APPENDIX I
Letter from the Committee Specialist to the General
Register Office dated 17 November 2004
Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Registration
of Births and Deaths) (England and Wales) Order 2004: request
for further information
The Regulatory Reform Committee considered further
aspects of this proposal at its meeting yesterday, together with
answers supplied by the General Register Office to some of its
earlier questions. It decided to seek further information from
you in relation to a number of points, which are set out below
in the usual format, with reference to the appropriate statutory
and Standing Order tests.
It will be helpful to have your response to these
points by no later than Tuesday 23 November.
Whether the proposals have been the subject
of, and taken appropriate account of, adequate consultation and
satisfy the condition of proportionality between burdens and benefits
set out in section 1 of the Act (S.O. No 141(6)(d) and (k))
The GRO has stated in its answer to the Committee's
Question 7 that section 282 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides
the authority for Article 53(2)(a) to set at 12 months the maximum
term of imprisonment on summary conviction of the offence created
by that Article. The GRO also point out that that section of
the 2003 Act is not yet in force.
Section 282 appears not to be relevant to future
regulatory reform orders. The relevant provision appears to be
paragraph 8 of schedule 27 to the 2003 Act which amends section
3 of the Regulatory Reform Act by increasing the maximum term
of imprisonment which may be specified in a regulatory reform
order to twelve months. That amendment has not yet been brought
into force. Until the amendment is brought into force article
53(2)(a) cannot be included in a draft order.
Q 109 The GRO states in its answer that "it
was considered wise to take account of" the amendment in
the proposal. This seems to assume that the maximum permissible
term should automatically be specified. Please indicate:-
a. what consideration was given to the setting
of an appropriate maximum penalty for the offences created by
article 53(1) and what consultation was undertaken about that
issue;
b. why it is considered that each of the offences
should carry the same maximum penalty;
c. whether it would be possible for a person
unintentionally to contravene paragraph (a) or (c) of article
53(1) and, if so, why such a contravention should be made an offence
and why it should be subject to the same maximum penalty as an
intentional contravention.
Whether the proposals continue necessary protection
(S.O. No 141(6)(c))
The Committee has noted that Article 41 of the proposed
Order would give the Registrar General power to use any information
which comes into his possession in that capacity in furtherance
of any function which is conferred on him as administrative head
of the Office for National Statistics. In its response to the
Committee's Question 20, the GRO indicated that such functions
could be conferred either by legislation or through the exercise
of the Royal prerogative and that limitations on the conferring
of functions are those "common to the exercise of such powers
generally".
Q 110 Please explain what are "the limitations
common to the exercise of such powers generally"?
Whether the proposals require elucidation,
are not written in plain English or appear to be defectively drafted
(S.O. No. 141(6)(h))
The Committee sought an explanation from the GRO
in relation to the meaning of the term "properly appointed
representative" as used at Paragraph 3 g of Part 1 and Paragraph
4 of Part 2 of Schedule 10 of the proposed Order. The answer
supplied to the Committee's Question 49 states that the term has
been left undefined so as not to restrict its application to persons
appointed so to act under the law of other jurisdictions.
Q 111 As regards paragraph 3(g) of Part 1
of Schedule 10, since the appointment of a representative for
this purpose would seem to involve giving that person consent
to having access to the information which would be covered by
paragraph 1 of Part 2, would it be sufficient to confine paragraph
3(g) of Part 1 to persons legally authorised to act for a person
who has died or who lacks capacity to act? How much wider than
this does the GRO consider it is necessary to go for the purposes
of Part 2? Would it reduce the present uncertainty if paragraph
4 of Part 2 additionally referred to a person authorised by the
subject entry in writing?
Whether the proposals include provisions to
be designated in the draft Order as subordinate provisions (S.O.
No. 141(6)(n))
The Committee has noted that the GRO has proposed
to designate Schedules 1 to 14 of the proposed Order as subordinate
provisions capable of amendment by an Order under the Regulatory
Reform Act 2001, subject to annulment by a resolution of either
House of Parliament.
Q 112 In each case, please explain the reasons
for proposing that the Schedule be amendable by Order to be approved
under negative rather than affirmative resolution procedures.
Whether the proposal appears to be incompatible
with any obligation resulting from membership of the European
Union (S.O. No. 141(6)(i))
The Committee notes that the GRO is confident that
it has taken "full account of the European Dimension"
in developing its proposals (answer given to its Question 89).
Q 113 Does the GRO consider the proposal is
compatible with the UK's obligations under European law on data
protection?
Whether the proposals have been the subject
of, and taken appropriate account of, estimates of increases or
reductions in costs or other benefits which may result from their
implementation (S.O. No. 141(6)(n))
The Committee has noted the importance of ensuring
that local face to face registration services continue to receive
adequate funding, particularly when they will continue to carry
the majority of registrations for some time after the launch of
web-based and telephone services. As local authority budgets
are under pressure there could be some danger of registration
service budgets being squeezed, with funding being diverted to
fund other key services, thus impacting on the quality of service
delivery and registration service staff morale.
Q 114 Please indicate how the GRO considers
the quality of local service delivery will be maintained in the
absence of ring-faced grants once budgetary and managerial control
of local services is transferred to local authorities.
One other means of ensuring an adequate minimum level
of local registration service in the absence of ring-fenced funding
could be through the inspection regime.
Q 115 Please indicate whether the GRO has
considered ensuring an appropriate level of local service through
the inspection regime and, if so, what discussions have taken
place about this.
The information supplied in the answer to Question
75 to support the database development costs appears to reflect
a number of exclusions which could give rise to significant increases
on the estimates should the excluded factors come into play.
The cost estimates given are not subject to any sensitivity analysis
(to show how costs might be expected to vary if any of the underlying
assumptions about the database were to change) and so do not give
a sense of how costs might vary if underlying assumptions were
to alter.
Q 116 Please indicate what sensitivity analysis
the GRO performed on figures supplied in answer to question 75,
what the excluded costs might amount to and whether the specification
will be finalized before contracts are let.
The answer supplied to question 100b suggests that
the GRO does not consider the proposed on-line registration service
as critical but that it assumes that this service could stand
off-line while back-up is installed. If the service was critical
it might be that it could be online again almost immediately if
a mirror of the database and alternative server arrangements were
in place.
Q 117 Please indicate what degree of criticality
the GRO attaches to the proposed on-line registration facilities,
what specific business continuity arrangements it is intended
to have in place and how much these arrangements are expected
to cost.
17 November 2004
| 
