates gov.uk]</ref> While there are several categories, the main National Insurance rates paid by employees are 12% for earnings between £166.01 and £962 each week, and 2% on the earnings above, while employers pay 13.8% on earnings over £166.01.{{efn|That is £95.52 a week for someone paying in the main rate. The annual rates, assuming 52 weeks of earnings, is £8,632.52–£50,024, totalling £4,967.04 in NICs each year.<ref>[[Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992]] ss 1, 8–15.</ref><ref>National Insurance Rates [https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters gov.uk]</ref>}} By contrast, most people who are self-employed as sole traders or in a partnership pay £3 a week over £6,365 a year, 9% on profits between £8,632 and £50,000 each year, and 2% on profits over £50,000.{{efn|That is £3,803.60 for someone earning £50,000. The [[Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005]] defines which trading income is caught, and deductions for expenses.}} This means that, although National Insurance operates in the same way as a tax, it is regressive. Second, the rates for income tax on income from [[dividends]] from shares is lower than for employment income, standing at 7.5% for the basic rate, 32.5% for the higher rate, and 38.1% for the additional rate.<ref>[[Income Tax Act 2007]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/3/section/8 s 8]</ref> This is mirrored in the lower rates of [[Corporation Tax Act 2010]]. For corporate profits, the main rate of tax is 19% in 2020.<ref>[[Corporation Tax Act 2010]] s 3 refers to the main rate as being set by Parliament, which in turn is set in the [[Finance (No. 2) Act 2015]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/33/section/7 s 7] at 19%. For 2020, the March Budget announced the main rate would remain at 19%, notwithstanding the planned drop to 17%.</ref> This has been reduced from 28% since 2010, and from at 52% in 1982 with a lower rate of 38% for small companies. Under the [[Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992]] an additional tax on capital gains is charged at 18% for residential property, and 10% for other assets, for those still within the basic rate of income, and 28% and 20% for those in the higher or additional rates.<ref>[[Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/12/part/1/chapter/1/crossheading/rates-of-cgt s 1H]</ref> Third, the rate of Value Added Tax stands at 20% in 2020, after being increased from 17.5% in 2010,<ref>[[Value Added Tax Act 1994]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/23/part/I/crossheading/imposition-and-rate-of-vat s 2], put up by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2010 s 3(1)</ref> from 15% in 1991, and from 8% in 1979. Fourth, there are two taxes payable on land. [[Council Tax]] is charged on residential properties according to their value in 1993 for residents or owners.<ref>[[Local Government Finance Act 1992]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/14/part/I/chapter/I ss 5–6]</ref> [[Business rates in England|Business rates]] are charged on business properties based on a rating last done in 2015.<ref>[[Local Government Finance Act 1988]] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/41/part/III ss 41 ff]. See also [[Business rates in Scotland]].</ref> Overall the shifts in taxation have become more regressive, enabling the wealthiest to pay the least, and making the poor pay more.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}}

Government spending is set out each year in the [[UK government budget]]. Most money goes to pensions, unemployment insurance, social care, the [[National Health Service]] and education. Proportionally, the sums going to education have decreased with cuts to schools and universities becoming reliant on tuition fees charged to home and international students. A considerable proportion goes to military spending and paying off the [[national debt]], which primarily means profits for international banks that lend the UK government money. In the March 2020, the government planned large increases in transport, communication infrastructure and housing spending, as well as more nurses and police officers. It is generally thought that more investment in education, [[public health]], clean energy, transport and communication infrastructure enable the greatest multipliers for future economic performance,<ref>e.g. W Easterly and S Rebelo, ‘Fiscal policy and economic growth: An empirical investigation’ (1993) [https://www.nber.org/papers/w4499.pdf 33(2) Journal of Monetary Economics 417]</ref> coupled with policies to maintain [[full employment]] at fair wages.

==Theory==
{{main|Public economics|Market failure|Regulatory economics}}
*[[A Smith]], ''[[An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations]]'' (1776) Bk I, ch 8, Bk V, ch 1 §§69–129
*[[JS Mill]], ''[[Principles of Political Economy]]'' (1848) Book IV, ch VI and [http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mill-principles-of-political-economy-ashley-ed Book V, ch XI, §11]
*[[K Marx]], ''[[Capital: A Critique of Political Economy]]'' (1867) vol I, chs 13, 32 and 33 and vol III, ch 27
*S Webb and B Webb, ''[[Industrial Democracy]]'' (1897) Part III, ch 2 (655–662, 671–672, 692) and ch 4 (847–8)
*[[S Webb]] and [[B Webb]], ''[[The History of Trade Unionism]]'' (Revised edn 1920) Appendix VIII 
*[[K Kautsky]], ''The Labour Revolution'' (1924) ch III, VIII(e) 
*[[AA Berle]], ‘Property, Production and Revolution’ (1965) 65 Columbia Law Review 1–20
*[[AO Hirschman]], ''[[Exit, Voice and Loyalty]]'' (1971) chs 1–3 (only 19–43) 
*T Raiser, ‘The Theory of Enterprise Law in the Federal Republic of Germany’ (1988) 36(1) American Journal of Comparative Law 111
*H Hansmann and R Kraakman, ‘The End of History for Corporate Law’ (2000) 89 Georgetown LJ 439 
*[[S Deakin]], ‘The Corporation as Commons: Rethinking Property Rights, Governance and Sustainability in the Business Enterprise’ (2012) 37(2) Queen's Law Journal 339
*[[JE Stiglitz]] and JK Rosengard, ''The Economics of the Public Sector'' (3rd edn 2015) 
*JA Schumpeter, ''[[Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy]]'' (1942)
*GJ Stigler, ‘The Theory of Economic Regulation’ (1971) 2(1) BJEMS 3 (on regulatory ‘capture’) 
*[[FA Hayek]], ''[[The Constitution of Liberty]]'' (1976) ch 12, especially at 184–5 
*[[R Nader]], M Green and J Seligman, ''Taming the Giant Corporation'' (1976) 
*[[RE Freeman]], ''Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach'' (1984) 
*[[OE Williamson]], ''The Economic Institutions of Capitalism'' (1985) 
*H Hansmann, ''The Ownership of Enterprise'' (1996) 
*[[JE Parkinson]], ‘Models of the Company and the Employment Relationship’ (2003) 41 BJIR 481

==See also==
*[[United States enterprise law]]
*[[Public economics]]
*[[Universal Service Fund]]
*[[Universal service]]
*[[Co-production (approach)]]

==Footnotes==
{{notelist}}

==Notes==
{{reflist|30em}}

==References==
;Articles and chapters
*[[JR Commons]], ‘The Webbs’ Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth’ (1921) 11(1) American Economic Review 82 
*ACL Davies, ‘This Time, it's for Real: The Health and Social Care Act 2012’ (2013) 76(3) Modern Law Review 564
*TR Gourvish, ‘British Rail's “Business-Led” Organization, 1977–1990: Government-Industry Relations in Britain's Public Sector’ (1990) 64(1) Business History Review 109
*T Jenkinson and C Mayer, 'The Costs of Privatization in the UK and France', in M Bishop, J Kay, and C Mayer (eds), ''Privatization & Economic Performance'' (OUP) 290–298
*T Prosser, ‘Public Service Law: Privatization's Unexpected Offspring’ (2000) 63(4) Law & Contemporary Problems 63 
*[[WA Robson]], ‘The Public Corporation in Britain Today’ (1950) 63(8) Harvard Law Review 1321
*H Skovgaard-Petersen, ‘There and back again: portability of student loans, grants and fee support in a free movement perspective’ (2013) 38(6) European Law Review 783

;Books
*[[R Cranston]], ''Principles of Banking Law'' (2002) chs 3–5 
*EP Ellinger, E Lomnicka and CVM Hare, ''Ellinger's Modern Banking Law'' (5th edn 2011) chs 2 and 5
*D Farrington and D Palfreyman, ''The Law of Higher Education'' (2nd edn 2012) chs 4–5 and 12
*G Gordon et al., ''Oil and Gas Law: Current Practice and Emerging Trends'' (2010) ch 4 
*[[L Hannah]], ''Electricity before Nationalisation: A Study of the Development of the Electricity Supply Industry to 1948'' (1979)
*[[E Jackson]], ''Medical Law: Texts, Cases and Materials'' (4th edn 2016) ch 2
*A Johnston and G Block, ''EU Energy Law'' (2012) ch 7
*E McGaughey, ''Principles of Enterprise Law: the Economic Constitution and Human Rights'' ([https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/law/corporate-law/principles-enterprise-law-economic-constitution-and-human-rights?format=PB Cambridge UP 2022]) 
*J Montgomery, ''Health care law'' (2002) chs 3–4
*[[Tony Prosser]], ''The limits of competition law'' (2004)
*M Ricks, G Sitaraman, L Menand, S Welton, ''Networks, Platforms & Utilities: Law and Policy'' (2022) 
*[[T Wheelwright]], ''Oil and World Politics: From Rockefeller to the Gulf War'' (1991)

==External links==

{{Health care in Europe}}
{{United Kingdom water industry}}
{{History of bus transport in the United Kingdom}}

[[Category:United Kingdom enterprise law| ]]
[[Category:Public services]]
[[Category:Constitutional laws of the United Kingdom]]