Select Committee on Regulatory Reform Second Report


APPENDIX F

Response from the General Register Office to the Committee Specialist

Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Registration of Births and Deaths) (England and Wales) Order 2004: response to request for information

Q6.  Please explain what authorises the inclusion of article 52 in the proposed order.

Section 1(6) of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (the 2001 Act) allows inclusion of provisions that are incidental or supplemental. \in our view, article 52 is incidental or supplemental to provision amending the Schedule to the Population Statistics Act 1938

Q7.  Please explain what authorises setting at 12 months the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction in article 53(2)(a).

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 282. This section is not yet in force, but it was considered wise to take account of it here.

Q8.  How is it intended that the identity of a person presenting themselves as an informant to a given registrable event will be proved when such a person makes use of the proposed telephone call-centre or internet registration facilities?

At present there is no obligation either upon an informant to produce evidence of identity or on a registration officer to check identity. Our proposal to link each notification from the NHS with a single entry in the Register provides a more secure and robust means of ensuring that duplicate or fictitious registrations are not made.

The issue of identity is particularly important for birth registration where the parents are not married as the basic principle of mutual acknowledgement of paternity needs to be maintained. In practice this involves both parents giving the information for the birth to be registered either together to the registrar or for one to attend in person and the other to complete a statutory declaration for production to the registrar. Though no identity checks are carried out on informants currently, it is accepted that the ability to register by remote means, such as via the Internet, may increase the risk of a person being recorded as the child's father without the element of mutual consent e.g. the mother logs-on twice, first as herself then as the alleged father.

The intention is to introduce registration by remote means once the authentication framework currently being developed within central Government to enable access to services becomes available. Should this prove inappropriate for one-off transactions such as registering a birth it may be necessary to provide an alternative.

Q9.  What criteria does the GRO expect to apply in determining whether it would be appropriate to grant a given organisation Authorised User status?

When developing criteria for appointing Authorised Users, the overall aim would be to safeguard the privacy of individuals and protect the security of registration information and of the registration system. It would also aim to ensure the rights and freedoms of individuals to obtain the services and benefits to which they are entitled were maintained.

The following represent some of the criteria GRO would expect to apply:

  Demonstrable need to access the restricted information in order to process applications/services that are of benefit to the public,

  Access required on a frequent, on-going basis,

  Clear, robust and auditable process in place for obtaining consent,

  Secure IT systems in place.

In addition GRO would require an organisation wanting to become an Authorised User to sign a contract or service level agreement. This agreement is likely to include:

  a confidentiality statement,

  an agreement to abide by the legislative requirements such as obtaining consent,

  a commitment to keep an up-to-date list of operators and to ensure their adherence to the terms of the contract,

  an undertaking to allow inspections/audits aimed at ensuring compliance with the legislation and/or service level agreement,

  a statement agreeing to ensure the security of any technical facilities allowing them access to the restricted data.

These arrangements apply only to Authorised Users and not, for example, to those persons authorised to conduct ethically approved research.

Q10.  By what mechanism would restricted data be made available to an Authorised User on the relevant data subject or another qualified person granting the necessary consent?

It is intended to issue Authorised Users with technical facilities to allow them to access the restricted information directly on the database. Those technical facilities are likely to include a log-on identity/username and a password. Individual operators within an organisation would have their own usernames to provide additional security. Approved Authorised Users would obtain access to the full entry as captured on the database, but that access would be on a 'read only' basis. The system would provide further reassurance (via an audit trail) that an Authorised User had accessed only restricted information for those records for which the necessary consent has been obtained.

Q11.  In what circumstances does GRO believes that the Registrar General might wish to make use of his proposed discretionary powers to amend the birth record of a person in the absence of any of the forms of evidence specified in Schedule 7?

The intention of the proposed discretionary power is to give the Registrar General some flexibility to update a person's birth record in the absence of the more common forms of evidence specified in Schedule 7. It is expected that the person requesting the update would present evidence to confirm that the change they wish to record had taken place. These powers would allow social inclusion and prevent those who, for one reason or another, cannot present a deed poll, statutory declaration, etc from being prevented from updating their birth record. The Registrar General would have to be satisfied as to the circumstances of the change before authorising the update, thus providing a safeguard to the integrity of the records.

Q12.  How does the GRO consider the proposal provides for equality and consistency of access for users in all parts of England and Wales, given that it will be for individual registration authorities to determine the extent of provision of registration services in their area and the proposed provisions of the Code of Practice at Schedule 4 do not appear to make any independent requirements of such authorities in respect of access?

The proposals would provide a consistent minimum level of service while allowing local authorities discretion to provide enhanced services if they wish to.

Transferring responsibility for face to face services to local authorities is designed to allow better management and 'joining up' with other local authority services subject to compliance with National Minimum Standards (NMS).

Opening hours and other NMS will need to reflect guidance provided by the Registrar General. This guidance would state that registration services should be available for times that the Council has determined that its main services will be available.

The philosophy behind the proposed RRO is one of minimum prescription and this is a good example of the application of that principle. NMS have been designed to allow local registration services flexibility to tailor services to their own requirements. Nonetheless the local authority is required to publish, for example, the opening hours and places where the service will be available.

A local Registration Authority would be required to consult with the public on accessibility issues and to take the views of the public into account when setting access times. It is also proposed that an authority should be able to evidence that they have done so.

Q13.  For what reason is it proposed that Schedule 10 to the Order would to permit a person's uncles and aunts to access that person's restricted data without consent but not to permit the same rights of access to apply reciprocally in respect of the same person wishing to examine records of their uncle or aunt?

The point about including a person's nephews and nieces on the list of those entitled to access the restricted information is a valid one and worthy of further consideration.

Q14.  Does the GRO consider any legal constraints on access would apply under paragraph 4(2) of Part 1 of Schedule 10 to a person claiming to have been adopted and wishing to access restricted information with a view to tracing their relatives? Would such an adopted person have legal rights of free access to any information in the register?

The main concern of those affected by adoption who responded to 'Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change' was that restricting access to certain registration information would significantly impact upon the ability of adopted people and birth relatives to trace each other and establish contact. This right is encompassed in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) and other legislation. Specifically, section 98 of the 2002 Act provides birth relatives with a statutory right to ask a registered Adoption Support Agency (ASA) to provide an intermediary service, ie to trace and contact an adopted adult and seek their consent to renewed contact/communication with a birth relative.

Responses received from adoption groups stated that if a registered ASA was unable to have access to full registration records relating to an adopted person (i.e. birth, marriage and death records), it would seriously disadvantage the work the ASA can do in seeking to trace the adopted person. Therefore, it would infringe the birth relative's right to a service under section 98 of the 2002 Act. The intention of the 2002 Act is that registered ASAs should be able to access a wide range of information from the Registrar General, adoption agencies and the courts in order to be able to effectively trace and facilitate contact between adopted persons and their birth relatives.

Paragraph 4(2) of Part 1 of Schedule 10 provides for registered ASAs to access the restricted information where they have been asked to act as intermediaries. It is envisaged that ASAs would be required to present to GRO some confirmation or evidence that they were searching for a specific person before being given access to the restricted information. They may also be asked to sign an agreement along the lines of Authorised Users stating that they would only access records directly relating to the person they were tracing.

GRO may also consider asking applicants purporting to be adopted and wishing to access the restricted information to verify the fact of their adoption. One way to do this might be to verify the record directly on the Adopted Children Register. Following this verification, adopted people would be able to access the restricted information on records to allow them to trace birth relatives.

Q15.  In order to access restricted information, any person will need either to have permission from a person qualified to grant access or to prove that they are themselves qualified under Part 1 of Schedule 10 to the proposed Order. Paragraph 6.9.28 of the Explanatory Statement says that such a person "will need to provide proof of their identity and entitlement to that information. The Government is likely to define what constitutes acceptable proof of identity as part of its wider policy development". Please indicate what steps have been taken so far towards the elaboration of these verification protocols and whether these would be fully in place before the proposed Order would be brought into effect.

GRO would have to consider the development of its own authentication framework if the proposed pan-Government arrangements are not in place when the proposed Order is brought into effect. It is intended to use existing models as the basis for developing this framework. Representatives from the local registration authorities would be involved in the development and quality assurance of any verification or authentication protocol.

Any framework for establishing an applicant's entitlement to access the restricted information might involve the presentation of a package of documents or the provision of another personal identifier that can be verified. The 'package' of documentation would deliver both some flexibility to those proving their entitlement and assurance to those confirming the entitlement. A 'package' of documentation would be better at maintaining the necessary protection and people's rights and freedoms that the reliance on one specific document.

It is expected that the entitlement framework would be fully in place before the proposed Order is brought into effect.

Q16.  Where death of an individual occurred less than 25 years previously, and no next of kin could be identified who could consent to the release of this information, would the restricted information in the death record have to remain unavailable to other persons until 25 years had passed?

No. Paragraph 3(g) of part 1 of Schedule 10 allows a properly appointed representative to have access to the restricted information. Paragraph 4 of part 2 of that same Schedule allows a properly appointed representative to give consent to others to access the restricted information. If the deceased left a will, the executor could be considered as a properly appointed representative and would be able to give consent as necessary. In cases of intestacy, a solicitor may be able to act as a properly appointed representative and therefore give consent.

Q17.  Does the GRO accept that the proposed restrictions on the availability of registration information may, in a small number of circumstances, make it impossible to identify the living relatives of a deceased person and that in some instances this is likely to have implications for the administration of estates and if not, why not?

It is recognised that the administration of estates can be difficult in some circumstance even now, such as for example, where the deceased was intestate. In these cases, it is not always possible to trace living relatives. GRO accepts that that difficulty could persist in a small number of cases under the new system and with it, the implications for the administration of those estates.

It should be borne in mind, however, that the information that it is proposed to restrict would only be addresses on birth records and addresses and cause of death on death records. The proposed system would allow, and indeed make it easier, to search for the records of the living relatives of the deceased. Addresses in registration records are not current or kept up-to-date. Other sources of address information could be used to help trace individuals who have been identified as possible relatives.

Q18.  Why is it considered necessary to make the provision of postcode and occupational details mandatory?

When existing legislation was introduced, postcode was not considered part of the address. As its use became more common, it was recorded on a voluntary basis to help avoid confusion between similar addresses. However, it is now a key component of all address referencing systems. Together with house number or a comparable dwelling identifier it provides a unique and precise geographic location for the address. This is needed for most modern electronic systems. In particular, for statistical systems it is essential to ensure accuracy in assigning registered events to specific geographic locations. This is used for public health purposes in small area mapping and more generally in correctly assigning events to administrative areas that may change over time. This is important in correctly calculating birth and death rates and population estimates for planning, monitoring and resource allocation purposes.

Under current legislation recording of occupation is mandatory, principally requiring the recording of job title. For statistical purposes, in classifying jobs and persons by reference to their economic activity, further distinct concepts are generally recognised to require separate measurement (see Standard Occupational Classification 2000). The use of status in employment and industry are currently voluntary items at event registration, but are required in collections such as the Census of Population. It is only with occupation and employment status, together with establishment size, that a National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification code can be fully assigned. This is necessary to ensure comparability across statistical sources, so as to adequately ensure the quality of statistics used in monitoring public health (e.g. health inequalities and the proper separation of occupational and social determinants of mortality) and social exclusion (e.g. deprivation indices).

Q19.  Given that the framing of the proposal would give no legal basis to require information concerning matters such as the size of establishment in which a person is employed, on what basis does the GRO propose to require its staff and registration authorities to seek these details?

As indicated in answer to Q18, information is currently collected on a mandatory basis on occupation and on a voluntary basis on industry and status in employment. All these will in future be mandatory. As indicated, establishment size is needed to fully assign National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification in a form that is comparable with sources such as the Census of Population. It is equally recognised that the circumstances in which registration takes place means that more limited information is available on employer than can be obtained in other circumstances. For this reason, it is proposed that the recording will be introduced initially on a pilot basis, to ensure that the form of question used is acceptable and provides meaningful information. Subject to successful piloting, it is proposed to introduce the item by means of a subordinate provisions order.

Q20.  Under Article 41 of the proposed Order, the Registrar General may use any information which comes into his possession in that capacity in furtherance of any function conferred on him in his capacity as administrative head of the Office for National Statistics. By what mechanism are functions so conferred and what limitations if any apply in law as to the functions which may be conferred?

The Office for National Statistics is a non-ministerial government department created in 1996. Functions may be conferred on it by legislation or by an exercise of the Royal prerogative. The limitations that apply in conferring those functions are the limitations common to the exercise of such powers generally.

Q21.  Please define the meaning of "any person or body having functions of a public nature".

This has been left undefined since it may need to cover a number of authorities in a number of jurisdictions. The phrase was adapted from the s.6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Q22.  Does the GRO consider that the proposed powers in Schedule 11 give the Registrar General and registration authorities sufficiently wide powers to issue certified copies of entries to provide for all the legitimate needs of members of the public?

In the long term, the need for certified copies for official purposes would be removed. It is envisaged that certified copies would only continue to be required in a small number of situations. Thus, the GRO considers that the proposed powers in Schedule 11 do give the Registrar General and registration authorities sufficiently wide powers for the issue of certified copies in the long-term. It is not proposed to bring this provision into force until such time as information is accessible electronically on the national database.

In addition, article 40 provides for the issue of paper copies of entries in the national database. These paper copies would not have any evidential value but could be of use for purposes not covered by Schedule 11, for example for genealogical research.

Q23.  Please indicate how it would be possible to run pilot schemes under the proposed Article 52 without there being any obligation to provide information under the scheme imposed on those selected for that purpose by the Registrar General.

In the past concerns have been expressed about the Registrar General's power to collect statistical information voluntarily, given that he already has express powers in the Population Statistics Act 1938 to require it.

There are certain risks in collecting information voluntarily (most obviously a low response rate) but the Registrar General is happy to accept these risks and continue to collect certain information volutarily (for example as a pilot for later mandatory, national collection), provided he is satisfied he is not acting outside his powers in doing so.

It was originally considered that a pilot scheme of the type envisaged by article 52 would provide the Registrar General with the power that he needed to regularise the collection of information that had previously been collected voluntarily. The Registrar General will give immediate attention to whether he has the powers to do what he wants to be able to and whether it can be achieved by an amended provision.

Q24.  In paragraphs (5) and (6) of Article 1 should not the references to paragraph (2) be to paragraph (3)?

Agreed.

Q25.  Explain the meaning and effect of "in any such case" at the beginning of paragraph (6)(b) of Article 1.

These words are intended to put beyond doubt that the power in paragraph (b) may be exercised in conjunction with any power in paragraph (a).

Q26.  In paragraph (2) of Article 6 should the reference to article 1(2) be to article 1(4)?

Agreed.

Q27.  Paragraph (3)(b) of Article 16 inserts after subsection (2)(a) of section 1 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 new paragraph (dd). Should the reference to subsection (2)(a) be to subsection (2)(d) or should the new paragraph be numbered (aa)?

Agreed.

Q28.  Should paragraph (9) of Article 16 also provide for the omission from section 7 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 of the words "and in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed" (compare article 19(8))?

The GRO agrees that the proposals in articles 16(9) and 19(8) should be consistent. As the manner of registration is contained in schedule 3 these articles will be amended to provide for the removal the words "…and in such manner and" from subsection (1) of section 7 and subsection (1) of section 21 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The power of the Registrar General to prescribe conditions for the registration of a birth or death more than twelve months from the date of the event would be retained.

Q29.  In new paragraph (ba) of section 16(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 inserted by paragraph (3)(b)(i) of Article 19 should the reference to "paragraph (a)" be to paragraph (ba)?

Agreed.

Q30.  In paragraph (3)(b)(iii) of Article 19 verify the reference to paragraph (g).

The reference to paragraph (g) needs to be removed.

Q31.  Explain the need for the words "as the case may be" in the words substituted in section 16(4)(5) and (7) of the Coroners Act 1988 by paragraph (3) of Article 20 (compare the substitution made by paragraph (4)).

It would be appropriate for Article 20 paragraph (4) to also introduce the wording "as the case may be". It is envisaged that coroners' forms will continue to be sent locally until such time as these can be transmitted electronically to the central database. It is not proposed that a coroner may choose to send his notification either to a local registration authority or the Registrar General.

Q32.  In paragraph (2) of Article 24 should the reference to article 27 be to article 26?

No. Article 26 follows on from article 25(b)(ii) and specifies the evidence that is required to support a correction of the identity of the father in an entry.

Q33.  Why does paragraph (1) of Article 27 make no provision for requests for amendment of the register to be made jointly by the parents (compare new section 10(1AB)(a) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 inserted by article 16(11)(a))?

The new section 10(1AB)(a) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (the 1953 Act), as inserted by article 16(11)(a) of the draft Order, relates to the initial registration of a birth of a child whose parents were not married. It provides for the inclusion of the father's details in some circumstances. Article 27 of the draft Order relates to the amending or updating of a still-birth record where the parents of the still-born child are not married. In this respect, it reflects the new provision 10A(b) of the 1953 Act as inserted by article 16(13)(a) of the draft Order.

Section 10A(b) does not apply to still-birth. The provision in article 27 was introduced to give the unmarried parents of a still-born child the same rights as the unmarried parents of a child born alive to update the birth record to include the father's details.

Although article 27 does not specifically provide for the unmarried parents of the still-born child to request jointly an amendment to a still-birth record, it does not preclude them from doing so. Article 27(a) provides for each parent to request the amendment. These requests could be made jointly. The provision was drafted to allow maximum flexibility to the parents of a still-born child and recognises that still-births are particularly sensitive

Q34.  In paragraph (1)(a), (b) and (c) of Article 27 should "the registration authority" read "any [a] registration authority" (compare new section 10(1AB)(b), (c) and (d))?

The references in (a)(b) and (c) are to "The registration authority" because of the previous reference (line 3) to "a registration authority". This is not quite the same as in the new section 10(1AB)(b),(c) and (d), because in section 10(1AB) there had not been a previous reference to "a registration authority".

Q35.  In Article 46 should the reference to article 41 be to article 40?

Agreed.

Q36.  Paragraph (2)(a) of Article 51 refers to information obtained "by virtue of article 17". That article merely amends section 124 of the National Health Service Act 1977. Should this paragraph not refer to that section (as amended)?

No. The reference should be to article 18.

Q37.  Explain the relationship between article 54 and article 6 and how each is intended to operate.

The policy intention behind these provisions is to repeal employment-related provisions in local schemes as soon as registration officers become local authority employees. Other parts of the scheme will remain in force. Thus, the provisions of the scheme relating to births and deaths will need to remain in force until such time as a local authority is able to discharge its new functions by using the new computer database.

The provisions of the scheme relating to marriages will need to remain in force until such time as the corresponding Regulatory Reform Order relating to marriage is introduced and in force.

It is accepted that Articles 6 and 54 may not have properly captured the policy intention. It is believed that could be done by amending article 6(2) so that it says "...........shall cease to have effect as regards births and deaths, when, and to the extent that........".

It will be necessary to keep in force sections 13 and 14 of the Registration Service Act 1953 until such time as the new provisions relating to marriages are in force. That would be done by not bringing the repeal of those two sections into force until such time as the Marriages Order was in force.

Q38.  In paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 3 should not the reference to paragraph 16 be to paragraph 17?

Agreed.

Q39.  In paragraph 18(4) of Schedule 3 should not "Regulation" read "paragraph"?

Agreed.

Q40.  In paragraph 20(5) of Schedule 3 should not "Regulation 16,17…or 18" read "paragraph "17, 18….or 19"?

Agreed.

Q41.  In paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 -

(1)  why are the words " a burial ground in" not included before "England" (compare paragraph 15);

(2)  why are sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) differently worded from the corresponding sub-paragraphs in paragraph 15;and

(3)  does the department agree that in the context paragraph (b) is not drafted in plain English?

(1) The wording is taken from the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1926 in which the term "burial ground" is used in reference to a still-birth but not in respect of a death. In the case of a still-birth the burial may take place other than in a burial ground. If the burial is to take place other than in a burial ground no certificate for disposal is issuable. No distinction is made for deaths as all burials in respect of deaths must be in a burial ground.

(2) Paragraph 15(a) uses the term "case" as "still-birth" would be inappropriate due to the fact that coroners have no jurisdiction in regard to still-births. Alleged still-births are reported to the coroner only where there is reason to suspect that the child may have been born alive. With regard to paragraph 15(b), again the term "case" is used as this refers to a purported still-birth but which may have been a birth and death. Reference to an inquest in paragraph 15(2) would be inappropriate as an inquest may be held in respect of a death only.

(3) The department agrees that paragraph (b) is not drafted in plain English. This paragraph uses the current wording in Regulation 49(2)(b) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/2088). The opportunity will be taken to re-word this paragraph.

Q42.  In the paragraph in Schedule 4 headed "Consultation and Planning" should delivery of modes" read "modes of delivery"?

Agreed.

Q43.  In the paragraph in Schedule 4 headed "IT" why are the initials "GRO" not explained?

This is an oversight - it will be amended.

The paragraph might better read:-

'A registration authority must provide appropriate hardware, software and communications links to allow reliable access to the central national database through the use of applications software provided by the Registrar General and an appropriate level of technical support to ensure a high standard of local systems availability.'

Q44.  In Part 2 of Schedule 9 should not the references to articles 22 and 23 be to articles 23 and 24 and should there not also be a reference to article 28?

The references should be to 23, 24 or 28.

Q45.  The following expressions are variously used in Schedule 9 -

"normal address"

"usual address"

"usual address or residence"

"usual residence"

"usual place of residence"

"address"

"home address"

"postal address"

"the address of usual residence".

Are some or all of them intended to bear the same meaning? If so, why are different expressions used? If not, explain the different meanings.

The various expressions are those used in the different legislation to which references are made.

Q47.  Are the words in brackets in the titles to Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 10 intended to limit the entitlement otherwise arising under article 35(1)? If so, should those limitations not appear in article 35 itself?

We did not take the view that this was necessary but the matter can be put beyond doubt by re-drafting.

Q48.  In paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Part 1 and in each paragraph of Part 2 of Schedule 10 should not "an entry" read "the entry"?

In our view, it would be simpler to say "The subject of the entry" in paragraph 1 and to make appropriate alternation in the following paragraphs.

Q49.  Explain the meaning of "properly appointed representative" in paragraph 3 (g) of Part 1 and paragraph 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 10.

This has been left undefined since it may need to cover a number of methods of appointment from a number of countries. Any decision that a person was or was not a properly appointed representative would be subject to general administrative law principles, that is, it would have to be a reasonable decision and would be challengeable. A "properly appointed representative" could include, amongst others, a solicitor or an executor.

Q50.  In paragraph 3 of Part 3 of Schedule 10 should the words "another, identified entry in the register" read "the entry"?

No. This provision is intended to cover situation where a person giving information concerning a death confirms information concerning the birth of the deceased so that the two records can be linked. Under this provision, that person would subsequently have access to the linking information or annotation.

Q51.  Given the definition of "the register" in article 1(7), explain the need for the words "kept under section 1A of the Registration Service Act 1953" in paragraphs 4(b) and 6 of Part 1 and paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 12.

There is no need for these words. They will be deleted.

Q52.  In paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 should not "death of death" read "date of death"?

Agreed.

Q53.  In paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 12 should the words "under functions" be omitted?

Agreed.

Q54.  Please explain why the GRO has laid before the House a proposed Order which contains so many defects.

It is accepted that the draft Order contains a number of incorrect cross-references for which the Registrar General apologises. These came about through changes late in the development of the draft Order and ought to have been picked up at the time the changes were made.

The intention of other aspects of the drafting the Committee has questioned has been explained and consideration will of course be given to any further comments received.

Not all the matters described in questions 24-53 can properly be described as "defects". Many reflect deliberate drafting, though the Committee's comments on the clarity of the drafting are most welcome.

Q55.  How will the content of the work to be carried out by the Audit Commissions as Inspector of registration authorities be determined? Please specify whether any statutory framework will apply to the setting of an appropriate audit framework or whether the scope and form of the inspectorate function is to be determined under administrative action, and if so, by whom?

The Audit Commission is an independent body and would determine itself the scope and nature of routine inspections of Registration services. It is proposed to develop a framework for self certification (by the local registration authority) and system based checks that would identify problems with services in particular authorities. Problems would be handled within the framework of a relationship protocol agreed with the Registrar General, the Audit Commission and local authority representatives. This will be established under administrative arrangements. No additional statutory arrangements are proposed.

Under the Audit Commission Act 1998, the Audit Commission appoints auditors to audit the accounts of local authorities. This Act, together with the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003, provide the legislative basis for the audit framework in relation to these bodies.

Under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999, the Commission has a power to carry out the inspection of a "best value" authority's compliance with Part 1 of that Act. Under section 3 of that Act, best value authorities are under a general duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In circumstances where a local authority assumes the responsibility for the discharge of certain functions - in this case those relating to civil registration - such functions will fall within section 10.

This is consistent with the current government policy framework for Inspection regimes.

Q56.  By what mechanism is it envisaged that the Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (and, in Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government) would receive notice of a serious failure in the functioning of a registration authority?

Ministerial responsibility for the registration service rests with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (FST). The Registrar General would bring to the attention of the FST or where appropriate, the National Assembly for Wales, any problems that emerge within the framework outlined above. There would be ongoing monitoring of each authority by the Registrar General primarily from system provided management and performance information.

It is important to ensure that the Registrar General is consulted in any case involving registration matters that the Audit Commission (or Audit Commission in Wales) wish to raise with a local authority. Where intervention under s.15 of the Local Government Act 1999 was required this would be precipitated by the Audit Commission.

Q57.  Please confirm that the implementation of these elements of the proposal will accord with the Cabinet Office's Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector and indicate what agreements have been made with local authorities over the application of this Statement of Practice to office holders to be transferred into their employment under the proposed Order.

The Cabinet Office's Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers within the Public Sector (the Statement) has provided the framework for taking forward the proposal to transfer these statutory post holders to local authority employment and for designing the legislative mechanisms for implementing that transfer.

The Registrar General does not have a remit to override the provisions set out in the Statement. The Statement provides guidance to local authorities but is not prescriptive. Local authorities are for instance required to have regard to their Best Value responsibility in determining the extent to which they would comply with its provisions.

The Statement says that 'the Personnel and Human Resources Panel of the Local Government Association (LGA) has recommended adoption of the principles expounded therein to all member authorities.'

The Registrar General has been monitoring the preparedness of local registration authorities and, to date, there has been no formal indication of any unwillingness of an authority to accept the principles set out in the Statement or reluctance to consult with staff representative bodies.

LACORS (the Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services) work closely with the registration service on behalf of local authorities and would follow the LGA's given commitment to the principles set out in the Statement.

It would not be appropriate for the Registrar General to make agreements for the transferred staff - he does not employ or represent them.

Q58.  Please explain why the proposed Order does not contain a requirement that each registration authority consult with trade unions and affected staff on the management of the transfer process and its expected impact on the delivery of registration services.

The Statement states 'The Government expects... other public body organisations to follow this Statement of Practice'. It stipulates that local authorities must have regard to their Best Value duties. All of this leads to the conclusion that it was not appropriate to attempt to institute compulsory arrangements (on consultation) where it was Government policy that in relation to local authorities that the obligation should not be a statutory one.

Nonetheless it is intended that local authorities should follow the available guidance and proceed as if TUPE did apply to this transfer. TUPE requires consultation, and thus the Registrar General considers that local authorities should consult with staff representatives on the transfer.

Both the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Employers' Organisation were consulted about these proposals. The Registrar General has initiated consultation with staff representative bodies and LACORS, a subsidiary organisation of the Local Government Association and the Employers Organisation. For example the planning milestones issued by the Registrar General to advise local authorities on preparing for the proposed changes include 'prepare for transfer of registration officers from statutory officer status to local authority employees ( in consultation with UNISON as appropriate. )'

Q59.  Please explain why the proposed Order does not specifically provide that a member of staff is unfairly dismissed where the fact of that person becoming an employee of any registration authority is given as the reason for his dismissal.

Prior to the transfer the post holders will be paid by the local authority that will also have determined the numbers, grades and other employment conditions. In reality therefore article 4 is not a transfer but a normalisation of the employment condition for the post holders that will bring benefits for those transferred and the local authority.

A local authority will be under a legal obligation to take into employment the existing post holders and those post-holders will take with them the continuity of employment for the purposes of unfair dismissal given by article 4(2)(b). In these circumstances, it is believed that the risk of a local authority dismissing someone for no reason other than the transfer is very low. It was concluded that additional statutory provision would not be needed.

Moreover, given that Government policy is that local authorities should be guided in these matters rather than legislated upon(see the references to the Cabinet Office's Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector above), it was not felt to be appropriate to provide specific provisions on this issue.

Q60.  Please explain why the Order has been drafted so as to leave the form of the register unspecified (and therefore the exact nature of the burden which its creation and maintenance will constitute), notwithstanding the settled policy intention for it to have the form of a computer database.

Currently, registers of births and deaths are required to be paper documents. Advances in information technology provide an opportunity to create and maintain records electronically. The Registrar General's aim is to ensure that he is not constrained by advances in technology from keeping registers in the most appropriate format. There are two examples from recent legislation of other registers maintained by the Registrar general - the Adopted Children Register (s.82(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Gender Recognition Register (paragraph 2(3) of Part I of Schedule 3 to the Gender Recognition Act 2004).

Q61.  Please identify those provisions of the proposed Order which give effect to the new power it is proposed to give the Registrar General to authorize a late registration of birth without the need for a qualified informant.

Section 7 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 provides that the Registrar General may authorise the registration of a birth after twelve months. The conditions that apply to such registrations are prescribed in regulations (the Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987). Thus, the proposal to authorise a late registration without the need for a qualified informant will be dealt with by amending regulations.

Q62.  Please identify where the proposed Order makes provision the effect of which is to require that, in order for a still-birth which took place without a registered medical practitioner or midwife being present to be registered, the matter must have been referred to the coroner.

Article 16 paragraph (14)(a) provides for the removal of the facility for a still-birth to be registered on the basis of a declaration made by a parent by the removal of subsection 11(1)(b) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.

Q63.  Please indicate why the Registrar General needs powers in addition to those granted by section 21 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to make registrations of deaths after twelve months have passed and where no qualified informant has been found and, if such a need is addressed in the proposed Order, identify the provisions concerned.

The powers of the Registrar General in section 21 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 are sufficient to authorise the late registration of a death in the absence of a qualified informant. As with the late registration of births (see Q61), the conditions that apply to such registrations are prescribed in regulations. It is acknowledged however that these powers will be rarely used as it would be very unusual for a body to be discovered more than a year after its death without the death being referred to the coroner for investigation.

Q64.  Please indicate whether it is the case that a person who is the subject of an entry in the Parental Order Register maintained under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is not permitted to have access to their own original birth record.

No. A person who is the subject of an entry in the Parental Order Register would be able to access their own original birth record if they were able to identify it in an index.

In addition, the Parental Order (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) Regulations 1994 apply the provisions of adoption legislation to parental orders. In paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 1 there is provision for the Registrar General to provide to a person who is the subject of a parental order and who has attained the age of 18 years, the information necessary for that person to obtain a copy of their original birth record.

Q65.  Please indicate whether such a person would be informed that information supplied from the register in the manner of a birth record was drawn from the Parental Order Register, i.e. was not an original birth record but a record of a surrogacy arrangement.

A person would not be informed that the information supplied was an entry in the Parental Order Register (POR) and not the original birth record.

The original birth entry contains a marginal note stating that the entry was re-registered on the authority of the Registrar General. There is nothing on a record from the POR to indicate that it is a copy of an entry from that Register. An entry in the POR is made following a court order and contains no information about an informant.

Q66.  Please indicate what plans are currently under consideration by the counterparts to the GRO in Scotland and Northern Ireland for the modernisation of the civil registration services in those jurisdictions and explain what differences, if any, there are between this RRO proposal and reforms being developed for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The following is a synopsis of the plans in Scotland and Northern Ireland for reform of their civil registration services in respect of births and deaths. No information is included about marriage law reform.

Scotland has a draft Registration Services (Scotland) Bill on which it is hoped to go out to consultation next month. The provisions contained in the draft Bill include:-

·  Align registration-district boundaries to those of local authorities.

·  Allow a birth or death occurring anywhere in Scotland to be registered at any registration office in Scotland.

·  Supply automatically and electronically (for an appropriate charge) birth and death details already visible publicly on the registers to all other relevant government bodies, central and local.

·  Allow informants (for a fee) to be able to ask for wider notification of births or deaths to nominated bodies outside the government sector.

·  Enable third parties (for a fee) to ask GROS to notify them of the death of a person if and when it occurs in Scotland.

·  Allow for the issue of an abbreviated certificate of death, excluding cause-of-death information, if requested.

·  Once a no-longer-current register entry is available from GROS as on-line image, to allow local registrars to issue an authenticated formal extract on security paper (as distinct from an informal 'information' copy of the imaged entry).

·  GROS to supply a change-of-name service at an earlier stage, with widespread notifications.

·  Allow persons with Scots connections to record in Scotland's registers births and deaths already properly registered in other countries including England.

·  When sufficient protection against fraud can be given, to enable registration on-line of births and deaths as an additional option to face-to-face registration of births and deaths.

·  Enable the Registrar General to "register afresh" an existing register entry to correct any information contained in the registers which is proved to be false, such as following a decree by a court.

·  In cases where paternity has already been acknowledged, to devolve to local registrars the existing power held by GROS to re-register a birth to include the details of the child's parents' subsequent marriage.

·  Allow a person who held parental responsibilities and rights for a child immediately prior to the death of a child to apply to re-register that child's birth to include either the father's details or the marriage of the parents. In the latter case, where paternity had already been acknowledged, the power would be devolved also to local registrars.

·  Enable the parents of a still-born child to apply to re-register the child's still-birth entry to include either the father's details or the parents' subsequent marriage. Applications would be made either to the local registrar or to GROS.

·  Amend existing legislation for recording a forename or a change of forename of a child under the age of 12 months so that only a person holding parental responsibilities and rights in relation to the child would be qualified to apply to do so.

·  Insert in legislation a new offence of giving false information to the Registrar General or any person acting on his behalf. There is an existing offence of giving false information to a district registrar.

Northern Ireland has been taking forward work on reviewing the whole scope of civil registration. This is broadly in line with proposals for England and Wales, except that there are no current plans to change the arrangement with local authorities for the delivery of the service. A public consultation document 'Civil Registration in the 21st Century, Modernising a Vital Service' was issued last year, seeking views on a wide range of service issues and radical proposals. The responses were used to develop proposals which officials are currently in the process of drawing up for Ministerial consideration. It is currently expected that final proposals will be brought forward in November 2004.

Identifying the differences (and similarities) between proposals in the draft Order and those in Scotland and Northern Ireland is difficult given that each jurisdiction has its own legislation. If the Committee could indicate topics in which it had a particular interest then the Registrar General will try to make that information available.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 20 December 2004