Select Committee on Regulatory Reform Second Report


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




 
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